The thesis puts more emphasis on Scientific methodology,discuss Philosopher of Science--Paul Feyerabend's thinking. It discusses if science is a rational statement or not and has some reflections on how we think of Scientific methodology. In this reserch we can make a conclusion that Paul Feyerabend think Science doesn't have a so-called position.What we called "Science" today also follow a normal methodology.He suggest that we should get rid of the normal methodology and support the scientists do their reserch freely by using suitalbe methodology so human beings can devolop more knowledge probability

Diferentemente do que alegam visões idealizadas da ciência, as controvérsias não são fenômenos marginais na história da ciência, mas o âmbito próprio do desenvolvimento crítico do saber científico. As interações polêmicas são campo de atividade da racionalidade científica. Partindo do exame da tricotomia de tipos de polêmicas de Marcelo Dascal – constituída por discussão, disputa e controvérsia – objetiva-se caracterizar as polêmicas e traçar relações entre elas, especialmente no que tange às suas respectivas racionalidades. A proposta não se restringe a apontar consensos e dissensos entre a racionalidade dura da discussão, a irracionalidade da disputa e a racionalidade branda da controvérsia; tenciona-se o “diálogo entre racionalidades”. A interação entre as racionalidades – preservando as características de cada racionalidade, pois não se projeta reduzir uma racionalidade à outra –, possibilita o alargamento do escopo de atuação das racionalidades. A tricotomia de tipos de Marcelo Dascal escapa a tendência de dicotomização do par discussão/disputa, o qual foi tradicionalmente tido por exaustivo. Sob tal perspectiva, a controvérsia se apresenta como uma via alternativa. A racionalidade branda conduz a persuasão racional – objetivo da controvérsia. A controvérsia permite, ainda, a emergência de idéias inovadoras, o que faz dessa polêmica motor da ciência. Marcello Pera opera uma volta a Aristóteles para resgatar a função cognitiva que retórica e dialética desempenham na argumentação persuasiva da ciência. Para Pera, o foco na argumentação persuasiva da ciência revela aspectos da prática científica que foram esquecidos pelas propostas tradicionais (metodologistas) e que não receberam tratamento adequado de propostas contemporâneas (anti-metodologistas). Segundo M. Pera, o desafino das opiniões sobre a descrição e a explicação dos fatos alegadamente recorrentes do desalinho entre os fatos do mundo e as descrições do mundo gera as polêmicas na ciência. A racionalidade persuasiva empregada nas interações polêmicas visa ao convencimento não apenas dos contendores, mas também da comunidade concernente ao debate. A prática de uma argumentação persuasiva da ciência é o ponto-chave para a confluência das idéias de Marcelo Dascal e Marcello Pera. Em decorrência desses novos entendimentos acerca da ciência, emerge uma nova visão da racionalidade científica: mais flexível, sensível aos papéis da audiência e do contexto e valorada no seu empenho cognitivo. Essa racionalidade, abordada desde um ponto de vista humano, permite a emersão de conclusões razoáveis ou convincentes. / Unlike idealized views of science claim, controversies are not marginal phenomena in the history of science but the proper domain of scientific knowledge’s critical development. Polemical exchange are the field of activity of scientific rationality. Based on the exam of the Marcelo Dascal’s trichotomy of polemical exchange types – consisting of discussion, dispute and controversy – the objective is to characterize the controversy and to trace the relations between them, especially in regard to their respective rationalities. The proposal is not restricted to pointing out consensus and disagreements among the hard rationality of the discussion, the irrationality of the dispute and the soft rationality of controversy. The "dialogue between rationalities” is aimed. The interaction between rationalities – preserving the characteristics of each rationality, since it is not projected to reduce one rationality into the other – makes it possible to extend the scope of work of rationalities. The trichotomy of types of M. Dascal escapes from the tendency to dichotomization of the pair discussion/dispute, which is traditionally regarded as exhaustive. Controversy is presented as an alternative way between hard rationality and irrationality. The soft rationality leads rational persuasion – the proper aim of controversy. Controversy also allows the emergence of innovative ideas, which makes this polemic the engine of science. Marcello Pera turns back to Aristotle to rescue the cognitive function that rhetoric and dialectic play in the persuasive argumentation of science. For Pera, the focus on the persuasive argumentation of science reveals aspects of scientific practice that have been overlooked by traditional proposals (methodologists) and that have not received proper treatment from contemporary proposals (anti-methodologists). According to M. Pera, polemics in science are generated by the missmatch between descriptions fail to capture the facts. The persuasive rationality employed in polemical interactions aims convincing not only the contenders, but also the community concerning the debate. The practice of a persuasive argumentation in science is the key point for the confluence of the ideas from Marcelo Dascal and Marcello Pera. Due to these new understandings about science, a new and more flexible vision of scientific rationality emerge: one, which is sensitive to the role of audience and context in cognitive appraisals. As approached from a human point of view, this new rationality allows the emergence of convincing or reasonable conclusions.

Diferentemente do que alegam visões idealizadas da ciência, as controvérsias não são fenômenos marginais na história da ciência, mas o âmbito próprio do desenvolvimento crítico do saber científico. As interações polêmicas são campo de atividade da racionalidade científica. Partindo do exame da tricotomia de tipos de polêmicas de Marcelo Dascal – constituída por discussão, disputa e controvérsia – objetiva-se caracterizar as polêmicas e traçar relações entre elas, especialmente no que tange às suas respectivas racionalidades. A proposta não se restringe a apontar consensos e dissensos entre a racionalidade dura da discussão, a irracionalidade da disputa e a racionalidade branda da controvérsia; tenciona-se o “diálogo entre racionalidades”. A interação entre as racionalidades – preservando as características de cada racionalidade, pois não se projeta reduzir uma racionalidade à outra –, possibilita o alargamento do escopo de atuação das racionalidades. A tricotomia de tipos de Marcelo Dascal escapa a tendência de dicotomização do par discussão/disputa, o qual foi tradicionalmente tido por exaustivo. Sob tal perspectiva, a controvérsia se apresenta como uma via alternativa. A racionalidade branda conduz a persuasão racional – objetivo da controvérsia. A controvérsia permite, ainda, a emergência de idéias inovadoras, o que faz dessa polêmica motor da ciência. Marcello Pera opera uma volta a Aristóteles para resgatar a função cognitiva que retórica e dialética desempenham na argumentação persuasiva da ciência. Para Pera, o foco na argumentação persuasiva da ciência revela aspectos da prática científica que foram esquecidos pelas propostas tradicionais (metodologistas) e que não receberam tratamento adequado de propostas contemporâneas (anti-metodologistas). Segundo M. Pera, o desafino das opiniões sobre a descrição e a explicação dos fatos alegadamente recorrentes do desalinho entre os fatos do mundo e as descrições do mundo gera as polêmicas na ciência. A racionalidade persuasiva empregada nas interações polêmicas visa ao convencimento não apenas dos contendores, mas também da comunidade concernente ao debate. A prática de uma argumentação persuasiva da ciência é o ponto-chave para a confluência das idéias de Marcelo Dascal e Marcello Pera. Em decorrência desses novos entendimentos acerca da ciência, emerge uma nova visão da racionalidade científica: mais flexível, sensível aos papéis da audiência e do contexto e valorada no seu empenho cognitivo. Essa racionalidade, abordada desde um ponto de vista humano, permite a emersão de conclusões razoáveis ou convincentes. / Unlike idealized views of science claim, controversies are not marginal phenomena in the history of science but the proper domain of scientific knowledge’s critical development. Polemical exchange are the field of activity of scientific rationality. Based on the exam of the Marcelo Dascal’s trichotomy of polemical exchange types – consisting of discussion, dispute and controversy – the objective is to characterize the controversy and to trace the relations between them, especially in regard to their respective rationalities. The proposal is not restricted to pointing out consensus and disagreements among the hard rationality of the discussion, the irrationality of the dispute and the soft rationality of controversy. The "dialogue between rationalities” is aimed. The interaction between rationalities – preserving the characteristics of each rationality, since it is not projected to reduce one rationality into the other – makes it possible to extend the scope of work of rationalities. The trichotomy of types of M. Dascal escapes from the tendency to dichotomization of the pair discussion/dispute, which is traditionally regarded as exhaustive. Controversy is presented as an alternative way between hard rationality and irrationality. The soft rationality leads rational persuasion – the proper aim of controversy. Controversy also allows the emergence of innovative ideas, which makes this polemic the engine of science. Marcello Pera turns back to Aristotle to rescue the cognitive function that rhetoric and dialectic play in the persuasive argumentation of science. For Pera, the focus on the persuasive argumentation of science reveals aspects of scientific practice that have been overlooked by traditional proposals (methodologists) and that have not received proper treatment from contemporary proposals (anti-methodologists). According to M. Pera, polemics in science are generated by the missmatch between descriptions fail to capture the facts. The persuasive rationality employed in polemical interactions aims convincing not only the contenders, but also the community concerning the debate. The practice of a persuasive argumentation in science is the key point for the confluence of the ideas from Marcelo Dascal and Marcello Pera. Due to these new understandings about science, a new and more flexible vision of scientific rationality emerge: one, which is sensitive to the role of audience and context in cognitive appraisals. As approached from a human point of view, this new rationality allows the emergence of convincing or reasonable conclusions.

Diferentemente do que alegam visões idealizadas da ciência, as controvérsias não são fenômenos marginais na história da ciência, mas o âmbito próprio do desenvolvimento crítico do saber científico. As interações polêmicas são campo de atividade da racionalidade científica. Partindo do exame da tricotomia de tipos de polêmicas de Marcelo Dascal – constituída por discussão, disputa e controvérsia – objetiva-se caracterizar as polêmicas e traçar relações entre elas, especialmente no que tange às suas respectivas racionalidades. A proposta não se restringe a apontar consensos e dissensos entre a racionalidade dura da discussão, a irracionalidade da disputa e a racionalidade branda da controvérsia; tenciona-se o “diálogo entre racionalidades”. A interação entre as racionalidades – preservando as características de cada racionalidade, pois não se projeta reduzir uma racionalidade à outra –, possibilita o alargamento do escopo de atuação das racionalidades. A tricotomia de tipos de Marcelo Dascal escapa a tendência de dicotomização do par discussão/disputa, o qual foi tradicionalmente tido por exaustivo. Sob tal perspectiva, a controvérsia se apresenta como uma via alternativa. A racionalidade branda conduz a persuasão racional – objetivo da controvérsia. A controvérsia permite, ainda, a emergência de idéias inovadoras, o que faz dessa polêmica motor da ciência. Marcello Pera opera uma volta a Aristóteles para resgatar a função cognitiva que retórica e dialética desempenham na argumentação persuasiva da ciência. Para Pera, o foco na argumentação persuasiva da ciência revela aspectos da prática científica que foram esquecidos pelas propostas tradicionais (metodologistas) e que não receberam tratamento adequado de propostas contemporâneas (anti-metodologistas). Segundo M. Pera, o desafino das opiniões sobre a descrição e a explicação dos fatos alegadamente recorrentes do desalinho entre os fatos do mundo e as descrições do mundo gera as polêmicas na ciência. A racionalidade persuasiva empregada nas interações polêmicas visa ao convencimento não apenas dos contendores, mas também da comunidade concernente ao debate. A prática de uma argumentação persuasiva da ciência é o ponto-chave para a confluência das idéias de Marcelo Dascal e Marcello Pera. Em decorrência desses novos entendimentos acerca da ciência, emerge uma nova visão da racionalidade científica: mais flexível, sensível aos papéis da audiência e do contexto e valorada no seu empenho cognitivo. Essa racionalidade, abordada desde um ponto de vista humano, permite a emersão de conclusões razoáveis ou convincentes. / Unlike idealized views of science claim, controversies are not marginal phenomena in the history of science but the proper domain of scientific knowledge’s critical development. Polemical exchange are the field of activity of scientific rationality. Based on the exam of the Marcelo Dascal’s trichotomy of polemical exchange types – consisting of discussion, dispute and controversy – the objective is to characterize the controversy and to trace the relations between them, especially in regard to their respective rationalities. The proposal is not restricted to pointing out consensus and disagreements among the hard rationality of the discussion, the irrationality of the dispute and the soft rationality of controversy. The "dialogue between rationalities” is aimed. The interaction between rationalities – preserving the characteristics of each rationality, since it is not projected to reduce one rationality into the other – makes it possible to extend the scope of work of rationalities. The trichotomy of types of M. Dascal escapes from the tendency to dichotomization of the pair discussion/dispute, which is traditionally regarded as exhaustive. Controversy is presented as an alternative way between hard rationality and irrationality. The soft rationality leads rational persuasion – the proper aim of controversy. Controversy also allows the emergence of innovative ideas, which makes this polemic the engine of science. Marcello Pera turns back to Aristotle to rescue the cognitive function that rhetoric and dialectic play in the persuasive argumentation of science. For Pera, the focus on the persuasive argumentation of science reveals aspects of scientific practice that have been overlooked by traditional proposals (methodologists) and that have not received proper treatment from contemporary proposals (anti-methodologists). According to M. Pera, polemics in science are generated by the missmatch between descriptions fail to capture the facts. The persuasive rationality employed in polemical interactions aims convincing not only the contenders, but also the community concerning the debate. The practice of a persuasive argumentation in science is the key point for the confluence of the ideas from Marcelo Dascal and Marcello Pera. Due to these new understandings about science, a new and more flexible vision of scientific rationality emerge: one, which is sensitive to the role of audience and context in cognitive appraisals. As approached from a human point of view, this new rationality allows the emergence of convincing or reasonable conclusions.

This study aims to provide a critical assessment of social networking sites along with the underlying form of rationality propelling such technological innovations. The hypothesis of this study is rooted in the firm conviction that while social networking sites can be regarded as impressive technological achievements, and while there are certainly an array of benefits that can be associated with them, they nevertheless can be perceived as a hegemonic force which surreptitiously undermines the autonomy and freedom of the modern individual. In order to corroborate and augment such an assertion, this study relies primarily on the critical works of Adorno and Horkheimer (1997); Bauman (2003; 2007 & 2013) and Foucault (1977) in order to both investigate and critically evaluate the everyday assumptions typically associated with a technologically enlightened society, techno-scientific rationality and the recent emergence of technological tools such as social networking services. Based upon the findings that have emerged throughout the course of this investigation, it becomes clear to see that there is indeed a dialectical tension inherent to the nature of the various social networking technologies as they currently operate within the 21st century. Such a discovery is primarily based upon the fact that while social networking technologies do inherently possess emancipatory potentialities for the modern individual, they have nevertheless failed to actualise such potentialities due to the following reasons: 1) Social networking technologies have managed to propagate and entrench a powerful sentiment of technological determinism within modern society along with a highly corrosive form of instrumentalized rationality to which all individuals are now required to acquiesce; 2) Such technologies are paradoxically abrogating the possibility of meaningful interpersonal contiguity due to the fact they have managed to commodify the technological culture associated with a digital form of interaction/communication along with the individual making use of such technologies; and 3) In their current format, social networking services are allowing for the objectification, manipulation and exploitation of the online subject to take place in order to pursue and promote an instrumentalized strategy of marketing surveillance and capital accumulation. / MA (Philosophy), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

This study aims to provide a critical assessment of social networking sites along with the underlying form of rationality propelling such technological innovations. The hypothesis of this study is rooted in the firm conviction that while social networking sites can be regarded as impressive technological achievements, and while there are certainly an array of benefits that can be associated with them, they nevertheless can be perceived as a hegemonic force which surreptitiously undermines the autonomy and freedom of the modern individual. In order to corroborate and augment such an assertion, this study relies primarily on the critical works of Adorno and Horkheimer (1997); Bauman (2003; 2007 & 2013) and Foucault (1977) in order to both investigate and critically evaluate the everyday assumptions typically associated with a technologically enlightened society, techno-scientific rationality and the recent emergence of technological tools such as social networking services. Based upon the findings that have emerged throughout the course of this investigation, it becomes clear to see that there is indeed a dialectical tension inherent to the nature of the various social networking technologies as they currently operate within the 21st century. Such a discovery is primarily based upon the fact that while social networking technologies do inherently possess emancipatory potentialities for the modern individual, they have nevertheless failed to actualise such potentialities due to the following reasons: 1) Social networking technologies have managed to propagate and entrench a powerful sentiment of technological determinism within modern society along with a highly corrosive form of instrumentalized rationality to which all individuals are now required to acquiesce; 2) Such technologies are paradoxically abrogating the possibility of meaningful interpersonal contiguity due to the fact they have managed to commodify the technological culture associated with a digital form of interaction/communication along with the individual making use of such technologies; and 3) In their current format, social networking services are allowing for the objectification, manipulation and exploitation of the online subject to take place in order to pursue and promote an instrumentalized strategy of marketing surveillance and capital accumulation. / MA (Philosophy), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

Submitted by William Justo Figueiro (williamjf) on 2015-07-03T14:16:15Z No. of bitstreams: 1 36.pdf: 1204241 bytes, checksum: d58703f5769bd08a11ef2ed11a4be8cc (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-07-03T14:16:16Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 36.pdf: 1204241 bytes, checksum: d58703f5769bd08a11ef2ed11a4be8cc (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-04-04 / UNISINOS - Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos / A presente dissertação tem como objeto examinar se há lugar e, se houver, em que termos o seria, para uma concepção de “racionalidade científica” na obra de Paul Feyerabend. Parte-se da crítica radical que esse autor faz à racionalidade em sua visão tradicional e ao racionalismo. Para tanto, inicialmente faz-se necessário examinar a ampla concepção de “racionalismo” proposta por Feyerabend. Neste sentido, o capítulo 2 analisa o contexto da cultura grega arcaica, onde Feyerabend encontra um nascente pensamento racional abstrato, perpassando o surgimento da filosofia e coincidindo com a ascensão de um racionalismo que transforma a “Razão” enquanto fonte de uma dada e privilegiada tradição. Segundo Feyerabend, uma crença exacerbada no poder da “Razão” surge na Antiguidade faz-se presente na essência do racionalismo contemporâneo de Popper e Lakatos. O capítulo 3 examina os pressupostos teóricos e epistemológicos do racionalismo de Popper e Lakatos e, à luz da abordagem de Feyerabend sobre a práxis científica, ganha forma a implosão interna do racionalismo criticado. À luz da adoção de tal estratégia implosiva, avalia-se a pertinência da crítica de Feyerabend, perscrutando a leitura das principais obras de Popper e Lakatos e, assim, pretende-se evitar que o exame esteja condicionado pelo teor da crítica. O capítulo 4 perscruta a filosofia de Feyerabend, examinando no interior de sua obra as mudanças e transformações para aferir se há lugar para uma noção de “racionalidade científica”. Aprofundam-se os termos de tais mudanças esclarecendo sua concepção madura sobre a “racionalidade científica”. Conclui-se que há uma “racionalidade científica”, mas, em oposição à visão do racionalismo de viés popperiano segundo a qual tal racionalidade é universal, absoluta e intrinseca aos objetos do conhecimento científico. Desde a perspectiva da práxis científica adotada por Feyerabend, trata-se de uma racionalidade historicizada e contextualizada, ‘em ação’, aberta e dinâmica. / The aim of this dissertation is to investigate whether there is room for “scientific rationality” in the writings of Paul Feyerabend and, if so, in what terms this concept is expressed. My starting point is Feyerabend’s radical critique of the traditional view of rationality and rationalism. First of all, I examine the full meaning of the concept of “rationalism” which he proposes. In Chapter 1, the context of ancient Greek culture is analysed, since it is within this context that he identifies an incipient abstract rational thought which permeates the origins of philosophy, and which coincides with the ascent of rationalism as a transformer of “Reason” in terms of the source of a given privileged tradition. According to Feyerabend, the excessive belief in the power of “Reason” which began in antiquity is also present in the essence of the modern rationalism of Popper and Lakatos, and Chapter 2 examines the theoretical and epistemological premises of this in the light of Feyerabend’s approach to scientific praxis. In this way, the internal implosion of the view of rationalism criticised takes shape, and it is by means of this strategy that the relevance of Feyerabend’s critique is assessed. Through an analysis of the principal writings of Popper and Lakatos it is my intention to avoid any conditioning which may result from the content of this critique. Chapter 3 analyses Feyerabend’s philosophy and the changes and transformations in his writings in order to verify if there is indeed room for the notion of “scientific rationality”. The terms of these changes are subjected to a more rigorous study so that his mature concept of “scientific rationality” can be clarified. The conclusion I draw is that it is, in fact, possible to identify such a concept, but that this is in opposition to Popper’s view of scientific rationality as something universal, absolute and intrinsic to the aims of scientific knowledge. From the scientific praxis point of view adopted by Feyerabend, this rationality is historicized and contextualized; it is active, open and dynamic.

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.

This study focuses on Charles Taylor’s educational thought with a view to understanding his contributions to the discipline of Philosophy of Education. No comprehensive study of Charles Taylor’s educational thought has been attempted. There is a single dissertation and a dozen or so published periodical articles that do take Taylor’s educational views into consideration, to be sure. Yet these studies, which limit themselves to Taylor’s account of the recognition and/or non-recognition of identity in multicultural societies, are insufficient on five accounts: i) they are indifferent to the historical nature of Taylor’s scholarly work; ii) they neglect the philosophical sources of his educational thought; iii) they fail to highlight the interconnections between the key educational themes he takes up; iv) they disregard his major critics and the dialectical tensions raised by these critics; and v) they are somewhat dated in that they do not consider his more recent scholarship. My dissertation seeks to fill these scholarly gaps. My thesis is that an inner logic is implicit in Charles Taylor’s educational thought. I argue that Taylor’s views on the modern condition, (i.e. in his readings of Descartes, Kant, Herder, and Hegel), are closely interwoven with his views on modern education, and that interconnected currents in the modern history of ideas elucidated by Taylor, (i.e. scientific rationality, exclusive humanism, and the ethics of authenticity), have contributed to the rise of, and the sensitivity toward, both the theory and the practice of the politics of recognition in contemporary educational institutions. I conclude that an education for culturally diverse minds and hearts, anchored in human, historical, and epistemological recognition, and democratically open to both immanence and transcendence, is the true calling of Taylor’s educational thought.

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.