Revista Filosofía UIS

Vol. 22 No. 2 (2023): July - December
Articles

The Evolution and Validity of Scientific-Technological Constructivism

PDF (Español (España))
  • Juan Carlos Moreno Ortiz,
  • Sara Guzmán Ortiz,
  • Martha Patiño Barragán
Juan Carlos Moreno Ortiz
Universidad Santo Tomás
Sara Guzmán Ortiz
Universidad Militar Nueva Granada
Martha Patiño Barragán
Universidad Militar Nueva Granada
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18273/revfil.v22n2-2023010

Published 2023-07-25

Keywords

  • contingency,
  • construction,
  • realism,
  • relativism,
  • social,
  • metaphysics,
  • constructivism,
  • constructionism,
  • constructionalism
    • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Moreno Ortiz, J. C., Guzmán Ortiz, S., & Patiño Barragán, M. (2023). The Evolution and Validity of Scientific-Technological Constructivism. Revista Filosofía UIS, 22(2), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.18273/revfil.v22n2-2023010

Copyright (c) 2023 Revista Filosofía UIS

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

After several decades of critical discussions and revisions, scientific constructivism seems to have lost its validity. In the face of this assertion, this text offers the following thesis: rather than being worn down, its main approaches and legacies are still valid, and have been transformed into several perspectives that affirm the contingency of science and technology, in a sense compatible with some realist points of view, and in which joint action, co-construction or mutual assembly between several heterogeneous elements and factors are valued. In this way it remains one of the main epistemological and metaphysical perspectives in the social and natural sciences. The transformations that have taken place in relation to constructivism have to do fundamentally with some changes in the way of understanding the concept of construction: limits have been placed on the critical, deconstructive political intentions of construction, and on the monist, and social substantialist sense; and there has been an ontological turn towards a plural, relational, and positive sense of construction. In this text a detailed critical review of the origin, meaning, contributions, misunderstandings and problems of technological scientific constructivism is made, with the purpose of analyzing its evolution, or the way it has evolved and transformed into other points of view, as the title suggests.

PDF (Español (España))

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Ashman, K. y Barringer, P. (eds.). (2001). After the Science Wars. Routledge.
  2. Barnes, B. (1977). Interests and the growth of knowledge, Routledge and K. Paul.
  3. Berger, P. y Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Anchor Books.
  4. Bijker, W., Hughes, T. P. y Pinch, T. (eds.). (1987). The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. MIT Press.
  5. Bloor, D. (1991). Knowledge and Social Imagery. University of Chicago Press.
  6. Bloor, D. (1999). Anti-Latour. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 30(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-3681(98)00038-7
  7. Callon, M. (1999). Whose Impostures? Physicists at War with the Third Person. Social Studies of Science, 29(2), 261-286. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631299029002011
  8. Collins, H. M. y Yearly, S. (1992). Epistemological Chicken. En A. Pickering, Science as Practice and Culture. (pp. 301-326). University of Chicago Press.
  9. Doménech, M. y Tirado, F. J. (comps.). (1998). Sociología simétrica. Ensayos sobre ciencia, tecnología y sociedad. Gedisa
  10. Douglas, J. (1970). Deviance and respectability: the social construction of moral meanings. Basic Books.
  11. Fernández Zubieta, A. (2009). El constructivismo social en la ciencia y la tecnología: las consecuencias no previstas de la ambivalencia epistemológica. Arbor, 185(738), 689-703. https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2009.738n1046
  12. Fish, S. (21 de mayo de 1996). Professor Sokal’s bad joke. New York Times.
  13. Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. University of Chicago Press.
  14. González García, M., López Cerezo, J. A. y Luján López, J. L. (eds.). (1997). Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad. Ariel.
  15. Gross, P. y Levitt, N. (1994). Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  16. Hacking, I. (1990). Natural kinds. En R. Barret y R. Gibson (eds.). Perspectives on Quine. Basil Blackwell.
  17. Hacking, I. (1991). A Tradition of Natural Kinds. Philosophical Studies, (61), 106-126.
  18. Hacking, I. (1992). The self-vindication of the laboratory sciences. En A. Pickering (Ed.). Science as Practice and Culture. (pp. 29-64). University of Chicago Press.
  19. Hacking, I. (1995). Rewriting the Soul: Multiple Personality and the Sciences of Memory. Princeton University Press.
  20. Hacking, I. (1999). The self-vindication of the laboratory sciences. En A. Pickering (Ed.). Science as Practice and Culture. (pp. 29-64). University of Chicago Press.
  21. Hacking, I. (2001). ¿La Construcción Social de Qué? (J. Sánchez, trad.). Paidós.
  22. Hacking, I. (2002). Historical Ontology. Harvard University Press.
  23. Hacking, I. (2007). Natural Kinds: Rosy Dawn, Scholastic Twilight. En A. O'hear (ed.). Philosophy Of Science. (pp. 203-239). Cambridge University Press.
  24. Iranzo, J. M. y Blanco Merlo, R. (1999). Sociología del conocimiento científico. CIS/UP de Navarra.
  25. Iranzo, J. M., Blanco Merlo, R., González de la Fe, T., Torres, C. y Cotillo, A. (comps.). (1995). Sociología de la ciencia y la Tecnología. CSIC.
  26. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The Manufacture of Knowledge. An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Pergamon
  27. Kreimer, P. (2005). Estudio preliminar. El conocimiento se fabrica. ¿Cuándo? ¿Dónde? ¿Cómo? En K. Knorr Cetina, (pp. 11-44). Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.
  28. Latour, B. (1999a). We Have Never Been Modern. Harvard University Press.
  29. Latour, B. (1999b). For Bloor and Beyond-a Reply to David Bloor’s Anti-Latour. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 30(1), 113-129.
  30. Latour, B. (2001). La esperanza de Pandora: ensayos sobre la realidad de los estudios de la ciencia. (T. Fernández, trad.). Gedisa.
  31. Latour, B. (2003). The Promises of Constructivism. En D. Ihde (ed.). Chasing Technology: Matrix of Materiality. Series for the Philosophy of Science. (pp. 27-46). Indiana University Press.
  32. Latour, B. (2008). Reensamblar lo social: una introducción a la teoría del actor-red. (G. Zadunaisky, trad.). Manantial.
  33. Latour, B. (2012). Enquete sur les modes d ’existence. La Découverte.
  34. Latour, B. y Woolgar, S. (1995). La vida en el laboratorio: la construcción de los hechos científicos. Alianza.
  35. Lynch, M. (1985). Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  36. Mannheim, K. (2004). Ideología y Utopía. Introducción a la Sociología del Conocimiento. (S. Echavarría, trad.). Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  37. Mendelsohn, E. (1977). The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. En E. Mendelsohn., P. Weingart y R. Whitley (eds). The Social Production of Scientific Knowledge. (pp. 3-26). D. Reidel.
  38. Monterroza Ríos, A. (2017). Una revisión crítica a la teoría del Actor-red para el estudio de los artefactos. Trilogía Ciencia Tecnología Sociedad, 9(17), 49-62. https://doi.org/10.22430/21457778.616
  39. Moreno-Ortiz, J. C. y Vinck, D. (2021). Encounters between Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Technology and STS. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances. 15(2), https://doi.org/10.4000/rac.23127
  40. Moreno-Ortiz, J. C., Fonseca-Martínez, M., Prada-Rodríguez, M. L., Orrego-Echeverría, I. A., Pérez-Jiménez, J. A. y Rengifo, L. E. (2020). Tecnología, Agencia y Transhumanismo. Universidad Santo Tomás. Ediciones USTA.
  41. Parsons, K. (ed.). (2003). The Science Wars: Debating Scientific Knowledge and Technology. Prometheus Books.
  42. Pickering, A. (1984). Constructing Quarks. A Sociological History of Particle Physics. The University of Chicago Press
  43. Pickering, A. (1995). The Mangle of Practice. Time, Agency, and Science. The University of Chicago Press
  44. Radder, H. (1992). Normative Reflexions on Constructivist Approaches to Science and Technology. Social Studies of Science, 22(1), 141-173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312792022001009
  45. Russell, B. (1918). Mysticism and logic, and other essays. Longman Green.
  46. Sismondo, S. (2010). An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. (2ª ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
  47. Sokal, A. (1996). Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. Social Text, (46/47), 217-252. https://doi.org/10.2307/466856
  48. Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists. Harvard University Press.
  49. Van den Daele, W. (1977). The Social Construction of Science: Institutionalization and Definition of Positive Science in the Latter Half of the Seventeenth Century. En E. Mendelsohn, P. Weingart, y R. Whitley. (eds). The Social Production of Scientific Knowledge. (pp. 27-54). D. Reidel.
  50. Vinck, D. (2010). The Sociology of Scientific Work. Edward Elgar
  51. Zwanenberg, P. y Millstone, E. (2000). Beyond Skeptical Relativism: Evaluating the Social Constructions of Expert Risk Assessments. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25(3), 259-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500301