Desacuerdo entre pares epistémicos en el debate naturaleza-cultura

Abstract

Scientific disagreements constitute valuable resources for reflecting on epistemicpeer disagreements. In this essay I engage in the debate whether epistemic peers who dis-agree should be conciliatory or steadfast by examining how scientists actually react in theso called nature-nurture debate. The main conclusion of the analysis is that, when takinginto consideration concrete epistemic practices with peers responding to different epistemicperspectives, scientists have good reasons to be steadfast. At the same time, the theoreticalconceptualizations of the epistemology of peer disagreement illuminates certain aspects ofthe nature-nurture debate, such as its long persistence. Therefore, this article contributesboth to the debate over the epistemology of disagreement and to the understanding of anever-ending controversy in the life sciences.