León Olivé

In this paper the role of values in scientific and technological processes of inquiry is discussed. It is argued that a distinction between science and technology cannot any longer be attempted on the basis of being based upon respectively different sets of values and aims. Furthermore, it is argued that usually these attempts have wrongly characterised science and technology in terms of a fixed and immutable set of aims, values and norms. This sort of characterisation has often been put forward not only for the purposes of such a distinction but as a general idea in philosophy of science. Some of the problems of such and approach are discussed, particularly by examining some recent ideas of Shapere and Laudan, concerning the processes of consensus shaping in the sciences. So, it is concluded that we have to reject the idea that both science and technology are based on a technical interest in knowledge, an idea that normally blurrs the significance of changes at their axiological level, as much as the conception that science and technology belong to completely different camps, which quite often takes their respective axiological levels as immutable

This paper focuses on the conceptual relationship between rationality and progress as applied to scientific development. The concept of methodology is used in the sense of a model of scientific change. It is argued, as against e.g. recent discussion by Larry Laudan, that progress implies rationality. The notion of rationality useful for this conception of scientific development includes instrumental rationality, butalso the idea of rational paradigm-shift, which is analysed in terms of changes of conceptual frameworks. The key idea is the posibility of a rational reconstruction of series of conceptual frameworks, where the shift from one framework to its successor may be reconstructed as rational in the sense of there being reasons in the successor for accepting the change, and thus the whole series being rational.

In this paper, some theoretical problems about a relevant conceptualization helpful to understand resistance to scientific and technological change are discussed. An interpretative perspective is developed, and some concepts are elucidated, according to which certain processes become scientific changes because, among other things, but in a fundamental way, they are constituted as changes by members of a community. Certain cognitive processes are typified as “scientific”, “technological” and “scientific-technological”, and the importance of their relationship to processes of exploitation is stressed. It is suggested that resistance to changes increases and becomes more problematic when less exploitation is involved in the changes, i.e. when the processes are closer to what here is called scientific, rather than technological or scientific-technological knowledge. Some exampIes are drawn from the history of science to illustrate these ideas

Philosophy has historically played an important role: it has provided individuals and whole societies with conceptions of the world, which have made meaningful their individual and collective lives. But in our contemporary world, that role has been minimized under the impact of science and technology, the global exchange of information, and the transformation of social structures. The possibility of progress in this respect depends on the possibility of recovering the values of respect and love for others, as well as respect for their cultural values. Finally, it depends on the possibility of turning the notion of humanity into a meaningful one for everybody—not only as a biological species—but rather as a truly global community of people, where differences will always exists and will be most welcome and common projects in the interest of everybody will be agreed upon and developed.

durante el siglo XX, particularmente en la segunda mitad, la sociedad y la cultura a nivel planetario sufrieron importantes transformaciones, en gran medida como resultado del impresionantedesarrollo científico y tecnológico. Las formas de producción económica también se transformaron profundamente, al grado que la mayor riqueza, desde el punto de vista económico, es ahora generada por sistemas de producción que, se dice, están “basados en conocimiento”. Parareferirse a estos fenómenos se ha forjado el concepto de “sociedad del conocimiento”. Sin embargo, es un hecho que la ciencia y la tecnología han provocado grandes transformaciones, por lo cual es urgente desarrollar estrategias para fortalecer la cultura científica y tecnológica en los países latinoamericanos. En este texto se discutirán los conceptos aludidos, así como posibles estrategias para fortalecer la cultura científica y tecnológica. Pero se sostendrá, más aún, que un modelo de sociedaddel conocimiento adecuado para nuestros países debe considerar su amplia y rica diversidad cultural, lo cual plantea dificultades adicionales

Un modelo interculturalista adecuado para las sociedades multiculturales, tanto global como localmente, requiere del reconocimiento del derecho de los pueblos a la diferencia y a preservar su identidad colectiva, necesita también incluir formas para estimular la interacción respetuosa y cooperativa entre sí de los distintos pueblos y culturas, pero también debe incorporar el reconocimiento del derecho a disfrutar de las condiciones que permitan su florecimiento, así como formas efectivas para lograrlo. Para esto, en el mundo actual es necesario que se satisfagan dos condiciones: 1) reconocer los derechos económicos de los pueblos y establecer garantías para su ejercicio, y 2) garantizar que los distintos pueblos y culturas tienen la capacidad, y disfrutan de las condiciones adecuadas, para generar y apropiarse del conocimiento y de las tecnologías que se necesiten para comprender y resolver los problemas sociales y ambientales, de acuerdo con las cosmovisiones y los sistemas de valores de cada uno. Lo anterior lleva consigo tanto la posibilidad de apropiación y aprovechamiento de conocimiento científico-tecnológico moderno, como de conocimiento tradicional y local, con las debidas protecciones para evitar apropiaciones indebidas.An intercultural model suitable for multicultural societies, both globally and locally, requires recognition of the right of peoples to preserve their difference and collective identity, and it also needs to include ways to encourage respectful and cooperative interaction with each of the different peoples and cultures but must also incorporate the recognition of the right to enjoy the conditions for their development, and effective ways to achieve it. For this, in today’s world it is necessary to satisfy two conditions: 1) recognize the economic rights of the people and provide guarantees for its exercise, and 2) ensure that the different peoples and cultures have the capacity, and enjoy the adequate and appropriate conditions to generate knowledge and technologies needed to understand and solve social and environmental problems, according to the worldviews and value systems of each. The previous thing brings the possibility of appropriation and use both of modern scientific and technological knowledge, and traditional and local knowledge, with appropriate safeguards to prevent misappropriation.

In this paper, some theoretical problems about a relevant conceptualization helpful to understand resistance to scientific and technological change are discussed. An interpretative perspective is developed, and some concepts are elucidated, according to which certain processes become scientific changes because, among other things, but in a fundamental way, they are constituted as changes by members of a community. Certain cognitive processes are typified as “scientific”, “technological” and “scientific-technological”, and the importance of their relationship to processes of exploitation is stressed. It is suggested that resistance to changes increases and becomes more problematic when less exploitation is involved in the changes, i.e. when the processes are closer to what here is called scientific, rather than technological or scientific-technological knowledge. Some exampIes are drawn from the history of science to illustrate these ideas.

In this paper the role of values in scientific and technological processes of inquiry is discussed. It is argued that a distinction between science and technology cannot any longer be attempted on the basis of being based upon respectively different sets of values and aims. Furthermore, it is argued that usually these attempts have wrongly characterised science and technology in terms of a fixed and immutable set of aims, values and norms. This sort of characterisation has often been put forward not only for the purposes of such a distinction but as a general idea in philosophy of science. Some of the problems of such and approach are discussed, particularly by examining some recent ideas of Shapere and Laudan, concerning the processes of consensus shaping in the sciences. So, it is concluded that we have to reject the idea that both science and technology are based on a technical interest in knowledge, an idea that normally blurrs the significance of changes at their axiological level, as much as the conception that science and technology belong to completely different camps, which quite often takes their respective axiological levels as immutable.

This paper focuses on the conceptual relationship between rationality and progress as applied to scientific development. The concept of methodology is used in the sense of a model of scientific change. It is argued, as against e.g. recent discussion by Larry Laudan, that progress implies rationality. The notion of rationality useful for this conception of scientific development includes instrumental rationality, butalso the idea of rational paradigm-shift, which is analysed in terms of changes of conceptual frameworks. The key idea is the posibility of a rational reconstruction of series of conceptual frameworks, where the shift from one framework to its successor may be reconstructed as rational in the sense of there being reasons in the successor for accepting the change, and thus the whole series being rational