Alethic权利与图书馆的Alethic多元主义

IF 0.8 4区 管理学 Q3 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Libri-International Journal of Libraries and Information Studies Pub Date : 2023-01-12 DOI:10.1515/libri-2022-0030
Riccardo Ridi
{"title":"Alethic权利与图书馆的Alethic多元主义","authors":"Riccardo Ridi","doi":"10.1515/libri-2022-0030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The concept of truth, although unavoidable, is very problematic from a philosophical point of view and, in the field of librarianship, it is even more disputed for various reasons: inapplicability to libraries’ collections and reference services; scarcity of resources necessary in the event of a possible application; conflict with the value of intellectual neutrality. The “alethic rights” proposed by D’Agostini in 2017, pertinent to truth claims in social contexts, can be interpreted in two ways: the “strong” way is not applicable to libraries because it would lead to the same problems caused by the research of the truthfulness of each document preserved by libraries and of any information provided by their reference services; the “weak” way would instead be applicable to libraries, but it is more appropriate not to apply this either, both because there would be the risk that it could be interpreted in the strong way, and because its application would still be redundant compared to what already happens in libraries and to what, if necessary, could be obtained in emergency situations by applying instead the principle of social responsibility. In the library field it would be more sensible and useful to apply, instead of alethic rights, the epistemological theory of “alethic pluralism” by Wright (1992). Truth and Objectivity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press and Lynch (2009). Truth as One and Many. Oxford: Clarendon, which defines the concept of truth in a way compatible with technical practices and with deontological rules currently more widespread in libraries.","PeriodicalId":45618,"journal":{"name":"Libri-International Journal of Libraries and Information Studies","volume":"73 1","pages":"1 - 10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Alethic Rights and Alethic Pluralism in Libraries\",\"authors\":\"Riccardo Ridi\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/libri-2022-0030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The concept of truth, although unavoidable, is very problematic from a philosophical point of view and, in the field of librarianship, it is even more disputed for various reasons: inapplicability to libraries’ collections and reference services; scarcity of resources necessary in the event of a possible application; conflict with the value of intellectual neutrality. The “alethic rights” proposed by D’Agostini in 2017, pertinent to truth claims in social contexts, can be interpreted in two ways: the “strong” way is not applicable to libraries because it would lead to the same problems caused by the research of the truthfulness of each document preserved by libraries and of any information provided by their reference services; the “weak” way would instead be applicable to libraries, but it is more appropriate not to apply this either, both because there would be the risk that it could be interpreted in the strong way, and because its application would still be redundant compared to what already happens in libraries and to what, if necessary, could be obtained in emergency situations by applying instead the principle of social responsibility. In the library field it would be more sensible and useful to apply, instead of alethic rights, the epistemological theory of “alethic pluralism” by Wright (1992). Truth and Objectivity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press and Lynch (2009). Truth as One and Many. Oxford: Clarendon, which defines the concept of truth in a way compatible with technical practices and with deontological rules currently more widespread in libraries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45618,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Libri-International Journal of Libraries and Information Studies\",\"volume\":\"73 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Libri-International Journal of Libraries and Information Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2022-0030\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Libri-International Journal of Libraries and Information Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2022-0030","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要真理的概念虽然不可避免,但从哲学的角度来看是非常有问题的,在图书馆学领域,由于各种原因,它更具争议性:不适用于图书馆的收藏和参考服务;可能申请时所需资源的稀缺性;与知识中立的价值观相冲突。达戈斯蒂尼在2017年提出的与社会背景下的真实性主张相关的“整体权利”可以用两种方式来解释:“强有力”的方式不适用于图书馆,因为它会导致对图书馆保存的每一份文件及其参考服务提供的任何信息的真实性进行研究所引起的同样问题;相反,“弱”方式将适用于库,但也不应用它更合适,因为它可能会被以强方式解释,而且与库中已经发生的情况相比,它的应用仍然是多余的,如果必要的话,可以在紧急情况下通过应用社会责任原则来获得。在图书馆领域,应用Wright(1992)的“整体多元主义”认识论理论,而不是单一权利,将是更明智和有用的。真理与客观性。剑桥:哈佛大学出版社和林奇出版社(2009)。真理是一体的。牛津:Clarendon,它以一种与技术实践和义务生物学规则兼容的方式定义了真理的概念,目前在图书馆中更为普遍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Alethic Rights and Alethic Pluralism in Libraries
Abstract The concept of truth, although unavoidable, is very problematic from a philosophical point of view and, in the field of librarianship, it is even more disputed for various reasons: inapplicability to libraries’ collections and reference services; scarcity of resources necessary in the event of a possible application; conflict with the value of intellectual neutrality. The “alethic rights” proposed by D’Agostini in 2017, pertinent to truth claims in social contexts, can be interpreted in two ways: the “strong” way is not applicable to libraries because it would lead to the same problems caused by the research of the truthfulness of each document preserved by libraries and of any information provided by their reference services; the “weak” way would instead be applicable to libraries, but it is more appropriate not to apply this either, both because there would be the risk that it could be interpreted in the strong way, and because its application would still be redundant compared to what already happens in libraries and to what, if necessary, could be obtained in emergency situations by applying instead the principle of social responsibility. In the library field it would be more sensible and useful to apply, instead of alethic rights, the epistemological theory of “alethic pluralism” by Wright (1992). Truth and Objectivity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press and Lynch (2009). Truth as One and Many. Oxford: Clarendon, which defines the concept of truth in a way compatible with technical practices and with deontological rules currently more widespread in libraries.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Libri, International Journal of Libraries and Information Services, investigates the functions of libraries and information services from both a historical and present-day perspective and analyses the role of information in cultural, organizational, national and international developments. The periodical reports on current trends in librarianship worldwide and describes the transformation of libraries and information services resulting from the introduction of new information technologies and working methods. Background information and the latest research findings in librarianship and information science are made accessible to experts and a broader public. Articles are in English and conform to the highest academic standards.
期刊最新文献
Who Seeks and Shares Fact-Checking Information? Within the Context of COVID-19 in South Korea Elucidating the Adoption of Electronic Information Resources: A Case Study of Kuwait University Library Judaica Librarianship: Back to the Future What’s the News About Bad News? A Review of Bad News Games as a Tool to Teach Media Literacy Effect of Information Literacy on Academic Performance of Business Students in Pakistan
×
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