Iv российский философский конгресс
| Вид материала | Доклад |
- I российский конгресс «Управление качеством медицинской помощи и системой непрерывного, 39.64kb.
- Тематика конференции: организационные вопросы, 90.6kb.
- Конгресс-центр Гостиничного комплекс «Космос», залы Галактика 1-5 Программа Конгресс-центр, 286.14kb.
- Отчет о проведении Российского Национального конгресса кардиологов и IX съезда кардиологов, 57.4kb.
- 20-й конгресс Мирового Энергетического Совета, 371.02kb.
- Corpus Areopagiticum в русской мысли XVI-XVII вв.: историко-философский анализ, 274.91kb.
- Типологизация исторического процесса: социально-философский анализ, 251.13kb.
- Первый конгресс травматологов и ортопедов, 21.2kb.
- Национализм как фактор социально-политических трансформаций: опыт россии (социально-философский, 256.44kb.
- Событие года для каждого профессионала XIV международный конгресс по прикладной эстетике, 74.05kb.
Пирмин Штекелер-Вайтхофер. Почему нам нужны «качественные исследования» в социальных науках. Комментарий к докладу Елены Трубиной
Pirmin Stekeler-Weithofer. Why do we need qualitative studies in the social sciences? A short commentary to the contribution of Elena Trubina
1. There is a tendency all around the world to replace qualitative studies in the social sciences and humanities by a mixture of quantitative statistics and formal, probabilistic, decision- and game-theoretic modeling, not only in Russia. On the other hand, we also find as a new trend in cultural theories an increasing doubt in the very possibility of causal explanation of social processes. The proposal is to replace causal models and theories by qualitative narratives and an ongoing discourse, accompanied by some reflecting discourse analysis. As a result, we find a deep gap between a rather ‘positivist’ camp of quantitative social sciences and a ‘post-modernist’ camp of qualitative discourse. For the ‘positivists’, qualitative analysis is subjective and un-scientific, a kind of poetical literature. For the ‘post-modern’ critic, causal models of social processes are a new form of fictionalization that uses the rhetorical potential of mathematical theories. Obviously, this thesis turns the whole table against an old tradition that leads from Plato to positivism: Plato thinks that poetry and literature tell us untrue and uncontrolled myths that are dangerous for scientific thinking – which always is mathematical and quantitative in the end. For the ‘post-structuralist’ critic, the modern form of mythmaking uses quantitative investigations and mathematical models. The overestimation of quantitative research in view of qualitative orientations leads to the hidden rhetoric of positivist science. In fact, there is an ideological danger in claims that are supported by quantitative arguments resulting from transcendent, all too generous, waving, interpretations of their results.
2. But is it not right to expect exact, formal and quantitative theories from science? Are they no good signs for scientific credibility? And how could such a vague and subjective thing as a never-ending discourse become scientific and objective? The claim that qualitative narratives already permit our perception of reality is not specific enough as to put quantitative scientific explanation of social life into question. In fact, perhaps we should bridge the gap and replace the Either-Or of quantitative and qualitative research by giving both their right place.
3. But the main problem connected with this dispute has to be attacked as well. It is the problem of normativity and objectivity. It refers to the question if or in what range the social sciences can be free of values and normative judgments and how to distinguish an Ought from an Is. The usual criticism against a totally non-normative and objectivist approach in the social sciences reminds us of the fact that any empirical investigation and theoretical model, be it quantitative or qualitative, has already implicit normative presuppositions and provides us with practical orientations, if it is meaningful at all. Objectivity is not gained by merely sticking to empirical observation, statistics and mathematical models, ignoring the implicit norms governing the whole scientific process, but by making the normative stance and perspective as explicit as possible. Even though Max Weber is right to stress that the social sciences should not be made dependent from private political opinion, it would be naïve not to remember that their function is political nevertheless. A scientist is no preacher. But a social scientist does not act and research outside his political and social context.
4. The presumption that quantitative empirical methods of investigation are good enough for providing true knowledge in the social sciences overlooks the problem which I would like to call meta-experience. Meta-experience happens in a dialogical debate about the reasonable use of quantitative methods and mathematical models. As such, it is a qualitative enterprise.
5. Experience as such always is qualitative. It can sometimes be schematized, transformed into quantitative statements and models. But these schematizations, helpful as they are for fast communication, have limits. The naïve belief in quantitative methods tends to overlook, therefore, the following facts:
Measuring always is qualitative.
Measuring is at least in this respect normative as it should be reproducible.
Results of measurement in the social sciences are not used to decorate walls or just to fill books, but to give reliable orientation in a social practice.
Therefore, there is a qualitative basis for all social research.
And there are implicit normative presumptions in any empirical investigation and mathematical modeling.
There also are implicit normative ends of the results when their consequences are used in real orientations.
But the main problems are structures of self-fulfilling prophecies and pseudo-explanations post hoc.
6. The problem of self-fulfilling prophecies is a basic topic of American Pragmatism. It stands in the center of a philosophical reflection as it was developed by Ch. S. Peirce and William James. The problem is this: Let us assume the belief in the truth of theory D which predicts that people will act according to a generic action scheme Д is a necessary precondition for our real acting according to the generic action scheme Д. Such a belief has the form of the ‘moral of the troops’ in an army or a team. If the moral is good, the probability of victory or success is higher. I.e. the belief in any theory which I call here, for short, non-D can make the action Д or its expected result impossible. In such a case, we cannot disprove theory D by empirically showing that Д is not done. Hence, if we think that Д should be done because we agree that it is better for all of us if Д is done, how can we evaluate the ‘truth’ of the partially self-fulfilling prophecy D? If we do not belief in D, we cannot disprove D just by empirical and quantitative methods post hoc. If we believe in D we cannot empirically show the causal efficacy of D.
This shows that that there is a real problem of post hoc and counterfactual explanations here. Statistical investigations and stochastic models (in decision and game theories) always come too late. In fact, some beliefs in causal explanations of this sort are only more complicated versions of explaining a fact like the sleep of a person by a vis dormitiva, namely post hoc.
This also shows that if we do not reflect qualitatively on the limits and reasonable interpretations of quantitative research and models, objectivity claims in socials sciences can easily be abused. Moreover, one can usually prove by statistics almost any political prejudice we like, for example how good or how bad a national educational system is. It depends on the criteria and methods of evaluation.
7. If we consider the fact that in nature self-fulfilling prophecies do not work (whatever we believe, the course of the earth around the sun will not be moved by it),we see that and why the following claim is wrong:
At its core, scientific inquiry is the same in all fields.
Scientific research in education is not only different than in physics, their respective success conditions are totally different. The same holds for economics, if, for example, compared to molecular biology.
Only if we look at science in a much too non-differentiating way we can vaguely talk about a “continual process of rigorous reasoning supported by a dynamic interplay among methods, theories, and findings”. These are tautological words for a Sunday School, nothing we can make use of in a critical methodology of the sciences.
Therefore, I totally agree with Elena Trubina that such statements raise quite a number of important points with regard to the idea of unity of science.
The mere fact that we use in both cases models or theories that can be tested does not assimilate the different situations. (Cf. NRC, 2002, p. 2).
Therefore, the following claim, cited by Elena Trubina, must be put into question, too:
Scientific culture, in a fundamental sense, retains its unity in spite of all the sentimental (why necessarily sentimental?) narratives about paradigms, programs, discourses, epistemes, and other nice things the importance of which becomes only stronger when the above-mentioned unity of scientific culture has a lively and dynamic character. (These nice phrases are in themselves normative and, at the same time, self-understood!) There is no other way for social sciences except deciding between the poles of a following alternative: either they establish themselves within this unity (but the problem is how to understand the unity of the sciences in all their differences!) or they position themselves outside of scientific culture”. (Filippov, A. 2004)
8. But, I must admit, I also do not have a solution to the problem that qualitative sub-disciplines in the social sciences always are more difficult to evaluate and to control than their quantitative brethren, not to speak of the natural and merely technical sciences.
Ким, Еуи-Су (Корея). Философы должны быть способны влиять на системы ценностей
Kim, Eui-Soo (Korea). Philosophers should be able to Influence Value Systems
I think of two things that I've experienced in the end of the year 2004.
(1) On 28th Dec. 2004, the Philosopher's Engagement Network (PEN) of Korea issued a declaration against the extended stay of South Korea's troops in Iraq and requested a withdrawal of South Korea's troops. The National Assembly, however, approved the extension of South Korea's troops in Iraq the day after the declaration.
(2) On 26th Dec. 2004, a huge earthquake took place near the northern Sumatra, Indonesia, it was one of the biggest and worst natural disasters, which took lives of more than 150,000 people.
That kind of social/political incidents and natural disasters make us feel powerless and make us question ourselves about what human beings and philosophers can possibly do. The first case was an example that a natural and simple value system was overridden by the national/political interest. The second case was a natural disaster, which makes any great value system powerless.
1. The matter of establishing value system and value neutralization
Among the topics that the Organizing Committee offered, I chose "Can we, philosophers, influence value systems?" I immediately answered 'Yes,' to that question, and then asked myself "How can we, philosophers, efficiently influence value systems?" I reached to a proposition, “We have to strive to influence value system."
In this thesis, I will try to give an answer to 'How,' it will contain an answer to "what specifically can we do?" Therefore, my thesis will contain epistemological theme, which is featured in questions, and moral philosophical theme which is changed into a declarative sentence.
Value systems change. History is a changing process of value systems, and philosophical history is a history of value systems. Individual, group, society and culture establish value system. Values are discovered, established, kept (maintained), abolished and then newly discovered.
Value system is established in culture and life, and value is maintained with practice. The risk of value is found at the time to abolish, and philosophers discover new value through analyzing the risk and finding the case of abolishing. Studying value system is moral philosophy and practical philosophy. Influencing value system can mean maintaining a healthy value system, it can also mean establishing a new fine value system by criticizing and modifying wrong values.
The controversy of value neutralization of intellectuals started long ago, and it will continue because neither part is absolute. However, what we usually agree with and admit is that knowledge and intellectuals can not be thoroughly separated from value problem. They are requested to pass fair judgment on values.
Especially, philosophy and value are supposed/requested/expected to be in a close connection. Here I quote from Hoesle.
Denn das Gebot, moralisch zu leben, gilt kategorisch; dasjenige, spezialistisches Wissen anzusammeln, hingegen nur hypothetisch. 29
2. Mission of Philosophers - Finding new values
V. Stepin said:
Our participation, the participation of philosophers in the process of searching for new values is our direct duty, our social mission, our destiny.
Right. It is an important thing. I want to develop my thesis at the base of holding this assertion in common.30
Greeting the 21st century, we need to establish new values in a few points.
1) In the 20th century, we experienced the limit of enlightenment and modernism ruled by science, we needed ecological complement.
2) After the fall of communism, a new value system was required.
3) We need values, which can solve and supplement the problem caused by neo-liberalism and globalization.
We can understand the theory of critical society and the theory of reflexive modernization which appeared in 1990s in Europe in the same context.31 Many philosophers suggested ideas for new value system in conclusion of the 20th century, I had arranged the philosophical orientations for the 21st century.32
People, including philosophers and the cultured, usually agree on what value needs to be aimed in 21st century. It is deplorable that a theory taken for granted is not practiced at all. For instance, philosophers expected a peaceful 21st century after two World Wars in the 20th century with. However, the 21st century started with wars.
Maintaining healthy value system
As Stepin said, finding new values is important, it is all philosophers' mission and destiny to actualize those values. People who take that mission and destiny are real philosophers.
Studies and suggestions about fundamental and basic values (which are usually abstract) are important. But studies and researches about temporary and specific values are important as well. The interest in relatively big and small values is as important as that of macroscopic and fundamental ones.
Participation of philosophers is needed not only to find a new value system but to actualize useful past and current values. Past values are not all abolished. Most of them remain, and only a few new values are needed, which usually are the fundamental (abstract) ones. Therefore they are decisively important.
It is important to be concerned whether the remained values are well practiced in life since new values are established on the basis of maintaining the past values.
Practice is important
How can philosophers effectively influence value system? Practice is important. Nobody would listen to philosophers who insist theory and moral principles far from practice. Our elevated values would be ridiculed in the real world. Alive values and values that have to be newly formed are all verified and executed in the process of practice. Values are not made at the desk, but in real life where orders and conflicts are mixed together.
Then general efforts are needed. It is important to do things that we can do now in our status. Philosophers' theoretical practice is not limited to epistemology, practical philosophy, and social philosophy. All philosophical fields have to deal with the matter of value. Even formalism, which we can say is very far from the matter of value, has several examples related to values. Also other studies should take interest in this matter and participate. It is the same context in which the physicist, Einstein, became a philosopher of peace. As all individual studies are able to take part in this matter theoretically, they need to make general efforts as well, from passive to active way.
These general efforts have to be spread to society and nation. Maintaining and establishing value system have to be pursued in various fields of society and various level of national system. Like a body, from the central nerve to capillary vessels, general efforts for executing right values and establishing new values are needed in every field. Philosophers are members of one of the fields and, at the same time, have special status to look out the whole.
Our theoretical and practical efforts for new values are accepted as a policy and institutionalized. Also solidarity based on our sympathy settles down values; those values develop to cultural universals.
3. Common-sense rationality is important
We need to work interdisciplinarily
It is not only the mission of philosophers to pursue new value. We have to work with scientists. Scientific background knowledge can influence establishing value system. The fact that oil will run out in 50 years influences us a lot. If we feel this knowledge as a common sense in our lives, then our point of view and way of lives have to be changed. Scientific knowledge definitely has influence on establishing and practicing point of views, and on discovering new values. Therefore, we have to work with other scholars.
Allgemein kennzeichnet das Projekt einer Ethik fuer moderne Welt die unabweisbare Notwendigkeit, normatives und empirisches Wissen zu verbinden; und in einer Zeit zunehmender Abkapselung der Wissenschaften voneinander (allen interdisziplinaeren Parolen zum Trotz) …ist ein solches Unternehmen gewiss wagemutig.(Hoesle)
We need to work with ordinary people
Ordinary people (the global citizens) are the subject that practice value system. An ascetic or genius philosopher might sometimes discover (make) new values, but values are usually established in life of human beings. It is important to have values that global citizens share in common, not suggesting values as a brilliant idea. It is important to make values a common sense for global citizen, and make people to practice those values after establishing ones. So also the sense of reality is important to philosophers. We can't sense the reality if we lie far from the real world. I think Heidegger joined (supported) Nazism since he lost a healthy sense of reality.
Common sense that everybody agrees with and wants should be reflected in philosophy. Elevated values, delicate value system, and summary of words are the next step. The main thing to do in a basic level is to secure fundamental values and to actualize lives. For this, philosophers routinely do a lot of things. Their routine, studies, and education are all included in the process of actualizing values. The value system and actualizing the value system have to be based on the point of view of most global citizens.
Sensible rationality (rational sensibility) should rule. Philosophers usually go with ordinary people (citizens). Philosophers don't have to be special. They can be citizens and a part of the public. The participants in a healthy movement (campaign) are already an ascetic and Buddha themselves. Scholars discuss professional subjects, not about common senses, but if it meets a conclusion, which is the opposite of basic values, then philosophy becomes useless or harmful. The common sense that I'm indicating here is not a bad custom. It is a sense based on rational values.
It is the same context with what Stepin said ;
The world-view universals define not only the comprehension of the world by a human being, not only its rational interpretation, but also his feelings, emotional evaluation of different aspects, states and situations of human life. The meaning of universals in this aspect appears as basic values of culture. You may ask anybody in the street, what is justice, he may not give you a definition, but he would understand what it is, he would give you examples, say, that his neighbor is an unjust or a just person, etc. Here we have an understanding, though there is no reflexive knowledge. This man not only thinks of justice, he also feels it, it is a value for him.
Discovering, maintaining, and abolishing values have to take place with the public, not by an idealistic genius, based on common sense, and in practice.
4. Cultures (civilizations) coexist
The two biggest problems for human beings now are America's hegemonic violence and the disaster caused by the nature (the earth). The first one is an artificial disaster, and the second one is a disaster beyond men's power. Human beings are miserable enough because of the natural disaster, but why we slaughter and hate each other (war)? As the tornado specialists do, we strive to find the rules of natural disasters and try to prevent them. And we never blame the earthquake itself. But war and terror is different. We should discuss the influence on value system focused on concrete phenomena. I wonder what American philosophers are doing.
Huntington insists on a clash of civilization, and Chua constantly talks about the dominance of a minority in the market of the 3rd world. Walzer insists on just and unjust war, Chomsky emphasizes the global power of NGO. I agree with Chomsky, dispute with Walzer, sense the limit of Chau's neo-liberalism, and oppose to Huntington.33 I believe most of the global citizens are on my side.
Most of the global citizens agree with the coexistence of the culture that Harald Mueller insisted34 and aim at peace. Islamic fundamentalists and American Christian fundamentalists are all unorthodox in their religious and cultural value system. A war occurs when minor fundamentalists, who stand for unhealthy value, conspire with hegemonic political group. While Huntington insists a clash of civilization, and even talks about a clash of civilization (America) and uncivilization (Islamic fundamentalism), Sloterdijk exposes the barbarism of America.
Mit einem Mal wurden die USA als Fremdkörper im moralischen Ökosystem der Macht zu spielen – nicht nur für diesmal, sondern auch für die weitere Zukunft... posthistorischen Weltkommune wahrnehmbar, weil ihre Regierung klarer als je zuvor den Willen erkennen ließ, die Rolle der einzigen verbliebenen geschichtlichen.
Wie in einer frühneuzeitlichen Szene setzen die USA ihre Flotten ein, um als Seemacht die Weltnahme Wie in einer frühneuzeitlichen Szene setzen die USA ihre Flotten ein, um als Seemacht die Weltnahme voranzutreiben; wie eine moderne Kolonialmacht machen sie von Luft- und Ätherwaffen Gebrauch, um sich im asymmetrischen Krieg gegen aussichtslos Unterlegene durchzusetzen; wie eine neu-apostolische Bringermacht nehmen sie das Invasionsrecht in Anspruch, das aus dem Bewußtsein folgt, das Geschenk Gottes an die Menschheit – es heißt democracy – widerstrebenden Empfängern nötigenfalls mit Gewalt in die Hand drücken zu sollen35.
Many religious cultures are mixed in Korea. There is tense and a conflict between different religions, but it is not a big deal. Compared to that, conflicts caused by political and economical interest are more severe. In Korea, democracy was a false consciousness for 40 years after the liberation from Japan. The people who claimed democracy were the autocratic ones, and the anti-Communists who suppressed the freedom of ideology. Since it's existed a long time, we still have those vestiges of that ideology. That's the reason why we sometimes hear/see McCarthyism in Korea.
Self-reflection, open mind, and universality
I emphasize both sides of 'nation(ethno)' and 'national culture.' Many western philosophers firmly stand against nationalism, so they easily talk about clashes between national cultures, I think. However, barbarian and violent nationalism and peaceful national culture are totally different.36
We had to go through many horrible incidents in 2004. Many global citizens panicked when the Chechen separatists took elementary school kids as hostages. Korea was embarrassed with the fact there was a Korean descendent among the terrorists, because they felt the enormous responsibility as a member of the same national community. Nationalism includes violent expansionism and hegemony, but on the other hand, it has the sense of responsibility as a community.
We can not describe the half of the pain and sadness we had when Kim, Sun-Il was killed by Iraqi terrorists. However, it doesn't mean that we may hate Iraqi and request for an extended stay of South Korea's troops in Iraq. Amy Chua lost her ant, but she honestly tells pure the Chinese group, including her family, is the minor dominant group in the Philippines. She doesn't take the problem personally, and focuses on the public system, which causes personal incidents.
To make the national cultures and civilizations coexist, and to make the global civilization possible, self-reflection, open mind, and efforts for universality are needed.
5. We need 'philosophy of Earth'
Beyond modernism and post-modernism, we have to philosophize (philosophieren) the earth. We have to listen to the earth and respect the simple message that the earth tells. The earth tells. The earth declares. The earth scolds.
“I'm 4,6 billion years old, but you are 0,1 million years old. I'll live 4,6 billion years more, but you'll live at most several hundred years more. You destroy culture and kill people for oil to use it 20 more years. You waste resources and destroy environment not knowing what will happen in 10 years. You destroy the ozone layer and accelerate the fall of human beings. You make atomic bombs and live with them. Your silliness is pitiful. OK. Do whatever you want to do. Explode the atomic bombs and kill every living creature. Do you know what remains after all? Only me, the earth. Even though you destroy all precious living creatures and eventually no one survives, I will live my life."
Listening to the earth is philosophizing the earth. Existentialism philosophizes the death of individuals, but philosophy of the earth philosophizes the death of the whole human beings. Philosophy of the earth will renew all value system. Philosophy of the earth needs to be the basic to maintain value system healthy. Philosophy of the earth is, of course, connected to philosophy of universe.
Concluding my thesis, I insist philosophers have to do those things as follows to influence value system.
1. Make efforts theoretically and practically to actualize currently sympathized values.
2. Analyze the limitation of past values.
3. Look up for values of new future.
4. Make efforts theoretically and practically to actualize future values.
For those things, I insist upon:
1. philosophy of common sense,
2. philosophy of practice and solidarity,
3. philosophy of the earth.