Discourses and episteme regarding economic rights: the iter from the antipodes to the feasibility of conciliation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24215/18522971e083Keywords:
paradigms, gnoseological determinism, epistemic incommensurability, epistemic communitiesAbstract
This paper analyses the gnoseological limits that restrict the contrasting of different paradigms. To this, a methodological programme is sketched in order to circumvent the apparent state of epistemic stagnation in which researchers may find themselves in the assumptions in which the theses under debate, as regards the heuristics of the sensitive material of study, reveal such a deleterious condition. It is argued that, in order to overcome the aforementioned state, the debate between different conceptual schemes can hardly be a sufficient condition. It is necessary to find new empirical regularities within each of the paradigms of reference or the adoption of new epistemological approaches, dissimilar to the traditional ones.
Downloads
References
Adler, E. (1997). “Seizing the middle ground: constructivism in world politics.”En European journal of international relations, 3 (3), 319-363.
Balibar, E. (1969).Nombres y lugares de la verdad. Buenos Aires: Nueva Visión.
Berlin, I, (1969). Isaiah Berlin’s Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Calva, J. L. &, Nassif, A. A. (2007). Democracia y gobernabilidad. Ciudad de México: UNAM
Cannavo, S. (2012). Nomic inference: an introduction to the logic of scientific inquiry.Londres: SpringerScience& Business Media
Cox, R. (1981). Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millenium- Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126 - 156.
Craig, E. (1990). Knowledge and the State of Nature. Oxford: ClarendonPress
Dasgupta, P. (1993).An Inquiry into Well-Being and Destitution. Oxford: ClarendonPress
Eller, J. D. (2016). Social Science and Historical Perspectives: Society, Science, and Ways of Knowing. Oxford: Taylor & Francis
Etxabe, J. (2013).The Experience of Tragic Judgment.Londres: Routledge
Giddens, A (1993). Consecuencias de la modernidad. Madrid: Alianza Editorial
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2009). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science.Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Kornblith, H. (2014). A naturalistic epistemology: selected papers, Oxford: Oxford Universitary Press.
Kuhn, Th. (1962).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
Lundy Dobbrt, M. (1990). “Discussion on Methodology”. En Guba, Egon G. (Ed.). The paradigm dialog (1990).Londres: Sage publications.(286-302)
Laclau, E. (2010).La razón populista. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica
Markula, P. & Silk, M. (2011). Qualitative research for physical culture.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society.Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical Explanations, Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Roth, A. A. (1988). Origins: linking science and scripture. Hagerstown: Review and Herald Pub Assoc.
Simons, H. (2005). “The rhetoric of philosophical incommensurability”. En Harris, R. A. (Ed.) Rhetoric and incommensurability (2005). Anderson: Parlor Press. (238-268)
Smith A. & Graetz, F. (2011). Philosophies of organizational change,Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing
Tooze, R. & Murphy, C. N. (1996) “The epistemology of poverty and the poverty of epistemology in IPE: mystery, blindness, and invisibility”. En Millennium, 25 (1996), p. 681-707.
Urteaga, E. (2013).Figuras sociológicas. Santander: Editorial de la Universidad de Cantabria
Vahid, H. (2005). Epistemic justification and the skeptical challenge. Nueva York: Springer.
Wacquant, L. & Bourdieu, P. (2005). Una invitación a la sociología reflexiva. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI Editores.
Wray, B. (2011). Kuhn's evolutionary social epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Wray, B. (2015).“Kuhn’s Social Epistemology and the Sociology of Science”. En Devlin, W. &, Bokulich, A. (Eds.). Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions-50 Years On (167-183). Londres: Springer
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Los autores/as conservan los derechos de autor y ceden a la revista el derecho de la primera publicación, con el trabajo registrado con la licencia de atribución, compartir igual, de Creative Commons, que permite a terceros utilizar lo publicado siempre que mencionen la autoría del trabajo y a la primera publicación en esta revista.
Derecho y Ciencias Sociales por Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales se distribuye bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional.
