Show simple item record

Ciencia, ideología e investigación social: comentarios sobre un artículo de Chavarría (2011)/Science, ideology and social research: Comments on an article by Chavarria (2011)

dc.creatorBueno, Roberto
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-19T16:18:44Z
dc.date.available2015-05-19T16:18:44Z
dc.date.issued2014-06-15 00:00:00
dc.identifier.citationhttp://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/actualidades/article/view/14893
dc.identifier.issn
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10669/12709
dc.description.abstractFrom the view of what Brown (2001) calls “Scientific Orthodoxy” three arguments stated by Chavarría (2001) in her introducing of the complexity paradigm are critically analyzed: 1. The modern scientific advances have demonstrated that objectivity in science is impossible and reality is uncertain and indeterminate; 2. The validity of scientific knowledge does not depend (or does not only depend) on cognitive criteria but essentially on social and political criteria, and 3. Scientific orthodoxy supports a methodological view of science, and the shortcomings and insufficiencies in the practice of many researchers (for example, lack of theory) are inherent features of quantitative and objective research. Therefore, it is concluded that education and training in social research cannot be based on a relativist view of reality and knowledge and on the confusing of science and ideology.
dc.description.abstractDesde la visión de lo que Brown (2001) denomina “Ortodoxia Científica” se analizan críticamente tres argumentos establecidos por Chavarría (2011) en su presentación del paradigma de la complejidad: 1. Los avances de la ciencia moderna han demostrado que la objetividad científica es imposible y que la realidad está sujeta a formas irreductibles de incertidumbre e indeterminismo; 2. La validez del conocimiento científico no depende de (o sólo de) criterios cognoscitivos, sino esencialmente sociales y políticos y 3. La Ortodoxia Científica propugna una concepción metodológica de la ciencia y las limitaciones e insuficiencias en la práctica de muchos investigadores (por ejemplo, la pobreza teórica) es un rasgo inherente de las investigaciones cuantitativas y objetivas. A partir de dicho análisis, se concluye que la formación en investigación social no puede sustentarse en una visión relativista de la realidad y del conocimiento y en la confusión entre ciencia e ideología. AbstractFrom the view of what Brown (2001) calls “Scientific Orthodoxy” three arguments stated by Chavarría (2001) in her introducing of the complexity paradigm are critically analyzed: 1. The modern scientific advances have demonstrated that objectivity in science is impossible and reality is uncertain and indeterminate; 2. The validity of scientific knowledge does not depend (or does not only depend) on cognitive criteria but essentially on social and political criteria, and 3. Scientific orthodoxy supports a methodological view of science, and the shortcomings and insufficiencies in the practice of many researchers (for example, lack of theory) are inherent features of quantitative and objective research. Therefore, it is concluded that education and training in social research cannot be based on a relativist view of reality and knowledge and on the confusing of science and ideology.
dc.format.extent67-80
dc.relation.ispartofActualidades en Psicología Vol. 28 Núm. 116 2014
dc.subjectEpistemología
dc.subjectideología
dc.subjectinvestigación social
dc.subjectobjetividad
dc.titleScience, ideology and social research: Comments on an article by Chavarria (2011)
dc.titleCiencia, ideología e investigación social: comentarios sobre un artículo de Chavarría (2011)/Science, ideology and social research: Comments on an article by Chavarria (2011)
dc.typeartículo original
dc.date.updated2015-05-19T16:18:44Z
dc.language.rfc3066es
dc.identifier.doi10.15517/ap.v28i116.14893


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record