A fundamental look at what and how to achieve scientific authority in humanities

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Department of Technological Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Objective: Since dealing with the scientific authority from a fundamental point of view is a necessity and has received little attention, this research tries to find a mechanism for the realization of scientific authority by referring to the roots of the formation of authority in science and by going through the history of the evolution of science with reference to alternative philosophical attitudes.
Method: By choosing a holistic view, this research has tried to achieve comprehensiveness presentation of how authority is formed in science by applying three methods of analysis, synthesis and synthetic. Applying the method of analyzing and scrutinizing scientific-philosophical documents is the first step, synthesizing the findings from the analysis and basing them on fundamental principles based on the synthetic method is the next step in the method. Application of these three methods, which in a way shows the benefits of inductive methodology along with realism in analysis and analogical a priori in synthetics, can be a reliable method in humanities research due to the integration of methods and lack of one-sidedness, although it is often neglected .By applying the analysis method, while identifying the truth of knowledge in its apparent meaning by referring to scientific documents, it was discovered the truth in its essence and in itself by referring to philosophical documents. Two approaches, each of which has pointed to a facet of the multifaceted prism of understanding this phenomenon. By applying the blending method, it is possible to unify two opposing approaches, and in the last step, by applying the synthetic method and relying on the foundations and principles, it will be possible to achieve scientific authority by going through the four stages of scientific thinking.
Results: The findings in this scientific process show that authority in humanities will not be possible unless the following requirements are fulfilled: The first requirement: going beyond experience and the scientific method based on it - although it is accepted in natural sciences - the second: relying on previous knowledge as the only valid knowledge of the universal type; Third: Going through the correct stages of scientific thinking in the human sciences in order to realize universal knowledge, knowledge whose foundation is based on the principles of necessity and certainty and accepted unconditionally; Fourth: Education and training of outstanding people in the position of neutral Spectators and philosophers. Spectators who impartially judge the performance of actors in the scientific field and measure the credibility of scientific achievements; Philosophers whose main concern is to reach the truth and point out the deviation from principles in science; Fifth, including three criteria and criteria to measure the validity of scientifically produced knowledge, including "originality", "Exemplarity" and "being useful and effective for solving the problems in the country" and sixth: changing the conventional teaching method to a method based On discussion and interaction based on critical thinking in scientific centers
Conclusion: he result of this research showed that although the predominance of empiricism in the human sciences as a limited attitude towards the thousand-year period of the Dark Age caused objectivity to be authoritative and based on cause and effect relationships and governing laws, but the efforts of philosophers such as Kant in The path of attaining the truth in itself drew attention to the meta dimension and beyond the perceptible of the phenomena and made man aware of the huge reserves hidden in his existence, capacities, genius and potential talents so that if Kant would not have achieved these human truths and He did not point out the reliance on inspiration and intuition as a huge source of creating alternative works, the attitude of empiricism that governs everything is based on cause and effect relationships, and the Idea of science was never realized. Therefore, it should be accepted that the alternative approach in scientific authority in the field of human sciences is to place the basis of authority on people Creations that humans are the cause of and are not pre-existing and clear. A human being was created creatively according to his nature and existence, and this is the elixir of freedom associated with his creation, which makes possible the manifestation of enormous existential capacities and countless genius, talent and capability.

Keywords


فرانکفورد، چاوا و دیوید نچمیاس، روش‌های پژوهشی در علوم اجتماعی، تهران: سروش، 1381
حسن زاده, م. (2023). مدل چندلایه  مرجعیّت علمی. علوم و فنون مدیریت اطلاعات, 9(2), 443-451. https://doi.org/10.22091/stim.2023.2521
متوسلی، محمود. (1394). نگاهی معرفت‌شناختی به جایگاه و منشأ ناولتی در توسعه اقتصادی. فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی توسعه
متوسلی، محمود؛ وهابی ابیانه، محبوبه. فلسفه سیاسی آدام اسمیت؛ تجربه‌گرایی و اندیشه پردازی، نقطه عطف و آغازی بر توسعه اقتصادی در جهان. تهران؛ انتشارات نشر نهادگرا، 1401
انگلیسی
 
Andreasen, N. C. (2006). The creative brain: The science of genius. Penguin.
Arendt, H. (1989). Lectures on Kant''s political philosophy. University of Chicago Press.
Berg, H. v. d. (2014). Kant’s conception of proper science. In Kant on Proper Science (pp. 15-51). Springer.
Boland, L. A. (1986). Economic methodology: Theory and practice. The Generation of Scientific Administrative Knowledge.
Boland A.Lawrence, Critical economic methodology: A personal odyssey, Routledge 1997
Bukowski, C. (1990). Septuagenarian Stew: Stories & Poems. (No Title).
Caygill, H. (1995). The Blackwell Philosopher Dictionaries. In: Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Commons, J. R. (1934). Institutional Economics. Vol. I: Its Place in Political Economy (Vol. 1). Transaction Publishers.
Durant, W. (1961). Story of philosophy. Simon and Schuster.
Frankfort-Nachmais, C., & Nachmais, D. 19 92. Research Methods in the Social Sciences. New York: St. In: Martin''s Press.
Gardner, H. (2005). Multiple lenses on the mind. ExpoGestion Conference, Bogota Colombia,
Gregor, M. J. (1996). Kant: The metaphysics of morals
Hassanzadeh, M. (2023). Editor-in-Chief Lecture: Multilayer model of scientific authority. Sciences and Techniques of Information Management, 9(2): 443-451. https://doi.org/10.22091/stim.2023.2521)In Persian)
Hayek, F. v. (1942). Scientism and the study of society. Part I. Economica, 9(35), 267-291.   
Immanuel, K. (1781). Critique of pure reaso
Kant, I. (1881). Immanuel Kant''s critique of pure reason: In commemoration of the centenary of its first publication (Vol. 1). Macmillan.
Kant, I. (1996). An answer to the question: What is enlightenment?(1784). Practical philosophy, 11-22.                  
Lachmann, L. M. (1991). Austrian economics: a hermeneutic approach. 1994), London: Routledge, 276-290.
Madison, G. B. (1989). Hayek and the interpretive turn. Critical Review, 3(2), 169-185.        
Mill, J. S. (1836). On the definition of political economy; and on the method of investigation proper to it. London and Westminster Review, 4(October), 120-164.     
Motavasseli, M. (2015). The process of creation of novelty in economic development and entrepreneurship. Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 8(3), 413-431. https://doi.org/10.22059/jed.2015.53200)In Persian)
Motavaseli, M. and Vahabi Abyaneh, M (2022). Adam Smith''s political philosophy: Empiricism and thinking, a turning point and the beginning of economic development in the world. Tehran: Institutional publication.)In Persian)
North, D. C. (2012). Understanding the process of economic change. In Worlds of Capitalism (pp. 107-120). Routledge.
Sen, A. (1998). Human development and financial conservatism. World development, 26(4), 733-742.
Singer, C. (2013). A short history of science to the nineteenth century. Courier Corporation.
Sweet, K. (2023). Kant on Freedom, Nature, and Judgment: The Territory of the Third Critique. Cambridge University Press.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. (2005). Development. Journal of economic, XlIII, 108-120.
Watkins, E. a. S., Marius. (2014). Kant''s Philosophy of Science. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/kant-science (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University)
Weber, M. (2007). Objectivity and Understanding in Economics. In D. M. Hausman (Ed.), The Philosophy of Economics: An Anthology (3 ed., pp. 59-72). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511819025.004
Whitehouse, D. (2009). Renaissance genius: Galileo Galilei & His Legacy to Modern Science. New York. In: Sterling Publishing.
Williamson, O. E. (2009). Transaction Cost Economics: The Natural Progression. Nobel Prize Lecture, December 8. In.
Wood, A. W. (2007). Kantian ethics.