Pragmatism as a Philosophy of the Science: Correct or Flawed? Letter to the editor

Document Type : Letter to editor

Authors

1 PhD student in Nursing, Nursing and Midwifery School, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

2 Professor, Department of Medical Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Background and Aims: The pragmatism in various studies is considered as the philosophy of science and a philosophical movement. The present study was conducted with the aim of answering the question whether the introduction of pragmatism as a philosophy of science is correct or has problems.
Materials and Methods: In this letter to the editor, first, the studies published in the reliable databases PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL and Google scholar search engine using the keywords Pragmatism, Doctrine/Philosophical Movement, Philosophy, perspective, Worldview until 2023 and also the English equivalents of these keywords in internal databases including Irandoc, Magiran and SID were examined until 1402 without time limit. Finally, the studies were descriptively combined with each other.
Results: According to the definition of philosophy based on the systematic study of general and fundamental questions, such as issues related to existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind and language. Conclusions from the studies and claims of pragmatists show that the answers to these questions are probably not compatible with the spirit of pragmatism.
Conclusion: Due to the fact that pragmatism has not given a clear and definite answer to the basic philosophical questions. On the other hand, the words used have little compatibility with the reality of pragmatism, so there is a need for more studies to answer this question.

Keywords

References

1.    Baert P. Pragmatism as a philosophy of the social sciences. European Journal of Social Theory 2004; 7(3):355-69.
2.    Shields PM. Pragmatism as a philosophy of science: A tool for public administration. 1998.
3.    Shusterman R. Practicing philosophy: Pragmatism and the philosophical life: Routledge; 2016.
4.    Almeder R. A definition of pragmatism. History of Philosophy Quarterly 1986; 3(1):79-87.
5.    Posner RA. What has pragmatism to offer law. S Cal L Rev 1989; 63:1653.
6.    Mullins E. Pragmatism, Humanism and Personalism—The New Philosophic Movement. Review & Expositor 1908; 5(4):501-15.
7.    Heidegger M. Towards the definition of philosophy: A&C Black; 2002.
8.    Creswell JW, Hanson WE, Clark Plano VL, Morales A. Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. The counseling psychologist 2007; 35(2):236-64.
9.    Maarouf H. Pragmatism as a supportive paradigm for the mixed research approach: Conceptualizing the ontological, epistemological, and axiological stances of pragmatism. International Business Research 2019; 12(9):1-12.
10.    Kaushik V, Walsh CA. Pragmatism as a research paradigm and its implications for social work research. Social sciences 2019; 8(9):255.
11.    Herring FW. The Pragmatic Humanism of FSC Schiller. 1956.
12.    Creswell JW, Clark VLP. Designing and conducting mixed methods research: Sage publications; 2017.
13.    Jordan J. Pragmatic arguments and belief in God. 2004.
14.    Hosseini MA, Sepahvand MJ, Mohammadi Shahbolaghi F, Neyseh F, Bagheri Noaparast K. Gap between Theory and Practice in Nursing: Be or Not. 2 Journal of Nursing Education 2016; 5(1):23-9.
 
Navid No
Volume 26, Issue 86
September 2023
Pages 1-5

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics