What kind of expert is valuable for science? (On the issue of typological characteristics of expert knowledge)

Authors

  • Irina O. Shchedrina Institute for Logic, Cognitive Science and Development of Personality, 70A, pr. Mira, Moscow, 129110, Russian Federation; HSE University, 21/4, Staraya Basmannaya ul., Moscow, 105066, Russian Federation
  • Evgeny P. Zhuravel Institute for Logic, Cognitive Science and Development of Personality, 70A, pr. Mira, Moscow, 129110, Russian Federation; State Academic University for the Humanities, 26, Maronovskii per., Moscow, 119049, Russian Federation

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2022.410

Abstract

The article presents the results of an epistemological study of expertise, taking into account the typologies of this cognitive and social phenomenon that exist today in the world and domestic philosophical and methodological community. The authors reveal its typological characteristics, relying on the phenomenological approach to social and humanitarian subject formations. This approach shows that expertise always involves two levels of assessment: fundamental and applied. At the applied level, the expert solves a very specific problem, in accordance with the goals of the customer, at the fundamental (coexisting with the applied) level, he tries to integrate the result into the expanding knowledge about the world and humanity. Any expertise is subject to an external, social, in its essence, request, and the emphasis on applied knowledge is focused on the implementation of this request in an expert opinion, i. e. fixes the boundaries of the request implementation. As an alternative to this approach, there is an appeal in the course of an expert assessment to the fundamental cognitive attitudes that are present in its basis (orienting the expert analysis to the expansion of the study). Such appeals, among other things, increase the degree of objectivity of expert assessments due to their fundamental intentionality and intersubjective verifiability. And the reflexive hermeneutic competence of an expert helps to overcome cognitive gaps that arise in the process of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. The phenomenological approach allows us to consider expertise as a cultural and historical phenomenon, and the expert not just as an element of the scientific system, but as a well-educated professional who recognizes himself as a part of history and culture.

Keywords:

expertise, expert practices, fundamental, applied, cultural-historical epistemology

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

Литература

Горохов, В.Г. (2010), Как возможны наука и научное образование в эпоху «академического капитализма»?, Вопросы философии, № 12, c. 3–14.

Quast, C. and Seidel, M. (2018), Introduction: The Philosophy of Expertise — What is Expertise?, Topoi, vol. 37, pp. 1–2.

Юдин, Б.Г. (2008), Технонаука, человек, общество: актуальность гуманитарной экспертизы, Век глобализации, № 2, с. 146–154.

Юдин, Б.Г. (2011), Экспертиза в обществе знаний, Знание в социокультурном пространстве, под общ. ред. акад. РАН В.С.Степина, М.: Экономическое образование, c. 313–344.

Горохов, В.Г. и Декер, М. (2011), Оценка социальных рисков технологических инноваций (обзор научной конференции в Берлине), Вопросы философии, № 10, c. 176–181.

Townsley, E. (2015), Science, Expertise and Profession in the Post-Normal Discipline, The American Sociologist, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 18–28.

Туманов, С.В., Оносов, А.А. и Савина, Н.Е. (2017), Гуманитарная экспертиза: теоретические подходы и практики их реализации, Вестник Московского Университета. Серия 7: Философия, № 5, c. 97–112.

Пружинин, Б.И. (2021), Экспертиза как эпистемологический феномен, Вестник СанктПетербургского университета. Философия и конфликтология, т. 37, вып. 3, с. 393–402.

Пружинин, Б.И. (2015), Трансдисциплинарность в контексте дихотомии прикладного и фундаментального в науке, в: Бажанов, В. и Шольц, Р. (ред.), Трансдисциплинарность в философии и науке: подходы, проблемы, перспективы, М.: Навигатор, с. 252–262.

Clarke, S. (2013), Intuitions as evidence, philosophical expertise and the developmental challenge, Philosophical Papers, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 175–207.

Bach, Th. (2021), Why the Empirical Study of Non-philosophical Expertise Does not Undermine the Status of Philosophical Expertise, Erkenntnis, vol. 86, pp. 999–1023.

Martini, C. (2014), Experts in science: a view from the trenches, Synthese, vol. 191, pp. 3–15.

Звягина, Ж. (2021), Понятие «научная экспертиза» предложили закрепить законодательно, Парламентская газета, 26 августа. URL: https://www.pnp.ru/economics/ponyatie-nauchnayaekspertiza-predlozhili-zakrepit-zakonodatelno.html (дата обращения: 15.07.2022).

Горохов, В.Г. (2005), Опыт оценки техники и социально-экологической экспертизы в России, как предпосылка внедрения западноевропейского опыта экологического аудита, в: Философия науки и техники — природа и техника на пороге 3 тысячелетия: Материалы международной конференции, ред. д-р филос. наук проф. Горохов, В.Г., М.: Российское философское общество, с. 58–73.

Горохов, В.Г. (2007), Проблемы междисциплинарной оценки научно-технического развития, Вопросы государственного и муниципального управления, т. II, № 2–3, с. 191–213.

Горохов, В.Г. и Сидоренко, А.С. (2008), Нанотехнонаука: взаимное влияние фундаментальных теорий, современного эксперимента и новейших технологий, Высшее образование в России, № 10, с. 130–143.

Горохов, В.Г. (2007), Социальная оценка научно-технического развития сегодня, в: Социальная и экологическая оценка научно-технического развития. Материалы международной конференции памяти академика Н.Н.Моисеева, М.: Российско-германское общество «Философия науки и техники» Российского философского общества, с. 120–126.

Грунвальд, А. (2005), Междисциплинарное исследование и формирование научно-технического развития», в: Философия науки и техники — природа и техника на пороге 3 тысячелетия: Материалы международной конференции, ред. д-р филос. наук, проф. Горохов, В.Г., М.: Российское философское общество, с. 10–19.

Márkus, G. (1987), Why is There No Hermeneutics of Natural Sciences? Some Preliminary Theses, Science in Context, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 5–51.

Васюков, В.Л. и Шульга, Е.Н. (2022), Герменевтика естественных наук, Вопросы философии, № 8, c. 97–106.


References

Gorokhov, V.G. (2010), How are Science and Scientific Education Possible In the Era of ‘Academic Capitalism’?, Voprosy filosofii, no. 12, pp. 3–14. (In Russian)

Quast, C. and Seidel, M. (2018), Introduction: The Philosophy of Expertise — What is Expertise?, Topoi, vol. 37, pp. 1–2.

Yudin, B.G. (2008), Technoscience, Human, Society: the Relevance of Humanitarian Expertise, Vek globalizatsii, no. 2, pp. 146–154. (In Russian)

Yudin, B.G. (2011), Expertise in a Knowledge Society, in: Knowledge in the Socio-Cultural Space, ed. by Stepin, V. S., Moscow: Ekonomicheskoe obrazovanie Publ., pp. 313–344. (In Russian)

Gorokhov, V.G. and Decker, M. (2011), Evaluation of the Social Risks of Technological Innovations (Review of a Scientific Conference in Berlin), Voprosy filosofii, no. 10, pp. 176–181. (In Russian)

Townsley, E. (2015), Science, Expertise and Profession in the Post-Normal Discipline, The American Sociologist, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 18–28.

Tumanov, S.V., Onosov, A.A. and Savina, N.E. (2017), Humanitarian expertise: theoretical approaches and practices of their implementation, Moscow University Bulletin. Series 7: Philosophy, no. 5, pp. 97–112. (In Russian)

Pruzhinin, B.I. Expert examination as an epistemological phenomenon, Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 2021, vol. 37, iss. 3, pp. 393–402. (In Russian)

Pruzhinin, B.I. (2015), Transdisciplinarity in the Context of the Applied and Fundamental Dichotomy in Science, in: Bazhanov, V. and Scholz, R. (eds), Transdistsiplinarnost’ v filosofii i nauke: podkhody, problemy, perspektivy, Moscow: Navigator Publ., pp. 252–262. (In Russian)

Clarke, S. (2013), Intuitions as evidence, philosophical expertise and the developmental challenge, Philosophical Papers, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 175–207.

Bach, Th. (2021), Why the Empirical Study of Non-philosophical Expertise Does not Undermine the Status of Philosophical Expertise, Erkenntnis, Bd. 86, pp. 999–1023.

Martini, C. (2014), Experts in science: a view from the trenches, Synthese, vol. 191, pp. 3–15.

Zvyagina, Zh. (2021), The concept of ‘scientific expertise’ was proposed to be enshrined in law, Parlamentskaia gazeta, August, 26. Available at: https://www.pnp.ru/economics/ponyatie-nauchnaya-ekspertizapredlozhili-zakrepit-zakonodatelno.html (accessed: 15.07.2022). (In Russian)

Gorokhov, V.G. (2005), Experience in Technology Evaluation and Social and Environmental Expertise in Russia as a Prerequisite for the Introduction of Western European Experience in Environmental audit, in: Filosofiia nauki i tekhniki — priroda i tekhnika na poroge 3 tysiacheletiia: Materialy mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii, ed. by prof. Gorohov, V.G., Moscow: Rossiiskoe filosofskoe obshchestvo Publ., pp. 58–73. (In Russian)

Gorokhov, V.G. (2007), Problems of Interdisciplinary Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Development, Voprosy gosudarstvennogo i munitsipal’nogo upravleniia, vol. II, no. 2–3, pp. 191–213. (In Russian)

Gorokhov, V.G. and Sidorenko, A. S. (2008), Nanotechnoscience: Mutual Influence of Fundamental Theories, Modern Experiment and Latest Technologies, Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii, no. 10, pp. 130–143. (In Russian)

Gorokhov, V.G. (2007), Social Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Development Today, in: Sotsial’naia i ekologicheskaia otsenka nauchno-tekhnicheskogo razvitiia. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii pamiati akademika N.N.Moiseeva, Moscow: Rossiisko-germanskoe obshchestvo “Filosofiia nauki i tekhniki” Rossiiskogo filosofskogo obshchestva Publ., pp. 120–126. (In Russian)

Grunwald, A. (2005), Interdisciplinary Research and the Formation of Scientific and Technological Development, Filosofiia nauki i tekhniki — priroda i tekhnika na poroge tret’ego tysiacheletiia: Materialy mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii, ed. by prof. Gorohov, V.G., Moscow: Rossiiskoe filosofskoe obshchestvo Publ., pp. 10–19. (In Russian)

Márkus, G. (1987), Why is There No Hermeneutics of Natural Sciences? Some Preliminary Theses, Science in Context, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 5–51.

Vasyukov, V.L. and Shulga, E.N. (2022), Hermeneutics of Natural Sciences, Voprosy filosofii, no. 8, pp. 97–106. (In Russian)

Downloads

Published

2022-12-31

How to Cite

Shchedrina, I. O., & Zhuravel, E. P. . (2022). What kind of expert is valuable for science? (On the issue of typological characteristics of expert knowledge). Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 38(4), 562–571. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2022.410

Issue

Vol. 38 No. 4 (2022): Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies

Section

Philosophy

License

Articles of "Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.