Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.author
Pellegrini, Pablo Ariel  
dc.date.available
2023-12-13T10:32:24Z  
dc.date.issued
2023-04  
dc.identifier.citation
Pellegrini, Pablo Ariel; We are All Rationalists, but it is not Enough: Ways of Explaining the Social Acceptance of a Theory; Springer; Foundations of Science; 4-2023; 1-20  
dc.identifier.issn
1233-1821  
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/220072  
dc.description.abstract
This article discusses explanations behind theory choice, that is, ultimately, what leads people to accept a certain claim as valid. There has been a recent debate as to how closure was achieved in the continental-drift discussion. The controversy had found its usual explanation under rationalist terms: Wegener’s 1912 continental-drift theory was accepted 50 years later only after the plate tectonic theory had provided more evidence or a more in-depth problem-solving capacity. Nevertheless, a re-examination of the controversy under constructivist terms argued that closure was achieved by a change in the style of thought. This analysis prompted some authors to react calling to a ‘defence of rationalism’ and insisting on explaining that the continental-drift theory was only accepted because of epistemic reasons. As the debate impacts on the way to explain scientific controversies, in this article I analyze rationalist and constructivist approaches with respect to ways to explain the social acceptance or rejection of a theory. The analytical perspectives will be contextualized within a broader theoretical discussion in philosophy and social sciences about the role of different factors that condition knowledge, which will also include an empirical approximation in the analysis of GMO and continental-drift controversies. Ultimately, the debate with rationalism is situated in a broader context about the ways of explaining the social acceptance of a theory, arguing that the problem with the rationalism that confuses a purely logical explanation with a sociological one is that it tends to judge rather than understand.  
dc.format
application/pdf  
dc.language.iso
eng  
dc.publisher
Springer  
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess  
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/  
dc.subject
CONSTRUCTIVISM  
dc.subject
CONTINENTAL DRIFT  
dc.subject
RATIONALISM  
dc.subject
SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES  
dc.subject.classification
Ciencias Sociales Interdisciplinarias  
dc.subject.classification
Otras Ciencias Sociales  
dc.subject.classification
CIENCIAS SOCIALES  
dc.title
We are All Rationalists, but it is not Enough: Ways of Explaining the Social Acceptance of a Theory  
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article  
dc.type
info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo  
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion  
dc.date.updated
2023-12-12T15:48:36Z  
dc.journal.pagination
1-20  
dc.journal.pais
Alemania  
dc.journal.ciudad
Berlin  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Pellegrini, Pablo Ariel. Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. Departamento de Ciencias Sociales. Instituto de Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia y la Tecnología; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina  
dc.journal.title
Foundations of Science  
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-023-09913-0  
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10699-023-09913-0