Este breve artículo académico trata un tema que más que puntualmente semántico, es de especial interés para la ciencia en general ya que lleva consigo pistas seguras para evitar las trampas y sesgos de las ideologías que van en contravía con la objetividad.
This short academic article deals with a topic that, more than precisely semantic, is of special interest to science in general since it carries with it safe clues to avoid the traps and biases of ideologies that go against objectivity.
As is well known, epistemology is the arm that possesses the philosophy of knowledge (gnoseology, then) in the matter of everything that science means; that is, epistemology is theory (speculation, open reflection) of everything that has to do with that type of knowledge which carries with it, more than anything else, objectivity (honors reality) and validity (honors a historically assumed logic ); that is to say, science.
And when it is established that gnoseology is the philosophy of knowledge in general and that epistemology is the part of gnoseology that deals specifically with scientific knowledge, it is necessary to say that the latter points in two directions. Epistemology deals with two directions of scientific doing. First ... The one that is consubstantiated with the various problems of the investigation (the method, the criteria of scientificity, etc.). The second ... The one that is consubstantiated with the various problems of the presentation of the results (the living logic in the texture of the "final" discourse, etc.). It must be added that the attached gnoseology in its making of various reflections on the named directions, a third that refers it to axcientology. Axcientology is another arm that gnoseology has and that assumes the theme of ethical and aesthetic problems through which science crosses. They are ethical (substantive) and aesthetic (form) problems, elements such as: The use of information from the human genome in specific personal cases; the moral origin of legal abortion; Is it plausible that aesthetic medicine (cosmiatrics, in short ...) is included as a formal specialty in universities?Well. Having said this, we will refer to the topic that appears in the title of this article.
The view that "one thing is simple social science" is well known, such as sociology, economics, in short, and that "another thing (quite different) is profound human science", such as psychology, semiology, in end. The chewing gum that somehow characterizes the philosophical even allows us to see that there are truly curious cases. We cite two ... The first is that these people who see the matter in such a Manichean way and so contrary to science, go so far as to gobble in the line "human science" theories that place the individual at the center, and this in terms of abstractionisms (spiritualisms, idealisms ...). The second curious case that has been occurring in all this has to do with the solution that others give to the problem ... Instead of talking about social sciences, on the one hand, and human sciences, on the other, they choose to call as "cultural sciences" to all this.
The classical history of Western philosophy, which for many individuals (mostly decadent) is the alpha and omega of university studies coupled with careers and postgraduate degrees in philosophy, tells us in its books a lot of nonsense, but within these sugar-coated nonsense of brilliance there is one that is of enormous importance. It is about the discussion that, in the middle of the 19th century, K. Marx (1818/1883) and L. Feuerbach (1804/1872), among others *, hold in European academic circles about the notion of what is essentially being human (a notion that, obviously, was a condition for starting a scientific theory about such a human object). Feuerbach argued that in essence the human being is, on the one hand, abstraction (spirit, idea, immateriality) and, on the other hand, individuality, personality. More than one gnoseologist calls Feuerbach's position "individualistic abstractionism." On the other hand, Marx argued that, contrary to what Feuerbach proposed, the essence of the human can never be seen in the individual and even less in the abstract; it is actually the set of historically determined social relations. More than one gnoseologist calls such Marx's position "historicist materialism."
Both in the field of popular culture (what we call ideology in epistemology) and in the field of philosophy, blatant or covert biases carried out by power tend to influence duets made up of the word and the idea. It is so. Ah, but even in the context of science, the long hands of ideology do not fail to fulfill their role of going against the truth. Of course ... not to the extent that occurs in the hot streets of vulgar culture, but even so they push to leave -as the police say- their tracks, their traces and their signs.
That said (and in order to gladly conclude this article) we must say that here or beyond what the plethora of ideologies handles (differentially) today about what Marxism is, there is no doubt that in In the aforementioned discussion on this subject of the human essence, Karl Marx placed (philosophical) notions on the path of social science or, what is the same, of human science. It is that if social relations (both biographical and historical) constitute the dialectical entity that determines personal individuality (which after all is human concreteness **), then studying such a factor (objective and determining) in fact, is done possible, then leaving the different manifestations of spiritualism in fields alien to the scientist.
FUENTE DE IMÁGENES: (IMAGE SOURCE:) https://pixabay.com/es/photos/desliz-peligro-descuidado-709045/ https://pixabay.com/es/photos/concierto-ni%c3%b1a-baile-divertida-1209323/ https://pixabay.com/es/photos/mujeres-multitud-protesta-5963963/ https://pixabay.com/es/photos/computadora-port%c3%a1til-diario-escribir-1939358/ https://pixabay.com/es/photos/vasos-gafas-de-lectura-gafas-1246611/