La tesis de la “colonialidad del saber” es filosóficamente débil e históricamente cuestionable. A través de un análisis de una variedad de textos de autores del “giro decolonial” demuestro que hacen afirmaciones no fundadas respecto a la conexión entre la epistemología cartesiana y las condiciones y relaciones socio-políticas de dominación en América Latina (dominación colonial, explotación capitalista, racismo, sexismo). Sostengo que su conceptualización de las ciencias naturales y sociales, además de su caracterización de la epistemología cartesiana, son superficiales e históricamente (...) discutibles. Concluyo que la relación entre la epistemología y la política que la colonialidad del saber presupone no es plausible y se debe reformular. (shrink)

The din and deadlock of public life in America--where insults are traded, slogans proclaimed, and self-serving deals made and unmade--reveal the deep disagreement that pervades our democracy. The disagreement is not only political but also moral, as citizens and their representatives increasingly take extreme and intransigent positions. A better kind of public discussion is needed, and Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson provide an eloquent argument for "deliberative democracy" today. They develop a principled framework for opponents to come together on moral (...) and political issues.Gutmann and Thompson show how a deliberative democracy can address some of our most difficult controversies--from abortion and affirmative action to health care and welfare--and can allow diverse groups separated by class, race, religion, and gender to reason together. Their work goes beyond that of most political theorists and social scientists by exploring both the principles for reasonable argument and their application to actual cases. Not only do the authors suggest how deliberative democracy can work, they also show why improving our collective capacity for moral argument is better than referring all disagreements to procedural politics or judicial institutions. Democracy and Disagreement presents a compelling approach to how we might resolve some of our most trying moral disagreements and live with those that will inevitably persist, on terms that all of us can respect. (shrink)

In this work I try to show that radical, epistemological constructivism is an untenable thesis. Not so much because the arguments in favor of such a thesis are deficient, but because there are crucial problems that no constructivist seems to have solved and that must be solved in order for it to be possible to even formulate the thesis in question. I also mention a consequence that these considerations have in education. En este trabajo intento mostrar que el constructivismo epistemológico (...) radical es un tesis insostenible, no tanto porque los argumentos a favor de dicha tesis sean deficientes sino porque hasta ahora existen problemas cruciales que ningún constructivista parece haber resuelto y que, sin embargo, deben ser resueltos para poder siquiera formular la tesis en cuestión. También me refiero a una consecuencia que estas consideraciones tienen en educación. (shrink)