The Сircular Understanding of Rationality and the Experimenter’s Regress

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Olga E. Stoliarova
{"title":"The Сircular Understanding of Rationality and the Experimenter’s Regress","authors":"Olga E. Stoliarova","doi":"10.21146/0042-8744-2023-10-141-145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article deals with the problem of circular proof, which arises in the philo­sophical discussions about rationality, its ideals and standards. Trying to define what rationality is, we are forced to refer to its ideals and criteria, the rationality of which must be established in advance with the help of rational procedures. This situation is characterized as an epistemic circular dependence of the instru­ment and the result and is compared with the situation of experimenter’s regress. The experimenter’s regress is a circular reasoning in which it is possible to judge the correctness of the scientific results obtained only on the basis of the correct­ness of the procedure for obtaining them, and it is impossible to judge the cor­rectness of the procedure for obtaining them without reference to the obtained results. Thus, the proponents of the objectivity of the result and their opponents have no rational grounds for choosing one of the alternatives. The epistemo­logical problematization of the experimenter’s regress indirectly problematizes the theories of rationality, since science and the criteria of rational choice adopted in it act as standards of rationality in itself. It is shown that the epistemological justification of overcoming the experimenter’s regress is carried out by referring to “external factors” that are rationalized by the epistemologist. Although these external factors are declared “irrational,” they are rationalized in the epistemolo­gist’s “laboratory,” add to the baggage of the grounds of rational consent, and en­rich the notion of rationality. This allows us to qualify the circle described by ra­tionality in defining itself as virtuous.","PeriodicalId":46795,"journal":{"name":"VOPROSY FILOSOFII","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"VOPROSY FILOSOFII","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2023-10-141-145","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article deals with the problem of circular proof, which arises in the philo­sophical discussions about rationality, its ideals and standards. Trying to define what rationality is, we are forced to refer to its ideals and criteria, the rationality of which must be established in advance with the help of rational procedures. This situation is characterized as an epistemic circular dependence of the instru­ment and the result and is compared with the situation of experimenter’s regress. The experimenter’s regress is a circular reasoning in which it is possible to judge the correctness of the scientific results obtained only on the basis of the correct­ness of the procedure for obtaining them, and it is impossible to judge the cor­rectness of the procedure for obtaining them without reference to the obtained results. Thus, the proponents of the objectivity of the result and their opponents have no rational grounds for choosing one of the alternatives. The epistemo­logical problematization of the experimenter’s regress indirectly problematizes the theories of rationality, since science and the criteria of rational choice adopted in it act as standards of rationality in itself. It is shown that the epistemological justification of overcoming the experimenter’s regress is carried out by referring to “external factors” that are rationalized by the epistemologist. Although these external factors are declared “irrational,” they are rationalized in the epistemolo­gist’s “laboratory,” add to the baggage of the grounds of rational consent, and en­rich the notion of rationality. This allows us to qualify the circle described by ra­tionality in defining itself as virtuous.
Сircular理性的理解与实验者的回归
本文讨论了理性、理性理想和理性标准的哲学讨论中出现的循环证明问题。要给什么是理性下定义,我们就不得不参照它的理想和标准,而这些理想和标准的合理性必须借助于理性程序事先确立。这种情况的特点是仪器和结果的认知循环依赖,并与实验者的回归情况进行了比较。实验者的回归是一种循环推理,在这种推理中,只有根据获得科学结果的程序的正确性,才能判断所获得科学结果的正确性,而不参考所获得的结果,就不可能判断获得科学结果的程序的正确性。因此,结果客观性的支持者和他们的反对者没有理性的理由选择其中一个选项。对实验者回归的认识论问题化间接地对理性理论提出了问题,因为科学及其所采用的理性选择标准本身就是理性的标准。研究表明,克服实验者倒退的认识论论证是通过引用被认识论者合理化的“外部因素”来进行的。尽管这些外部因素被宣布为“非理性的”,但它们在认识论家的“实验室”中被理性化了,增加了理性同意的基础的包袱,并丰富了理性的概念。这使我们能够将理性所描述的循环定义为良性的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
VOPROSY FILOSOFII
VOPROSY FILOSOFII PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
50.00%
发文量
100
期刊介绍: "Вопросы философии" - академическое научное издание, центральный философский журнал в России. В настоящее время является органом Президиума Российской Академии Наук. Журнал "Вопросы философии" исторически тесно связан с Институтом философии РАН. Выходит ежемесячно. Журнал был основан в июле 1947 г. Интернет-версия журнала запущена в мае 2009 года.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信