The Use of Biodigesters in the Treatment of Swine Manure …
101
2017). In this sense, Feyerabend [29], little used to epistemological conservationism,
believed that through iconoclastic and innovative practices, science could contribute
to human development. Especially because any “rule” (such as knowledge or social
experience), even if seemingly “fundamental,” should not become a canon, limiting
knowledge evolution and social transformation and improvement.
In this perspective, a methodological pluralism thesis for different researches
defended by Feyerabend finds support in German physicist Albert Einstein, who
defined insanity as: “to keep doing the same thing and to expect different results.”
Recalling that, for nineteenth-century positivism, scientific knowledge should be
restricted to observable phenomena scrutiny, as well as to experience extracted facts,
marking a conviction by Auguste Comte that science is not entirely objective [19,
72]. Far from the scientific model of the nineteenth century and its reflexes that reach
the present day, social innovation stands out as knowledge and experience aimed at
solving social matters at various levels and challenges imposed by the constantly
changing market. Therefore, it can be seen that in the face of social and economic
demands, social innovation is in constant construction and improvement (Rodrigues
2007; Varadarajan 2014; Manzini 2014; Rao-Nicholson et al. 2017; Van Wijk et al.
2019).
The attitude of proposing paradigmatic changes that make unprecedented worldviews with an innovative impact on society is not new. Kuhn [45], it is worth
mentioning, observed that science is divided into two conceptions, the formalist
and the historicist. In his work “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” he presents
a revolution in the reflection on science. That is, the change in knowledge may be
the result of an innovative paradigmatic change.
Specifically on innovation, with the participation of energy debate in the interdisciplinary field, Hess and Sovacool [36] in their research (with an initial body
of 262 journal articles and books with a stratified sample of 68 published from
2009 to mid-2019) noted that theoretical frameworks associated with Science and
Technology Studies are becoming increasingly prominent in energy research within
social sciences. As an interdisciplinary field, Science and Technology Studies have
no easily demarcated boundaries. This is made clear by demonstrating that students
find, in educational programs around the world, the terms “Science, Technology and
Society” and “Science and Technology Studies” being oftenly used in an equivalent
manner.
Despite the whole process of crystallized knowledge specialization in methodologies and investigative spectra, since the beginning of modernity, there were dissonant
voices that proposed an interface between knowledge and practices in an innovative
manner. For Martins and Monteiro [52], throughout his life as a scientist, John Locke
(1632–1704) worked with different branches of knowledge, such as: epistemology,
education, politics and ethics. His work “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” resulted from the difficulties that arose in solving an epistemological problem,
in which he suggested a previous question about the extent and limit of human
understanding. It is worth saying that the path of sensitive experience as an answer
to his questions allowed the development of a scientific methodology based on an
unprecedented “protopsychology.”
101
2017). In this sense, Feyerabend [29], little used to epistemological conservationism,
believed that through iconoclastic and innovative practices, science could contribute
to human development. Especially because any “rule” (such as knowledge or social
experience), even if seemingly “fundamental,” should not become a canon, limiting
knowledge evolution and social transformation and improvement.
In this perspective, a methodological pluralism thesis for different researches
defended by Feyerabend finds support in German physicist Albert Einstein, who
defined insanity as: “to keep doing the same thing and to expect different results.”
Recalling that, for nineteenth-century positivism, scientific knowledge should be
restricted to observable phenomena scrutiny, as well as to experience extracted facts,
marking a conviction by Auguste Comte that science is not entirely objective [19,
72]. Far from the scientific model of the nineteenth century and its reflexes that reach
the present day, social innovation stands out as knowledge and experience aimed at
solving social matters at various levels and challenges imposed by the constantly
changing market. Therefore, it can be seen that in the face of social and economic
demands, social innovation is in constant construction and improvement (Rodrigues
2007; Varadarajan 2014; Manzini 2014; Rao-Nicholson et al. 2017; Van Wijk et al.
2019).
The attitude of proposing paradigmatic changes that make unprecedented worldviews with an innovative impact on society is not new. Kuhn [45], it is worth
mentioning, observed that science is divided into two conceptions, the formalist
and the historicist. In his work “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” he presents
a revolution in the reflection on science. That is, the change in knowledge may be
the result of an innovative paradigmatic change.
Specifically on innovation, with the participation of energy debate in the interdisciplinary field, Hess and Sovacool [36] in their research (with an initial body
of 262 journal articles and books with a stratified sample of 68 published from
2009 to mid-2019) noted that theoretical frameworks associated with Science and
Technology Studies are becoming increasingly prominent in energy research within
social sciences. As an interdisciplinary field, Science and Technology Studies have
no easily demarcated boundaries. This is made clear by demonstrating that students
find, in educational programs around the world, the terms “Science, Technology and
Society” and “Science and Technology Studies” being oftenly used in an equivalent
manner.
Despite the whole process of crystallized knowledge specialization in methodologies and investigative spectra, since the beginning of modernity, there were dissonant
voices that proposed an interface between knowledge and practices in an innovative
manner. For Martins and Monteiro [52], throughout his life as a scientist, John Locke
(1632–1704) worked with different branches of knowledge, such as: epistemology,
education, politics and ethics. His work “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” resulted from the difficulties that arose in solving an epistemological problem,
in which he suggested a previous question about the extent and limit of human
understanding. It is worth saying that the path of sensitive experience as an answer
to his questions allowed the development of a scientific methodology based on an
unprecedented “protopsychology.”