Global ETD Search

1	A questão da racionalidade jurídica em Hart e em Dworkin / The question of rationality of law in Hart and Dworkin Colontonio, Carlos Ogawa 28 April 2011 (has links) O objetivo desta pesquisa é apresentar o modelo racional jurídico elaborado por Hart e o modelo racional jurídico elaborado por Dworkin, assim como a crítica realizada por Dworkin em face do Conceito de Direito oferecido por Hart. O positivista, Herbert Hart, propõe que o direito é formado por um sistema de regras primárias e regras secundárias, sendo que uma regra de reconhecimento é responsável por identificar quais regras estão ou não incluídas em tal sistema. Caso seja apresentado um problema que não é resolvido por uma regra reconhecida pelo critério, deverá o julgador apelar para a discricionariedade. Dworkin, em um primeiro momento, criticará o conceito de Hart, alegando que o seu critério de demarcação entre o que é direito e o que não é direito é insatisfatório, por deixar de reconhecer vários elementos como jurídicos, uma vez que a regra de reconhecimento, sendo um teste de pedigree, não à capaz de captar princípios de direito não legislados e direitos e deveres controversos. Ademais, há um erro na teoria positivista de Hart, ao afirmar que os casos não claramente resolvidos por uma regra serão resolvidos a partir da arbitrariedade da autoridade estatal. Posteriormente, Dworkin oferecerá um modelo de direito que dê conta da realidade jurídica, em seu entendimento. Um modelo em que o jurista, a partir do equilíbrio reflexivo e do axioma da equidade poderá deduzir teorias possíveis para responder problemas do direito, identificando, dentre estas teorias, qual é a melhor resposta, sendo portanto a resposta exigível para a solução da lide concreta. / The objective of this research is to present the rational legal model presented by Hart and rational legal model presented by Dworkin as well as criticism made by Dworkin in the face of the Concept of Law offered by Hart. The positivist, Herbert Hart, proposes that the right is formed by a system of primary rules and secondary rules, and a rule of recognition is responsible for identifying what rules are or are not included in this system. If presented with a problem that is not resolved by a rule recognized by the criterion, the judge should resort to discretion. Dworkin, at first, criticize the concept of Hart, claiming that his criterion of demarcation between what is right and what is not right is unsatisfactory, for failing to recognize various elements such as legal, as a rule of recognition , being a test of pedigree, not able to capture the principles of law and not legislated rights and duties controversial. Furthermore, there is an error in the positivist theory of Hart, asserting that the cases do not clearly resolved by a rule will be resolved from the arbitrariness of state authority. Later, Dworkin offer a model law that embraces the legal reality in his mind. A model in which the lawyer from the reflective equilibrium and the axiom of justice may deduct possible theories to address problems of law, identifying, among these theories, what is the best answer, the answer is therefore required for the solution of the dispute concrete. Conceito de direito Concept of law Critério de demarcação Demarcation criterion Dworkin Dworkin Hart Hart Regra de reconhecimento Rule of recognition
2	A questão da racionalidade jurídica em Hart e em Dworkin / The question of rationality of law in Hart and Dworkin Carlos Ogawa Colontonio 28 April 2011 (has links) O objetivo desta pesquisa é apresentar o modelo racional jurídico elaborado por Hart e o modelo racional jurídico elaborado por Dworkin, assim como a crítica realizada por Dworkin em face do Conceito de Direito oferecido por Hart. O positivista, Herbert Hart, propõe que o direito é formado por um sistema de regras primárias e regras secundárias, sendo que uma regra de reconhecimento é responsável por identificar quais regras estão ou não incluídas em tal sistema. Caso seja apresentado um problema que não é resolvido por uma regra reconhecida pelo critério, deverá o julgador apelar para a discricionariedade. Dworkin, em um primeiro momento, criticará o conceito de Hart, alegando que o seu critério de demarcação entre o que é direito e o que não é direito é insatisfatório, por deixar de reconhecer vários elementos como jurídicos, uma vez que a regra de reconhecimento, sendo um teste de pedigree, não à capaz de captar princípios de direito não legislados e direitos e deveres controversos. Ademais, há um erro na teoria positivista de Hart, ao afirmar que os casos não claramente resolvidos por uma regra serão resolvidos a partir da arbitrariedade da autoridade estatal. Posteriormente, Dworkin oferecerá um modelo de direito que dê conta da realidade jurídica, em seu entendimento. Um modelo em que o jurista, a partir do equilíbrio reflexivo e do axioma da equidade poderá deduzir teorias possíveis para responder problemas do direito, identificando, dentre estas teorias, qual é a melhor resposta, sendo portanto a resposta exigível para a solução da lide concreta. / The objective of this research is to present the rational legal model presented by Hart and rational legal model presented by Dworkin as well as criticism made by Dworkin in the face of the Concept of Law offered by Hart. The positivist, Herbert Hart, proposes that the right is formed by a system of primary rules and secondary rules, and a rule of recognition is responsible for identifying what rules are or are not included in this system. If presented with a problem that is not resolved by a rule recognized by the criterion, the judge should resort to discretion. Dworkin, at first, criticize the concept of Hart, claiming that his criterion of demarcation between what is right and what is not right is unsatisfactory, for failing to recognize various elements such as legal, as a rule of recognition , being a test of pedigree, not able to capture the principles of law and not legislated rights and duties controversial. Furthermore, there is an error in the positivist theory of Hart, asserting that the cases do not clearly resolved by a rule will be resolved from the arbitrariness of state authority. Later, Dworkin offer a model law that embraces the legal reality in his mind. A model in which the lawyer from the reflective equilibrium and the axiom of justice may deduct possible theories to address problems of law, identifying, among these theories, what is the best answer, the answer is therefore required for the solution of the dispute concrete. Conceito de direito Critério de demarcação Dworkin Hart Regra de reconhecimento Concept of law Demarcation criterion Dworkin Hart Rule of recognition
3	The Darwinian revolution as a knowledge reorganization Zacharias, Sebastian 24 February 2015 (has links) Die Dissertation leistet drei Beiträge zur Forschung: (1) Sie entwickelt ein neuartiges vierstufiges Modell wissenschaftlicher Theorien. Dieses Modell kombiniert logisch-empiristische Ansätze (Carnap, Popper, Frege) mit Konzepten von Metaphern & Narrativen (Wittgenstein, Burke, Morgan), erlaubt so deutlich präzisiere Beschreibungen wissenschaftlicher Theorien bereit und löst/mildert Widersprüche in logisch-empiristischen Modellen. (Realismus vs. Empirismus, analytische vs. synthetische Aussagen, Unterdeterminiertheit/ Holismus, wissenschaftliche Erklärungen, Demarkation) (2) Mit diesem Modell gelingt ein Reihenvergleich sechs biologischer Theorien von Lamarck (1809), über Cuvier (1811), Geoffroy St. Hilaire (1835), Chambers (1844-60), Owen (1848-68), Wallace (1855/8) zu Darwin (1859-1872). Dieser Vergleich offenbart eine interessante Asymmetrie: Vergleicht man Darwin mit je einem Vorgänger, so bestehen zahlreiche wichtige Unterschiede. Vergleicht man ihn mit fünf Vorgängern, verschwinden diese fast völlig: Darwins originärer Beitrag zur Revolution in der Biologie des 19.Jh ist klein und seine Antwort nur eine aus einer kontinuierlichen Serie auf die empirischen Herausforderungen durch Paläontologie & Biogeographie seit Ende des 18. Jh. (3) Eine gestufte Rezeptionsanalyse zeigt, warum wir dennoch von einer Darwinschen Revolution sprechen. Zuerst zeigt eine quantitative Analyse der fast 2.000 biologischen Artikel in Britannien zwischen 1858 und 1876, dass Darwinsche Konzepte zwar wichtige Neuerungen brachten, jedoch nicht singulär herausragen. Verlässt man die Biologie und schaut sich die Rezeption bei anderen Wissenschaftlern und gebildeten Laien an, wechselt das Bild: Je weiter man aus der Biologie heraustritt, desto weniger Ebenen biologischen Wissens kennen die Rezipienten und desto sichtbarer wird Darwins Beitrag. Schließlich findet sich sein Beitrag in den abstraktesten Ebenen des biologischen Wissens: in Narrativ und Weltbild – den Ebenen die Laien rezipieren. / The dissertation makes three contributions to research: (1) It develops a novel 4-level-model of scientific theories which combines logical-empirical ideas (Carnap, Popper, Frege) with concepts of metaphors & narratives (Wittgenstein, Burke, Morgan), providing a new powerful toolbox for the analysis & comparison of scientific theories and overcoming/softening contradictions in logical-empirical models. (realism vs. empiricism, analytic vs. synthetic statements, holism, theory-laden observations, scientific explanations, demarcation) (2) Based on this model, the dissertation compares six biological theories from Lamarck (1809), via Cuvier (1811), Geoffroy St. Hilaire (1835), Chambers (1844-60), Owen (1848-68), Wallace (1855/8) to Darwin (1859-1872) and reveals an interesting asymmetry: Compared to any one of his predecessors, Darwins theory appears very original, however, compared to all five predecessor theories, many of these differences disappear and it remains but a small original contribution by Darwin. Thus, Darwin’s is but one in a continuous series of responses to the challenges posed to biology by paleontology and biogeography since the end of the 18th century. (3) A 3-level reception analysis, finally, demonstrates why we speak of a Darwinian revolution nevertheless. (i) A quantitative analysis of nearly 2.000 biological articles reveals that Darwinian concepts where indeed an important theoretical innovation – but definitely not the most important of the time. (ii) When leaving the circle of biology and moving to scientists from other disciplines or educated laymen, the landscape changes. The further outside the biological community, the shallower the audience’s knowledge – and the more visible Darwin’s original contribution. After all, most of Darwin’s contribution can be found in the narrative and worldview of 19th century biology: the only level of knowledge which laymen receive. Evolution Interpretation Rudolf Carnap Ludwig Wittgenstein Beschreibung Historische Epistemologie wissenschaftliche Revolution wissenschaftlicher Fortschritt wissenschaftliche Theorie Kontinuität Diskontinuität wissenschaftliche Erklärungen Abgrenzungskriterium Unterdeterminiertheit analytische Sätze synthetische Sätze Logischer Empirismus wissenschaftlicher Realismus Metaphern Narrative wissenschaftliche Modelle Natürliche Auslese Natürliche Selektion Kampf ums Dasein Homologie Archetype Charles Darwin Robert Chambers Richard Owen Alfred Russel Wallace Georges Cuvier Jean-Baptiste Lamarck Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire Gottlob Frege Karl Popper evolution interpretation Rudolf Carnap Ludwig Wittgenstein Historical epistemology scientific revolution scientific progress scientific theory continuity discontinuity scientific explanations demarcation criterion underdetermination analytic statements synthetic statements logical empiricism scientific realism metaphors narratives description scientific models natural selection struggle for existence homology archetype Charles Darwin Robert Chambers Richard Owen Alfred Russel Wallace Georges Cuvier Jean-Baptiste Lamarck Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire Gottlob Frege Karl Popper WH 2000

1

Page generated in 0.1538 seconds