No description available.

Thomas S. Kuhn claimed that the meanings of scientific terms change in theory changes or in scientific revolutions. In philosophy, meaning change has been taken as the source of a group of problems, such as untranslatability, incommensurability, and referential variance. For this reason, the majority of analytic philosophers have sought to deny that there can be meaning change by focusing on developing a theory of reference that would guarantee referential stability. A number of philosophers have also claimed that Kuhn’s view can be explained by the fact that he accepted and further developed many central tenets of logical empiricism. I maintain that the genesis of Kuhn’s meaning theorising lies in his historical approach and that his view of meaning change is justified. Later in his career he attempted to advance a theory of meaning and can be said to have had limited success in it. What is more, recent cognitive science has unexpectedly managed to shed light on Kuhn’s insights on the organisation of information in the mind, concept learning, and concept definition. Furthermore, although Kuhn’s critique of Putnam’s causal theory of reference has often been dismissed as irrelevant, he has a serious point to address. Kuhn thought that the causal theory that works so well with proper names cannot work with scientific terms. He held that conceptual categories are formed by similarity and dissimilarity relations; therefore, several features and not only one single property are needed for determination of extension. In addition, the causal theory requires universal substances as points of reference of scientific terms. Kuhn was a conceptualist, who held that universals do not exist as mind-independent entities and that mind-dependent family resemblance concepts serve the role of universals. Further, at the beginning of his career, Kuhn was interested in the question of what concepts or ideas are and how they change in their historical context. Although he did not develop his theorising on this issue, I demonstrate that this is a genuine problem in the philosophy of history. Finally, Kuhn argued that scientists cannot have access to truth in history because we cannot transcend our historical niche, and as a consequence, the truth of a belief cannot be a reason for theory choice. Instead of truth, we can rely on justification. I also discuss Kuhn’s idea that problem-solving is the main aim of science and show that this view can be incorporated into coherentist epistemology.

No / Scientific and technological change in the life sciences is currently transforming the problem of preventing biological warfare and biological terrorism. This transformation will demand a radical and rigorous new approach to biochemical arms control, for which the existing prohibition regimes for chemical and biological weapons are necessary but insufficient building blocks. Examples from the areas of immunology, neurosciences, and the neuroendocrine-immune system are used to show the magnitude of the problem. This book will conclude with outlining additional measures required to control biochemical weapons in the 2lst Century.

O debate atual sobre a racionalidade científica tem envolvido uma tomada de posição quanto ao relativismo epistemológico. Um dos focos do debate consiste na superação do relativismo presente em pronunciamentos de Thomas Kuhn sobre a escolha científica. Procurando libertar-se de um relativismo kuhniano nas justificações de escolhas científicas, Hilary Putnam e Larry Laudan apresentam estratégias bastante distintas. Putnam vê incoerências autodestrutivas em tal relativismo, especialmente por duas razões: sua formulação seria auto-refutante e, quanto aos atributos cognitivos, essa posição não permitiria distinguir o homem de qualquer outro ser. Laudan procurou desmistificar os efeitos que a incomensurabilidade kuhniana teria causado para uma visão de racionalidade dirigida por regras metodológicas e, além disso, buscou mostrar a falta de poder explicativo do relativismo decorrente dela. O presente trabalho investiga se ainda há razão para considerar que o relativismo gerado pela incomensurabilidade kuhniana constitui uma ameaça à racionalidade científica. Apresentamos um modelo kuhniano de racionalidade, com base em uma análise dos textos de Kuhn sobre a escolha de paradigmas, que ressalta o papel da incomensurabilidade de problemas e padrões científicos. Procuramos mostrar que duas das principais acusações de incoerência, elaboradas por Putnam, não atingem tal modelo. Por fim, defendemos que esse modelo kuhniano de racionalidade apresenta várias restrições para o efetivo estabelecimento das críticas que Laudan lhe dirige. / The current debate on scientific rationality has involved taking sides regarding the question of epistemological relativism. The debate is focused, among other things, in overcoming the relativism present in Thomas Kuhns statements about scientific choice. Hilary Putnam and Larry Laudan, aiming at dispensing with a Kuhnian relativism in the justification of scientific choices, propose quite different strategies. Putnam sees self-destructive incoherencies in such relativism, mainly for two reasons: first, its formulation would be self-defeating and, second, this position wouldnt allow one to distinguish man from any other being as regards cognitive attributes. Laudan attempted to demystify the effects that Kuhnian incommensurability could cause to a vision of rationality governed by methodological rules, and, furthermore, attempted to show the lack of explanatory power of the relativism that follows from it. The present work inquires whether there is still reason to consider that the relativism originated by Kuhnian incommensurability constitutes a menace to scientific rationality. We present a Kuhnian model of rationality, based on an analysis of Kuhns texts on paradigm choice, which highlights the role of incommensurability as regards scientific problems and standards. We aim to show that two of the main charges of incoherence, formulated by Putnam, arent able to affect the model. Lastly, we maintain that this Kuhnian model of rationality poses various constraints on the actual establishment of the criticisms directed against it by Laudan.

O debate atual sobre a racionalidade científica tem envolvido uma tomada de posição quanto ao relativismo epistemológico. Um dos focos do debate consiste na superação do relativismo presente em pronunciamentos de Thomas Kuhn sobre a escolha científica. Procurando libertar-se de um relativismo kuhniano nas justificações de escolhas científicas, Hilary Putnam e Larry Laudan apresentam estratégias bastante distintas. Putnam vê incoerências autodestrutivas em tal relativismo, especialmente por duas razões: sua formulação seria auto-refutante e, quanto aos atributos cognitivos, essa posição não permitiria distinguir o homem de qualquer outro ser. Laudan procurou desmistificar os efeitos que a incomensurabilidade kuhniana teria causado para uma visão de racionalidade dirigida por regras metodológicas e, além disso, buscou mostrar a falta de poder explicativo do relativismo decorrente dela. O presente trabalho investiga se ainda há razão para considerar que o relativismo gerado pela incomensurabilidade kuhniana constitui uma ameaça à racionalidade científica. Apresentamos um modelo kuhniano de racionalidade, com base em uma análise dos textos de Kuhn sobre a escolha de paradigmas, que ressalta o papel da incomensurabilidade de problemas e padrões científicos. Procuramos mostrar que duas das principais acusações de incoerência, elaboradas por Putnam, não atingem tal modelo. Por fim, defendemos que esse modelo kuhniano de racionalidade apresenta várias restrições para o efetivo estabelecimento das críticas que Laudan lhe dirige. / The current debate on scientific rationality has involved taking sides regarding the question of epistemological relativism. The debate is focused, among other things, in overcoming the relativism present in Thomas Kuhns statements about scientific choice. Hilary Putnam and Larry Laudan, aiming at dispensing with a Kuhnian relativism in the justification of scientific choices, propose quite different strategies. Putnam sees self-destructive incoherencies in such relativism, mainly for two reasons: first, its formulation would be self-defeating and, second, this position wouldnt allow one to distinguish man from any other being as regards cognitive attributes. Laudan attempted to demystify the effects that Kuhnian incommensurability could cause to a vision of rationality governed by methodological rules, and, furthermore, attempted to show the lack of explanatory power of the relativism that follows from it. The present work inquires whether there is still reason to consider that the relativism originated by Kuhnian incommensurability constitutes a menace to scientific rationality. We present a Kuhnian model of rationality, based on an analysis of Kuhns texts on paradigm choice, which highlights the role of incommensurability as regards scientific problems and standards. We aim to show that two of the main charges of incoherence, formulated by Putnam, arent able to affect the model. Lastly, we maintain that this Kuhnian model of rationality poses various constraints on the actual establishment of the criticisms directed against it by Laudan.