El rol de la verdad en el debate realismo vs. antirrealismo
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18270/rcfc.v20i40.3230Palabras clave:
realismo científico, antirrealismo, verdad, representacionalismo, correspondentismoResumen
María José Frápolli sostiene que el concepto de verdad es absolutamente neutral e independiente de los debates entre realistas y antirrealistas científicos. En el presente trabajo se analiza críticamente su propuesta y se argumenta que, de manera inadvertida, la autora ha caído presa de una contradicción pragmática: al pretender decir qué es la verdad está implícitamente utilizando una noción correspondentista de la verdad, precisamente, la noción que subyace a los debates entre realistas y antirrealistas, al menos entre realistas y antirrealistas científicos.
Descargas
Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.
Referencias bibliográficas
Boyd, Richard. “The Current Status of Scientific Realism”. Scientific Realism. Ed. J. Leplin. Berkeley: University of California, 1984. 195-222.
Carnap. Rudolf. Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947.
Frápolli, María José. “The Neutrality of Truth in the Debate Realism vs. Anti-realism”. The Realism-Antirealism Debate in the Age of Alternative Logics. Logic, Epistemology & Unity of Science. Vol. 23. Eds. Shahid Rahman, Giuseppe Primiero y Mathieu Marion. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012a. 85-100. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1923-1_5>
______. The Nature of Truth. An Updated Approach to the Meaning of Truth Ascriptions. Springer Netherlands, 2012b. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4464-6>
______. “No Miracles. What Does it Mean that Science Seeks the Truth? Zagadnienia Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa 50 (2014): 202.
______. “Teorías verdaderas”. La ciencia y el mundo inobservable. Discusiones contemporáneas en torno al realismo científico. Eds. Bruno Borge y Nélida Gentile. Buenos Aires: Eudeba, 2020.
Kitcher, Philip. The Advancement of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Kukla, André. Studies in Scientific Realism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Laudan, Larry. “A Confutation of Convergent Realism”. Philosophy of Science 48 (1981): 19-49.
Maxwell, Grover. “The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities”. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 3. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1962.
Musgrave, Alan. “The Ultimate Argument for Scientific Realism”. Relativism and Realism in Science. Australasian Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Vol. 6. Ed. Nola R. Dordrecht: Springer, 1988. 229-252.
Poincaré, Henri. La Science et l’Hypothèse. Paris: Flammarion, 1902.
Psillos, Stathis. “The Present State of the Scientific Realism Debate”. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (2000): 705-728.
______. “Scientific Realism and Metaphysics”. Ratio (New Series) 18 (2005): 385-404.
Putnam, Hilary. “What is Mathematical Truth?” Mathematics, Matter and Method. Philosophical Papers. Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. 60-78.
______. Meaning and the Moral Sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978.
Smart, John Jamieson Carswell. Philosophy and Scientific Realism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963.
Carnap. Rudolf. Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947.
Frápolli, María José. “The Neutrality of Truth in the Debate Realism vs. Anti-realism”. The Realism-Antirealism Debate in the Age of Alternative Logics. Logic, Epistemology & Unity of Science. Vol. 23. Eds. Shahid Rahman, Giuseppe Primiero y Mathieu Marion. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012a. 85-100. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1923-1_5>
______. The Nature of Truth. An Updated Approach to the Meaning of Truth Ascriptions. Springer Netherlands, 2012b. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4464-6>
______. “No Miracles. What Does it Mean that Science Seeks the Truth? Zagadnienia Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa 50 (2014): 202.
______. “Teorías verdaderas”. La ciencia y el mundo inobservable. Discusiones contemporáneas en torno al realismo científico. Eds. Bruno Borge y Nélida Gentile. Buenos Aires: Eudeba, 2020.
Kitcher, Philip. The Advancement of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Kukla, André. Studies in Scientific Realism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Laudan, Larry. “A Confutation of Convergent Realism”. Philosophy of Science 48 (1981): 19-49.
Maxwell, Grover. “The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities”. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 3. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1962.
Musgrave, Alan. “The Ultimate Argument for Scientific Realism”. Relativism and Realism in Science. Australasian Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Vol. 6. Ed. Nola R. Dordrecht: Springer, 1988. 229-252.
Poincaré, Henri. La Science et l’Hypothèse. Paris: Flammarion, 1902.
Psillos, Stathis. “The Present State of the Scientific Realism Debate”. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (2000): 705-728.
______. “Scientific Realism and Metaphysics”. Ratio (New Series) 18 (2005): 385-404.
Putnam, Hilary. “What is Mathematical Truth?” Mathematics, Matter and Method. Philosophical Papers. Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. 60-78.
______. Meaning and the Moral Sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978.
Smart, John Jamieson Carswell. Philosophy and Scientific Realism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963.
