@article {1042,
	title = {Metametodologie a naturalismus},
	journal = {Organon F},
	volume = {19},
	number = {1},
	year = {2012},
	pages = {56-77},
	type = {State},
	abstract = {The article deals with the problem of consistency between metamethodology and naturalism in the philosophy of science. In the first part I clarify the concept of metamethodology in light of Lakatos{\textquoteright} methodology of scientific research programs and his four theories of rationality. In the second part I analyze the naturalization of epistemology in Quine{\textquoteright}s perspective and the question whether metamethodology is compatible with his non-normative sort of naturalism. The final part focuses on the Laudan{\textquoteright}s version of naturalism which tries to retain normativity. I analyze Laudan{\textquoteright}s program for justification and appraisal of methodological rules and his attempt to formulate a metamethodological rule, which would be acceptable for all concurrent methodologies. From the naturalistic point of view it seems unacceptable that the naturalistic program would admit inviolable rule. I find such an objection to the metamethodological rule mistaken, but I formulate another objection as to why Laudan{\textquoteright}s rule is unacceptable. I propose my own version of metamethodological rules, which are inviolable but methodologically empty and trivial, and I try to show that the existence of such 	rules represent a worry for normative naturalism, but not a fatal flaw.},
	keywords = {metamethodology, methodological rules, naturalism, philosophy of science},
	url = {http://www.klemens.sav.sk/fiusav/doc/organon/prilohy/2012/1/56-77.pdf},
	author = {Havl{\'\i}k, Vladim{\'\i}r}
}
