The central concern of this thesis is to discuss interpretations of learning in educational research. A point of departure is taken in core epistemological and ontological assumptions informing three major approaches to learning: behaviourism, cognitive constructivism and socioculturalism. It is argued that all three perspectives provide important insights into research on learning, but each alone runs the risk of reducing learning and interpretations of learning to single aspects. Specific attention is therefore given to Intentional Analysis, as it has been developed to account for sociocultural aspects that influence learning and individual cognition. It is argued that interpretations of learning processes face challenges, different kinds of holism, underdetermination and the complexity of intentionality, that need to be accounted for in order to make valid interpretations. Interpretation is therefore also discussed in light of philosopher Donald Davidson’s theories of knowledge and interpretation. It is suggested that his theories may provide aspects of an ontological and epistemological stance that can form the basis for interpretations of learning in educational research. A first brief sketch, referred to as ‘epistemic holism’, is thus drawn. The thesis also exemplifies how such a stance can inform empirical research. It provides a first formulation of research strategies – a so-called ‘interpretative holism’. The thesis discusses what such a stance may imply with regard to the nature and location of knowledge and the status of the learning situation. Ascribing meaning to observed behaviour, as it is described in this thesis, implies that an action is always an action under a specific description. Different descriptions may not be contradictory, but if we do not know the learner’s language use, we cannot know whether there is a difference in language or in beliefs. It is argued that the principle of charity and reference to saliency, that is, what appears as the figure for the learner, may help us decide. However, saliency does not only appear as a phenomenon in relation to physical objects and events, but also in the symbolic world, thus requires that the analysis extend beyond the mere transcription of an interview or the description of an observation. Hence, a conclusion to be drawn from this thesis is that the very question of what counts as data in the interpretation of complex learning processes is up for discussion. / <p>At the time of the doctoral defense, the following paper was unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 4: Manuscript.</p>

En este trabajo se examina si de las consideraciones que Donald Davidson ha hecho del caso de la interpretación radical se sigue algo así como una refutación del escepticismo. Se argumenta que tal conclusión no se sigue de las posiciones acerca de la naturaleza del pensamiento y del lenguaje mantenidas por este filósofo americano, ni siquiera con la ayuda del así llamado argumento del intérprete omnisciente. También se rechaza la idea de que concebir su argumentación como un argumento trascendental modesto proporcione mejores resultados antiescépticos. Finalmente se defiende que el mejor modo de articular su posición es como un diagnóstico teórico del escepticismo al estilo del defendido por Michael Williams en su libro Unnatural Doubts. Desde este punto de vista lo que la filosofía davidsoniana haría sería reprochar al escéptico su adhesión al representacionismo y mostrar una alternativa al mismo que explique la posibilidad del pensamiento y del lenguaje. Concebida así la filosofía davidsoniana no constituiría una victoria definitiva ante el escepticismo, sino que más bien mostraría que su posición no es obligatoria y, al menos, garantizaría una presunción de inocencia para nuestras creencias ante el reto del escéptico global. / This work examines whether it follows a refutation of scepticism from Donald Davidson's work on radical interpretation. It is argued that such a conclusion does not follow from Donald Davidson's views on thought and language, not even with the help of the so called omniscient interpreter argument. This work also rejects that such views on language and thought lead to a better result against scepticism when interpreted as a modest transcendental argument. Finally it is claimed that the best way of articulating Davidson's antisceptical strategy is as a theoretical diagnosis of scepticism in a similar vein as Michael Williams has developed in his book Unnatural Doubts. From this point of view what Davidson's philosophy would do is, on the one hand, to reproach the sceptic his adherence to representationism and, on the other hand, to defend an alternative to this philosophical view that explains how thought and language are possible. Conceived of in this way, Davidson's philosophy would not constitute a definitive victory against scepticism. However it would show that scepticism is not compulsory and, at the very least, it would guarantee a presumption of innocence for our beliefs when they face the sceptical threat.

In the framework of the discussions produced after the fiftieth anniversary of Hans-Georg Gadamer’s publication of Truth and Method (1960) this paper intends to address two issues of Gadamer’shermeneutics. The first issue seeks to establish the articulating thread betweenTruth and Method, still attached to the debate with traditional hermeneutics, and some formulations of Gadamer’s later work, where the soul of hermeneutics” isdisplayed as art of listening to the other”. The second issue seeks to highlight the rehabilitation that Gadamer makes of the Socratic-Platonic eumeneîs élenchoi, an expression that he translates as the art of strengthening the discourse of theother”, whose explicitness in his later work has enabled many interpreters of his work to see a possible dialogue between his hermeneutics and some aspects ofthe philosophy of Donald Davidson. / En el marco de los debates producidos después de cumplirse el cincuentenario de la publicación de la obra de Hans-Georg Gadamer Verdad y método (1960) este trabajo se propone abordar dos asuntos de la propuesta hermenéutica del autor. El primero busca establecer el hilo articulador entre el discurso de la obra mencionada, todavía apegado a su debate con la hermenéutica tradicional, y algunas formulaciones de su obra tardía, donde el alma de la hermenéutica” se despliega como arte de escuchar al otro”. El segundo busca destacar la rehabilitación que Gadamer hace de la eumeneîs élenchoi socrático platónica. Expresión que se traduce como el arte de reforzar el discurso del otro”, cuya explicitación en su obra tardía ha posibilitado que muchos intérpretes de su obra vean un diálogo posible entre su hermenéutica y algunos aspectos de la filosofía de Donald Davidson.

This paper aims implementation of selected knowledge, e.g. the principle of charity, which were developed in the framework of analytical philosophy of language (Davidson, Quine) making methodology cultural anthropology, based on interpretative approaches examining social actors / players examination. The first part will be devoted to explanation of thought experiments, e.g. Radical translation, radical interpretation) within the discussion of analytic philosophy of language (Quine, Davidson). The second part will focus on the transfer of this knowledge to make the methodology of cultural anthropology. In the next section we will highlight a breach of the principle of charity. We will focus on critical reflection theories that have been developed in the field of linguistic anthropology, specifically linguistic relativism (Sapir, Whorf). The last part is devoted to the problem rationality which is discussed in the context of Evans Pritchard research of African Azande. These examples point out the methodological errors with anthropologists field research committed to the negative consequences to which it wrong methodological approach led. Keywords: principle of charity, ethnographic research, radical interpretation, translation, Understanding, relativism, rationality