(Mis)conceptions and reconceptioons about traditional science

Abstract

"Traditional" science (ie, scientific work that has evolved from the natural sciences) is still said to rely on theory-neutral facts, quantitative data, and the search for universal laws. This depiction of science is incongruent with much contemporary thinking. This article examines three shifts in recent philosophy that are relevant for nursing science philosophy: the move from foundationalism to an understanding of the fallibility of science, the shift in emphasis from verification to justification of knowledge claims, and the recent examination of explanation by scientific realists. It is suggested that scientific realism may be a fruitful area of inquiry for philosophers of nursing science.

Avances De La Ciencia De Enfermería Y Su Relación Con La Disciplina

“…La disciplina, de acuerdo a su estructura, se puede dividir en dos tipos; la estructura conceptual de lo que es verdad o de cuál es el conocimiento buscado, y la que se refiere a la estructura sintáctica, que es la forma operacional de cómo se prueba o se verifica lo que es verdad, qué tipo de conocimientos son vertidos, y cómo esos hallazgos se diferencian de aquellos que no son verificados o aceptados a través de ciertas metodologías (Por ejemplo, el método científico a través de la comprobación y testeo de hipótesis de teorías) (7,12,13). Otra teórica señalaba que una disciplina era vista con una estructura (lo conceptual) y un resultado (lo que produce); a la estructura le denominó matriz disciplinaria, que implicaba la interacción entre los elementos de la estructura de la disciplina dentro de un orden, una cohesión lógica que diera un significado (14).…”

The qualitative‐quantitative debate: moving from positivism and confrontation to post‐positivism and reconciliation

“…Such labelling is frequently used to provide contrast to an authors subsequent proposal of an alternative philosophy or method ( Schumacher & Gortner 1992) as demonstrated by Bailey (1997), Horsfall (1995), Darbyshire (1994), Rolfe (1994), Mason (1993), Dzurec & Abraham (1993), Moccia (1988), Allen et al (1986 ) and Tinkle & Beaton (1983) bar many. These authors critiques of positivism highlight the plain inadequacies to nursing of an approach which denies the importance of subjective, social, spiritual and interpretative aspects of the person, their relationships and psychosomatics.…”

“…The philosophy of post‐positivism is increasingly being noted as that which underpins contemporary empirical research activity ( Phillips 1990, Schumacher & Gortner 1992, Dzurec & Abraham 1993, Ford‐Gilboe et al 1995 ). This has severe implications for those mentioned who equate all empirical methods with a positivistic philosophy.…”

“…Like positivism, metaphysical considerations were still deemed to be outwith the sphere of science ( Bronowski 1956). However, in contrast, a realist perspective of science was advocated, with unobservables deemed to have existence and the capability of explaining the functioning of observable phenomena ( Bronowski 1956, Schumacher & Gortner 1992). Theoretical explanations therefore had greater predictive value.…”

Untitled

“…Many of the criticisms levelled at science have been eloquently rebutted (Medawar, 1990;Bauer, 1992;Wolpert, 1992). Some nurses have entered the debate (Schumacher & Gortner, 1992) and have made a plea for supporting the scientific basis of nursing (Neyle & West, 1991), Nursing is both an art and a science, and the science of nursing must evolve •(-*'''• from and be directed towards nursing practice. Although nurses need to be selective in their use and application of traditional science and constructively critical of the role of science within nursing (Neyle & West, 1991), they should be wary of altogether dismissing it.…”