دانشگاه تبریز
فهرست نشریات دارای اعتبار وزارت علوم، تحقیقات و فناوری
پایگاه استنادی علوم جهان اسلام (ISC)

 آمار

تعداد نشریات45
تعداد شماره‌ها1,359
تعداد مقالات16,657
تعداد مشاهده مقاله53,896,438
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله16,506,554
منجمی, علیرضا. (1400). Philosophy of Science Meets the Scientific Research: Metatheorizing expertise theories in Cognitive Psychology. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 15(36), 104-114. doi: 10.22034/jpiut.2021.48331.3006
علیرضا منجمی. "Philosophy of Science Meets the Scientific Research: Metatheorizing expertise theories in Cognitive Psychology". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 15, 36, 1400, 104-114. doi: 10.22034/jpiut.2021.48331.3006
منجمی, علیرضا. (1400). 'Philosophy of Science Meets the Scientific Research: Metatheorizing expertise theories in Cognitive Psychology', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 15(36), pp. 104-114. doi: 10.22034/jpiut.2021.48331.3006
منجمی, علیرضا. Philosophy of Science Meets the Scientific Research: Metatheorizing expertise theories in Cognitive Psychology. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1400; 15(36): 104-114. doi: 10.22034/jpiut.2021.48331.3006

Philosophy of Science Meets the Scientific Research: Metatheorizing expertise theories in Cognitive Psychology

مجله پژوهش های فلسفی
مقاله 8، دوره 15، شماره 36، آبان 1400، صفحه 104-114    اصل مقاله (1.06 M)
نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی- پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22034/jpiut.2021.48331.3006
نویسنده
علیرضا منجمی*
دانشیار گروه فلسفه ، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، تهران. ایران
چکیده
An obvious feature of the development of the philosophy of science during the past decades is an increasing specialization and fragmentation that have led to reduced impact of philosophy of science outside the sphere of its own discipline. It seems that philosophy of science and scientific research are moving away from each other. The major question of this article is how can reconnect these two?To answer this question I will try to highlight some events especially in the fields of social sciences that researchers are involved in discussions, generally related to philosophy of science, not in an abstract and isolated way, but in a way that is completely intertwined in their research practices.  Unfortunately, this phenomenon has not been properly considered by philosophers of science and has remained more as a subject in the field of social sciences, specifically research methodology. It seems that if philosophy of science enters into dialogue with social sciences, we can expect the revival of the philosophy of general science. In this article, I try to show the signs of this phenomenon in cognitive psychology. I will first turn to one of the most influential theories in the cognitive sciences, expertise theory. After reviewing the important theories of expertise and their differences, in the next step I will discuss the seemingly opposing theories in this field and their efforts to find common ground. Then I will review the current movement in cognitive psychology, which I call the “integration model” stream. After a critical review and categorization of these models, I will show that in a broader view in social science, we can realize the meta-theoretical issues that are a good room for a dialogue between philosophy of science and scientific research. In the end, I will point out the horizons that this view opens to the revival of philosophy of general science.
کلیدواژه‌ها
General Philosophy of science؛ cognitive psychology؛ expertise theory؛ metatheory؛ meta-science
مراجع
  • Bates, M. J. (2005). An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models. In K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez, & L. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 1–24). Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science and Technology.
  • Boon, M., Van Baalen, S. (2019) Epistemology for interdisciplinary research – shifting philosophical paradigms of science. Euro Jnl Phil Sci 9, 16.
  • Edwards, M. G. (2014), Misunderstanding Metatheorizing, Res., 31; pages 720– 744.
  • Førde R. (1998). Competing conceptions of diagnostic reasoning--is there a way out?. Theoretical medicine and bioethics, 19(1), 59–72.
  • Gadamer, H.G. (1996). The Enigma of Health: The Art of Healing in a Scientific Age, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Hammond, K (1996). Human Judgment and Social Policy: Irreducible Uncertainty, Inevitable Error, Unavoidable Injustice. Oxford University Press USA.
  • Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. The American psychologist, 64 6, 515-26 .
  • Matthews D. (2006) Epistemic Humility. In: van Gigch J.P. (eds) Wisdom, Knowledge, and Management. C.West Churchman and Related Works Series, vol 2. Springer, New York, NY.
  • Mylopoulos M, Woods NN. (2009). having our cake and eating it too: seeking the best of both worlds in expertise research. Med Educ. May;43(5):406-13.
  • Mylopoulos, M., & Regehr, G. (2007). Cognitive metaphors of expertise and knowledge: prospects and limitations for medical education. Medical education, 41(12), 1159–1165.
  • Mylopoulos, M., & Woods, N. (2014). Preparing medical students for future learning using basic science instruction. Medical Education, 48(7), 667‐
  • Radder, Hans (2012). What Prospects for a General Philosophy of Science? Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 43 (1):89-92.
  • Sober, E (1976). Mental representations. Synthese 33 (June):101-48.
  • Stempsey, WE. (2009). Clinical reasoning: new challenges. Theor Med Bioeth. 30(3):173-9.
  • Thorén, H., Persson, J. (2013) the Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity: Sustainability Science and Problem-Feeding. J Gen Philos Sci 44, 337–355.
  • Wieland, W. (2002). The character and mission of the practical sciences, as exemplified by medicine, Poiesis and Praxis, 1:123-134.
  • Zhao, S. (1991) Metatheory, Metamethod, Meta-Data-Analysis: What, Why, and How? Sociological Perspectives. 34(3):377-390.

 

آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,505
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 528


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب