A CRÍTICA DE RICHARD BOYD AO EMPIRISMO E AO CONSTRUTIVISMO
Abstract
Empirícists such as Carnap and van Fraassen, argue that scientific theories are underdeterminated by observations, while constructivists, such as Hanson and Kuhn, argue that scientific methods are theory-relative. These theses are arguments against the realistic claim that science describes the world as it is. Richard Boyd criticizes both. empiricists and constructivists. He argues that only scientific realism can explain the instrumental reliability of scientific theories and methods.
Downloads
References
Boyd, R. (1973). ’'Realism, Underdetermination, and the Causal Theory of Evidence. " Nous 7: 1-12.
.(1981 ). “Scientific Realism and Naturalistic Epistemology." in Asquith & Giere (org.), PSA 80, vol. 2, East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association.
.(1984). “The Current Status of Scientific Realism.” in Leplin (org.), Scientific Realism, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fine, A. (1984). “The Natural Ontological Attitude." in Leplin (org.), Scientific Fiealism, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Goodman, N. (1983). Fact, Fiction and Forecast. 4ª edição. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hanson, N. R. ( 1965) . Patterns of Discovery, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harman, G. (1965). “The Inference to the Best Explanation." Philosophical Review 74: 88-95.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2ª edição. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Londres: Hutchinson.
Smart, J. J. C. (1968). Between Science and Philosophy, Nova York: Handom House.
Van Fraassen, B. C. (1980) . The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Luiz Henrique de Araújo DUTRA
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
