Problems of modern Axiology
Kiselev Sergey
Axiology (from the Greek. A§ia-value) - the science of values,
teachings about the nature of spiritual, moral, aesthetic and other
values, their relationship to each other, the social, cultural factors and
individual rights; philosophy section.
In particular, the study of the value of education, which
represents a system of values, principles, norms, canons ideals that
govern interaction in education component and form relationships in
personality structure.
Axiology education - focus on values that promote human needs
and meet personal needs and standards in a particular historical and
situations.
Knowledge and values. Problem value truth and values
One of the central problems of modern science of consciousness
was the problem of truth and value. Question of "pure" cognitive
relations is an abstraction, it, like any abstraction, giving only one-
sided picture of the considered objects. I. Lakatos wrote that rational
reconstruction of science, distracted by cultural and value factors in
its development, often a caricature of the real history of science.
Unlike cognitive value treatment inevitably includes object with
characteristic peculiar expression also subjects ideals and aspirations.
Ideal - is the value characteristics of a certain phenomenon in a
proper and serves as a strategic landmark on the way of things to
good. In implicit value judgments is not taken by itself, and in relation
to good. The value is the basis for choosing a subject of goals,
methods, consequences and conditions of that answers the question,
which is carried out in the name of this activity. Evaluation is a means
of determining the significance of things for human activities to meet
their interests. The focus of the subject in his work a certain value
called value orientation.
As an expression of the concepts of credit, which are produced
and modified in the course of socio-historical practice and its
understanding of the ideals and values are important regulators of
man and society.
Knowledge is always carried and value-evolving nature. It is
important to emphasize that the value component of scientific
knowledge is not "lying" on the surface a body of knowledge, and its
detection required special analysis. Value-evaluative component in the
structure of the cognitive image is its social, involvement in a complex
system of social relations. In the process of socialization of the
individual valuable relation to reality formed much earlier than the
person actively involved in specialized cognitive activity. Values of the
members of the knowledge, creating a kind of "bridge" between the
socio-cultural realities and content of scientific knowledge. Questions
about the meaning and purpose of knowledge cannot be treated and
interpreted in the language of logical and cognitive concepts and
language requires value-philosophical ideas. This involves an analysis
of the need axiological problems of science.
AXIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE
Axiological problems of science - this is the problem of social,
moral, aesthetic and cultural value orientation of scientific research
and its results.
Extremely relevant in this regard are questions such as:
value of truth and value of natural science conclusions value of
truth and goodness, truth and beauty,
value freedom of scientific research and social responsibility of
the scientist,
value of science and power management capabilities and limits
of science,
the consequences (especially negative) controversial and far
from unambiguous development of science, its humanistic essence
and others.
Classical science sought to "cleanse" research process from any
real impact of subject (whether ideological and moral considerations
features of individual experience and outlook of a researcher). The
ideal scientific method of research was "deperso-nifitsirovannoe
contemplation", which is made in terms of general and abstract the
subject. As a result, the resulting science knowledge is not assumed
any other value other than the truth, as in itself did not provide any
purpose other than the production of reliable knowledge. "An objective
approach" with his desire to abandon human needs and values at the
dawn of science, of course, had a progressive, as allowed ignored
theological and other navyazani top dogma that prevented the
perception of facts in their pure form, without bias and prejudice. The
scientific truth and ethical values were divided impassable limit, and
under their resolute and uncompromising demarcation supplied
original epistemological foundation. For example, Poincare, a staunch
supporter of such terms, povyazuvav scientific truth and ethics of
alleged diametrically opposite sides of the human spirit: truth - it is
the prerogative of the object and logical mind, while morality - the
sphere of feelings, emotions, volition and their corresponding forms of
relationship to reality (love, faith, beliefs, hopes, etc.). Hence, he
concluded that it can not be immoral science (as, indeed, moral and
scientific) 263.
The variety and inconsistency of value orientation of science as a
social institution.
Scientism in assessing the role of science in modern culture
One of the major problems with axiological character is to assess
the place of science in the system of social relations in the cultural and
intellectual life. Feeling the impact of social science in turn has a
major impact on social progress. It affects the development of methods
and techniques of material production, the conditions of life of the
people. As the use of scientific discoveries in engineering and
technology cardinal changes of the productive forces.
Science is not just indirectly, but also directly affects also the
spiritual life, and ultimately - to social life in general.
Science is based on human values and is itself a value system. It
is derived human needs and social - cognitive, practical, emotional,
expressive and aesthetic pleasure which acts as the ultimate
benchmark as objective science. The ancient Greeks were largely
supporters of Platonic ideas of pure reason and contemplation. At the
same time, and they did not forget about the practical, humanitarian
focus of science. Thinkers XVII-XIX centuries. sought primarily in
science practical benefits, including means of combating poverty and
disease. "Knowledge - force" - claimed Bacon. He wrote about the new
science as a tool that would give us power over nature and of society,
which with the help of science would be paradise ("New Atlantis").
By the middle of the XIX century. in Western culture formed two
main outlook in dealing with the relationship between science and
human values: scientism and antistsientizm.
Scientism (from the Latin. "Stsientsiya" - science) - sees science,
especially science as an absolute value, and even absolutizes
exaggerates its role and capabilities in solving social problems, extols
science. "From the moment - notes Karl Jaspers - as science has
become a reality, the truth of human expression due to its scientism.
Therefore science - the element of human dignity, hence the charm
with which it penetrates the secrets of world structure. "This
fascination leads to exaggerate the possibilities of science, attempts to
put her above all other areas of culture and in front of them. Scientism
is assumed that only science can solve all the problems facing
humanity, including immortality.
For scientism characteristic absolutisation style and methods of
"exact" sciences, the announcement of their top knowledge, often
accompanied by denial of social and humanitarian issues as having no
educational value. In the wake of scientism emerged of the not-related
to each other "two cultures" - natural sciences and humanities
(English writer Charles book about it Snow was called "Two Cultures").
Scientism focuses on the technological side of science, but
ignores human values (ideas technocracy). Technology seen as the
only way to solve all human problems and achieve harmony in the
ways of rationally designed of world structure. These ideas became the
basis for the formation of the concept of technological determinism,
the main conceptual features are:
NTP transformation of determinant of social change: the
development of technology and technology is seen as the starting point
of social development;
absolutisation social value engineering and technology that
automatically, spontaneously generate new public relations;
Depending denial of science and technology on social
conditions. Most advocates of this concept release in history three
stages: "traditional, agrarian society", "industrial society" and "post-
industrial society." The last stage is considered, on the one hand, a
radically new turn of the helix on the other - as a continuation of the
previous one, as its new phase. It is, according to some western
authors, not be changed, so that includes the most significant
achievement of social progress.
The aesthetic criteria of scientific inquiry
Already during the Renaissance, when the support of science is
no longer a tradition truth called the daughter of time, the number of
criteria include aesthetic value, the concept of beauty. In notes
Leonardo da Vinci apparently grow definition of beauty in determining
the truth, and natural-philosophical works of John. Bruno can hear
are not so obvious echoes of aesthetic ideas. In XVII - XVIII century.
aesthetic criterion expresses the degree of perfection theory.
Discovering the hidden harmony of the world, science is moving
closer to art. It has its own aesthetics and aesthetic beginning plays an
important role in the development of scientific knowledge. The ugly
aesthetic design does not satisfy scientists, creating a sense of
intellectual discomfort and, conversely, the beauty and perfection of
theoretical constructs for scientists is a sign of truth. Yes, Dirac
thought beauty formulas (or refinement) as a guarantee of the truth; J.
Hadamard wrote: "The invention - a choice; this choice masterfully
directs the scientific sense of beauty ”268.
In modern science, stronger on the need to conformity scientific
concepts of beauty and harmony of the aesthetic side of knowledge
and beauty as a heuristic principle in relation to theories, laws,
concepts. The search for beauty, unity and symmetry of the laws of
nature - often acts as an incentive to scientific creativity. Heisenberg
believed that science charge carries a spirituality seamlessly
combining with the value as beauty.
Humanities way of thinking is a revival of the unity of truth,
goodness and beauty as the basis and the quintessence of culture.
This idea has always been a tradition of our national culture.
Back in the 20's NK Roerich raised the question of "culture spirit" as
the basis of all human activity, especially in science and technology of
its manifestations. Roerich asserted the unity of cognitive, aesthetic,
ethical man's relation to the world. Who are not educated in the
"culture of spirit", he should be allowed to
do science, thought Roerich. Otherwise, after we left most terrible
wilderness - "Desert Spirit" except material pustyn269.
Values scientist: the variety of personal motivations and value
orientations.
Values are based on scientific value of scientific cognition of a
particular activity (cognitive values) and values governing the scientist
as a person (existential and social values).
Traditionally, the main value of cognitive science - the truth
(objectively, proven knowledge). And until recently, scientists believed
that the ethics of science is the following standards of scientific activity
as purity of the experiment, scientific integrity in theoretical studies,
negative attitudes towards plagiarism, professionalism, and defending
disinterested search for truth.
The meaning of compliance with these standards is that in the
pursuit of truth scientist should not be considered nor with their likes
and dislikes, to any whatsoever other extraneous factors. It is widely
known, for example, the phrase Aristotle: "Plato is my friend, but truth
is more precious." Many devotees in science is not deny their beliefs in
the face of the most difficult trials and even death - J. Bruno et al.) As
noted in this connection Norwegian philosopher G. Skirbekk, as
activities aimed at the search for truth, science regulated "seek the
truth" "Avoid nonsense", "say clear", "try to verify their hypotheses
thoroughly as possible." Just look formulation of internal rules of
science.
The norms of scientific ethics rarely formulated in the form of
specific lists and codes. However, known attempts to identify, describe
and analyze these standards. The most popular in this respect the
concept of the English sociologist Robert Merton science presented in
the "normative structure of science" (1942). It R. Merton describes the
ethos of science, understood as a set of values and norms that
reproduce from generation to generation of scientists and are
mandatory for human science. Times of Robert Merton, the rules of
science were built around four core values:
universalism - the belief that science studied natural
phenomena occurring everywhere the same and the truth of scientific
statements should be evaluated independently of age, sex, race,
authority, titles of those who formulated them. Science thus internally
democratic:
community - scientific knowledge should be free to become
public domain;
unselfishness - the impetus of a scientist is to seek the truth
free from considerations of personal gain (fame, remuneration, etc.);
• organized skepticism - respect for predecessors and critical
attitude to their results.
These social norms form the basis of professional scientists and
their behavior (so-called "ethos of science"). They scientist learns in the
course of their professional training. When knowledge is already
regulated, even cognitive and methodological standards, follow them or
ignoring them as both an act of moral choice, which provides academic
responsibility to their colleagues and to the scientific community, that
is his professional responsibility.
Made R. Merton analysis of values and norms of science has
repeatedly been criticized, not always, however, warranted. It was
noted in particular the proposed abstraction R. Merton values, and
that in his real activity, scientists often violate them without
experiencing with condemnation from colleagues. Largely influenced
by criticism R. Merton again addressed the problem of the ethos of
science in 1965 in the "Ambivalence scientist" In it he noted the
presence of opposing regulations, standards and that "kontrnorm",
which scientists are guided in their activities. These contradictory
requirements leads to the fact that the scientist is often in a state of
ambivalence, uncertainty about them.
For example, he should as soon as possible to make their results
available to colleagues, he should be receptive towards new ideas from
him to know everything within the scope of his interests predecessors
and contemporaries. However, he must carefully check the results
before they are published, should not blindly obey intellectual fashion;
his erudition should not suppress independent thinking scientist.
Thus, the scientist can and should exercise some flexibility as
normative value structures of science is not rigid. Nevertheless, the
presence of norms and values (though not just these, but something
similar to them in content and mode of action) is very important for
self scientific community. Of course, in cases where a violation of these
rules obviously the result of simply not deserve serious attention.
Often, however, the test requires a minimum repetition research
unthinkable in relation to each outcome. From this perspective, it
becomes clear control functions such elements of scientific work, as a
description of experimental methods and theoretical and
methodological research study. Trained for the purpose of this
information is usually enough to judge how serious work. On the other
hand, the researcher himself, addressing colleagues, has the right to
claim their impartial and objective opinion on that reported their
results.
These social norms form the basis of professional scientists and
their behavior (so-called "ethos of science"). They scientist learns in the
course of their professional training. When knowledge is already
regulated, even cognitive and methodological standards, follow them or
ignoring them as both an act of moral choice, which provides academic
responsibility to their colleagues and to the scientific community, that
is his professional responsibility.
Made R. Merton analysis of values and norms of science has
repeatedly been criticized, not always, however, warranted. It was
noted in particular the proposed abstraction R. Merton values, and
that in his real activity, scientists often violate them without
experiencing with condemnation from colleagues. Largely influenced
by criticism R. Merton again addressed the problem of the ethos of
science in 1965 in the "Ambivalence scientist" In it he noted the
presence of opposing regulations, standards and that "kontrnorm",
which scientists are guided in their activities. These contradictory
requirements leads to the fact that the scientist is often in a state of
ambivalence, uncertainty about them.
For example, he should as soon as possible to make their results
available to colleagues, he should be receptive towards new ideas from
him to know everything within the scope of his interests predecessors
and contemporaries. However, he must carefully check the results
before they are published, should not blindly obey intellectual fashion;
his erudition should not suppress independent thinking scientist.
Thus, the scientist can and should exercise some flexibility as
normative value structures of science is not rigid. Nevertheless, the
presence of norms and values (though not just these, but something
similar to them in content and mode of action) is very important for
self scientific community. Of course, in cases where a violation of these
rules obviously the result of simply not deserve serious attention.
Often, however, the test requires a minimum repetition research
unthinkable in relation to each outcome. From this perspective, it
becomes clear control functions such elements of scientific work, as a
description of experimental methods and theoretical and
methodological research study. Trained for the purpose of this
information is usually enough to judge how serious work. On the other
hand, the researcher himself, addressing colleagues, has the right to
claim their impartial and objective opinion on that reported their
results.
In classical science, the epicenter of which, as mentioned, was an
abstract ideal of truth, scientific truth and moral values (social values)
were separated by an impassable limit. The concept of "moral
neutrality" of science became positivist dogma is not oriented
philosophy of science, which is delimited context of discovery and
justification and context of learning and application. From the
standpoint of common sense, science is clear that the laws of nature
expressed by mathematical equations themselves formalism language
of science is absolutely independent of the passions that raged over
their search and justification of subjective tastes and affectation
theorists. Knowledge symbolic and semiotic structures is "beyond good
and evil" because it reflects an objective state, independent from any
man, nor of mankind. Everything seems so. But science is not just
fixing the extracted knowledge, but also the process of living a
productive activity. Ignore social and anthropological-personal
dimension of knowledge, modern science can not. Otherwise the
human person will face as a performer impersonal absolute liberty of a
subject whose nature is absolutely incomprehensible and irrational.
In the formation of personality type scientist, his behavioral and
mental skills involved in the value orientation of an era. Scientific
shared core values which raised its culture - humanity, respect for the
individual, service to society, the democratic right of everyone to
freedom of choice, the right to life and so on. D.
For example, the emergence of mechanistic science in the XVII
century. characterized break with traditional patriarchal values. Birth
mechanistic research program is connected closely with the ethics
born rigid and alien all sentimentality of the early bourgeois
revolutions. It is characterized by indifference to the problems of good
and evil in their traditional sense and focus on the individual search
for personal calling, personal sense of being chosen individual
characters within the profession. And this "Faustian" spirit of
indifference to the world of traditional morality "values Gretchen"
permeates the program mechanism. The new value orientation are "its
fullest incarnation as every natural science orientation thinking (but
not actually Humanities, which long remained a relic of medieval
concept man). "
The feature of modern emerging scientific thinking style can be
considered a fundamental recognition fatal value knowledge bases. For
example, in biology is the moral status of theoretical ecological
imperative principle of co-evolution of the human world and the
natural world. The human dimension in modern physics and
cosmology reflected in active development and exploration anthropic
principle, the concept of global evolution, etc.
Not only cognitive needs, but also other human needs and
motivations also play a role in the development of science. Einstein
said very vividly the moral motives and "spiritual forces" leading people
to science: "Science Temple - a complex structure. Different people are
in there and brought them back spiritual strength. Some involved in
science with a proud sense of their intellectual benefits for
They science is the appropriate sport, which should give them the
fullness of life satisfaction and ambition. Can be found in the church
and others: they bring in here offering products of the brain only
utilitarian purposes. If God sent the angel came out of the temple and
drove out all the people belonging to these two categories, the house
would be empty catastrophic, but it still remained even as people past
and our time. " He noted that science is not only the fruits of creative
scientific, intellectual achieving it, but his moral character - moral
strength, human greatness, purity of thought, demanding of
themselves, objectivity, integrity judgment, dedication, strength of
character, perseverance in carrying work with the most incredible
difficulties, etc.
Freedom of scientific research and social responsibility of the
scientist
Understanding the role of moral, ethical principles in science
updates GPs growing social responsibility of scientist. Prof. Vernadsky
emphasized that scientists should not be blind to the consequences of
their scientific work, scientific progress. They should feel responsible
for the consequences of their discoveries. F. Joliot-Curie, after having
opened a chain reaction of uranium fission, talking to their employees
about the moral right to continue research that will lead not only to an
increase in the industrial and cultural potential, but also to build an
atomic bomb. M. Born, speaking about it in his memoirs, said that
"real science and its ethics have been changes that make it impossible
to sustain the old ideal of service knowledge for its own sake, the ideal
to which my generation believed. We were convinced that it will never
be able to turn evil, as the search for truth is a good in itself. It was a
beautiful dream from which we awoke world events. " It meant above
all - the US nuclear bombings of the Japanese cities. The release of
atomic energy in the middle of the century was in this respect certain
historical abroad.
Many scholars, such as R. Oppenheimer, refused to work on the
hydrogen bomb, based on ethical considerations. When Otto Hahn,
who discovered the splitting of uranium learned about the explosion of
the atomic bomb over Hiroshima, he was deeply impressed by these
results open it. They say (Erich Bagge) that he had not slept for several
nights and thought about suicide. At one time even thinking about a
plan to prevent disaster, collecting all the uranium and sinking into
the sea. However, there could thus deprive mankind of all the good
that at the same time bring uranium? And remember Andrei
Sakharov, who realized the possible number of victims, which will test
nuclear weapons and opposed his trial in the atmosphere.
Particularly acute problem of moral responsibility has gained in
recent years, particularly due to advances in genetic engineering
because it affects the intimate mechanisms of life. In 1975 the world's
leading scientists have concluded voluntary moratorium temporarily
stopped a number of studies, potentially dangerous not only for
humans but also for other forms of life on our planet. Moratorium was
an unprecedented event for science: first on its own initiative,
scientists decided to suspend the investigation that promised them
great success.
In the course of developing extremely strict security measures
during the experiments some research gradually recovered, but the
most risky types of experiments are still banned. This is an example of
what social responsibility - the organic component of science (just like
any human activity). Now made many attempts to create certain
ethical codes that regulate research in human genetics, go work ethics
of genetic control. For example, Karl Popper believed that naturalists
have to give oath to seek only good for people and never to harm.
Proclaimed manifesto Russell - Einstein on the need to recognize the
priority of human dimensions of science and technology, created
Pahoushskoe movement, World Federation of researchers. But can the
codes, oaths ensure complete solution of the problem?
The issue of freedom of research on how it should be understood,
was one of the central problems in the discussions around these
studies. There are different points of view. Along with the protection of
absolutely no way restricts the freedom of research has been presented
diametrically opposite view - proposed to regulate science as
movement and governed by rail. Between these extreme positions is a
wide range of views on the possibility and desirability of regulating
research about who should have the final word here - same
researcher, the scientific community and society as a whole.
Speaking of the need for freedom of thought and freedom of
scientific inquiry, VI Vernadsky expressed very insightful, optimistic
judgments can be said about the relationship between government (the
state) and science. He believed that the government can not (explicitly
or implicitly) to limit scientific thought, and it should encourage the
development of fruitful and smooth. The more violent unacceptable
state interference in scientific work, "justifying" this class, party and
other interests. "In fact, - emphasized Vernadsky - scientific thought in
the public right of course should not deal with state power because it
is a major, major source of national wealth, the basis of state power"
Problem requirement and social responsibility of scientists need
our time. But to what extent it can follow scientists in their work? Self-
consciousness of modern science forked. On the one hand, she has not
lost her memory of what scientific research is a movement for truth on
the other, was the "profession", she took care of all the features of this
kind of activity.
In this regard, Jaspers wrote that "the fact of conversion of free
study of individuals in the scientific enterprise has led to the fact that
everyone feels able to participate in it, unless he has the intelligence
and diligence. There is a layer of plebeians science ... science crisis - a
crisis people embraced them when they lost their absolute desire to
know. " Plebeian science, he says, is not the truth, and those who
ensure the material well-being "scientific enterprises." But so do other
people in all spheres of its activities. Can people bring science account,
which pays no other group of employees?
Some researchers suggest that the answer to the question of
social responsibility can be more specific if remember the difference
between basic and applied research.
If scientists involved in basic research know about the use of an
achievement in science for society in undesirable direction, he must
notify the colleagues and the general public - is the natural
requirement of scientific and public ethics. But that's all of it can
require. The call to be a scientist oath that obliged him to give his
talent and strength solution only useful for humanity issues in
relation to fundamental research sounds naive. The task of a scientist
who works in this field, explore natural sites in the form in which they
exist in themselves, independently of human activity - the objective
laws of nature. In addition, the concept of good and good is not
absolute and timeless.
Thus, the formation of a new ethnic group of modern science is in
the bosom of a broader process - the process of becoming a new
planetary ecological awareness that the practice of interaction between
civilization and nature in the modern world. The development of this
consciousness has become the subject of attention of world
philosophy. This is the articulation and correction value-normative
relationships and norms that govern the choice of strategies and
assessment of human senses. The new system of values and priorities,
endured civilization, nature appears not indifferent and inert reservoir
of resources, not subject conquest and domination, and the subject of
living an intense inner life, which looks in the mirror and the person in
respect of which it asserts itself not just as active and skillful, but free-
universal, and therefore a moral being. Hence the actualization of this
new imperative ethnicity science: "There should be no immoral
science!" - Both in terms of the effects of its achievements, and in
terms of ethical neutrality and indifference to the fate of civilization.
179
180 747 
