Původní koncept epistémické závislosti podněcoval u ne-expertů nekritickou podřízenost expertním názorům. Ve světle nedávného vývoje ve zkoumání vědy se však skutečná situace epistémické závislosti jeví tak, že zahrnuje nezbytnou a všudypřítomnou potřebu pro laické hodnocení vědeckých expertů. Jelikož expertní vědění znamená omezení poznávacího přístupu k některým epistémickým doménám, laická hodnocení expertního vědění jsou racionální a informovaná pouze tehdy, když se kritéria užívaná ne-experty při posuzování expertů liší od kritérií užívaných experty pro jejich tvrzení. Rozlišení mezi "substanciálním věděním“ a "kontextuálním věděním“ umožňuje laikům poznávat spolu s experty bez toho, že by museli vědět přesně totéž, co oni. Taková meta-expertní hodnocení nejsou specifická pro veřejnou sféru mimo vědu ani nejsou na vědu vnitřně omezená, ale vyskytují se v široké míře kontextů ve vědě a kolem ní. Tento článek legitimizuje koncept kontextuálního vědění jeho vztažením k relevantní literatuře a objasňuje tuto myšlenku pomocí identifikace některých prvků takového vědění., The original concept of epistemic dependence suggests uncritical deference to expert opinions for non-experts. In the light of recent work in science studies, however, the actual situation of epistemic dependence is seen to involve the necessary and ubiquitous need for lay evaluations of scientific experts. As expert knowledge means restricted cognitive access to some epistemic domain, lay evaluations of expert knowledge are rational and informed only when the criteria used by non-experts when judging experts are
different from the criteria used by experts when making their claims. The distinction between “substantial knowledge” and “contextual knowledge” allows for the laypeople to know with experts without having to know precisely what experts know. Such meta-expert evaluations are not specific to the public sphere outside science, nor are they limited internally to science, but they are present in a wide range of contexts in and around science. The paper legitimizes the concept of contextual knowledge by relating it to the relevant literature, and expounds the idea by identifying some elements of such a knowledge., and Gábor Kutrovátz.
V rámci tejto štúdie som sa pokúsil poukázať rozličné ponímanie termínu autorita v európskej a čínskej filozofickej tradícii. Pri týchto skúmaniach som vychádzal z teoretických východísk súčasných predstaviteľov kritickej teórie (frankfurtskej školy), u ktorých je prítomná snaha zakomponovať do svojich úvah o sociálnych procesoch fenomén globalizácie. Jedným z najvýznamnejších štátov súčasnosti je Čínska ľudová republika, ktorá výrazným spôsobom ovplyvňuje svetové dianie. V rámci štúdie som sa pokúsil poukázať na relevantnosť sinologických štúdii, nielen z hľadiska súčasnosti, ale aj z historicko filozofických dôvodov, keďže každá jedna ľudská civilizácia zahŕňa vlastné, aj keď často značne modifikované, ontologické dedičstvo, ktoré, hoci pochádza z obdobia formovania hlavných svetových náboženstiev a prvých filozofických škôl, dodnes ovplyvňuje myslenie a správanie jednotlivcov v rámci týchto civilizácií., In this study I have attempted to show the different perceptions of the term authority in the European philosophical tradition and in the Chinese philosophical tradition. In these investigations I am guided by the viewpoints of contemporary representatives of critical theory (the Frankfurt School) who attempt to incorporate the phenomenon of globalisation into their considerations of social processes. One of the most important states today is the Chinese People’s Republic which has a marked influence on world events. This study attempts to demonstrate the relevance of Sinological studies, not only from the point of view of contemporary times, but also from the historico-philosophical point of view. This is because each human civilisation has its own, albeit often highly-modified, ontological heritage emerging from the period of the formation of the main world religions and the first philosophical schools, and which influences the thought and behaviour of individuals in these civilisations up to today., and Ľubomír Dunaj.
Toto je kritická studie Kolmanovy filosofie vyjádřené v uvedené knize. Autor se zabývá jednotlivými místy v knize, které pokládá za důležité z hlediska celkové koncepce, a dospívá k dvěma závěrům, z nichž jeden je kritický a druhý vyzdvihuje kladné rysy., This is a critical study of Kolman’s philosophy as it is expressed in the book specified in the text. The author concerns himself with specific places in the book which he takes to be important in the overall standpoint, and he comes to two conclusions one of which is critical while the second emphasises positive points., and Pavel Materna.
Príspevok tematizuje pluralitu žánrov filozofickej literatúry a v rámci nej sa sústreďuje na filozofickú esej. Autor podáva stručný náčrt vývinu tohto žánru a na príklade aktuálnych esejí slovenskej filozofky a literátky E. Farkašovej prezentuje niektoré z jeho možností pri reflexii súčasnej doby., The article treats of the plurality of genres of philosophical literature and, in this context, focuses on the philosophical essay. The author provides a concise characterisation of the development of this genre and, using the example of the topical essays of Slovak philosopher and literary critique E. Farkašová, presents several possibilities for reflecting on contemporary times., and Emil Višňovský.
The systematic and interdisciplinary study of relations between technology and culture is at the core of one project at the Karlsruher Institute of Technology (KIT). This text introduces the institutional background of this project as well as some early ac-tivities and first results. After that it focuses on the theoretical foundations for the concepts of technology and culture being used in this project. Based on these thoughts the correlation between technology and culture is being illustrated and some examples of its interdependencies are given. Finally some concluding theses are presented. and Gerhard Banse, Robert Hauser.
Laudanovým príspevkom do filozofie vedy bol jeho pokus odmietnuť hodnotiaci relativizmus zavedený do interpretácií vedeckej revolúcie. Usudzoval, že kľúčovým pre pochopenie vedeckého pokroku nie je približovanie sa k pravde, ale schopnosť teórie riešiť problémy. Preto Laudan navrhol svoj „retikulárny model“, v ktorom je napätie vznikajúce medzi teóriami, metodologickými pravidlami a kognitívnymi cieľmi udržované v dynamickej rovnováhe prostredníctvom pozvoľných a postupných krokov. Problémom tohto modeluje je, že vyžaduje kvalitatívno-kvantitatívne parametre hodnotenia, a pritom jasne neurčuje žiadnu hodnotiacu škálu takéhoto druhu. Retikulárny model teda neprináša efektívne prostriedky na rozlíšenie medzi prijateľným a neprijateľným vývojom vedy. Laudanova metodológia tak nie je normatívnou teóriou schopnou predpísať primerané hodnotiace kritériá v špecifickom kontexte a vymedziť presné podmienky zabezpečujúce vedecký pokrok., Laudan’s contribution to the philosophy of science was an attempt to reject the unacceptable evaluative relativism that had been introduced into the interpretation of the scientific revolution. He concludes that the key to understanding scientific progress is not as an approximation to truth but rather with reference to the problem-solving ability of theories. Therefore Laudan proposed his reticulational model in which the tension that arises among theories, methodological rules and cognitive aims is kept in dynamic equilibrium through a process of gradual, piecemeal adjustment. The problem is that the model is highly qualitative, yet it promises quantitative parameters of evaluation, and it is not clear how a comparative evaluative scale of this sort would be determined. Hence, though the reticulation model is valuable as a description of scientific evaluative practice, it does not provide an effective means for distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable developments. It is inadequate as a normative theory that prescribes appropriate evaluative decisions in specific contexts., and Miroslav Karaba.
This review article focuses on two aspects of Lévi-Strauss’ ex change theory: temporal dimension and gender. First, we examine its diachronic dimension to argue that Lévi-Strauss’ exchange theory is far from being static. Its primary interest is evolutionary, regardless of how much Lévi-Strauss distances himself from evolutionism of the 19th century as a paradigm. His analyses of kinship that attempt to identify elementary structures are meant to shed light on the origins of human culture. Although Lévi-Strauss uses different methodology than other scholars interested in socio-cultural evolution, his treatment of the term homology, discussions of primatology and origins of culture suggest his deep interest in long-term process. Second, we examine the critiques of Lévi-Strauss’ analytical treatment of women as passive objects of exchange among men. Through the discussion of feminine agency, personhood, sexuality, and other forms of exchange of human beings, we argue that Lévi-Strauss’ exchange of women has to be understood in its historical context. He grants only limited agency to women but his approach is definitely not based on commodification of women. In contrast, the relational nature of persons as signs refutes such logic. We conclude that Lévi-Strauss is still a source of inspiration for anthropology regardless of the decades of post-structuralist criticism. and Daniel Sosna, Jitka Kotalová.
The aim of the present paper is to analyse briefly the complicated references to musical composition in the work of Claude Lévi-Strauss. In his monumental tetralogy entitled Mythologiques, Lévi-Strauss considers the musical composition as a paradigm for structural analysis of myths. In this respect, the author compares Lévi-Strauss’ position with that of Pierre Schaeffer whose project of the “concrete music” is strongly criticised by Lévi-Strauss. In the second part of the text, Lévi-Strauss’ structural analysis of Wagner’s operas are examined, as well as the criticism ad dressed to Lévi-Strauss by Jean-Jacques Nattiez - universalist pretension and vagueness of the method based upon binary oppositions seems to represent weak points of Lévi-Strauss’ impressive effort to set new bases for human sciences. and Josef Fulka.