ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

DEVELOPMENT

Calderón and Vélez (2018) explain that the emergence of sciences within philosophy has led to the use of the same terms for different purposes, as is the case of Gnoseology and Epistemology. Gnoseology, which comes from the Greek "gnosis" meaning knowledge, and "logos" referring to study, is expressed as the theory of knowledge. On the other hand, Ceberio and Watzlawick (1988) explain that Epistemology, from the Greek "episteme" meaning science, and "logos" referring to treatment, is a branch of philosophy concerned with investigating the foundations, limits, methods and truth of knowledge.

According to Vélez & Pérez (2019), the term "epistemology" has an etymological meaning of "Treatise on science". The study of epistemology has gained great importance during the twentieth century, through the main scientific circles such as the Vienna Circle, the Frankfurt School and the Eranos Circle. These circles have constantly searched for appropriate methods, criteria of validity and premises for scientific work. The main issues addressed by epistemology are paradigm, method and approach to research.

Hoyos (2001) argues that epistemology deals with the problems of knowledge and the correspondence between subject and object. On the other hand, Ñaupas et al. (2015) point out that the term "gnoseology" was coined by Kant and refers to knowledge in general, that is, to the domain of facts. For its part, axiology, ethics or morality is related to the knowledge of aesthetic beauty. In this context, epistemology deals with the study of knowledge in general, from the point of view of its principles, structure and purpose. Epistemology seeks to establish the correspondence between thought and facts, as well as between the human being and his cosmos.

It is important to emphasize that Gnoseology deals with the cognitive aspect, including its principle, characteristics and results. It reveals the relationship between thought and object, as well as the relationship between the human being and his universe. In addition, it seeks to answer the philosophical problem of matter and reason: what is the initial, matter or reason? Is there a universe independent of reason? Is cognition possible? Can a connection between subject and object be established? Under these questions, both materialistic knowledge, which studies matter and then consciousness, and idealistic knowledge, which places consciousness first and then matter, are argued (Ñaupas et al., 2015).

According to Significados (2022), although some authors consider that Gnoseology is similar to epistemology, there are differences. Gnoseology is related to the development of scientific research, focusing on facts, hypotheses, laws and theories that represent the highest level of knowledge and science. On the other hand, Gómez (2017) indicates that theoretical knowledge is part of philosophy and is called epistemology. Various fields of human sciences, such as psychology and neurology, address this area of knowledge in both its structure and function. However, the question of the existence of knowledge is typical of philosophy.

Calderón & Vélez (2018) explain that just as the particular sciences had their origin in Philosophy, Gnoseology was the precursor of Epistemology, arising from moments of genius since ancient Greece. Epistemology goes beyond opinions and isolated data, entering into the forms of knowledge through rational congruence and the identification of the causes of things. On the other hand, Ramirez (2009) points out that Gnoseology is the gateway to the conscious and deliberate apprehension of aspects of the object and the subject. In the process of knowledge, the object of study is fundamental, since information is obtained from it. Epistemology also studies knowledge, but the difference lies in the fact that Gnoseology validates knowledge, that is, it determines its validity.

Kant (1724-1804 AD; cited by Calderón & Vélez, 2018) raised the debate in Gnoseology on whether reality imposes its patterns on the subject (objectivity) or whether it is the subject that imposes its mental models on reality (subjectivity). Calderón & Vélez (2018) explain that in Epistemology they seek to consider the relationship between subject and object, but no longer on a general and abstract plane, but in more concrete and specific situations. Here, people with particular interests seek to know a specific reality.

Likewise, the conduct of research depends to a great extent on Gnoseology and Epistemology, which are fundamental mechanisms in scientific production. According to Ramirez (2009, p. 5), through Gnoseology, hypotheses are formulated, processed with mathematical models to validate them and finally valid and repeatable conclusions are obtained. Hessen (1925) explained that by observing the relationship between the subject and the object, we face the central problem of Gnoseology. Phenomenological representation characterizes the interaction between the object and the subject. However, the question arises as to whether natural consciousness is true. Many important philosophers have defined this relation in a contrary way. Cognizing consciousness not only deals with its object, but is also active and spontaneous. It is important to question which of the two illustrations of the process of knowledge is correct. This question about "the nature of human knowledge" is fundamental.

Ramirez (2009) explains that, during scientific research, Gnoseology is used to support and test the scientific process in the resolution of unknown problems, with the objective of understanding the principles and laws that support the objects and their universe. Gnoseology has its own system that is complemented by statistics and the hypothetico-deductive/inductive method to perform probability calculations. Furthermore, it is emphasized that Gnoseology is a theory of knowledge in the context of scientific research, and its application generates correct answers based on an evolutionary theory. It is important to keep in mind that utility refers to the ability of a resource to address a hypothesis, and many researchers should understand that the beginning of the search for knowledge, called "Gnoseology", should be harnessed with that goal in mind. In short, Gnoseology is "useful" in order to satisfy an informational need in a practical way.

For his part, Salazar (2020, p.22) argues that theories of knowledge are derived from Gnoseology, which become fundamental functions in epistemological discussions. Meanwhile, in Meanings (2022) postulates that Epistemology, as a branch of philosophy that studies the origin, scope and nature of human knowledge, should be an integral part of scientific research. Given these understandings of Gnoseology, and to avoid overlaps with Epistemology, the following quote from Bunge (2002, p.92, cited by Vélez & Pérez, 2019) is taken up: "Gnoseology deals with the elements and programs of each science, this is how the composition of science, philosophy and population should be approached".

Philosophy, as Hessen (1925) pointed out, is the self-reflection of the mind on its evaluative, theoretical and practical behavior, and simultaneously, the desire to understand the ultimate connections between things, a rational conception of the universe. Therefore, the research subject must have recourse to both the Gnoseology and the Epistemology of his object of study, so that he can pose a hypothesis and choose a qualitative or quantitative methodology for his study. Significados (2022) points out precisely that the cognizing subject is the one who performs the act of knowledge. Since, when he interacts with reality, he generates knowledge that allows him to act in his social environment through research, which leads, according to constructivism, to the human being constructing his own reality.

According to Vélez & Pérez (2019), the object of Epistemology is the creation of knowledge, and this production is generated from epistemological approaches, which depend on thinking styles. Therefore, such training should encompass the integrity of both aspects, in addition to being open to new appearances. For their part, Padrón and Rivero (2000, cited by Vélez & Pérez, 2019), argue that the thinking styles and convictions of researchers are intimately connected, there being a significant correspondence between them.

Knowledge is considered true when there is a transcendence of the object. How can we know if a knowledge is true? By the criterion of truth. However, phenomenology cannot provide us with this information or has no criteria, since it only implies the presumed existence, but not the real existence. Various disciplines such as ontology, sociology and logic have not been able to resolve the existence; a fourth discipline is needed, Gnoseology, which is the one that philosophically provides the interpretation and explains the phenomenon of knowledge, i.e., it will indicate whether it is really true (Hessen, 1925).

As mentioned by Salinas (2020), research must have a theoretical framework that makes it coherent, based on a conceptual framework that provides consistency, coherence, congruence and foundation. Gnoseology and/or Epistemology are the discourses that explain the subject-object-knowledge relationship. All research starts from a presupposed Gnoseology/Epistemology, and does not require to build it, unless it is on the subject of Gnoseology/Epistemology. Adopting that epistemological paradigm, knowing its concepts and using them to support the research is to make of that Epistemology a theoretical framework, a semantic cloud that provides congruence, coherence and foundation. Given that the Gnoseological stance is already established, let us say, in educational research, this is no longer concerned with showing how knowledge is produced, distributed and consumed, but specifies the process in the educational act. According to Salinas (2022), in this way Gnoseology becomes a theoretical framework.

Vélez & Pérez (2019) explain that, given both Aristotelian and Galilean research traditions, the handling of Epistemological issues has been considered necessary. These imply the conformation of an epistemological package to cement any research, which must contain the paradigm, its approach and method, elements that require a detailed analysis in a study dedicated to these issues. For their part, Calderón and Vélez (2018) indicate that, according to this analysis, a clear trend has been evidenced in the processes of knowledge from the general and abstract -Gnoseology- towards the specific and concrete -Epistemology-, allowing to conclude that the Epistemological discipline is responsible for investigating the processes of knowledge in the field of scientific disciplines.

Gómez (2017) suggests that the logic of scientific research is a set of assumptions and conjectures, never a scientific system that can be established once and for all. While Calderón & Vélez (2018) point out that, when conducting scientific research, the project must have a section where an Epistemological foundation is established. This will provide an explanation of the object of study, of the subject's ability to perceive the relationship between himself and the object in the cognitive process, of the work method, of the validity criteria, scopes and limitations of the results, but always from within a science. Finally, Vélez & Pérez (2019) mention that the most common and practical ideas include the division of the natural sciences, which in another version were considered the exact sciences of logic and mathematics, and the social sciences, which historically were considered the spiritual sciences and later called humanities.

CONCLUSIONS

-----