SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.73 issue3Moral-jural reflections on the right to marital dignity and the "nursery of human society": Interpreting Luther's views on conjugal rights and benevolent lovePerformativity and the modern school(principal) author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Koers

On-line version ISSN 0023-270X

Koers (Online) vol.73 n.3 Pretoria  2008

 

When "paradigms" differ: Scientific communication between skepticism and hope in recent philosophy of science

 

Wanneer "paradigmas" verskil: wetenskaplike kommunikasie tussen skeptisisme en hoop in hedendaagse wetenskapsfilosofie

 

 

R. Coletto

School of Philosophy, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, Potchefstroom. E-mail: Renato.Coletto@nwu.ac.za

 

 


ABSTRACT

The first half of this article illustrates how contemporary humanist philosophy of science got caught up in a gradual loss of confidence concerning the possibility of sound communication among scholars holding on to different paradigms or presuppositions. The second half is dedicated to the responses provided by a Christian school of philosophy to the bleak possibility of a communication crisis. The resources deployed by the reformational school of philosophy are argued to constitute valuable instruments to create a more hopeful attitude towards scientific dialogue. A final note is dedicated to the possible causes of the difficulties experienced in this area of reflection by contemporary humanist philosophy of science.

Key concepts: antithesis, reformational view of; concepts and statements, theory-dependence of; framework-dependence of theories; incommensurability; scientific communication


OPSOMMING

Die eerste helfte van hierdie artikel skets die prentjie van hedendaagse humanistiese wetenskapsfilosofie wat toenemend verstrengel raak in 'n verlies aan selfvertroue oor die moontlikheid van substansiële kommunikasie tussen wetenskaplikes wat tot verskillende paradigmas of vooronderstellings behoort. Die tweede helfte bestaan uit die reaksies van 'n denkskool in die Christelike filosofie oor hierdie troostelose moontlikheid van 'n kommunikasiekrisis. Die bronne wat die reformatoriese filosofie aanwend, so word geredeneer, stel waardevolle instrumente beskikbaar om 'n hoopvoller houding tot die wetenskaplike dialoog te skep. 'n Finale afdeling brei uit oor die moontlike oorsake van die probleme wat hedendaagse wetenskaps-filosofie in hierdie denkarea ondervind.

Kernbegrippe: antitese, reformatoriese siening van; konsepte en stellings, teorie-afhanklikheid van; onvergelykbaarheid; raamwerk-afhanklikheid van teorieë; wetenskaplike kommunikasie


 

 

Full text available only in PDF format.

 

 

List of references

BAUDRILLARD, J. 1981. For a critique of the political economy of the sign. St. Louis: Telos.         [ Links ]

BAUDRILLARD, J. 1984. The ecstasy of communication. (In Foster, H., ed. Postmodern culture. London: Pluto. p. 126-134.         [ Links ])

CHOI, W.Y. 1999. Dialogue and antithesis: a philosophical study on the significance of Herman Dooyeweerd's transcendental critique. Potchefstroom: PU for CHE. (Ph.D. thesis.         [ Links ])

CLOUSER, R.A. 1991. The myth of religious neutrality: an essay on the hidden role of religious belief in theories. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.         [ Links ]

COLETTO, R. 2007. The legitimacy crisis of science in late-modern philosophy: towards a reformational response. Potchefstroom: North-West University. (Ph.D. thesis.         [ Links ])

CONRADIE, A.L. 1960 The neo-calvinistic concept of philosophy: a study in the problem of philosophic communication. Pietermaritzburg: Natal University Press. (Ph.D. thesis.         [ Links ])

DOOYEWEERD, H. 1959. Cinq conferences. La revue reformee, 10(3):3-76.         [ Links ]

DOOYEWEERD, H. 1971. Cornelius Van Til and the transcendental critique of theoretical thought. (In Gehaan, E.R., ed. Jerusalem and Athens. Nutley: Presbyterian & Reformed Publications. p. 74-89.         [ Links ])

DOOYEWEERD, H. 1984. A new critique of theoretical thought: 4 volumes. Jordan Station: Paideia.         [ Links ]

DUVENAGE, B. 1985. Christian scholarship as Word-bound scholarship. Potchefstroom: PU for CHE.         [ Links ]

FEYERABEND, P.K. 1970. Consolation for the specialist. (In Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A., eds. Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 197-230.         [ Links ])

FEYERABEND, P.K. 1975. Against method: outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London: New Left Books.         [ Links ]

HABERMAS, J. 1984. Modernity: an incomplete project. (In Foster, H., ed. Postmodern culture. London: Pluto. p. 3-16.         [ Links ])

HOYNINGEN-HUENE, P. 2002. Paul Feyerabend and Thomas Kuhn. Journal for general philosophy of science, 33(1):61-83.         [ Links ]

KLAPWIJK, J. 1986. Antithesis, synthesis and the idea of transformational philosophy. Philosophia reformata, 51(1-2):138-152.         [ Links ]

KUHN, T.S. 1970a. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.         [ Links ]

KUHN, T.S. 1970b. Reflections on my critics. (In Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A., eds. Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 231-277.         [ Links ])

KUHN, T.S. 1979. Metaphor in science. (In Ortony A., ed. Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 409-419.         [ Links ])

KUHN, T.S. 2000. The road since structure: philosophical essays 1970-1993. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.         [ Links ]

LYOTARD, J.-F. 1984. The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press.         [ Links ]

NEWTON-SMITH, W.H. 1981. The rationality of science. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.         [ Links ]

PLANCK, M. 1949. Scientific autobiography and other papers. New York: Philosophical Library.         [ Links ]

POLANYI, M. 1946. Science faith and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.         [ Links ]

POLANYI, M. 1958. Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.         [ Links ]

POPPER, K.R. 1963. Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.         [ Links ]

POPPER, K.R. 1970. Normal science and its dangers. (In Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A., eds. Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 51-58.         [ Links ])

SANKEY, H. 1998. Taxonomic incommensurability. International studies in the philosophy of science, 12(1):7-16.         [ Links ]

STAFLEU, M.D. 1987. Theories at work: on the structure and functioning of theories in science, in particular during the copernican revolution. Lanham: University Press of America.         [ Links ]

STRAUSS, D.F.M. 2001. Does it make sense to distinguish between the natural sciences and the humanities? Tydskrif vir Christelike wetenskap, 37(1-2):25-36.         [ Links ]

SUPPE, F. 1974. The structure of scientific theories. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.         [ Links ]

TROOST, A. 1994. The idea of creation order in Christian thought. (In Van der Walt, B.J., ed. God's order for creation. Potchefstroom: Institute for Reformational Studies. p. 2-16.         [ Links ])

VAN PEURSEN, C.A. 1959. Enkele critische vragen in margine bij A new critique of theoretical thought. Philosophia reformata, 24(2):160-168.         [ Links ]

VAN RIESSEN, H. 1992. Science in the light of the relation between thinking and believing. Tydskrif vir Christelike wetenskap, 28(1):27-95.         [ Links ]

VAN TIL, C. 1971. Response by C. van Til. (In Gehaan, E.R., ed. Jerusalem and Athens. Nutley: Presbyterian and Reformed Publications. p. 89-127.         [ Links ])

WOLTERSTORFF, N.P. 1976. Reason within the bounds of religion. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.         [ Links ]

WOLTERSTORFF, N.P. 1989. On Christian learning. (In Marshall, P.A., Griffioen, S. & Mouw, R.J., eds. Stained glass: worldviews and social science. Lanham: University Press of America. p. 56-80.         [ Links ])

XIANG CHEN. 1997. Thomas Kuhn's latest notion of incommensurability. Journal for general philosophy of science, 28(2):257-273.         [ Links ]

XIANG CHEN. 2002. The "platforms" for comparing incommensurable taxonomies: a cognitive-historical analysis. Journal for general philosophy of science, 33(1):1-21.         [ Links ]

XIANG CHEN. 2003. Object and event concepts: a cognitive mechanism of incommensurability. Philosophy of science, 70(5):962-974.         [ Links ]

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