The extended evolutionary synthesis intends to offer a new framework for understanding evolution based mainly on empirical and theoretical findings of current studies, including heredity and evolutionary developmental biology. In this essay, we present and develop the following objections about the terminology associated with the EES literature: despite using the term "extension," EES protagonists claim new evolutionary processes, reformulate conceptual networks, and modify central assumptions of the evolutionary synthesis. Therefore, the difference between ES and EES should not be described in (...) terms of a set-subset relationship ; despite using the term "synthesis," the EES leads, at least in the short term, to a pluralism of approaches in evolutionary biology. Thus, we argue that the EES should not be described as a synthesis, but as a broad and plural interpretative framework encompassing different approaches. These objections are not directed to the proposed changes, but to the interpretation of these changes as a mere expansion of the previous evolutionary framework, as well as to the interpretation of the EES as a synthesis. Based on these objections, we seek to present some explanations for the use of the term "extended synthesis" among its protagonists. (shrink)

In the first half of the 20 th century, philosophers of science used to sustain that the correct theory acceptance in science derived from their conforming to certain rules. However, from the historicist and practical turn in the philosophy of science, the theory acceptance started to be analyzed based on values rather than on a priori established rules. In this article, I will present four paradigmatic positions on the role of values in science. The first position, articulated by Hugh Lacey, (...) defends a regulative ideal of 'impartiality' in the acceptance of scientific theories as established. The other positions convey arguments that seem to conflict with this ideal. I characterize them as 'blind spot argument', 'inductive risk argument' and 'trust-based acceptance argument'. Based on this analysis, I will defend two main theses. My first thesis is that the ideal of impartiality is compatible with the arguments just mentioned. My second thesis is that the defense of impartiality has the advantage of providing a support for the epistemic authority of properly established scientific knowledge. Following Lacey, I will argue that theories can only be accepted as established under specified domains of phenomena. However, theories are accepted for other purposes, for example, when they are adopted to develop research or when they are endorsed to inform the legitimacy of an action. In such cases of theory acceptance, impartiality is neither possible nor desirable, which requires the support of other ideals. (shrink)

Este trabalho tem por objetivo refletir sobre a emergência da modernidade, a consolidação do pensamento científico moderno e suas consequências especificamente indesejáveis no domínio da política. Para isso, baseio-me no pensamento de Hannah Arendt. Arendt destaca três eventos como os principais precursores da era moderna: a exploração dos continentes, a Reforma e a invenção e utilização do telescópio. Discuto brevemente a relação desses eventos com a alienação do mundo, tal como entendida por Arendt, e me aprofundo nas novidades relativas à (...) ciência. Menciono Galileu e a revolução copernicana, o método experimental e quantitativo, o papel da fabricação de instrumentos na produção do conhecimento, o critério avaliativo de sucesso prático e o raciocínio lógico-matemático como elementos que passam a moldar a atividade científica. A partir daí, destaco a tendência, descrita por Arendt, do pensamento científico moderno em abarcar os mais diversos campos da vida cotidiana, especialmente seu âmbito público. Concluo destacando o modo como o pensamento cientificista – que possui características próprias do homo faber – mina a possibilidade de ação quando adentra a esfera política. Na medida em que “ser livre e agir é a mesma coisa”, impede também a manifestação da liberdade. Mais do que isso, abordo como o cientificismo vai à contramão da pluralidade, da singularidade e da espontaneidade humanas. Os governos totalitários e as sociedades de consumo são exemplos extremos e reais do que a racionalidade do homo faber pode fazer quando substitui o campo da ação. Ao finalizar, destaco um grande desafio que temos pela frente. (shrink)