Vol. 19 No. 1 (1999)
Articles

Inconmensurabilidad y neutralidad teórica: algunas contribuciones actuales

PDF (Español (España))
  • Nélida Gentile
Nélida Gentile
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36446/af.e581

Published 1999-05-01

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Abstract

In the early 80's the problem of incommensurability was reavived around of semantic holism versus causal realism discussion. In "Observation Reconsidered", Jerry Fodor argues -against Hanson, Kuhn and Feyerabend- the neutral character of perception judgments. Four years after Churchland writes "Perceptual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality: a Reply to Jerry Fodor". The objections are examined and answered again by Fodor in "A Reply To Churchland's 'Perceptual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality"'. In this paper I analyze the more relevan! aspects of this dispute and attempt to show the scarcity ofthe evidence available to solve the question. In a final section, however, I examine the conception holded by Michael Bishop that, in rny opinion, represents an interesting perspective in support for the Fodor's conclusions.

PDF (Español (España))

References

  1. Bishop, M. A. (1991), “Why the Semantic Incommensurability Thesis is Self-Defeating”, Philosophical Studies, 63 (3), pp. 343-355.
  2. Churchland, P. M. (1979), Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  3. Churchland, P. M. (1988), “Perceptual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality: A Reply To Jerry Fodor”, Philosophy of Science, 55, pp. 167-187.
  4. Churchland, P. M. (1992), A Neurocomputational Perspective. The Nature of Mind and the Structure of Science, Massachusetts, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  5. Feyerabend, P. (1962), “Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism”, en Feyerabend, P. (1981), Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method. Philosophical Papers, volumen 1, Cambridge, Cambridge University Pre
  6. Feyerabend, P. (1965), “Problems of Empirism” en Colodny G. (comp.), Bevond Edge of Certainty, Englewood Cliffs, N. ). Prentice Hall.
  7. Feyerabend, P. (1975), Against Method, Londres, New Left Books. Trad. cast: Tratado contra el método, Tecnos, Madrid, 1981.
  8. Fodor, J. (1983), La modularidad de la mente, Madrid, Morata, 1983.
  9. Fodor, J. (1984), “Observation Reconsidered”, Philosophy of Science, 51, pp. 23-43.
  10. Fodor, J. (1988), “A Reply To Churchiand’s “Perceptual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality™, Philosophy of Science, 55, pp. 188-198.
  11. Gentile, N. (1997), Kuhn y la inconmensurabilidad de las teorías científicas. (Tesis Doctoral).
  12. Hanson, N. R. (1958), Patterns of Discovery, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  13. Kitcher, P. (1983), “Implications of Incommensurability” en Asquith, P. y Nickles, T. (comps.), PSA vol 1, East Lansing, Michigan, Philosophy of Science Association, University of Michigan.
  14. Kuhn, Th. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Second Edition.
  15. Kuhn, Th. (1983), “Commensurability, Comparability, Comunicability”, en PSA 1982, Asquith, P. y Nickles, T. (comps.), PSA vol 2, East Lansing, Michigan, Philosophy of Science Association, University of Michigan.
  16. Kuhn, Th. (1990), “Dubbing and Redubbing: The Vulnerability of Rigid Designation” en C. Wade Savage (comp.), Scientific Theories, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 14, Minneapolis, University of Minneapolis Press, 1990.
  17. Kuhn, Th. (1991), “The Road since Structure”. En PSA 1990. Proceedings of the 1990 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 2, en A. Fine, M. Forbes y L. Wessels (comps.). East Lansing, Michigan, Philosophy of Science Association.