Las teorías científicas nacen como respuesta a problemas de la experiencia. Una objeción A Paul Thompson

Daniel Blanco

Resumen


Scientific theories are born as answers to problems put forward by experience: an objection to Paul thompson

This paper is about Paul Thompson’s position regarding the way in which the identity of scientific theories is determined, that is, excluding from the explication the intended applications of the community of users. Following this presentation, it shows how the inclusion of this set of applications in the theory identity, as recommended by the structuralist view of scientific theories, not only does not bear the problems Thompson wished to avoid, but also allows to see certain diachronic aspects of the theory that otherwise would go unnoticed.

Key words: Adams, Structuralist view of theories, domain of application, Semanticism, theory explication, theory identity, theory of evolution, Paul Thompson.


Texto completo:

PDF

Referencias


Adams, E. (1959), “The foundations of rigid body mechanics and the derivation of its laws from those of particle mechanics,” in L. Henkin, P. Suppes y A. Tarski (eds.) The Axiomatic Method. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 250–265.

Asúa, M. de y G. Klimovsky (1987), “Ensayo de axiomatización de la teoría celular”, Theoria 2(5-6): 389-399.

— (1990), “Ensayo de axiomatización de la teoría tisular y su reducción a la teoría celular”, Theoria 5: 12-13, 129-140.

Balzer, W., C. Moulines y J. Sneed (1987), An Architectonic for Science. The Structuralist Program. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Balzer, W. y C. Dowe (1986a), “Structure and comparison of genetics theories: i classical genetics”, British Journal of Philosophy of Science 37: 55–69.

— (1986b), “Structure and comparison of genetics theories: ii the reduction of character factor to molecular genetics”, British Journal of Philosophy of Science 37: 177–191.

Barbadilla, A. (1990), “La estructura de la teoría de la selección natural”, en A. Ruiz y M. Santos (coord.) Temas actuales de biología evolutiva. Barcelona: UAB, pp. 161–193.

Beatty, J. (1980), “Optimal-design models and the strategy of model building in evolutionary biology,” Philosophy of Science 47: 532-561.

— (1981), “What’s wrong with the received view of evolutionary theory?”, en P. Asquith y R. Giere (eds.). PSA 1980. 2 vols. Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 397-426.

— (1987), “On behalf the semantic view”, Biology and Philosophy 2: 15–23.

— (1995), “The evolutionary contingency thesis,” in G. Wolters y J. Lennox (eds.) Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences: The Second Pittsburgh-Lonstanz Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science. Konstanz y Pittsburgh: Universitätsverlag Konstanz and University of Pittsburgh Press.

Bridgman, P. (1927), The Logic of Modern Physics. Nueva York: Macmillan.

Cadevall I Soler, M. (1988), La estructura de la teoría de la evolución. Bellaterra: Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona.

Campbell, N. (1920), Physics: The Elements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carnap, R. (1950), Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

— (1958), Introduction to Symbolic Logic and its Applications. Nueva York: Dover.

— (1985), Fundamentación lógica de la física. Buenos Aires: Hyspamerica.

Casanueva, M. (2003), Mendeliana y anexos. México: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.

Depew, D. y B. Weber (1994), Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Díez, J. y P. Lorenzano (2002), “La concepción estructuralista en el contexto de la filosofía de la ciencia del siglo XX”, en J. Díez y P. Lorenzano (eds.) Desarrollos actuales de la metateoría estructuralista: problemas y discusiones. Quilmes: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes / Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas / Universidad Rovira i Virgili, pp. 13–78.

Dowe, C. (1982), The Structure of Genetics. Tesis Doctoral. Universidad de Londres.

Endler, J. (1986), Natural Selection in the Wild. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Ereshefsky, M. (1991), “The semantic approach to evolutionary theory,” Biology and Philosophy 6: 59-80.

Ginnobili, S. (2006), La teoría de la selección natural darwiniana. Tesis de Licenciatura. Universidad de Buenos Aires.

— (2007), “Darwinismo universal de dominio de aplicación restringido”, en L. Al-Chueyr Pereira Martins, M. Brzenzinski Prestes, W. Stefano, R. de Andra-

de Martins. Filosofia e História da Biologia 2. Sao Paulo: Fundo Mackenzie de Pesquisa, pp. 427-444.

— (2010), “La teoría de la selección natural darwiniana “, Theoria 25(1): 37-58.

Griffiths, P. (1997), “Darwin’s theory—the semantic view”, Biology and Philosophy 12: 421-426.

Hempel, C. (1979), La explicación científica. Estudios sobre filosofía de la ciencia. Buenos Aires: Paidós.

Kimball, R., E. Braun, J. Ligon, V. Lucchini y E. Randi (2001), “A molecular phylogeny of the peacock-pheasants (Galliformes: Polyplectron sp.) indicates loss and reduction of ornamental traits and display behaviours”, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 73: 187-198.

Lewontin, R. (1974), The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. Nueva York: Columbia University Press.

Lloyd, E. (1984), “A semantic approach to the structure of population genetics”, Philosophy of Science 51: 242-264.

— (1987), “Response to Sloep and Van der Steen,” Biology and Philosophy 2: 23-26.

—(1994), The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Lorenzano, P. (1998), “Sobre leyes en biología”, Episteme 3(7): 261-272.

— (2000), “Classical genetics and the theory-net of genetics”, en W. Balzer, J. Sneed y C. Moulines (eds.), Structuralist Knowledge Representation. Paradigmatic Examples. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 251-284.

— (2007), “Leyes fundamentales y leyes de la biología,” Scientiae Studia 5 (2): 185-214.

Manhart, K. (2000), “Balance theories: two reconstructions and the problem of intended applications,” in W. Balzer, J. Sneed y C. Moulines (eds.), Structuralist Knowledge Representation. Paradigmatic Examples. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 171-188.

Méndez Granados, D. (2006), Paisajes conceptuales de la herencia biológica entre 1865 y 1902. Reconstrucción y ordenamiento de teorías de la herencia. Tesis Doctoral. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.

Moulines, C. (1985), “Theoretical terms and bridge principles: a critique of Hempel’s (self-) criticism,” Erkenntnis 22: 97-117.

— (1991), Pluralidad y recursión. Madrid: Alianza.

— (1996), “Structuralism: the basic ideas”, en W. Balzer y U. Moulines (eds.), pp. 1–13.

— (2002), “La concepción estructuralista de la ciencia”, Revista de Filosofía 58: 69–77.

Moya, A. (1989), Sobre la estructura de la teoría de la evolución. Barcelona: Anthropos.

Nagel, E. (1981), La estructura de la ciencia. Buenos Aires: Paidós.

Petrie, M. (1992), “Peacocks with low mating success are more likely to suffer predation,” Animal Behaviour 44: 585-586.

Putnam, H. (1962), “What theories are not,” in E. Nagel, P. Suppes y A. Tarski (eds.) Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Stanford: Standord University Press, pp. 240–251.

Reichenbach, H. (1951), The Rise of Scientific Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Rosenberg, A. (1985), The Structure of Biological Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ruse, M. (1973), The Philosophy of Biology. Londres: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd.

Sloep, P. y W. van der Steen (1987a), “Syntacticism versus Semanticism: another attempt at dissolution,” Biology and Philosophy 2: 33-41.

— (1987b), “The nature of evolutionary theory: the semantic challenge”, Biology and Philosophy 2: 1–15.

Sneed, J. (1971), The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Stegmüller, W. (1975), “Structures and dynamics of theories. Some reflections on J. D. Sneed and T. S. Kuhn”, Erkenntnis, 9:75–100.

— (1981), La concepción estructuralista de las teorías. Madrid: Alianza

Suppe, F. (1989), The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Suppes, P. (1994a), “A brief survey of Adams’ contributions to philosophy”, en E. Eells y B. Skyrms (eds.) Probability and Conditionals: Belief Revision and Rational Decision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 201–204.

— (1994b), “Some questions about Adams’ conditionals”, en E. Eells y B. Skyrms (eds.) Probability and Conditionals: Belief Revision and Rational Decision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 5–11.

Takahashi, M., H. Arita, M. Hiraiwa–Hasegawa y T. Hasegawa (2008), “Peahens do not prefer peacocks with more elaborate trains,” Animal Behaviour 75(4): 1209–1219.

Thompson, P. (1983a), “Historical laws in modern biology,” Acta Biotheoretica 32: 167–177.

— (1983b), “The structure of evolutionary theory: a semantic approach”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 14: 215–229.

— (1985), “Sociobiological explanation and the testability of sociobiological theory”, in J. Fetzer (ed.). Sociobiology and Epistemology. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 201–215.

— (1986), “The interaction of theories and the semantic conception of evolutionary theory,” Philosophica 37: 73-86.

— (1987), “A defence of the semantic conception of evolutionary theory”, Biology and Philosophy 2: 26-32.

— (1989), The Structure of Biological Theories. Nueva York: State University of New York Press

— (2007), “Formalizations of evolutionary biology”, en M. Matthen y C. Stevens (eds.) Philosophy of Biology. Nueva York: Elsevier, pp. 497–523.

Waddington, C. (ed.) (1968–1972), Towards a Theoretical Biology. 4 vols. Edingburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Wiens, J. (2001), “Widespread loss of sexually selected traits: how the peacock lost its spots”, Trends in Ecology & Evolution 15(9): 517–523.

Williams, M. (1970), “Deducing the consequences of evolution: a mathematical model,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 17: 175–204.

— (1973), “Falsifiable predictions of evolutionary theory,” Philosophy of Science 40(4): 518–537.

Woodger, J. (1932), The Axiomatic Method in Biology. Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press.

— (1939), The Technique of Theory Construction. Chicago: University of Chicago


Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.


Revista semestral editada por el Centro de Estudios Filosóficos, Políticos
y Sociales Vicente Lombardo Toledano de la Secretaría de Educación Pública,
la Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa y Edicions UIB de la Universitat de les Illes Balears.

Lombardo Toledano 51, Col. Ex-Hda. Guadalupe Chimalistac,
Del. Alvaro Obregón, C.P. 01050, México, D.F.
Tels. (5255) 5661-4679 y 5661-4987
Fax: (5255) 5661-1787