| Article |
|---|
| Article name |
Scientific Research: “the Court of Reason” or “Evolutionary Selection”? |
| Authors |
Yartsev R.A. Candidate of Engineering Science, Associate Professor, rust-66@yandex.ru |
| Bibliographic description |
|
| Section |
PHILOSOPHY |
| UDK |
001.8 |
| DOI |
|
| Article type |
|
| Annotation |
The present article is concerned with the analysis of Stephen Toulmin’s argumentation against
the existence of a universal method of scientific cognition. It is shown that the complexity of scientific
problems and the ambiguity of the selection criteria of scientific solutions do not imply the absence
of such a method, and parallels between the development of science, administration of justice and the
evolutionary process found by S. Toulmin are not valid for the matter under inquiry. Thus, the “court
of reason” according to S. Toulmin does not go beyond a particular scientific “jurisdiction” with its
specific laws, and “the evolutionary form of historical explanation” reduces scientific methods to the
specific characters involved in the selection, whereas the universal method goes over the line between
scientific disciplines and does not evolve. It is stated that the concept development of “judgment of
reason” leads to the discovery of this method, if we accept that the juridical analogue of the latter is
the general procedure for the Court, recorded in the legislation of developed countries. The article lists
the main steps of this procedure, corresponding to the main mandatory stages of scientific research.
|
| Key words |
science, scientific knowledge, evolution, universal method, study, analogy, litigation. |
| Article information |
|
| References |
1. Kant I. Soch. v 6 t. M.: Mysl’, 1964. T. 3. 799 s.
2. Kun T. Struktura nauchnyh revoljucij. M.: AST, 2003. 605 c.
3. Polani M. Lichnostnoe znanie. M.: Progress, 1985. 345 s.
4. Sivokon’ P. Ot neopozitivizma k postpozitivizmu: jevoljucija filosofskogo jevoljucionizma
S. Tulmina // Tulmin S. Chelovecheskoe ponimanie. M.: Progress, 1984. S. 5–22.
5. Tulmin S. Chelovecheskoe ponimanie. M.: Progress, 1984. 328 s.
6. Fisher K. Istorija novoj filosofii. M.: Direktmedia Pablishing, 2008. 15547 s.
7. Jarcev R. A. Mozhet li mirovozzrenie byt’ nauchnym? // Filosofskaja mysl’ i filosofija jazyka
v istorii i sovremennosti: sb. nauch. st. Ufa: Vostochnyj un-t, 2008. S. 224–233.
8. Jarcev R. A. O nauchnom i nenauchnom poznanii // Vestn. JaGU, 2010. № 2. S. 161–166.
9. Jarcev R. A. O znachenii demarkacii nauchnogo poznanija // Istorija nauki i tehniki. 2012.
№ 4. Specvypusk № 1. S. 62–67. |
| Full article | Scientific Research: “the Court of Reason” or “Evolutionary Selection”? |
