Programska knjižnica 9. Lošinjskih dana bioetike - Hrvatsko ...

vladavajućem konceptu apsolutno utemeljena na pozitivističkoj paradigmi,
iako često ne uspijeva izgraditi pouzdane spoznaje kojima može predviđati
posljedice bolesti, odnosno postupanja u dijagnostici, terapiji, rehabilitaciji
itd. Što se bioetike tiče, isti se set spoznajnih problema može prepoznati
kao krucijalan. Prvi korak u njegovom razrješavanju učinjen je od strane
koncepta integrativne bioetike. Autora ovog rada zanima je li moguća izgradnja
jedne integrativne epistemologije bioetike?
ON BIOETHICAL EPISTEMOLOGY
Explanation, Understanding or Integrative Paradigm?
Philosophy of science (and/or epistemology) has dealt with the issue
of the most appropriate paradigm for a long time. Nowadays it is engaged
mostly in solving the problem which occupied the attention of scientists
and philosophers some hundred and twenty years ago. Within social sciences
it was firstly explicitly put on the agenda in the clash of the two
paradigms: positivism vs. historism in Germany, in the so-called Methodenstreit,
which started at the end of the 19th Century when W. Dilthey,
W. Windelband, H. Rickert and others denied the positivist conception according
to which explanation, i.e. revealing causality, was the main task in
researches into social life and historical processes, arguing that social/cultural
world and historical states and processes could only be understood,
and that instead of positivistic methods, the Geisteswissenschaften, Kulturwissenschaft,
or, later, verstehende Soziologie and so on, should, in their
researches, rely only (and/or mostly) upon hermeneutics (ultimately, and in
short, upon understanding).
In fact, the clash was a result of two radically different ontological conceptions.
According to one (positivism), the entire reality, both natural and
social/cultural/historical, is nothing but a more or less complex system of
relations of cause and effect, whereas according to the other social/cultural/
historical realities fundamentally differ from nature, because causality has
no crucial role within them. A few decades later, however, a similar clash
occurred within the most developed science, namely, physics: Einstein vs.
Heisenberg and Bohr; on the one hand, the idea of strict and inevitable
causality in the universe (“God does not play dice”), and on the other, the
idea of absence of cause-effect relations within the so-called micro-world
(atomic and subatomic particles).
138