_Abstract_: The sciences achieved consensus amongst their practitioners through emancipation from philosophy. In the first half of the 20 th century, philosophers began to align themselves with science, and most contemporary philosophers call themselves naturalists. Epistemology was still largely considered a philosophical prerogative until Quine’s paper “_Epistemology naturalized_” (1969). Opinion is now divided. Ironically, the prodigious work that secured Jean Piaget’s reputation as a cognitive developmental psychologist was actually carried out largely in service of epistemology. Disillusioned with philosophical speculation and (...) with a background in empirical science (Piaget trained as a biologist), Piaget conceived a method based on psychological and historical evidence to investigate epistemological questions scientifically. In this paper, I outline his genetic-epistemological method and locate it in the discourse on naturalism. I conclude by classifying genetic epistemology according to Goldman’s classification of naturalistic epistemologies and by assessing it in the light of criticism typically levelled at naturalistic epistemologies, before highlighting some salient points for a future scientific epistemology. _Keywords_: Epistemology; Naturalism; Psychologism; Genetic Epistemology; Jean Piaget _Ritorno al futuro dell’epistemologia scientifica? Jean Piaget su scienza ed epistemologia_ _Riassunto_: Le scienze hanno acquisito credito tra gli addetti ai lavori emancipandosi dalla filosofia. Nella prima metà del XX secolo i filosofi hanno iniziato ad allinearsi alla scienza e molti filosofi si definiscono oggi naturalisti. L’epistemologia è stata considerata materia filosofica fino alla “_Epistemologia naturalizzata_” di Quine (1969). Qui le opinioni si dividono. Per ironia della sorte il poderoso lavoro che ha consegnato a Jean Piaget reputazione di psicologo cognitivo dello sviluppo è stato di fatto svolto largamente al servizio dell’epistemologia. Deluso dalla speculazione filosofica e formatosi nell’ambito delle scienze empiriche Piaget (che era un biologo di formazione) ha elaborato un metodo basato sull’evidenza storica e psicologica per dare risposte scientifiche a problemi epistemologici. In questo lavoro intendo illustrare il suo metodo epistemologico-genetico, collocandolo all’interno del discorso sul naturalismo. Concluderò discutendo l’epistemologia genetica in base alla classificazione delle epistemologie naturaliste proposta da Goldman e valutandola alla luce delle critiche tipicamente rivolte alle epistemologie naturaliste, prima di illustrare alcuni punti salienti per una futura epistemologia scientifica. _Parole chiave_: Epistemologia; Naturalismo; Psicologismo; Epistemologia genetica; Jean Piaget. (shrink)

_ Source: _Page Count 30 GER Lloyd discerns two conflicting hypotheses concerning human cognition: cross-cultural universality and cultural relativity. The history of science is one discipline among many actively contributing to our understanding of human cognition at present. Not surprisingly, then, the dichotomy is also present in the history of science. In contrast to current approaches to the history of science, which highlight cultural relativity, genetic epistemology, which is conceived by Jean Piaget as a science of the acquisition of knowledge, (...) emphasises cross-cultural universality. Using the multidimensionality of phenomena and different styles of inquiry, I will argue that there is no inherent contradiction in the different approaches to the history of science. However, the amicable co-existence of both approaches has been undermined by Peter Damerow, who criticised the applicability of genetic epistemology to the historical development of knowledge on historical and theoretical grounds. In this paper, I will review Damerow’s theoretical critique, and, in formulating a response, I will argue that genetic epistemology cannot be dismissed as one of many legitimate styles of inquiry into the history of science on the basis of this critique. (shrink)

_ Source: _Page Count 30 GER Lloyd discerns two conflicting hypotheses concerning human cognition: cross-cultural universality and cultural relativity. The history of science is one discipline among many actively contributing to our understanding of human cognition at present. Not surprisingly, then, the dichotomy is also present in the history of science. In contrast to current approaches to the history of science, which highlight cultural relativity, genetic epistemology, which is conceived by Jean Piaget as a science of the acquisition of knowledge, (...) emphasises cross-cultural universality. Using the multidimensionality of phenomena and different styles of inquiry, I will argue that there is no inherent contradiction in the different approaches to the history of science. However, the amicable co-existence of both approaches has been undermined by Peter Damerow, who criticised the applicability of genetic epistemology to the historical development of knowledge on historical and theoretical grounds. In this paper, I will review Damerow’s theoretical critique, and, in formulating a response, I will argue that genetic epistemology cannot be dismissed as one of many legitimate styles of inquiry into the history of science on the basis of this critique. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 249 - 278 GER Lloyd discerns two conflicting hypotheses concerning human cognition: cross-cultural universality and cultural relativity. The history of science is one discipline among many actively contributing to our understanding of human cognition at present. Not surprisingly, then, the dichotomy is also present in the history of science. In contrast to current approaches to the history of science, which highlight cultural relativity, genetic epistemology, which is conceived by Jean Piaget as a science (...) of the acquisition of knowledge, emphasises cross-cultural universality. Using the multidimensionality of phenomena and different styles of inquiry, I will argue that there is no inherent contradiction in the different approaches to the history of science. However, the amicable co-existence of both approaches has been undermined by Peter Damerow, who criticised the applicability of genetic epistemology to the historical development of knowledge on historical and theoretical grounds. In this paper, I will review Damerow’s theoretical critique, and, in formulating a response, I will argue that genetic epistemology cannot be dismissed as one of many legitimate styles of inquiry into the history of science on the basis of this critique. (shrink)