Rethinking the Fact-Value Split

R. S. Smith
{"title":"Rethinking the Fact-Value Split","authors":"R. S. Smith","doi":"10.4018/978-1-5225-9860-2.ch092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Multicultural, western societies are quite secular, and the secular-sacred divide has been shaped by the fact-value split. But, the fact-value split also influences many other cultures, including in Latin and South America and East Asia. On it, science yields knowledge, but religion and ethics yield opinions and values. Closely related is the public-private split: governments should act on public reasons (ones based on science), and not private ones (ones based on religious and ethical views). Such science is methodologically naturalistic, bracketing anything supernatural or non-physical. This science usually presupposes ontological naturalism: what exists is natural, or physical. But, the author will contend the fact-value split is mistaken; on naturalism, humans cannot have knowledge. At best, people only have interpretations, even in science. However, the author also will argue that people can have moral and religious knowledge. If so, there will be many practical implications for public policy and religious practice.","PeriodicalId":36678,"journal":{"name":"eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9860-2.ch092","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Multicultural, western societies are quite secular, and the secular-sacred divide has been shaped by the fact-value split. But, the fact-value split also influences many other cultures, including in Latin and South America and East Asia. On it, science yields knowledge, but religion and ethics yield opinions and values. Closely related is the public-private split: governments should act on public reasons (ones based on science), and not private ones (ones based on religious and ethical views). Such science is methodologically naturalistic, bracketing anything supernatural or non-physical. This science usually presupposes ontological naturalism: what exists is natural, or physical. But, the author will contend the fact-value split is mistaken; on naturalism, humans cannot have knowledge. At best, people only have interpretations, even in science. However, the author also will argue that people can have moral and religious knowledge. If so, there will be many practical implications for public policy and religious practice.
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
重新思考事实-价值分裂
多元文化的西方社会是相当世俗的,而世俗与神圣的分裂是由事实与价值的分裂形成的。但是,事实价值的分裂也影响了许多其他文化,包括拉丁美洲、南美洲和东亚。在它上面,科学产生知识,而宗教和伦理产生意见和价值。与此密切相关的是公私分裂:政府应该根据公共原因(基于科学的原因)而不是私人原因(基于宗教和伦理观点的原因)采取行动。这种科学在方法论上是自然主义的,把任何超自然的或非物理的东西都包括在内。这门科学通常以本体论的自然主义为前提:存在的东西是自然的或物理的。但是,笔者认为事实-价值分割是错误的;在自然主义上,人类不可能拥有知识。充其量,人们只有解释,即使在科学领域也是如此。然而,作者也会认为,人们可以有道德和宗教知识。如果是这样,将对公共政策和宗教实践产生许多实际影响。
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
eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government
eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊最新文献
Democratising Democracy: Votes-Weighted Representation Examining the Impact of Transparency Portals on Media Coverage Implementing e-procurement at the Zimbabwe’s National Pharmaceutical Company (NatPharm): Challenges and Prospects Open Government Data Programs and Information Privacy Concerns: A Literature Review Defining Transparency: A Functional Approach
×
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