The ArgumentTwo dominant models of criticism are identified and analyzed. One is selfconsciously normative. It conceives of criticism as subject to strict logical rules. The other views itself as essentially descriptive and accounts for the critical activity in terms of social factors. In spite of their different origins and purposes, it is argued that both models share a reductionistic thrust, which minimizes the role of the critic qua agent. It is further agreed that neither provides an adequate account of critical (...) activity and its role in science. (shrink)

These introductory remarks are unorthodox in many respects. The deviance from usual practice is justified by the extreme importance I attach to the subject matter of this special issue. I want to convey to the reader a sense of why I think controversies, particularly in science, are so crucial, and to propose a different way of thinking about them. This mandates, in the limited space available, a compact presentation, omitting supporting arguments and necessary elaboration — for which the reader is (...) referred to the bibliography. (shrink)

Frente a interpretaciones que destacan varias etapas de evolución del pensamiento husserliano queremos mostrar la manera en que las preocupaciones fundamentales de su filosofía, la fundamentación de la ciencia, el significado de la objetividad, la lucha contra el empirismo, marcan desde el comienzo su camino. Nos centramos en el tema de la normalidad como punto de entrada a una interpretación no reduccionista del tema de la intersubjetividad, como constitución del yo a través del otro, como resultado de una anormalidad fundante, (...) y del mundo de la vida como base para realizar una comparación con las interpretaciones del profesor Guillermo Hoyos en su libro Investigaciones fenomenológicas. (shrink)