Xavier de Donato Rodriguez | University of Santiago de Compostela (original) (raw)
Uploads
Papers by Xavier de Donato Rodriguez
EPSA Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009, 2011
Argumentation, 2013
ABSTRACT Our main aim is to discuss the topic of scientific controversies in the context of a rec... more ABSTRACT Our main aim is to discuss the topic of scientific controversies in the context of a recent issue that has been the centre of attention of many epistemologists though not of argumentation theorists or philosophers of science, namely the ethics of belief in face of rational disagreement. We think that the consideration of scientific examples may be of help in the epistemological debate on rational disagreement, making clear some of the deficiencies of the discussion as it has been produced until now. Another central claim of our paper is that the common view according to which beliefs (and changes of beliefs) may exhibit and commonly exhibit a deontic status can be clarified in the light of Brandom’s approach to normative pragmatics and the pragmatic theories of argumentation that also have a normative character (here our example is van Eemeren’s pragma-dialectics). Our article highlights the similarities between both projects, similarities that to our knowledge were not noticed before. Finally, an important point of the article is that we need to take contextual elements into account in order to develop an adequate theory of disagreement.
Actas Del V Congreso De La Sociedad De Logica Metodologia Y Filosofia De La Ciencia En Espana 2006 Isbn 978 84 9349419 3 Pags 633 637, 2006
In this paper we present a new framework of idealization in biology. We characterize idealization... more In this paper we present a new framework of idealization in biology. We characterize idealizations as a network of counterfactual conditionals that can exhibit different degrees of contingency. We use the idea of possible worlds to say that, in departing more or less from the actual world, idealizations can serve numerous epistemic, methodological or heuristic purposes within scientific research. We defend that, in part, it is this structure what helps explain why idealizations, despite being deformations of reality, are so successful in scientific
practice.
EPSA Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009, 2011
Argumentation, 2013
ABSTRACT Our main aim is to discuss the topic of scientific controversies in the context of a rec... more ABSTRACT Our main aim is to discuss the topic of scientific controversies in the context of a recent issue that has been the centre of attention of many epistemologists though not of argumentation theorists or philosophers of science, namely the ethics of belief in face of rational disagreement. We think that the consideration of scientific examples may be of help in the epistemological debate on rational disagreement, making clear some of the deficiencies of the discussion as it has been produced until now. Another central claim of our paper is that the common view according to which beliefs (and changes of beliefs) may exhibit and commonly exhibit a deontic status can be clarified in the light of Brandom’s approach to normative pragmatics and the pragmatic theories of argumentation that also have a normative character (here our example is van Eemeren’s pragma-dialectics). Our article highlights the similarities between both projects, similarities that to our knowledge were not noticed before. Finally, an important point of the article is that we need to take contextual elements into account in order to develop an adequate theory of disagreement.
Actas Del V Congreso De La Sociedad De Logica Metodologia Y Filosofia De La Ciencia En Espana 2006 Isbn 978 84 9349419 3 Pags 633 637, 2006
In this paper we present a new framework of idealization in biology. We characterize idealization... more In this paper we present a new framework of idealization in biology. We characterize idealizations as a network of counterfactual conditionals that can exhibit different degrees of contingency. We use the idea of possible worlds to say that, in departing more or less from the actual world, idealizations can serve numerous epistemic, methodological or heuristic purposes within scientific research. We defend that, in part, it is this structure what helps explain why idealizations, despite being deformations of reality, are so successful in scientific
practice.