Gonzalo Munévar


The view that science is typically a cumulative, progressive process, as suggested by some historians of science and some scientific realists, is undermined both by history and by evolutionary considerations about the nature of science. The attempts to use evolutionary biology to portray scientific development as continuous are based on unfortunate analogies to the evolution of life. A proper application of evolutionary biology, in combination with neuroscience, defeats the case for the realism in question and leads to the realization that science is not only open to radical transformation, as history indicates, but that it should be so. Non-evolutionary approaches for the historical continuity of science, such as Lakatos’, do not fare much better. As I will argue, science is a radical form of knowledge.

Palabras clave

Feyerabend; Galileo; Lakatos; Evolutionary Epistemology; Realism; Evolutionary Relativism; Proliferation of Theories; Relative Truth.

Texto completo:

PDF (English)


Aristotle. (1934). On the Heavens II, Ch. 14, 296b7-24. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Barnes, E.C. (2002). The Miraculous Choice Argument for Realism. Philosophical Studies, 111(2), 97–120. doi:10.1023/A:1021204812809

Bohr, N. (1970). Can Quantum Mechanical Description be Complete? In S. Toulmin (Ed.), Physical reality: Philosophical essays on twentieth-century physics. New York: Harper & Row.

Bohr, N. (1982). Discussion with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), The Library of Living Philosophers, Volume 7. Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (pp. 199-241). Chicago, Illinois: Open Court.

Bohr, N. (1987). The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory. In N. Bohr, The Philosophical writings of Neil’s Bohr (Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature, Vol. 1). Connecticut, USA: Ox Bow Press.

Boyd, R. (1992). On the Current Status of Scientific Realism. In R. Boyd, P. Gasper, and J.D. Trout (Eds.), The Philosophy of Science (pp. 195-222). Cambridge, USA; MIT Press.

Brown, J. R. (1982). The Miracle of Science. Philosophical Quarterly, 32(128), 232–244. doi:10.2307/2219325

Busch, J. (2008). No New Miracles, Same Old Tricks. Theoria, 74(2), 102–114. doi:10.1111/j.1755-2567.2008.00011.x

Dellsén, F. (2016). Explanatory Rivals and the Ultimate Argument. Theoria, 82(3), 217–237. doi:10.1111/theo.12084

Edelman, G. & Tononi, G. (2000). A Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination. New York: Basic Books.

Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchist Theory of Knowledge. London: New Left Books.

Feyerabend, P. (1999). Conquest of Abundance: A Tale of Abstractness versus the Richness of Being. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ford, J.M., Dierks, T., Fisher, D.J., Herrmann, C.S., Hubl, D., Kindler, J., Koenig, T., Mathalon, D.H., Spencer, K.M., Strik, W., & van Lutterveld, E. (2012). Neurophysiological Studies of Auditory Verbal Hallucinations. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 38(4), pp. 715-723.

Frost-Arnold, G. (2010). The No-Miracles Argument for Realism: Inference to an Unacceptable Explanation. Philosophy of Science, 77(1), 35-58. doi:10.1086/650207

Galileo. (1989). The Assayer. In M.R. Matthews (Ed.), The Scientific Background to Modern Philosophy (pp. 56–61). Indianapolis, USA: Hackett.

Galileo. (2001). Dialogues Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. New York: The Modern Librar.

Hahlweg, K. & Hooker, C.A. [Eds.]. (1989). Issues in Evolutionary Epistemology (Volume 3, No. 2). Albany, USA: SUNY Press.

Hughes, H. C. (1999). Sensory Exotica. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press.

Johnston, V. S. (1999). Why We Feel. New York, USA: Perseus Books.

Lakatos, I. (1970a). Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lakatos, I. (1970b). History of Science and its Rational Reconstructions. In R.C. Buck and R.S Cohen (Eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume VIII (pp. 91-136). Dordrecht: Springer.

Lipton, P. (1994). Truth, Existence, and the Best Explanation. In A.A. Derksen (Ed.), The Scientific Realism of Rom Harré (pp. 89–111). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

Lyons, T. D. (2003). Explaining the Success of a Scientific Theory. Philosophy of Science, 70(5), 891–901. doi:10.1086/377375

Munevar, G. (1981). Radical Knowledge: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Nature and Limits of Science. UK: Avebury Publishing Co.; Indianapolis, USA: Hackett Publishing.

Munevar, G. (1989). Science as Part of Nature. In K. Hahlweg and C.A. Hooker (Eds.), Issues in Evolutionary Epistemology (Volume 3, No. 2). Albany, USA: SUNY Press.

Munevar, G. (1998). Evolution and the Naked Truth. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Munevar, G. (2018). A Theory of Wonder (book manuscript in preparation).

Newton. (1989). Principia. In M.R. Matthews (Ed.), The Scientific Background to Modern Philosophy (pp. 137-153). Indianapolis, USA: Hackett Publishing Company.

Piaget, J. (1969). Psychology of Intelligence. New York, USA: Littlefield, Adams and Co.

Popper, K. (1972). Objective Knowledge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Psillos, S. (1999). Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.

Putnam, H. (1975). Mathematics, Matter and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sarton, G. (1936). The Study of the History of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Toulmin, S. (1972). Human Understanding, Volume I. Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press.

Tuomela, R. (1985). Science, Action and Reality. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.

Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.

Copyright (c) 2018 LÍMITE Revista Interdisciplinaria de Filosofía y Psicología

Licencia de Creative Commons
Este obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional.

Licencia Creative Commons
LÍMITE Revista Interdisciplinaria de Filosofía y Psicología por Escuela de Psicología y Filosofía, Universidad de Tarapacá, Arica-Chile. Se distribuye bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional.