Scientific Rationality as Normative System

LogosandEpisteme. An International Journal of Epistemology (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Decision-theoretic approach and a nonlinguistic theory of norms are applied in the paper in an attempt to explain the nature of scientific rationality. It is considered as a normative system accepted by scientific community. When we say that a certain action is rational, we express a speaker’s acceptance of some norms concerning a definite action. Scientists can choose according to epistemic utility or other rules and values, which themselves have a variable nature. Rationality can be identified with a decision to accept a norm. This type of decision cannot be reduced only to its linguistic formulation; it is an act of evolvement of the normative regulation of human behavior. Norms are treated as decisions of a normative authority: a specific scientific community is the normative authority in science. These norms form a system and they are absolutely objective in the context of individual scientists. There exists an invariant core in all the norms of rationality, accounting for their not being liable to change, as compared with the flexibility of legal norms. The acceptance of and abidance by these norms is of social importance – it affects the aims of the community. A norm only defines the common framework and principles of scientific problem-solving; its application is a matter of professional skills and creative approach to a particular problem. It is of no importance at all, if an agent’s cognitive abilities do not live up to the requirements of a norm. Such discrepancy can be compensated for by the fact that a scientist carries out work in a conceptual and normative framework established by a respective scientific community.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

NO Revision and NO Contraction.Gregory Wheeler & Marco Alberti - 2011 - Minds and Machines 21 (3):411-430.
Belief Norms & Blindspots.Thomas Raleigh - 2013 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 51 (2):243-269.
Science and Ethics, some of the Main Principles and Problems.Knut Erik Tranøy - 1987 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 30 (1):11-23.
Rational distinctions and adaptations.D. E. Over & J. St B. T. Evans - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):693-694.
The Value of Vagueness.Timothy Endicott - 2011 - In Andrei Marmor & Scott Soames (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Language in the Law. Oxford University Press, Usa.
Blame It on the Norm: The Challenge from “Adaptive Rationality”.Andrea Polonioli - 2014 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 44 (2):131-150.
Wer hat ein Problem mit irrationalen Präferenzen? Entscheidungstheorie und Überlegungsgleichgewicht.Georg Brun - 2009 - Studia Philosophica: Jahrbuch Der Schweizerischen Philosoph Ischen Gesellschaft, Annuaire de la Société Suisse de Philosphie 68:11-41.
On the Rational Explanation of the Scientific Change.William H. Newton-Smith - 1981 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 12 (1):47-77.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-01-31

Downloads
310 (#62,153)

6 months
51 (#79,300)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Vihren Bouzov
St. Cyril and Methodius University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Add more references