Resulta demasiado frecuente observar errores significativos cuando son asumidas categorías teóricas como por ejemplo, ciencia y epistemología; y el asunto se torna peor cuando es asumida, gnoseología. En este artículo académico se hace lo posible de desatar esos terribles nudos al tiempo en el cual se abren ventanas para que el aire fresco entre y se expanda... ¡Accedan!

It is too frequent to observe significant errors when theoretical categories such as science and epistemology are assumed; and the matter becomes worse when it is assumed, epistemology. In this academic article, we do our best to untie those terrible knots while opening windows for fresh air ... Access!

A few days ago we saw with some amazement an advertisement through Facebook in which a South American university invited educators to attend an online course on "epistemology of didactic resources" ... I add that I have seen even more unlikely situations here, there and there ...

As is well known, science is very special knowledge. It deals primarily with objective reality; yes, the reality of nature and the reality of social relationships. But it also deals with other issues which have their support precisely in objective reality. These other elements of scientific competence are, on the one hand, the dialectical unity of thought, emotionality and language; all of which we have come to call psisemia *, and on the other hand, the process (also dialectical) of objective conformation of human individuality. Science, as is also known, rests all its content both on objectivity (for which it embraces the interesting procedure of verification **), and on rationality (for which it embraces the interesting procedure of a certain logic *** ).

Ah, but since theory is not only science, but also "hot" thought that occurs in social evolution at the point of the dissimilar turns that power gives, then it is reasonable that it be subjected to its evaluation. Yes. Not only is it reasonable that science should be subjected to such "hot" thinking (understand, ideology), but it is inevitable.

Moving away from the straitjacket that has historically been imposed by academic tradition in all hemispheres, it is good to say that what they call "philosophy" is nothing more than ideology sweetened by dissimilar models of power, one of these being, " the prestige". "Academic" prestige, "editorial" prestige, institutional "prestige" (university, state, business, ecclesiastical ...), and so on. No one has in his pocket a kind of "supreme cognitive meter" that in the name of philosophy decrees that this or that ideological turn is indeed "philosophical" or belongs to the motley segment of, as we have already called, the ideological (that is, the vulgar, the cave, the lumpen, the skewed, the ugly, the good, the cruel, the circumstantial, the circumstantial, the beautiful, the convenient, the hot! ...).

It is not that we say that philosophy does not exist; no. What we do say is that philosophy is not something different from ideology assumed temporarily and circumstantially as prestigious, being in all this decisive, social power.

The fields of theoretical doing are, then, science, philosophy and ideology.

For all that has been said, science is permanently subjected to ideological criticism. When this ideological critique "rises" to the proper place of philosophical prestige, it becomes epistemology. Epistemology is, then, philosophy (critical theory) of the contents that in terms of objectivity and in terms of rationality, science forges in its evolution. Examples of the former: the methods, the criteria of scientificity, the arbitrary character of the investigation, the aberrations of factualism and totalism, etc. Examples of the latter: the complex relationship between analytical logic and dialectical logic, the plausibility of the existence of so-called "fuzzy logics", characteristics of scientific discourse, and so on.

When in the wide field of philosophy the scientific subject is assumed in the light of issues interpenetrated with morality (either in aesthetic terms, that is, in form; or in ethical terms, that is, in substance), then the theoretical work does not it is epistemological, since the aspects of objectivity (verification) are not present, nor are the aspects of rationality (logic) present. The aesthetic and ethical bills, seen in this way, are strange to the epistemological. Yes, they enter the scattered field of gnoseology. Epistemology is philosophy (critical theory) of knowledge in general. It is general theory of knowledge or theory of knowledge in general. As it is not difficult to see, it includes science, ideology and philosophy itself, but with the understanding that when the issue of morals linked to science comes to the case, the theoretical production work moves away - then - from the epistemological and it legitimately spreads in the gnoseological. By the way ... that gnoseological work on moral values ​​that science is done, is called axcienciática (recently minted word taken from the Spanish language; we highly recommend going to the book that we recommend at the bottom of the page ****). Axciática is the arm that the gnoseology has to study the ideological values ​​(ethical and aesthetic) that arise in the heat of building and exposing science

We could bring up some excienciatological issues with an aesthetic stamp ... Relations between cosmetology and cosmiatrics; relative character of the notion of beauty and ugliness in aesthetic medicine; anyway ... We could also bring up some excienciatological issues with an ethical stamp ... Is cloning in humans moral ?; misuse of information on the human genome in specific personal cases; scientific knowledge and ends of political violence; anyway...

Either by factual means (experimentation, confrontation of past events, etc.), or by way of qualified evaluations of (fully) constructed theories.