Basic norms of the scientific ethos

Authors

  • Nikolai I. Gubanov Tyumen State Medical University, 54, Odesskaya ul., Tyumen, 625023, Russian Federation
  • Nikolai N. Gubanov Bauman Moscow State Technical University, 5/1, 2-ya Baumanskaya ul., Moscow, 105005, Russian Federation; Finance University under the Government of the Russian Federation, 49, Leningradsky pr., Moscow, 125993, Russian Federation

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2021.304

Abstract

The article aims to formulate and differentiate the norms of classical science, modern fundamental science, and applied science as wel as determine the areas where they intersect. The four standards of scientific ethos (CUDOS) proposed by R. Merton are considered: 1) Communalism: belief in the common achievements of scientific knowledge; 2) Universalism: the truth of statements should be evaluated regardless of the age, gender, race, authority and titles of scientists; 3) Disinterestedness: the primary stimulus of a scientist’s activity is a disinterested search for truth; 4) Organized Skepticism: the scientist is responsible for evaluating the soundness what other colleagues have done as well as the reliability of their results. Using the golden rule of morality, 12 more norms are formulated (5–16 in the text). A tendency of abandoning of Merton’s norms has arisen with the development of applied science and its commercialization. As an example, standards of the PLACE system by J. Ziman are described (ownership, patent; solution of local problems determined by authoritarian management; work orders; implementation of work by a limited circle of experts). When rejecting Merton’s norms, the features of fundamental and applied science are not taken into account. The article shows that Merton norms and the norms provided in paragraphs 5–16 relate to classical science and modern fundamental science. Ziman’s norms as well as the norms in the paragraphs noutid are applicable to applied science. The norms (5–16) are common to fundamental and applied science. Violations of the norms of scientific ethics, such as falsification of empirical material, plagiarism, incorrect quotation, undeserved authorship, and sale of dissertations, are highlighted the article. Their objective and subjective reasons are revealed. Although the behavior of scientists does not fully coincide with the norms of scientific ethos, it produces an important regulatory influence on the scientific community as an ideal, orienting scientists to achieve maximum objectivity of knowledge and its use for the benefit of society.

Keywords:

R. Merton, J. Ziman, ethos of science, the golden rule of morality, fundamental science, applied science, academic fraud

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

Литература

Мертон, Р. (2006), Социальная теория и социальная структура, пер. с англ. Егорова, Е. Н., Каганова, З. В. и Черемиссинова, Т. В., М.: АСТ — Хранитель.

Царегородцев, Г. И., Шингаров, Г. Х. и Губанов, Н. И. (2014), История и философия науки, 3-е изд., М.: Изд- во Современного гуманитарного университета.

Ушаков, Е. В. (2005), Введение в философию и методологию науки, М.: Экзамен.

Юдин, Б. Г. (1994), Этика науки и ответственность ученого, в Купцов, В. И. (ред.), Философия и методология науки, ч. II, М.: SvR — Аргус, 1994, с. 132–154.

Мирская, Е. З. (2005), Р. К. Мертон и этос классической науки, в Киященко, Л. П. (ред.), Философия науки, вып. 11: Этос науки на рубеже веков, М.: Институт философии РАН, с. 4–39.

Кохановский, В. П., Золотухина, Е. В., Лешкевич, Т. Г. и Фатхи, Т. Б. (2003), Философия для аспирантов, Ростов-на-Дону: Феникс.

Кичерова, М. Н. (2013), Этос науки в информационном обществе, Интернет журнал «Науковедение», № 4, URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=21033458 (дата обращения 19.10.2020).

Стёпин, В. С., Горохов, В. Г. и Розов, М. А. (1995), Философия науки и техники, М.: Контакт-Альфа.

Селиванов, Ф. А. (2008), Благо, истина, связь, Тюмень: Изд-во Тюменской государственной академии культуры.

Касавин, Т. И. (2019), Наука как этический проект, Вопросы философии, № 11, c. 90–103.

Ziman, J. (1998), Why must scientist become more ethically sensitive then there usud tu be? Science, vol. 282, no. 5395, pp. 1813–1814.

Пружинин, Б. И. (2005), Прикладное и фундаментальное в этосе современной науки, Философия науки, вып. 11: Этос науки на рубеже веков, М.: Институт философии РАН, 2005, с. 111–120.

Воробьева, С. А. (ред.) (2018), История и философия науки, М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа.

Ефимова, Г. З. и Кичерова, М. Н. (2012), Анализ причин академического мошенничества и их классификация, Интернет-журнал «Науковедение», № 4, URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=18822543 (дата обращения 19.10.2020).


References

Merton, R. (2006), Social theory and social structure, transl. by Egorova, E. N., Kaganova, Z. V. and Cheremissinova, T. V., Moscow: AST — Khranitel’ Publ. (In Russian)

Tsaregorodtsev, G. I., Shingarov, G. Kh. and Gubanov, N. I. (2014), History and philosophy of science, ed. 3rd, Moscow: Sovremennyi gumanitarnyi universitet Publ. (In Russian)

Ushakov, E. V. (2005), Introduction to the philosophy and methodology of science, Moscow: Ekzamen Publ. (In Russian)

Iudin, B. G. (1994), Ethics of science and the responsibility of a scientist, in Kupzov, V. I. (ed.), Philosophy and Methodology of Science, pt. II, Moscow: SvR — Argus Publ., pp. 132–154. (In Russian)

Mirskaia, E. Z. (2005), R. K. Merton and the ethos of classical science, in Kiiashchenko, L. P. (ed.), Philosophy of Science, vol. 11: The ethos of science at the turn of the century, Moscow: Institut filosofii RAN Publ., pp. 4–39. (In Russian)

Kokhanovsky, V. P., Zolotukhina, E. V., Leshkevich, T. G. and Fatkhi, T. B. (2003), Philosophy for graduate student, Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix Publ. (In Russian)

Kicherova, M. N. (2013), The ethos of science in the information society, Internet-zhurnal «Naukovedenie», no. 4. Available at: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=21033458 (accessed: 19.10.2020). (In Russian)

Stepin, V. S., Gorokhov, V. G. and Rozov, M. A. (1995), The philosophy of science and technology, Moscow: Contact-Alpha Publ. (In Russian)

Selivanov, F. A. (2008), Good, truth, connection, Tyumen’: Tiumenskaia gosudarstvennaia akademiia kul’tury Publ. (In Russian)

Kasavin, T. I. (2019), Science as an ethical project, Voprosy filosofii, no. 11, pp. 90–103. (In Russian)

Ziman, J. (1998), Why must scientist become more ethically sensitive then there usud tu be? Science, vol. 282, no. 5395, pp. 1813–1814.

Pruzhinin, B. I. (2005), Applied and fundamental in the ethos of modern science, Philosophy of Science, vol. 11: The ethos of science at the turn of the century, Moscow: Institut filosofii RAN Publ., pp. 111–120. (In Russian)

Vorobyova, S. A. (ed.) (2018), History and philosophy of science, Moscow: GEOTAR-Media Publ. (In Russian)

Efimova, G. Z. and Kicherova, M. N. (2012), Analysis of the causes of academic fraud and of their classification, Internet-zhurnal “Naukovedenie” , no. 4. Available at: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=18822543 (accessed: 19.10.2020). (In Russian)

Published

2021-10-22

How to Cite

Gubanov, N. I. ., & Gubanov, N. N. . (2021). Basic norms of the scientific ethos. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 37(3), 416–427. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2021.304