SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.77 issue2A neglected facet of the legacy of D.F. Malherbe: Art - independent and dependentThe role of God in the father/son relationship during identity formation - a Gestalt theoretical perspective author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


Koers

On-line version ISSN 2304-8557
Print version ISSN 0023-270X

Abstract

LOUBSER, Ananka. Changes in epistemic frameworks: Random or constrained?. Koers (Online) [online]. 2012, vol.77, n.2, pp.1-10. ISSN 2304-8557.

Since the emergence of a solid anti-positivist approach in the philosophy of science, an important question has been to understand how and why epistemic frameworks change in time, are modified or even substituted. In contemporary philosophy of science three main approaches to framework-change were detected in the humanist tradition: 1. In both the pre-theoretical and theoretical domains changes occur according to a rather constrained, predictable or even pre-determined pattern (e.g. Holton). 2. Changes occur in a way that is more random or unpredictable and free from constraints (e.g. Kuhn, Feyerabend, Rorty, Lyotard). 3. Between these approaches, a middle position can be found, attempting some kind of synthesis (e.g. Popper, Lakatos). Because this situation calls for clarification and systematisation, this article in fact tried to achieve more clarity on how changes in pre-scientific frameworks occur, as well as provided transcendental criticism of the above positions. This article suggested that the above-mentioned positions are not fully satisfactory, as change and constancy are not sufficiently integrated. An alternative model was suggested in which changes in epistemic frameworks occur according to a pattern, neither completely random nor rigidly constrained, which results in change being dynamic but not arbitrary. This alternative model is integral, rather than dialectical and therefore does not correspond to position three.

        · abstract in Afrikaans     · text in English     · English ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License