No resulta prudente hablar de "filosofías científicas"; todo lo cual obliga a transitar con ahínco la crítica... Quizá si hablamos de "filosofías co-científicas" el riesgo toma amortiguadores... Ello, a riesgo de "cobardías epistemológicas"...

It is not wise to speak of "scientific philosophies"; all of which forces criticism to go through hard ... Perhaps if we speak of "co-scientific philosophies" the risk takes buffers ... This, at the risk of "epistemological cowardice" ...

If there is a factor that clearly identifies all that is scientific knowledge, there is no doubt that such a factor is objectification. Yes; Objectification, understood from its earliest and simplest phase, as the procedure by which the knowledge that is forged in the zigzagging work of the investigation, at a given moment has to be confronted with the always stubborn reality, in plan -all it- to see how similar (or how different) these knowledge and that reality are. We call such an elementary moment of objectification verification or verification (for which the hypothesis, as we know, plays a very important role). Ah, but as the simple factual verification (immediate, simple) can lead to falsehood since that "verified" reality may be hiding the total elements that silently determine it, it is then necessary for the qualified theory to intervene in the process. which is historically counted on. We are talking about the historically qualified theory, of course, on the point of reality, which is studied; which is the only way through which the total determinations can, at least, appear. Objectification is, then, one of the golden factors in science, verification being only the beginning of it.

There is another factor that, together with the one just referred to (objectification), seals scientific knowledge in a very clear way. It is logical validity. Logical validity is the condition that a knowledge possesses to honor a historically qualified and consciously assumed logic. When we speak of logic we are referring to a system of ordering ideas and signs in order to register in its fabric, the rules of the game of the reality that is studied. There is, as we know, a logic (relatively simple -which they call analytic-) that is based on the principle of non-contradiction ("a thing cannot be itself and, at the same time and circumstance, its opposite; thus, it is permanent "), a logic (relatively more complex -which they call dialectic-) that is based on the principle of contradiction (" everything is itself to the extent that it is its corresponding opposite; which makes it dynamic ") and others that push to stabilize. Logical validation is, then, another of the golden factors in science, analytics and dialectics being two incunabula references of that.

Well. Both the component that historically qualified theory exercises in the objectification, and the pair of logical models that science has been drawing in the future, embody philosophy; that is to say ... reflection, brooding, speculation, disquisition.

Then the big question (or the big questions) arises ...

Is the risk that historically qualified theories (so permeated with objectification) and logic models (so permeated with logical validation) carry ideological biases and other evils is significant?

• Those historically qualified theories that participate in objectification and those models of organization of ideas and (logical) signs -which participate in logical validation-, can they be qualified as "scientific philosophies"?

In relation to the first ... Well, the risk of falsification (ideological risks and others) that the specific result of hypothesis verification has (verification of relationships between variables) is important as well as that of the philosophies embedded in the interstices of the theories of the whole. In both instances, the phrase "Be careful not to be fooled by the truth" takes on verisimilitude ...

Regarding the second, we have to say that the world of philosophy is diverse, miscellaneous ... Without ambiguity or embarrassment, we express that we know only a trio of specific philosophies that assume the historical tradition of science in terms of knowledge ( provisionally) objectified and validated in logical matters. These specific philosophies are general systems theory, relativity theory, and dialectical-historical materialism. A reference (in creative matters) to the first: Ludwig von Bertalanffy (Austrian, 1901/1972); a reference (in creative matters) of the second: Albert Einstein (German, 1879/1955); two references (in creative matters) to the third: Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (German, 1770/1831) and Karl Marx (German, 1818/1883). However, for reasons of prudence (perhaps cowardice), we prefer to classify them as co-scientific philosophies ...