Desacuerdo entre pares epistémicos en el debate naturaleza-cultura
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2018v22n3p485Resumo
Los desacuerdos científicos constituyen un recurso valioso para reflexionar sobre los desacuerdos entre pares epistémicos. Este trabajo problematiza si los pares epistémicos que desacuerdan deben ser conciliadores u obstinados al analizar las características de un desacuerdo real entre científicos en el llamado debate naturaleza-cultura. La principal conclusión del análisis es que, al tomar en cuenta las prácticas epistémicas concretas con pares que responden a diferentes perspectivas epistémicas, los científicos tienen buenas razones para mantenerse obstinados. Al mismo tiempo, las conceptualizaciones teóricas de la epistemología del desacuerdo entre pares iluminan ciertos aspectos del debate naturaleza-cultura, tal como su larga persistencia. Por lo tanto, este artículo contribuye tanto al debate sobre la epistemología del desacuerdo así como a la comprensión de una controversia en las ciencias de la vida que parece no tener fin.
Referências
Christensen, D. 2007. Epistemology of disagreement: The good news. The Philosophical Review 116(2): 187-217.
Collins, F. 2010. The language of life. DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine. Nueva York: Harper.
DiLalla, L.F. 2003. Behavior genetics of aggression in children: review and future directions. Developmental Review 22: 593–622.
Douven, I. 2009. Uniqueness Revisited. American Philosophical Quarterly 46(4): 347–361.
Douven, I. 2010. Simulating peer disagreements. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 41: 148–157.
Elga, A. 2007. Reflection and disagreement. Noûs 41(3): 478-502.
Feldman, R. 2006. Epistemological puzzles about disagreement. In: S. Hetherington (ed.), Epistemology Futures, p.216-236. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
Fox Keller, E. 2010. The Mirage of a Space between Nature and Nurture. Londres: Duke University Press.
Frances, B. 2013. Disagreement. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Griffiths P.E. 2013. Developmental systems theory: What does it explain, and how does it explain it? Advances in Child Development and Behavior 44: 65–94.
Griffiths P.E. & Tabery J.G. 2008. Behavioral genetics and development: historical and conceptual causes of controversy. New Ideas in Psychology 26: 332–352.
Hulme, M. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jumonville, N. 2002. The Cultural Politics of the Sociobiology Debate. Journal of the History of Biology 35: 569–593.
Junges, A.L. 2013. Desacordo racional e controvérsia científica. Scientiae Studia 11(3): 613-35.
Kelly, T. 2005. The epistemic significance of disagreement. Oxford studies in epistemology 1: 167-196.
Kelly, T. 2010. Peer Disagreement and Higher Order Evidence. In: R. Feldman & T. Warfield (eds.). Disagreement, p.111-174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kitcher, P. 2001. Battling the Undead: How (and How Not) to Resist Genetic Determinism". In: R.S. Singh; C.B. Krimbas; D.B. Paul & J. Beatty (eds.). Thinking about Evolution: Historical, Philosophical and Political Perspectives, p.396-414. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lackey, J. 2010. A Justificationist View of Disagreement’s Epistemic Significance. In: A. Haddock; A. Millar & D. Pritchard (eds.). Social Epistemology, p.298-325. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lehrman, D. S. 1970. Semantic and Conceptual Issues in the Nature-Nurture Problem. In: L. Aronson; E. Tobach; D.S. Lehrman & J.S. Rosenblatt (eds.). Development and Evolution of Behavior, p. 17-52. Nueva York: W. H. Freeman.
Lerner, R. 2016. Complexity Embraced and Complexity Reduced: A Tale of Two Approaches to Human Development. Human Development 59: 242–249.
Lewontin, R.D.; Rose, S. & Kamin, L.J. 1987. No está en los genes. Barcelona: Crítica.
Lo Guercio, N. 2012. Philosophical peer disagreement. Logos & Episteme 3(3): 459-467.
Lo Guercio, N. 2015. Desacuerdos entre Pares Epistémicos: Problemas y Soluciones. Tesis doctoral. Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Lo Guercio, N. 2016. Desacuerdo entre Pares y Dependencia Epistémica. Principia 20(3): 325–341.
Longino, H. 2013. Studying Human Behaviour: How Scientists Investigate Aggression & Sexuality. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Machamer, P.K.; Pera, M. & Baltas, A. (eds.). 2000. Scientific controversies: philosophical and historical perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Monares, R. A. 1999. Modernidad y crisis ambiental: en torno al fundamento de la relación naturaleza - ser humano en occidente. Revista Austral de Ciencias Sociales 3: 31-42.
Oyama, S. 1985. The ontogeny of information: Developmental systems and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oyama, S.; Griffiths, P.E. & Gray, R.D. 2001. Introduction: What is developmental systems theory? In: Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution, p.1-11. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Pallitto, N. 2017. Representar e intervenir el comportamiento humano en la era de la tecnobiología. Revista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia 17(35): 7-34.
Pallitto, N. & Folguera, G. 2017. Ni cabalmente clásico, ni completamente molecular. Un análisis del concepto de gen en la genética del comportamiento. Scientiae Studia 15(2): 439-457.
Paul, D.B. 1998. The Politics Of Heredity Essays on Eugenics, Biomedicine, and the Nature-Nurture Debate. Nueva York: State University of New York Press.
Pigliucci, M. 2001. Phenotypic Plasticity: Beyond Nature and Nurture. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Plomin, R. & Asbury, K. 2005. Nature and nurture: Genetic and environmental influences on behavior. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 600: 86−98.
Plomin, R.; DeFries, J.; Craig, I. & McGuffin, P. 2012. Behavioral Genetics in the Postgenomic Era. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Plomin, R.; DeFries, J.; Knopik, V. & Neiderheiser, J. 2013. Behavioral Genetics. Nueva York: Worth Publishers.
Plomin, R.; DeFries, J.; Knopik, V. & Neiderheiser, J. 2016. Top 10 replicated findings from behavioral genetics. Perspectives on Psychological Science 11: 3–23.
Raeff, C. 2016. Exploring the dynamics of human development: An integrative approach. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
Segerstrale, U. S. 1986. Colleagues in conflict: An "in vivo" analysis of the sociobiology controversy. Biology & Philosophy 1: 53-87.
Silberstein, M. & Chemero, A. 2013. Constraints on localization and decomposition as explanatory strategies in the biological sciences. Philosophy of Science 80(5): 958–70.
Stotz, K. 2010. Human nature and cognitive–developmental niche construction. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 9: 483–501.
Stotz, K. & Allen, C. 2012. From Cell-Surface Receptors to Higher Learning: A Whole World of Experience. In: K.S. Plaisance & T.A.C. Reydon (eds.). Philosophy of Behavioral Biology. Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science, p.85-123. Dordrecht: Springer.
Tabery, J. 2009. Beyond Versus: The Struggle to Understand the Interaction of Nature and Nurture. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Turkheimer, E. 2012. Genome Wide Association Studies of Behavior are Social Science. In: K.S. Plaisance & T.A.C. Reydon (eds.). Philosophy of Behavioral Biology. Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science, p.43-64. Dordrecht: Springer.
Wedgwood, R. 2010. The moral evil demons. In: R. Feldman & T. Warfield (eds.). Disagreement, p.216-246. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
White, R. 2005. Epistemic Permissiveness. Philosophical Perspectives 19: 445–459.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
A obra Principia de http://www.periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/index foi licenciada com uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações 4.0 Internacional.
Com base na obra disponível em www.periodicos.ufsc.br.
