The dynamic nature of scientific knowledge: an epistemological look at the research activity of human hand anthropometry
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/cid202372Keywords:
Epistemology, Scientific Knowledge, Hand AnthropometryAbstract
This research focuses on analyzing the dynamic nature of scientific knowledge from an epistemological perspective, focusing specifically on anthropometric research of the human hand. The main objective of this study is to examine how knowledge is generated and evolves in this field, in the light of epistemological theories such as Lakatos'. Key concepts of epistemology and philosophy of science are addressed, including the theories of Lakatos, Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend. Subsequently, Lakatos' theory of Scientific Investigation Programs (SIPs) is applied to the field of hand anthropometry, identifying its fundamental core (which refers to the belief in the relevance of hand measurements) and its protective belt (comprising auxiliary theories and methods). It discusses how both heuristics and empirical evidence drive the evolution of knowledge in this field, also emphasizing the importance of creative inquiry, scientific debate, and methodological rigor. Ultimately, it is concluded that anthropometric research eloquently exemplifies the inherent dynamic nature of scientific knowledge
References
1. Nesher D. On Kant doing philosophy and the Peircean alternative. Semiotica 2023;2023:1–38. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2022-0022.
2. Ascanio VT, Ron M, Hernández-Runque E, Sánchez-Tovar L, Hernández J, Jiménez M. Trabajadores con discapacidad y significación del proceso Salud-Trabajo. Visibilizando claves para la prevención. Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología 2022;2:224–224. https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt2022224.
3. Ron M, Pérez A, Hernández-Runque E. Nivel de riesgo para la salud y predicción del dolor musculo-esqueletico en trabajadores en condiciones de teletrabajo: Un enfoque matricial. Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation / Rehabilitacion Interdisciplinaria 2023;3:40–40. https://doi.org/10.56294/ri202340.
4. Agassi J. Popper and His Popular Critics: Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06587-8.
5. Johansson L-G. Theories About the Development of Science. In: Johansson L-G, editor. Philosophy of Science for Scientists, Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2016, p. 103–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26551-3_6.
6. Lakatos I. History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970;1970:91–136. https://doi.org/10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1970.495757.
7. Ramírez ME, Ron M, Mago G, Hernandez–Runque E, Martínez MDC, Escalona E. Proposal for an epidemiological surveillance program for the prevention of occupational accidents and diseases in workers exposed to carbon dioxide (CO2) at a Venezuelan brewing company. Data and Metadata 2023;2:55–55. https://doi.org/10.56294/dm202355.
8. Orensanz M, Denegri G. Helminthology according to the philosophy of science of Imre Lakatos. Salud Colect 2017;13:139–48. https://doi.org/10.18294/sc.2017.1134.
9. Mitra S. An Analysis of the Falsification Criterion of Karl Popper: A Critical Review. Tattva Journal of Philosophy 2020;12:1–18. https://doi.org/10.12726/tjp.23.1.
10. Anand G, Larson EC, Mahoney JT. Thomas Kuhn on Paradigms. Production and Operations Management 2020;29:1650–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13188.
11. Shaw J. Was Feyerabend an anarchist? The structure(s) of ‘anything goes.’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 2017;64:11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.06.002.
12. Guna ASF, Ramadhani F. Metodologi Program Riset Imre Lakatos. JURNAL PENDIDIKAN ISLAM AL-ILMI 2021;4. https://doi.org/10.32529/al-ilmi.v4i1.934.
13. Assya’bani R. Methodology of Scientific Reseacrh Programmes Imre Lakatos: Implikasi Terhadap Studi dan Pendidikan Islam. AT-TURAS: Jurnal Studi Keislaman 2020;7:218–31. https://doi.org/10.33650/at-turas.v7i2.1053.
14. Cardoza W, Rodriguez C, Pérez-Galavís A, Ron M. Work psychosocial factors and stress in medical staff in the epidemiology area of a public institution. Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation / Rehabilitacion Interdisciplinaria 2023;3:52–52. https://doi.org/10.56294/ri202352.
15. Coello XP, Garrido RS. Imre Lakatos: Los programas de investigación científica. Revista Honoris Causa 2021;13:109–16.
16. Quispe IZ, Ron M, Hernandéz-Runque E, Escalona E, Trovat-Ascanio V. Evaluación ergonómica del puesto de trabajo colgador de pollo en empresa beneficiadora de aves. Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología 2022;2:217–217. https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt2022217.
17. Sürücü L, Maslakçi A. Validity and reliability in quantitative research. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal 2020;8:2694–726. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i3.1540.
18. Nadadur G, Parkinson MB. Extrapolation of Anthropometric Measures to New Populations. SAE Int J Passeng Cars – Electron Electr Syst 2008;1:567–73. https://doi.org/10.4271/2008-01-1858.
19. De Stefani A, Barone M, Hatami Alamdari S, Barjami A, Baciliero U, Apolloni F, et al. Validation of Vectra 3D Imaging Systems: A Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2022;19:8820. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148820.
20. Ron M, Pérez A, Hernández-Runque E. Prevalencia del dolor músculo esquelético auto-percibido y su asociación con el género en teletrabajadores/as del tren gerencial de una empresa manufacturera de alimentos venezolana. Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation / Rehabilitacion Interdisciplinaria 2023;3:51–51. https://doi.org/10.56294/ri202351.
21. Ron M, Escalona E. Revisión sistemática sobre metodologías en estudios de antropometría y fuerza de mano en trabajadores. Salud de los Trabajadores 2021;29:128–45.
22. Boon M, Van Baalen S. Epistemology for interdisciplinary research – shifting philosophical paradigms of science. Euro Jnl Phil Sci 2018;9:16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-018-0242-4
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Misael Ron, Evelin Escalona (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
