OBJECTIVITY AS THE SCIENTIFIC VALUE AND VIRTUE: CONDITIONS OF POSSIBILITY

Лада Владимировна Шиповалова, Shipovalova Lada

Abstract


This article discusses the problem of the influence of values on scientific research. The thesis of the article is that science, by definition, must be associated with the values and virtues. In other words — we can talk about own scientific values and virtues. This thesis is one of the most important problems of understanding the phenomenon of science in modern times. This problem is related to two considerations. If the thesis is recognized, scientific knowledge would put in danger of subjectivism. If this thesis is criticized — we would find ourselves face to face with a suspicious value-neutrality. How is the way «between» possible? This way is the revelation of such concept of science, in which we can find the organic combination of the two sides. The first — understanding of science as activities aimed at universal and necessary knowledge. The second — recognition that virtues have to be presented in science. In this concept of science, objectivity must be present as a criterion of science, which determines the scientific knowledge as universal and necessary and also as a scientific virtue, which is defined as the overcoming of subjectivity. I argue necessary relationship of this two senses of objectivity, thereby obtains justification objectivity as the scientific value and virtue.


References


Литература

Ðгацци, Э. (2009). Почему у науки еÑÑ‚ÑŒ и ÑтичеÑкие измерениÑ? ВопроÑÑ‹ филоÑофии 10: 93-104.

ÐриÑтотель. (1983). «Ðикомахова Ñтика». Ð’ кн.: ÐриÑтотель. Ð¡Ð¾Ñ‡Ð¸Ð½ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð² 4-Ñ… томах, Т. 4.: 53-294. Ðœ.: МыÑль. 830 Ñ.

ДÑÑтон, Л. (2007). «ÐÐ°ÑƒÑ‡Ð½Ð°Ñ Ð¾Ð±ÑŠÐµÐºÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ð¾ÑÑ‚ÑŒ Ñо Ñловами и без Ñлов». Ð’ кн.: Ðаука и научноÑÑ‚ÑŒ в иÑторичеÑкой перÑпективе, под ред. ÐлекÑандров Д., Хагнер: 37-71. СПб.: ЕвропейÑкий универÑитет в Санкт-Петербурге; ÐлетейÑ. 330 Ñ.

Кант, И. (1993). Критика чиÑтого разума. СПб.: ИКР«Тайм-аут». 478 Ñ.

Кант, И. (1994). Критика ÑпоÑобноÑти ÑуждениÑ. Ðœ.: ИÑкуÑÑтво. 376 Ñ.

Разеев, Д.Ð. (2010). Ð¢ÐµÐ»ÐµÐ¾Ð»Ð¾Ð³Ð¸Ñ Ð˜Ð¼Ð¼Ð°Ð½ÑƒÐ¸Ð»Ð° Канта. СПб.: Ðаука. 309 Ñ.

Степин, Ð’.С. (2008). Â«Ð­Ð²Ð¾Ð»ÑŽÑ†Ð¸Ñ ÑтоÑа науки: от клаÑÑичеÑкой к поÑтнеклаÑÑичеÑкой рациональноÑти науки». Ð’ кн.: Ð­Ñ‚Ð¾Ñ Ð½Ð°ÑƒÐºÐ¸, под ред. КиÑщенко Л.П., МирÑÐºÐ°Ñ Ð•.З.: 21-47. Ðœ.: Academia. 544 Ñ.

Чернов, С.Ð. (1993). Субъект и ÑубÑтанциÑ. ТранÑцендентализм в филоÑофии науки. СПб.: ИздательÑтво Санкт-ПетербургÑкого гоÑударÑтвенного универÑитета. 260 Ñ.

Bunch, A. (2010). “«Objective validity» and «Objective Reality» in Kant’s B-deduction of the Categoriesâ€. Kantian Review 14: 67-92.

Daston, L., Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books, 2007. 501 p.

Daston, L., Galison, P. (1992). “The Image of Objectivityâ€. Representation 40, Special Issue: Seeng Sciense: 81-128.

Harding, S. (1995). “«Strong objectivity»: a Response to the New Objectivity Questionâ€. Synthese 104: 331-349.

Lacey, H. (1999). Is Science Value-Free? London: Routledge. 285 p.

Longino, H.E. (1990). Science as Social knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton.: Princeton University Press. 262 p.

Meerbot, R. (1972). “Kant’s Use of Notions «Objective Reality» and «Objective validity»â€. Kant-Studien 63: 51-58.

Proctor, R. (1991). Value-Free Science? Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 344 p.

Roberts, R.C., Wood, W.J., (eds.). (2007). Intellectual Virtues: An Essay in Regulative Epistemology (Advances in Cognitive Models & Arch). New York: Oxford University Press. 339 p.

Greco, J., Turri, J., (eds.). (2012). Virtue Epistemology: Contemporary Readings (MIT Readers in Contemporary Philosophy). London, Cambridge Mass. 426 p.

References

Agacci, Je. (2009). “Pochemu u nauki est' i jeticheskie izmerenija?†[Why Science Has Ethical Dimension] Voprosy filosofii - Questions of philosophy 10: 93-104.

Aristotel. (1983) “Nikomahova jetika†[Nicomachean Ethics] in Sochinenia v 4-h tomah, T.4. [Selecter Works in 4 Volumes, Vol. 4]: 53-294. Moscow: Mysl Publ. 830 p.

Bunch, A. (2010). “«Objective validity» and «Objective Reality» in Kant’s B-deduction of the Categoriesâ€. Kantian Review 14: 67-92.

Chernov, S.A. (1993). Sub’ekt i substancija. Transcendentalizm v filosofii nauki. [Subject and Substance. Transcendentalism in the Philosophy of Science]. Saint Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University Publishing House. 260 p.

Daston, L., Galison, P. (1992). “The Image of Objectivityâ€. Representation 40, Special Issue: Seeng Sciense: 81-128.

Daston, L., Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books, 2007. 501 p.

Djeston, L. (2007). “Nauchnaja ob’ektivnost' so slovami i bez slov†[Scientific objectivity with and without words] in D. Aleksandrov, M. Hagner (eds.), Nauka i nauchnost' v istoricheskoj perspective [Science and Scientifical in Historical Perspective]: 37-71. Saint Petersburg: European University in St. Petersburg; Aletheia Publ. 330 p.

Greco, J., Turri, J., (eds.). (2012). Virtue Epistemology: Contemporary Readings (MIT Readers in Contemporary Philosophy). London, Cambridge Mass. 426 p.

Harding, S. (1995). “«Strong objectivity»: a Response to the New Objectivity Questionâ€. Synthese 104: 331-349.

Kant, I. (1993). Kritika chistogo razuma [Critique of Pure Reason]. Saint Petersburg: Time out Publ. 478 p.

Kant, I. (1994). Kritika sposobnosti suzhdenija [Critique of Judgment]. Moscow: Iskusstvo Publ. 376 p.

Lacey, H. (1999). Is Science Value-Free? London: Routledge. 285 p.

Longino, H.E. (1990). Science as Social knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton.: Princeton University Press. 262 p.

Meerbot, R. (1972). “Kant’s Use of Notions «Objective Reality» and «Objective validity»â€. Kant-Studien 63: 51-58.

Proctor, R. (1991). Value-Free Science? Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 344 p.

Razeev, D.N. (2010). Teleologija Immanuila Kanta [Teleology of Immanuel Kant]. Saint Petersburg: Nauka Publ. 309 p.

Roberts, R.C., Wood, W.J., (eds.). (2007). Intellectual Virtues: An Essay in Regulative Epistemology (Advances in Cognitive Models & Arch). New York: Oxford University Press. 339 p.

Stepin, V.S. (2008) “Jevoljucija jetosa nauki: ot klassicheskoj k postneklassicheskoj racional'nosti nauki†[Evolution of the Ethos of Science: from Classical to Postnonclassical Rationality of Science] in L.P. Kijashhenko, E.Z.Mirskaja (eds.), Jetos nauki [The Ethos of Science]: 21-47. Moscow: Academia Publ. 544 p.