From the Principle of Objectivity of Scientific Knowledge to the Reconstruction of Different Situations of Knowledge Production

V. Rozin
{"title":"From the Principle of Objectivity of Scientific Knowledge to the Reconstruction of Different Situations of Knowledge Production","authors":"V. Rozin","doi":"10.17212/2075-0862-2022-14.3.1-75-92","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article proposes to move from the principle of objectivity of scientific knowledge to the reconstruction of different situations of knowledge production. To do this, it is first shown that this principle does not work in the humanities and social sciences and has partially ceased to work in natural science (in the field of micro and macro phenomena). A scheme of the genesis of the principle of objectivity is outlined (the need to substantiate knowledge in the natural sciences, the proposals of Kant and Hume). As an alternative to the principle of objectivity, a reconstruction of different situations of knowledge production is proposed, containing two plans: including an external position, on the assumption that we know how everything really happened, and a borrowed one, in which the concept of cognition of those subjects that are subject to analysis is characterized. To demonstrate the logic of this reconstruction, several situations of the production of new knowledge are considered: using schemes (Plato’s work), ideas about thinking (Aristotle), mathematics and experiment (Galileo), interpretations of the researcher (Z. Bauman). Criteria for the truth and effectiveness of new knowledge, which differ significantly in the natural and human sciences, are discussed. For the natural sciences, it is a mathematical description of the processes and mechanisms of a certain natural phenomenon, as well as an experiment that makes it possible to calculate and predict, and create engineering structures. For the humanities, it is an interpretation of a phenomenon that ensures its understanding and use in certain audiences. Since the social sciences are focused on solving two problems at once (the ability to calculate and predict social processes and to comprehend (understand) the social actors who initiated these processes and act in them), insofar as the criteria of authenticity and effectiveness in the social sciences partially coincide with the criteria of the natural sciences indicated here, partly humanitarian.","PeriodicalId":336825,"journal":{"name":"Ideas and Ideals","volume":"105 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ideas and Ideals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17212/2075-0862-2022-14.3.1-75-92","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article proposes to move from the principle of objectivity of scientific knowledge to the reconstruction of different situations of knowledge production. To do this, it is first shown that this principle does not work in the humanities and social sciences and has partially ceased to work in natural science (in the field of micro and macro phenomena). A scheme of the genesis of the principle of objectivity is outlined (the need to substantiate knowledge in the natural sciences, the proposals of Kant and Hume). As an alternative to the principle of objectivity, a reconstruction of different situations of knowledge production is proposed, containing two plans: including an external position, on the assumption that we know how everything really happened, and a borrowed one, in which the concept of cognition of those subjects that are subject to analysis is characterized. To demonstrate the logic of this reconstruction, several situations of the production of new knowledge are considered: using schemes (Plato’s work), ideas about thinking (Aristotle), mathematics and experiment (Galileo), interpretations of the researcher (Z. Bauman). Criteria for the truth and effectiveness of new knowledge, which differ significantly in the natural and human sciences, are discussed. For the natural sciences, it is a mathematical description of the processes and mechanisms of a certain natural phenomenon, as well as an experiment that makes it possible to calculate and predict, and create engineering structures. For the humanities, it is an interpretation of a phenomenon that ensures its understanding and use in certain audiences. Since the social sciences are focused on solving two problems at once (the ability to calculate and predict social processes and to comprehend (understand) the social actors who initiated these processes and act in them), insofar as the criteria of authenticity and effectiveness in the social sciences partially coincide with the criteria of the natural sciences indicated here, partly humanitarian.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从科学知识的客观性原则到知识生产不同情境的重构
本文提出从科学知识的客观性原则转向知识生产不同情境的重构。要做到这一点,首先表明这一原则在人文科学和社会科学中不起作用,并且在自然科学(微观和宏观现象领域)中已经部分停止起作用。一个方案的起源的客观性原则概述(需要证实知识的自然科学,康德和休谟的建议)。作为客观性原则的替代方案,提出了对知识生产的不同情况的重建,包括两个计划:包括一个外部位置,假设我们知道所有事情是如何真实发生的,以及一个借来的位置,其中那些被分析的主体的认知概念是特征。为了证明这种重建的逻辑,我们考虑了新知识生产的几种情况:使用方案(柏拉图的作品),关于思维的想法(亚里士多德),数学和实验(伽利略),研究者的解释(Z.鲍曼)。在自然科学和人文科学中,新知识的真实性和有效性的标准有很大的不同。对于自然科学来说,它是对某种自然现象的过程和机制的数学描述,也是使计算和预测以及创造工程结构成为可能的实验。对于人文学科来说,它是对一种现象的解释,确保它被特定的受众理解和使用。由于社会科学专注于同时解决两个问题(计算和预测社会过程的能力,以及理解发起这些过程并在其中行动的社会行动者的能力),就社会科学的真实性和有效性的标准而言,部分符合这里指出的自然科学的标准,部分符合人道主义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Problems of Innovative Activity Development of the Novosibirsk Region Important Contribution to the Coverage of National Income Statistics and the Economic History of Pre-Revolutionary Russia and the USSR How the Existent and the Deontic Meet Cinema as a “Soft Power” Instrument of the State: Examples of Spanish and U.S. Cinematography Some Problems with Artificial Intelligence Ethics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1