Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Rhetoric and double hermeneutics in the human sciences.Dimitri Ginev - 1998 - Human Studies 21 (3):259-271.
    Based on an analysis of double hermeneutics in the human sciences, a distinction between a weak and a strong rhetorical analysis of human-scientific research is introduced, taking account of the self-reflective character of hermeneutic interpretation. The paper argues that there are three hermeneutic topics in the research process for human-scientific experience, which are associated with applying specific rhetorical tools. The three topics are described under the following rubrics: (a) bridging the gap between experience-near and experience-distant concepts; (b) achieving integrity of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • On the hermeneutic fore-structure of scientific research.Dimitri Ginev - 1999 - Continental Philosophy Review 32 (2):143-168.
    The paper provides an overview of the hermeneutic and phenomenological context from which the idea of a “constitutional analysis” of science originated. It analyzes why the approach to “hermeneutic fore-structure of scientific research” requires to transcend the distinction between the context of justification and the context of discovery. By incorporating this approach into an integral “postmetaphysical philosophy of science”, I argue that one can avoid the radical empiricism of recent science studies, while also preventing the analysis of science's discursive practices (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Ethnomethodological and Hermeneutic-Phenomenological Perspectives on Scientific Practices.Dimitri Ginev - 2013 - Human Studies 36 (2):277-305.
    The paper presents a comparative analysis between hermeneutics and ethnomethodology of science. A careful examination of the approaches suggested by the two programs not only demonstrates that a non-essentialist inquiry of scientific practices is possible, it also reveals how the significant methodological differences between these (post-phenomenological) programs inform divergent pictures of science’s practical rationality. The role these programs play in the debates on science’s cognitive autonomy is illuminated by spelling out the idea of the internal criticism of scientific research they (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation