The method in science: origin and divergences according to Ruy Pérez Tamayo
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29312/remexca.v13i8.3353Keywords:
hypothetico-deductive method, inductivist method, philosophy of scienceAbstract
Scientists have the challenge of studying different phenomena, this leads them to raise a diversity of questions that are answered using different research methods that also vary depending on the degree of development of each particular area of knowledge. Despite this diversity in science, there is the connotation that there is only one scientific method: the hypothetico-deductive method. This article takes up the work by Ruy Pérez Tamayo: does the scientific method exist? to go through the historical development of various methods and concepts relevant to science with the aim of allowing the reader to have a vision that is holistic but focused on the various methods and tools to do science.
Downloads
References
Aguilera, B. y Pino, B. R. 2019. Sobre el aporte de la filosofía a las teorías de conceptos en ciencia cognitiva. Rev. Filosofia. 76:7-27.
Arana, J. 2014. El papel de la filosofía con respecto a las relaciones entre fe y ciencia. Scientia et Fides. 2(1):159-178.
Ariza, Y.; Lorenzano, P. y Adúriz, B. A. 2020. Bases modeloteóricas para la ciencia escolar: La noción de “comparabilidad empírica”. Estudios Pedagógicos. 46(2):447-469.
Bernabé, F. N. 2019. Androcentrismo, ciencia y filosofía de la ciencia. Rev. Humanid. Valpar.(14):287-313.
Burgos, L. R.; Burgos, F. N.; Gilsanz, R. F.; Téllez, P. G. y Rodríguez, M. J. A. 2020. Aristóteles: creador de la filosofía de la ciencia y del método científico (parte I). Anales de la Real Academia de Doctores de España. 5(2):279-295.
Cassini, A. 2013. Sobre la historia de la filosofía de la ciencia. A propósito de un libro de C. Ulises Moulines. Crítica. Rev. Hispanoam. Filosof. 45(134):69-97.
Cleland, C. E. 2001. Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method. Geology. 29(11):987-990.
De Hoyos, B. S. M. 2020. El método científico y la filosofía como herramientas para generar conocimiento. Rev. Filosof. UIS. 19(1):229-245.
Dzurec, D. J. and Dzurec, L. C. 1992. Philosophical paradigms framing food science research. Trends in Food Sscience & Technology. 3:78-80.
Errecaborde, K. M.; Rist, C.; Travis, D. A.; Ragan, V.; Potter, T.; Pekol, A.; Pelican, K. and Dutcher, T. 2019. Evaluating one health: the role of team science in multisectoral collaboration. Revue Scientifique et Technique. 38(1):279-289.
Feinstein, A. R. y Horwitz, R. I. 1982. Double standards, scientific methods, and epidemiologic research. New england journal of medicine. 307(26):1611-1617.
França, T. F. A. and Monserrat, J. M. 2019. Reproducibility crisis, the scientific method, and the quality of published studies: untangling the knot. Learned publishing. 32(4):406-408.
Griesemer, J. 1985. Philosophy of science and “The” scientific method. American Biology Teacher. 47(4): 211-215.
Hill, L. 1985. Biology, philosophy, and scientific method. Journal of Biological Education. 19(3):227-231.
Hodson, D. 1996. Laboratory work as scientific method: three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 28(2):115-135.
Hoover, K. D. y Wible, J. R. 2020. Ricardian inference: charles s. peirce, economics, and scientific method. Transactions of the charless peirce society. 56(4):521-557.
Inverso, H. 2019. Phenomenological problem and husserlian construction of adversaries in “philosophy as rigorous science”. Ideas y Valores. 68(171):251-277.
Ioannidou, O. y Erduran, S. 2021. Beyond hypothesis testing: investigating the diversity of scientific methods in science teachers’ understanding. Science and Education. 30:345-364.
Maat, H. 2011. The history and future of agricultural experiments. NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences. 57(3):187-195.
Orensanz, M. y Denegri, G. 2017. La helmintología según la filosofía de la ciencia de imre lakatos. Salud Colectiva. 13(1):139-148.
Pérez, T. R. 1998. ¿Existe el método científico? historia y realidad. Editorial. El colegio nacional y fondo de cultura económica. Ciudad de México, México. 301 p.
Smiatek, J.; Jung, A. and Bluhmki, E. 2021. Validation is not verification: precise terminology and scientific methods in bioprocess modeling. Trends in Biotechnology. 39(11):1117-1119.
Sousa, C. 2016. The scientific methods of biology, starting with charles darwin. American Biology Teacher. 78(2):109-117.
Succi, S. and Coveney, P. V. 2019. Big data: the end of the scientific method? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society a: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 377(2142):1-15.
Teixeira, E. S.; Freire, O. J. y Greca, I. M. 2015. La enseñanza de la gravitación universal de newton orientada por la historia y la filosofía de la ciencia: una propuesta didáctica con un enfoque en la argumentación. Enseñanza de las Ciencias. 33(1):205-223.
Vigue, L. C. 1980. Towards a more realistic view of science and the scientific method. The American Bology Teacher. 42(4):235-237.
Villalobos, A. J. V.; Guerrero, J. F.; Ramírez, M. R. I.; Díaz, C. L.; Ramos, M. Y.; Enamorado, E. J. y Ruiz, G. G. I. 2020. Karl popper y heráclito: antecedentes y problemas actuales de la filosofía de la ciencia. Opción. 36(92):984-1018.
Voit, E. O. 2019. Perspective: dimensions of the scientific method. PLoS Computational Biology. 15(9):1-14.
Wivagg, D. and Allchin, D. 2002. The dogma of “The” scientific method. American biology Teacher. 64(9):645-646.
Yin, R. K. 2017. Case study research and applications: design and methods. 6ta. Ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. 352 p.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The authors who publish in Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas accept the following conditions:
In accordance with copyright laws, Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas recognizes and respects the authors’ moral right and ownership of property rights which will be transferred to the journal for dissemination in open access. Invariably, all the authors have to sign a letter of transfer of property rights and of originality of the article to Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP) [National Institute of Forestry, Agricultural and Livestock Research]. The author(s) must pay a fee for the reception of articles before proceeding to editorial review.
All the texts published by Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas —with no exception— are distributed under a Creative Commons License Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which allows third parties to use the publication as long as the work’s authorship and its first publication in this journal are mentioned.
The author(s) can enter into independent and additional contractual agreements for the nonexclusive distribution of the version of the article published in Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas (for example include it into an institutional repository or publish it in a book) as long as it is clearly and explicitly indicated that the work was published for the first time in Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas.
For all the above, the authors shall send the Letter-transfer of Property Rights for the first publication duly filled in and signed by the author(s). This form must be sent as a PDF file to: revista_atm@yahoo.com.mx; cienciasagricola@inifap.gob.mx; remexca2017@gmail.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International license.
