Pablo Melogno

This book presents essays and commentaries that continue on Thomas Kuhn’s work from where he left off at the time of his death. Contrary to other books, this volume picks up the gauntlet to develop, from a contemporary perspective, some points that can be improved in the light of recent findings and conceptualizations in metatheory. Thus, this work pays a visit to the classical Kuhnian landscapes, but rather proposing interpretations, it takes them as the starting point to go further. One hundred years after Kuhn's birth, the editors and authors rekindle the passion and interest that have always surrounded the work of the great Boston philosopher and historian.

This paper examines ‘The Natures of Conceptual Change’, the Notre Dame lectures given by Kuhn in 1980. In particular, I aim to examine the content of these lectures which was not published before. This exegetical task will shed light on the sources of the notion of taxonomy used in these lectures for the first time with the explicit philosophical purposes. It also will shed new light on Kuhn's position regarding the causal theory of reference. Reviewing these archival materials paves the way for intertextual comparisons, as Kuhn included part of these lectures in the texts published later and in the book Plurality of Worlds: an Evolutionary Theory of Scientific Development. In recent years, the publication of Kuhn's archival material and the research on these texts increased in quantity and quality. Faced with this encouraging landscape, a comparative examination of the different unpublished texts is crucial to refining both our research tools on Kuhn's intellectual biography and the philosophical work inspired by his proposal.

This paper explores Thomas Kuhn’s intellectual history by examining sources that have been understudied so far: the Lowell Lectures of 1951 (The Quest for Physical Theory) and the hitherto unpublished Notre Dame Lectures of 1980. The analysis of these texts aims to reconstruct Kuhn’s development of a semantics that can account for scientific progress. This analysis will show that the alleged “linguistic turn” attributed to the author is actually a renewed interest in problems that existed well before publishing The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

In “A Defense of Structure in Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” Prof. K. Brad Wray discusses the critical interpretation introduced by Lorraine Daston on the importance of Kuhn for historians of science, and specifically the usefulness of the Kuhnian notion of structure. According to Daston, the notion of structure in SSR became important due to the popularity of the term in social sciences when Kuhn wrote the book. Daston argues that the very idea of a structure has been abandoned both in history and social sciences, and therefore its use in SSR has become unacceptable. In this comment, I intend to vindicate the notion of structure in Kuhn’s work through a discussion with objectives analogous to Wray’s, but with differences in method and scope. First, I shall examine some implicit assumptions in Wray’s discussion. Secondly, I shall attempt to situate the discussion of Kuhn’s notion of structure in the historiographical realm, and not only within philosophy.

En 1983 Thomas Kuhn introdujo la distinción entre interpretación y traducción, con el propósito de fortalecer la tesis de la inconmensurabilidad y responder a objeciones formuladas por Donald Davidson y Hilary Putnam. A partir de este contexto de debate, este trabajo revisa la distinción kuhniana con el objetivo de explorar las conexiones que pueden establecerse entre las teorías rivales y las comunidades científicas que las defienden. Para ello examino el papel de la traducción, la interpretación y la comunicación en el cambio teórico, con el propósito de ampliar la distinción de Kuhn y ahondar en algunas consecuencias no contempladas en su planteo original. Concluyo que la distinción entre estos planos lingüísticos resulta fundamental para comprender y evaluar el alcance de las divergencias suscitadas en casos de inconmensurabilidad.

El problema de determinar cuál es el método de la Ciencia de la Información ha sido objeto de distintos abordajes y propuestas metodológicas. En este trabajo defendemos que dichos problemas usualmente se han planteado de manera errónea, y que su planteo no contribuye a una mejora del campo. Comenzamos con un recorrido por diferentes propuestas metodológicas, señalando el consenso existente sobre el impacto de la indagación metodológica en el status científico de la disciplina. Luego rastreamos la influencia del positivismo en la metodología de la CI, sosteniendo que la concepción positivista del método científico aún sigue gobernando de forma implícita la autopercepción epistemológica de la disciplina. Finalmente ensayamos una lectura de algunos problemas metodológicos basada en la filosofía de Thomas Kuhn, enfatizando que no es la reflexión metodológica, sino el desarrollo de una tradición exitosa de resolución de problemas lo que consolida el status científico.

I will present a comparative analysis between Thomas Kuhn's The Copernican Revolution published in 1957 and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions published in 1962, ir order to identify divergences in the views contained in each work. I shall set forth a comparative analysis of the historiographical assumptions employed by Kuhn in each of his books. I will explore some proposals which have pointed out several discontinuities between both books, as I introduce some tools to widen this interpretative trend. I will argue that although Kuhn’s work in 1957 contains some concerns and problems which anticipate his later stances, these anticipations coexist with historiographical formulations and premises which are incompatible with the core of SSR. Therefore, I will assert that Kuhn adopts different historiographical frameworks in CR and in SSR. Finally, I will conclude that these differences are expressions of Kuhn's adoption of a more externalist view in the former, and a more internalist frame in the latter.

Se discute el argumento del intérprete omnisciente formulado por DonaldDavidson, en relación con otros dos aspectos de la filosofía davidsoniana:el principio de caridad y la concepción externalista del significado. Se busca mostrar que el argumento ha funcionado antes como una consecuenciade la caracterización davidsoniana de la interpretación radical que como unelemento de fortalecimiento de la misma, o bien presupone la metodologíadavidsoniana de interpretación basada en el principio de caridad, cuyos problemas trataba de solucionar, o bien presupone la concepción externalista delsignificado, lo que le quita utilidad.The omniscient interpreter argument laid by Donald Davidson isdiscussed, in relation to two other aspects of the davidsonian philosophy: theprinciple of charity and the externalist conception of meaning. It’s attemptedto show that the argument has worked rather as a result of the davidsoniancharacterization of the radical interpretation, than as a building factor of thatone, in so far as, either presupposes the davidsonian interpretation methodologybased on the principle of charity, whose problems tried to solve, or presupposesthe externalist conception of meaning, what it takes away its utility

En Razón, Verdad e Historia Hilary Putnam caracterizó la racionalidad informal como una alternativa que permite superar las limitaciones evidenciadas por las concepciones formalistas de la racionalidad. Se revisa inicialmente la caracterización ofrecida por Putnam y se establece que si bien Putnam niega todo principio universal de racionalidad, admite principios relativos, generales e indeterminados, que permanecen sujetos a necesidades de interrelación cognitiva con el entorno. A continuación, se muestra que los principios aceptan excepciones, y, a partir de aquí se defiende y analiza la posibilidad de revisión de principios cuya negación no resulta actualmente concebible. Finalmente, se afirma que tanto exponer como preservar creencias de la controversia constituyen elementos históricos que deben ser contemplados por una concepción informal de la racionalidad. In Reason, Truth and History, Hilary Putnam characterized informal rationality as an alternative that allows to overcome limitations evidenced by the formalist conceptions of rationality. Initially, the paper reviews the characterization provided by Putnam and establishes that, while Putnam denies any universal principle of rationality, he accepts relative, general and vague principles, that remain subject to needs of cognitive interrelationship with the environment. Secondly, we show that principles make exceptions and defend the possibility of reviewing principles whose denial is currently not conceivable. Finally, we state that both expressing and maintaining beliefs of controversy are historical elements that should be contemplated by an informal conception of rationality

Este trabajo discute una de las objeciones de N. Hall al análisis contrafactual de D. Lewis. Según Hall, los intentos de fortalecer el análisis contrafactual se apoyan en la aceptación de la transitividad, la localidad y el carácter intrínseco de las relaciones causales. Esto es problemático en cuanto el concepto de doble prevención evidencia tensiones entre estas tres tesis y el concepto de dependencia, central en el análisis de Lewis. Revisando uno de los ejemplos de Hall, se defiende que su crítica al análisis contrafactual cumple parcialmente su objetivo en referencia a la localidad, ya que sólo una de las estructuras causales que Hall presenta acepta la dependencia y no la localidad, no tratándose de un típico caso de doble prevención. Finalmente se propone la denominación early doble prevention para los casos que aceptan la dependencia y no la localidad, y late doble prevention para los que aceptan ambas tesis. This paper discusses one of the objections made by N. Hall to D. Lewis's counterfactual analysis. According to Hall, the attempts to strengthen the counterfactual analysis are supported by the acceptance of transitivity, locality and intrinsic nature of causal relationships. This is problematic, as the concept of double prevention demonstrates the tensions existing among these three theses and the concept of dependence which is central in Lewis's analysis. By studying one of the examples given by Hall, we can sustain that his criticism to counterfactual analysis partially fulfills its goal in reference to locality, taking into account that only one of the causal structures exposed by Hall accept dependence but not locality and is not a typical example of double prevention. Finally we suggest the name of early double prevention for those cases that accept the dependency but not the locality, and late double prevention for those accepting both theses

Frecuentemente se atribuye al empirismo apelar a principios no empíricos para defender el conocimiento empírico, por ello se le ha acusado de incurrir en cierta clase de autorrefutación. Con el advenimiento del empirismo lógico, esta objeción tomó la forma de cuestionamiento al criterio empirista de significado, señalando que, al no tratarse de una proposición lógica ni empírica, no cumple con sus propias condiciones de significatividad. En este artículo pretendo mostrar que dentro del empirismo lógico se desarrollaron respuestas a estas críticas, lo suficientemente consistentes como para resistir la objeción de autorrefutación. Asimismo, defiendo que la afirmación de autorrefutación del criterio empirista de significado parte de comprensión inadecuada de los niveles lingüísticos involucrados en su formulación, así como de algunos supuestos no explícitos respecto de su estatus. Empiricism has frequently been said to appeal to non-empirical principles to defend empirical knowledge, which is why it has been accused of falling into some form of self-refutation. With the advent of logical empiricism, this objection became a questioning of the empiricist criterion of meaning, noting that since it is neither a logical nor an empirical proposition, it does not fulfill its own conditions of meaningfulness. This paper intends to show that responses to this criticism, consistent enough to resist the objection of self-refutation, have been developed whithin logical empiricism. In addition, the article claims that the assertion that the empiricist criterion of meaning is self-refuting is based on an inadequate understanding of the linguistic levels involved in its formulation, as well as on some unspecified assumptions regarding its status.

The present paper proposes a critical revision of the massive truth notion, in the context of Donald Davidson’s criticism to skepticism. It´s distinguished in Davidson’s work a cuantitative sense and a cualitative sense of the massive truth, asserting that the first one has been more frequently used and has had just an intuitive level of elucidation. The main problems associated to the cuantitative notion of massive truth are revised in relation to the quantification of beliefs, the detection of error on a background of truth and the application of the Davidsonian methodology to non perceptual beliefs. Over this revision it is proposed the substitution of the cuantitative notion of massive truth for a cualitative notion, and are analized its advantages over eventual skeptical objections

The paper discusses certain discrepancies between The Copernican Revolution (1957) and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) by Thomas Kuhn. It shows that they present a different consideration of extra-scientific factors, that in the former have a higher explanatory weight. It states that in 1957 Kuhn applies a casuistical historiography, focused on the Copernican revolution, and in 1962 a structural historiography, focused on the invariable features of scientific revolutions. The paper concludes that the differences between these two works are significant enough so as not to be considered an expression of the same view of science.

In this work we attempt to analyze the intra-theoretic characterization provided by Hilary Putnam and Werner Heisenberg between quantum mechanics and other theories. The first defended the idea that physical theories include macro principles that under specific definite historical conditions can be revised on the light of rival principles. Putnam will concentrate in the impact that quantum mechanics has produced in the classical image of knowledge. Heisenberg, on the other hand, develops his analysis from the notion of closed theories, assuming the independence and incommensurability of physical theories. These divergences between the two authors will allow us to analyze how the disagreement in the consideration of the status of physical theories, goes deeper into more profound aspects related to the nature of knowledge and the relation between theory and world.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss some consecuences of Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy on the respect of the normative and descriptive dimensions of the philosophy of science. By contradistinction to the normativism of neopositivist and popperian traditions, kuhnian’s premiss that the philosophy of science must reflect the real history of scientific practice, entails that the function of the discipline is to describe the historical developement of science, and not to impose a model of how science must be. From Steve Fuller point of view, Kuhn has restricted the function of philosophy of science to the clarification of the conceptual bases of the dominant paradigms, and its defense from external attacks. Thus, the explanation of the historical developement of science it ends officiating as a conceptual legitimation of the decisions of the scientific elites. By counterpart, the premise that underlies Popper’s normativism is that science is a social product, whose implications trascend the internal structure of scientific communities. This justifies that the philosophy of science could put the scientific actions into question, even more when they are not free from the interference of extrascientific agents. The same way, if scientific commnnities are not free to autodeterminate themselves, as their aims involve extrascientific actors and interests, the philosophy of science should not be limited to describe and explain the historical developement of science, but it should reenable the consideration of the normative dimension.