Sergio F. Martinez

La filosofía de la ciencia se desarrolló durante la primera mitad del siglo xx bajo el supuesto de que la ciencia podía caracterizarse por la estructura lógica tanto del conocimiento articulado en las teorías más exitosas como de sus explicaciones. En la segunda mitad del siglo xx se cuestiona fuertemente esa idea, pero se sigue asumiendo que la filosofía de la ciencia debe hacerse siguiendo los cánones de una epistemología fundamentalista que considera que el avance de la ciencia pasa por una ontología cada vez mas austera guiada por la idea de "mientras menos mejor". Desde esta perspectiva fundamentalista, el que las diferentes ciencias hablen de diferentes tipos de cosas es un obstáculo al entendimiento, producto de la imperfección del conocimiento actual. Este ideal nos invita a pensar que la epistemología debe hacerse reflexionando sobre el conocimiento articulado en nuestras teorías más austeras y nos compromete con propuestas reduccionistas problemáticas que no permiten explicar la diversidad de recursos epistémicos que de hecho utilizan los científicos. En este libro promovemos una epistemología que no sigue el lema de "mientras menos mejor", sino el de "organizar nuestros recursos epistémicos de manera que se genere entendimiento". Así, la misma estructura de las explicaciones y las prácticas (que incluye métodos y normas respecto de lo que se considera plausible y valioso) es lo que nos da la pauta para responder a la pregunta de qué es lo que hay. Esta estrategia epistémica nos obliga a hacer una filosofía de la ciencia muy cercana a la ciencia, reconociendo la pluralidad de sus métodos, objetivos y prácticas, sin reducir la filosofía de la ciencia a la sociología o a cualquier otra ciencia en particular.

The search for understanding is a major aim of science. Traditionally, understanding has been undervalued in the philosophy of science because of its psychological underpinnings; nowadays, however, it is widely recognized that epistemology cannot be divorced from psychology as sharp as traditional epistemology required. This eliminates the main obstacle to give scientific understanding due attention in philosophy of science. My aim in this paper is to describe an account of scientific understanding as an emergent feature of our mastering of different (causal) explanatory frameworks that takes place through the mastering of scientific practices. Different practices lead to different kinds of representations. Such representations are often heterogeneous. The integration of such representations constitute understanding.

Usual derivations of Lilders's projection rule show that Liuders's rule is the rule required by quantum statistics to calculate the final state after an ideal (minimally disturbing) measurement. These derivations are at best inconclusive, however, when it comes to interpreting Liuders's rule as a description of individual state transformations. In this paper, I show a natural way of deriving Liiders's rule from well-motivated and explicit physical assumptions referring to individual systems. This requires, however, the introduction of a concept of individual state which is not standard.

An interpretation of quantum mechanics that rejects hidden variables has to say something about the way measurement can be understood as a transformation on states of individual systems, and that leads to the core of the interpretive problems posed by Luders' projection rule: What, if any, is its physical content? In this paper I explore one suggestion which is implicit in usual interpretations of the rule and show that this view does not stand on solid ground. In the process, important aspects of the role played by the projection postulate in the conceptual structure of quantum mechanics will be clarified. It will be shown in particular that serious objections can be raised against the (often implicit) view that identifies the physical relation of compatibility preserved by Luders' rule with the relation of simultaneous measurability.

RESUMEN: Una tendencia importante en la filosofía de la educación contemporánea toma de la sociología del conocimiento la manera de entender la naturaleza del conocimiento científico. Esta tendencia parte de una crítica al "cognitivismo" individualista, asociado con una concepción tradicional del conocimiento y defiende una posición consensualista según la cual el conocimiento es la búsqueda de consenso. El objetivo del trabajo es mostrar que los consensualistas asumen una falsa dicotomía. Contrario a lo que los consensualistas asumen la cognición puede entenderse a la vez como un logro social y como el resultado del ejercicio de capacidades individuals. Concluyo haciendo ver algunas consecuencias del abandono de esa dicotomía para entenderel papel de la autoridad en la educación.ABSTRACT: An important trend in contemporary philosophy of education follows a view of knowledge promoted by sociologists of knowledge. According to this view a critique of the cognitive individualism implicit in the traditional account of knowledge leads to "consensualism ", the view that knowledge is the search for consensus. The aim of this paper is to show that the consensualists assume a false dichotomy. Cognition can be understood both as a social achievement and as the display of individual capacities. I conclude by exploring some consequences of the abandoning of this dichotomy for our understanding of the role of authority in education.

There are (at least) two ways to think of the differences in basic concepts and typologies that one can find in the different scientific practices that constitute a research tradition. One is the fundamentalist view: the fewer the better. The other is a non-fundamentalist view of science whereby the integration of different concepts into the right abstraction grounds an explanation that is not grounded as the sum of the explanations supported by the parts. Integrative concepts are often associated with idealizations that can successfully set the stage for different phenomena to be compared or for explanations of different phenomena to be considered as jointly increasing our understanding of reality beyond that which each explanation provides separately. In this paper, our aim is to argue for the importance of the notions of an ?affordance? and ?scaffolding? as integrative concepts in the cognitive sciences. The integrational role of the concept of affordance is closely related with the capacity of affordances to generate the scaffoldings leading to the integration. The capacities of affordances that turn them into (stable) scaffoldings explain why such notions are often used interchangeably (as we shall see). On this basis, we aim to show that the concepts of affordance and scaffolding provide the sort of epistemic perspective that can overcome common complaints about the limits and unity of the cognitive sciences once claims about extended cognition are taken seriously

In the philosophy of science, abstraction has usually been analyzed in terms of the interface between our experience and the design of our concepts. The often implicit assumption here is that such interface has a definite identifiable and universalizable structure, determining the epistemic correctness of any abstraction. Our claim is that, on the contrary, the epistemic grounding of abstraction should not be reduced to the structural norms of such interface but is also related to the constraints on the cognitive processes of specific abstractions. This suggests that we should understand abstraction as embodied in different kinds of abstraction practices.

In philosophy of science, abstraction tends to be subsumed under representation, often being described as the omission of a target’s features when it is represented. This approach to abstraction sidesteps cognitive aspects of abstraction processes. However, cognitive aspects of abstraction are important in understanding the role of historically grounded epistemic criteria supporting modeling in science. Drawing on recent work on the relation between metaphor and abstraction, we introduce the concept of paths of abstraction, and use historical and contemporary examples to point to their role in guiding the development of relevance criteria which support modeling strategies in science.

En su ensayo Para una crítica de la violencia, Walter Benjamin reivindica el fenómeno social de la huelga general revolucionaria teorizada por Georges Sorel en su obra Reflexiones sobre la violencia, como una figura ejemplar de lo que sería un “medio puro de la política”, al margen de cualquier forma legitimada de poder. En este marco, pocos comentadores contemporáneos advierten una discordancia conceptual entre ambos filósofos: para Sorel, la huelga revolucionaria es un mito social, mientras que el mito, categoría esencialmente negativa en Benjamin, describe la violencia que aprisiona la vida y que se traduce en una forma de poder político superior. En este artículo quisiéramos demostrar esta discordancia conceptual para examinar en seguida cómo ha sido comentada por otros pensadores contemporáneos. La filosofía de la historia, la posibilidad de una acción política ética y la temporalidad mesiánica aparecen en el horizonte teórico que emparenta a estos filósofos y por el cual podría descifrarse su impasse conceptual. Esto se confirma si se despliega la idea de un “medio puro de la política”, pista que Benjamin ofrece sin profundizar y sobre la cual reenvía al pensamiento de un filósofo poco explorado, Erich Unger. En la última parte de este artículo desarrollaremos las claves dadas por Unger, que entran justamente en sintonía con la mención de la huelga general como medio puro de la política. In his Critique of violence, Walter Benjamin claimed that the social phenomenon of the revolutionary general strike was an example of what would be a “pure political mean”. In this context, not many contemporary commentators note an important conceptual incoherence between those two philosophers: for Sorel the revolutionary general strike is a social myth, while in Benjamin the category of myth, essentially negative, describes the violence that imprisons life and crystallizes it in a higher form of political power. In this article, we demonstrate this conceptual discrepancy in order to examine the way it has been approached by other philosophers. The philosophy of history, the possibility of an ethical political action, and messianic temporality, all appear on the theoretical horizon linking these philosophers, and through these ideas a conceptual impasse can be decoded. Moreover, this horizon can be confirmed if we follow the idea of a “pure political means” that Benjamin proposes and which moves forward to the thought of an unexplored philosopher mentioned by him: Erich Unger. In the last part of this article we will develop the keys given by Unger, which fall right in line with the notion of the general strike as a pure political mean

This paper explores some of the philosophical difficulties involved in the task of clarifying the idea of an irreducible statistical law, by means of an analysis of the paradigmatic example of such a law in the Quantum theory.These are two alternative strategies that can be pursued in clarifying this question. One is to understand this irreductibility by means of one or another interpretation of the Quantum theory. But, as will be shown, the different interpretations of Quantum mechanics lead to radically different and fundamentally incompatible answers to the problem. The second strategy is to try to caracterize this irreducibility “directly”, via a proof of the impossibility of a hidden-variable extension of the statistical formalism of the theory. This strategy culminates with Bell’s theorem which indeed establishes the impossibility of constructing “Iocal” theories of hidden variables. This impossibility result, however, fails to provide us with a satisfying interpretation of the quantum irreductibility, rather, it merely shows how far we are from a solution to the problem

This paper forges links between early analytic philosophy and the posits of semiotics. I show that there are some striking and potentially quite important, but perhaps unrecognized, connections between three key concepts in Wittgenstein’s middle and later philosophy, namely, complex, rule-following, and language games. This reveals the existence of a conceptual continuity between Wittgenstein’s “early” and “later” philosophy that can be applied to the analysis of the iterability of representation in computer-generated images. Methodologically, this paper clarifies to at least some degree, the nature, progress and promise of an approach to doing philosophy and semiotics from a modally modest perspective that sees in the intellectual products of humanities, and not in unreflective empiricism, the future of scientific development. This hybrid, non-reductionist approach shows, among other things, that semiotic processes are encoded by specific types of complexes in computer-generated images that display iterability in time and space.

This paper introduces and defends a way to translate Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and the Philosophical Investigations from a semiotic standpoint. This turn builds on Semiosic Translation. 102–130), a framework that advances the interaction of sign systems as a necessary point of departure in the translation process. From this vantage, the key term “Bild,” is analyzed, explained and retranslated into English. This term evinces high levels of complexity and variability that cannot be captured by traditional linguistic translations. In applying a semiotic approach, any iteration of Bild is characterized as reflecting the author’s intentions at a given moment. This semiotic reading seeks to provide semioticians, translators, and philosophers with new conceptual tools leading to an understanding of translation as a systemic operation not confined to the realm of subjective interpretation.

We examine two major perspectives in the literature on domain specificity in cognition: in one of them cognitive modules are "intuitive theories"; in the other they are dispositional structures. Both of these positions accept that there is a continuous line from ordinary to scientific reasoning; nevertheless they interpret this continuity differently. We propose an alternative way of understanding the relation between ordinary and scientific reasoning: the continuity thesis holds because heuristic structures play a fundamental role in both types of reasoning. Our main contention is that cognitive modules can be thought of as heuristic structures and that, since science is a complex of practices that embody different heuristic structures, science should be understood as a complex of cognitive modules.

En este texto se examina críticamente la teoría combinatoria de las representaciones científicas de Andoni Ibarra y Thomas Mormann. El núcleo de la crítica va dirigido a mostrar que una serie de estudios sobre la ciencia, que ellos mismos mencionan, sugiere que la clasificación en tipos de representaciones propuesta es problemática. Es más, esos mismos estudios muestran que por lo menos muchas representaciones tienen una dimensión histórica que parece imposible capturar por medio del tipo de formalismo propuesto. /// Ibarra and Mormann's combinatorial theory of scientific representations is subject to critical scrutiny. It is argued that the classification of types of representations offered cannot serve as a basis for an analysis of the variety of representations that happen to arise in science. Empirical studies on ways of representing used in science strongly suggest that a formal theory of representations of the kind proposed is not able to capture the historical dimension of the structure of representations.

RESUMEN: Una tendencia importante en la filosofía de la educación contemporánea toma de la sociología del conocimiento la manera de entender la naturaleza del conocimiento científico. Esta tendencia parte de una crítica al "cognitivismo" individualista, asociado con una concepción tradicional del conocimiento y defiende una posición consensualista según la cual el conocimiento es la búsqueda de consenso. El objetivo del trabajo es mostrar que los consensualistas asumen una falsa dicotomía. Contrario a lo que los consensualistas asumen la cognición puede entenderse a la vez como un logro social y como el resultado del ejercicio de capacidades individuals. Concluyo haciendo ver algunas consecuencias del abandono de esa dicotomía para entenderel papel de la autoridad en la educación.ABSTRACT: An important trend in contemporary philosophy of education follows a view of knowledge promoted by sociologists of knowledge. According to this view a critique of the cognitive individualism implicit in the traditional account of knowledge leads to "consensualism ", the view that knowledge is the search for consensus. The aim of this paper is to show that the consensualists assume a false dichotomy. Cognition can be understood both as a social achievement and as the display of individual capacities. I conclude by exploring some consequences of the abandoning of this dichotomy for our understanding of the role of authority in education.

In this article, I introduce a semiosic translation of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. The theoretical framework is Semiosic Translation, a theory that combines Peirce’s interpretive semiotics and Wittgenstein’s notions of rule-following and complex-fact. I seek to show that this approach is particularly adroit at the task of making the sometimes cryptic philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein accessible to readers. To support this assertion, I compare and analyze several canonical translations of the Tractatus with possible semiosic translations. The results show that Wittgenstein’s work throughout its different phases displays a continuity that reaches a genuine abductive peak in the Philosophical Investigations. This abductive, usage-based turn is, nonetheless, announced in the Tractatus in terms of a quest for semiotic accuracy.

ABSTRACT In this work we propose an interpretation about the nature of language taking Walter Benjamin's reflections as a starting point. We can find a beginning to this reflection in About a program of a philosophical future and taking this reflection we will articulate it with other texts. On the one hand, our aim is to generate a constellation with two other authors, Valentin Voloshinov and Jean-Jacques Lecercle, to enlarge Benjamin's philosophical reflection and to question the ideological formations and the political and social performativity. On the other hand, we will consider that this minor constellation of marxian philosophical thinkers of language acts in post-Kantian terms. Then, among other matters, we can remember that transformation is in the origin of thought. RESUMEN En este trabajo proponemos una lectura en torno a la naturaleza del lenguaje tomando como punto de partida algunas reflexiones de Walter Benjamin. Podemos encontrar un comienzo de esta reflexión en Sobre el programa de una filosofia venidera, para luego articularla con otros textos de Benjamin. Por una parte, atendiendo lo anterior, nuestro objetivo es generar una constelación con otros dos autores: Valentin Volóshinov y Jean-Jacques Lecercle, para expandir aquellas reflexiones benjaminianas y problematizar las formaciones ideológicas y la performatividad política y social. Por otra parte, consideraremos que esta constelación menor de pensadores filosóficos marxianos del lenguaje no actúa sino en términos poskantianos. Así, entre otras cuestiones, podríamos recordar que la transformación está en el origen del pensar.