Epistemic optimism: in defense of objectivity in science
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24265/liberabit.2017.v23n2.08Keywords:
scientific knowledge, constructivism, objectivity, paradigms, scientific rationality, relativismAbstract
The purpose of this paper is to carry out a defense of the objectivist stance before the insistent presence of constructivist and relativist epistemologies in psychology. For this, we critically examine some constructivist arguments and then we review the role of non-cognitive factors and researchers’ conceptual frameworks in constructing knowledge. We finalize with a brief account about rationality of scientific decision and the possibility of a progressive, not only substitute, development of scientific knowledge. We conclude that, contrary to claims of constructivists and relativists, it is indeed possible to create knowledge and there exists a way of true progress in it, all of which we call epistemic optimism.
Downloads
References
Andersen, H., Barker, P., & Chen, X. (2006). The cognitive structure of scientific revolutions. Cambridge, RU: Cambridge University Press.
Baghramian, M. (2004). Relativism. Nueva York: Routledge.
Baggott, J. (1993). The meaning of quantum theory. A guide for students of chemistry and physics. Oxford, RU: Oxford University Press.
Boghossian, P. A. (2006). Fear of knowledge. Against relativism and constructivism. Oxford, RU: Oxford University Press.
Bohr, N. (1958). Atomic physics and human knowledge. Nueva York: Wiley.
Brown, J. R. (1994). Smoke and mirrors. How science reflects reality. Nueva York: Routledge.
Brown, J. R. (2001). Who rules in science. An opinionated guide to the wars. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cole, S. (1992). Making science. Between nature and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cole, S. (1998). Voodoo sociology. Recent developments in the sociology of science. En P. R. Gross, N. Levitt & M. W. Lewis (Eds.), The flight from science and reason (pp. 274-287 (4ta. impresión). Nueva York: The New York Academy of Sciences.
Collier, A. (2003). In defence of objectivity and other essays. On realism, existentialism and politics. Londres: Routledge.
Corbetta, P. (2003). Social research. Theory, methods and techniques. Londres: Sage.
Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. Nueva York: Zone Books.
Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1986). La evolución de la física (publicación original de 1936). Barcelona: Salvat.
Elitzur, A. C. (2005). What is the measurement problem anyway? Introductory reflections of quantum puzzles. En A. C. Elitzur, S. Dolev & N. Kolenda (Eds.), Quo vadis quantum mechanics? (pp. 1-5). Nueva York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/3-540-26669-0_1
Feist, G. J. (2006). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific method. Nueva Haven: Yale University Press.
Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266-275. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.40.3.266
Green, J., & Thorogood, N. (2004). Qualitative methods for health research. Londres: Sage.
Hacking, I. (1995). The looping effect of human kinds. En D. Sperber, D. Premack & A. J. Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition: a multidisciplinary debate (pp. 351-383 y pp. 384-394). Oxford, RU: Clarendon. doi: 10.1093/ acprof:oso/9780198524021.003.0012
Haely, K. C. (2008). Objectivity in the feminist philosophy of science. Londres: Continuum International.
Hanson, N. R. (1971). Patrones de descubrimiento. Madrid: Alianza.
Harding, S. (1999). After the neutrality ideal: Science, politics, and «strong objectivity». En E. C. Polifroni & M. Welch (Eds.), Perspectives on philosophy of science in nursing: an historical and contemporary anthology (pp. 451-461). Filadelfia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and philosophy. The revolution in modern science. Nueva York: Harper & Brothers.
Hessen, B. (2009). The social and economic roots of Newton ́s Principia. En G. Freudenthal & P. McLaughlin (Eds.), The social and economic roots of the scientific revolution (pp. 41-101). Nueva York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9604-4_2
Hicks, S., & Taylor, C. (2008). A complex terrain of words and deeds: Discourse, research, and social change. En P. Cox, T. Geisen & R. Green (Eds.), Qualitative research and social change. European contexts (pp. 52-72). Nueva York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/ 9780230583962_4
Isambert, F. A. (1985). Un «programme fort» en sociologie de la science?. A propose de plusieurs ouvrages de sociologie de la science. Revue Française de Sociologie, 26(3), 485-508.
Kirk, R. (1999). Relativism and reality. A contemporary introduction. Londres: Routledge.
Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension. Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lakatos, I. (1978). Philosophical papers. Vol. 1. Cambridge, RU: Cambridge University Press.
Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
MacKinnon, C. A. (1991). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McGrath, J. E., & Johnson, B. A. (2003). Methodology makes meaning: How both qualitative and quantitative paradigms shape evidence and its interpretation. En P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes, & L. Yardley, L. (Eds.) Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design, (pp. 31-48).
Washington: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10595-003
Méndez, E. (2000). El desarrollo de la ciencia. Un enfoque epistemológico. Espacio Abierto, 9, 505-534.
Norris, C. (2003). Quantum theory and the flight from realism. Philosophical responses to quantum mechanics. Nueva York: Routledge.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: a primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 126-136. doi: 10.1037/0022- 0167.52.2.126
Potter, E. (2006). Feminism and philosophy of science. An introduction. Londres: Routledge.
Rapport, N. (2004). From the porter’s point of view. In F. Rapport (Ed.), New qualitative methodologies in health and social care research (pp. 99-122). New York: Routledge.
Sceski, J. (2007). Popper, objectivity and the growth of knowledge. Nueva York: Continuum.
Searle, J. R. (1993). Rationality and realism, what is at stake? Daedalus, 122(4), 55-83.
Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1999). Imposturas intelectuales. Barcelona: Paidós Ibérica.
Stanley, L. (Ed.) (2013). Feminist praxis. Research, theory and epistemology in feminist sociology. Londres: Routledge.
Vanderstoep, S. W., & Johnston, D. D. (2009). Research methods for everyday life. Building qualitative and quantitative approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Willig, C. (2013). Introducing qualitative research in psychology. Adventures in theory and method (3a. ed.). Maidenhead, RU: Open University Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright: In the event that the manuscript is approved for future publication, the authors retain the copyright and assign to the journal the rights to publish, edit, reproduce, distribute, exhibit, and communicate nationally and internationally in the various databases, repositories and portals.
Self-archiving policy: The author can share, disseminate, and publicize his research published by the media (e.g., academic social networks, repositories, and portals) available on the web. During the editorial review process, the journal will provide the author with the previous versions (post-print) which should NOT be disclosed by any media, only for personal use and for final approval. Liberabit will send the author the final version of the article (published version) in PDF and HTML to be shared, disseminated and disclosed by the media available on the web. After the publication of the articles, the authors can make other independent or additional agreements for the non-exclusive dissemination of the version of the article published in this journal (publication in books or institutional repositories), provided that it is indicated with the respective reference that the work has been published for the first time in this journal.
How to Cite
