出版社：Centro Interamericano de Investigaciones Psicológicas y Ciencias Afines
摘要：El presente trabajo constituye una reflexión teórica sobre la vinculación transdisciplinaria entre la Lógica y la Psicología. Como punto de partida se explicitan los tipos de conexión entre disciplinas que caracterizan a las relaciones inter, multi y transdisciplinarias. A continuación, se revisa el psicologismo como un planteamiento en favor de una relación Lógica - Psicología y se presenta al anti-psicologismo como la respuesta a dicho planteamiento. El anti-psicologismo es descrito como un problema para el establecimiento de la relación Psicología - Lógica y por ende se discute la necesidad de eliminar dicho problema antes de esbozar cualquier tipo de relación entre ambas. Se retoman las ideas planteadas por Putnam, Beuchot y Dussel como argumentos para refutar la distinción ser / deber ser entendida como el sustento del anti-psicologismo. Habiendo eliminado el fundamento del anti-psicologismo se posibilita la alteración de la forma en que se discute sobre la relación entre la Lógica y la Psicología a partir de lo cual se presentan, por un lado, con algunos apuntes y ejemplos sobre la forma en que la Lógica puede resolver problemas internos de la Psicología al emplearse herramientas tales como la axiomatización de modelos, el uso de propiedades formales como análogos de funciones psicológicas y el análisis meta-teórico, y por el otro, con la forma en que la Psicología puede proporcionar conocimientos para la construcción de sistemas no-monotónicos de la Lógica y apoyar la didáctica de la Lógica mediante técnicas basadas en la investigación psicológica. El trabajo concluye con algunas ideas que pueden inducir futuros desarrollos de vinculación entre la Lógica y la Psicología.
其他摘要：This paper constitutes a theoretical discussion on the transdisciplinary relationships between Logic and Psychology as a way to give an argument for its legitimacy. This is important because such an enterprise may set the trend to develop better and more explicit ways of dealing with fundamental problems that must be attended in setting up a research project or an applied tool that builds upon a connection between related disciplines. As a starting point three types of connection between disciplines that characterize multi, inter and transdiscipline relations are presented. These relations have specific generate knowledge and develop research methods which distinguish them. The specific relation to whom this paper is directed is the relation between Logic and Psychology. Following this point, psy - chologism is defined as a point of view in which Logic has its origins or can be reduced to a field of Psy chology, as such it is considered as a proposal in favor of a relation between Logic and Psychology and is therefore revisited. Then, antipsy chologism, which stands for a position in which Logic doesn¿t have its origins or cannot be reduced to Psychology, is presented as the response to psychologism. Anti-psychology and Logic and hence the necessity to eliminate such a problem before the shaping of any kind of a relationship between them is discussed. From there on, the paper builds upon the ideas presented by Putman, Beuchot and Dussel to construct an argument that may refute the is / must be distinction understood as the foundation of antipsychologism. Such ideas are specifically: (a) The fact that no distinction between is / must be can be drawn because they are both conventionally constructed, (b) the idea that must be values aren¿t artificial or arbitrary, they have their bases of existence on the nature of the way things are, and (c) that in the description of the nature of things there is a certain value load imbedded in to it. Taken as a whole these ideas show that there is a way to build a balance between values and facts, the is / must be distinction, specifically it is build from the notion that in the empirical description of normality, the general or common way that natural processes occur, a cultural set of values may be inferred, but not in a lineal and asymmetric fashion but more likely as a type of pragmaticdialectic inference that assigns a balance between the two, giving rise to their conventional and mutually constricted nature. Finally, having eliminated the foundation of anti-psychologism the paper continues to describe what may be seen as a shift in the way the relationship between Logic and Psychology is presented. This is done by transforming the vertical discussion from which a reductionist questions are built to a horizontal one in which such questions are replaced by co-elaboration and communication questions. Near the end, the paper presents some notes and examples on the ways in which Logic can solve some internal problems of Psychology, that is: a Logic of Psychology, such as the building of axiomatic models, the use of formal properties as an analog of psychological functions and in the form of a meta-theoretic analysis. The counterpart of this horizontal relationship is the Psychology of Logic which is exemplified by the way in which Psychology may provide knowledge for the constructions of non-monotonic systems and the development of research based teaching tools for Logic. Finally, the paper ends with some themes which may induce future inquiries on the relation between Logic and Psychology, these are: (a) the legitimacy of other type of relations between Logic and Psychology, mainly on the development of no monotonic models, (b) the avoidance of the danger that Logic may become a mathematical recreation, and (c) to continue with a line of work that Kantor stated in 1945.
