Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2009 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Pessoa, Nemone de Sousa |
| Orientador(a): |
Fossa, John Andrew |
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação
|
| Departamento: |
Educação
|
| País: |
BR
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://repositorio.ufrn.br/jspui/handle/123456789/14322
|
Resumo: |
This work aims to analyze the concept of "paradox" posed in the work of The Budget Paradox (1872) of mathematical and logical English Augustus De Morgan (1806-1871). Here it is important to note that a large part of this book consists of re-prints of a series of writings by the author in journal Athenaeum, where its performance as auditor of literature. The tests refer to some scientific work produced between the years 1489 and 1866 and the rules of selection for the composition of the work is, basically, the methodological aspects used in the completion or disclosed by such scholars. The concept of paradox is presented in two distinct moments. At first, we found a study of definitions for the term in a philosophical approach, characterizing it as something that requires further investigation; which was complemented with the classic examples of a scientific context. In the second, we present a concept advocated by De Morgan and, under this perspective, that he conceptualized the "paradox" is directly related to the non-usual methods employed in the formulation of new scientific theories. In this study some of these scientific concepts are detailed, where, through the redemption history, engaging in issues of our study Mathematics, Physics, of Logic, among others. Possession of the preliminary analysis and comparison with the design of De Morgan, it became possible to diagnose some limitations in the conceptualization suggested by the author. Further, evidenced, in front of the cases, the nonlinearity of the process of production of knowledge and hence the progress of science |
