Vol. 44 No. 1 (2024)
Articles

Critical Analysis of the Systematicity Theory from a Coherentist Perspective

PDF (Español (España))
  • Leandro Giri
Leandro Giri
Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero, Argentina / Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Argentina / FILOCOMPLEX
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36446/af.e965

Published 2024-05-07

Keywords

  • Systematicity Theory,
  • Scientific Dynamics,
  • Pseudoscience,
  • Coherentism
  • Teoría de la Sistematicidad,
  • Dinámica científica,
  • Pseudociencia,
  • Coherentismo
Creative Commons License

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

Abstract

In this paper we will analyse the Systematicity Theory proposed by Paul Hoyningen-Huene from a critical perspective, anchored in coherentism, especially in Mario Bunge's version. The central idea is to present some limits of Hoyningen-Huene's proposal to account for the dynamics of scientific progress and also to observe some difficulties in his analytical tools to demonstrate the pseudo-scientificity of some disciplines of knowledge. It is also intended to point out some complementary ideas that could be used in order to overcome these limits.

PDF (Español (España))

References

  1. Ayer, A. (1971). Language, truth and logic. Pelican.
  2. Bird, A. (2017). Systematicity, knowledge and bias: How systematicity made clinical medicine a science. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1342-y
  3. Bunge, M. (2001). La ciencia: Su método y su filosofía. Sudamericana.
  4. Bunge, M. (2004). La investigación científica: Su estrategia y su filosofía. Siglo XXI.
  5. Carnap, R. (1938). Logical foundations of the unity of science (International encyclopedia for unified science). University of Chicago Press.
  6. Einstein, A. (1982). Physics and reality. En C. Selig (Ed.), Albert Einstein: Ideas and opinions (pp. 290-323). Three Rivers Press.
  7. Ferrater Mora, J. (1979a). Sistema. En Diccionario de filosofía (pp. 3062-3068). Alianza.
  8. Ferrater Mora, J. (1979b). Sistémico. En Diccionario de filosofía (pp. 3068-3069). Alianza.
  9. Fuentes, M. (2018). Complejidad, emergencia y cambio teórico. Tesis doctoral. Universidad Nacional de La Plata.
  10. Green, S. (2016). Science and common sense: Perspectives from philosophy and science education. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1276-9
  11. Grünbaum, A. (1988). Preface. En A. Grünbaum & W. Salmon (Eds.), The limitations of deductivism (pp. ix-xv). University of California Press.
  12. Hempel, C., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15(2), 135-175.
  13. Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2013). Systematicity: The nature of science. Oxford University Press.
  14. Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2018). Replies. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1741-8
  15. Oreskes, N. (2017). Systematicity is necessary but not sufficient: On the problem of facsimile science. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1481-1.
  16. Rescher, N. (1979). Cognitive systematization: A systems-theoretic approach to a coherentist theory of knowledge. Basil Blackwell.
  17. Scholz, M., & Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2020). Systematicity: The nature of scientific management and organizational knowledge. Academy of Management Annual Meetings Proceedings 1: 13123. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2020.13123abstract
  18. Shannon, C. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell Systems Technical Journal, 27, 379-423.
  19. Thagard, P. (1978). Why astrology is a pseudoscience. En P. Asquith & I. Hacking (Eds.), PSA 1978: Proceedings of the 1978 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, volume one: Contributed Papers (pp. 223-234). Philosophy of Science Association.
  20. Vardiman, L. (2013). Numerical simulations of winter storms, tropical cyclones, and nor’easters during the ice age using the NCAR URF model with a warm ocean. En M. Horstemeyer (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship. Institute for Creation Research. https://www.icr.org/article/7707/
  21. Varga, S. (2021). Medicine as science: Systematicity and demarcation. Synthese, 199, 3783-3804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02955-y
  22. Wray, B. (2016). Systematicity and the continuity thesis. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1088-y