HENRIQUE NAGASHIMA MILANELLO

The present research project aims to carry out an analytical-descriptive and analytical-critical comparison of the proposals for the foundation of scientific investigation elaborated by Karl Popper and by Charles Peirce. This comparison will seek to reconstruct the metatheoretical elements mobilized by the two authors in order to reflect on the conditions of possibility of the scientific objectivity they intend from the perspective of a sort of non-foundationalist foundation shared by both. This will lead us to a comparative methodological reconstruction between the approaches of Popper and Peirce in relation to problematic aspects contained in the constitution and apprehension of the phenomenality inherent to empirical social knowledge, through problematizations presented by the transcendental-pragmatic strategy of transformation of philosophy proposed by Karl-Otto Apel and which will lead us to an approach to the limits of antifoundationalism in the philosophies of science of Peirce and Popper.