Objectivity and Values in the Islamic Social Sciences

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Professor, The Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute Qom, Iran

10.22034/jspt.2020.180751

Abstract

The major motivation for the development of Islamic social sciences in the thought of ‘Allāmah Misbah is the observation that values play an essential role in the social sciences, and that in many works in these fields, the underlying values are inimical to religion, particularly to Islam. ‘Allāmah Misbah’s position on the Islamicization of the social sciences is best understood as a form of scientific pluralism. One of the major challenges to any form of scientific pluralism is how to maintain the objectivity of scientific research. Several approaches to objectivity are surveyed and it is suggested that a risk-account of scientific objectivity may be adopted to bolster claims for the objectivity of the islamicized social sciences.

Keywords


Article Title [Persian]

عینیت و ارزش‌ها در علوم اجتماعی اسلامی

Author [Persian]

  • Hajj Muhammad Legenhausen
Professor, The Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute Qom, Iran
Abstract [Persian]

انگیزه اصلی توسعه علوم اجتماعی اسلامی در دیدگاه علامه مصباح، مشاهده این نکته است که ارزش‌ها، نقش اساسی در علوم اجتماعی دارند و در بسیاری از اثرات این زمینه، ارزش‌های پایه‌ای با دین، به ویژه اسلام، تعارض دارند. موضع علامه مصباح در خصوص اسلامی‌سازی علوم اجتماعی به بهترین وجه به عنوان شکلی از تکثرگرائی علمی درک می شود.  یکی از چالش‌های اصلی هر شکلی از تکثرگرائی علمی، چگونگی حفظ عینیت تحقیقات علمی است. تاکنون چندین رویکرد نسبت به صحت پژوهش علمی مورد بررسی قرار گرفته و پیشنهاد شده است که می‌توان از یک حسابرسی مخاطرات برای صحت علمی علوم اجتماعی اسلامی بهره‌برد تا ادعاهای صحت این علوم تقویت گردد.

Keywords [Persian]

  • عینیت
  • کثرت گرایی علمی
  • علوم اجتماعی اسلامی
  • اسلامی سازی
  • علم بدون ارزش
  • دوگانگی واقعیت- ارزش
Adeel, M. A. (2015). Evolution of Quine’s Thinking on the Thesis of Underdetermination and Scott Soames’s Accusation of Paradoxicality. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 56-69.
Bruun, H. H., & Whimster, S. (Eds.). (2012). Max Weber: Collected Methodological Writings. London and New York: Routledge.
Davydova, I., & Sharrock, W. (2003). The Rise and Fall of the Fact/Value Distinction. The Sociological Review, 51(3), 357–375. doi: 10.1111/1467-954X.00425
de Regt, H. W. (2017). Understanding Scientific Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
de Regt, H. W., Leonelli, S., & Eigner, K. (Eds.). (2009). Scientific Understanding: Philosophical Perspectives. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Elgin, C. (2007). Understanding and the facts. Philosophical Studies, 132, 33-42.
Elgin, C. Z. (2017). True Enough. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
Grimm, S. R., Baumberger, C., & Ammon, S. (Eds.). (2017). Explaning Understanding: New Perspectives from Epistemology and the Philosophy of Science. New York and Abingdon: Routledge.
Jasanoff, S. (2012). Science and Public Reason. Abingdon: Routledge.
Kellert, S. H., Longino, H. E., & Waters, C. K. (2006). Scientific Pluralism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a Democratic Society. Amherst: Prometheus Books.
Kölbel, M. (2011). Objectivity, Relativism and Context Dependence. Hagen: Fernuniversität in Hagen.
Koskinen, I. (2020). Defending a Risk Account of Scientific Objectivity. British Journal of the Philosophy of Science, 71(4), 1187-1207. doi: 10.1093/bjps/axy053
Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The Essential Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ludwig, D., & Ruphy, S. (2021). Scientific Pluralism. Retrieved from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:   
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/scientific-pluralism/
MacIntyre, A. (1988). Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
MacIntyre, A. (2007). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, 3rd ed. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Marchetti, G., & Marchetti, S. (Eds.). (2017). Facts and Values: The Ethics and Metaphysics of Normativity. New York and London: Routledge.
Misbah Yazdi, M. (1999). Philosophical Instructions. (M. Legenhausen & Sarvdalir, Trans.) Binghamton: IGCS and Brigham Young University.
Plantinga, A. (1996). Methodological Naturalism? In J. M. van der Meer (Ed.), Facets of Faith and Science (pp.177-221). Lanham: University Press of America.
Plantinga, A. (2010). Science and religion: why does the debate continue. In M. Y. Stewart (Ed.), Science and Religion in Dialogue (pp.301-316). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the Conflict Really Lies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Proctor, R. N. (1991). Value-Free Science? Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Putnam, H. (2002). The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Quine, W. v. (1992). Pursuit of Truth, revised edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Stanford, K. (2021, Winter). Underdetermination of Scientific Theory. Retrieved from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:     
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/scientific-underdetermination/
Stanford, P. K. (2006). Exceeding our grasp: science, history, and the problem of unconceived alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Fraassen, B. C. (2002). The Empirical Stance. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Veigl, S. J. (2021). Notes on a complicated relationship: scientific pluralism, epistemic relativism, and stances. Synthese, 199, 3485–3503.          
doi: 10.1007/s11229-020-02943-2
Villa, D. (2019). Weber and the Frankfurt School. In P. E. Gordon, E. Hammer, & A. Honneth (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Frankfurt School (pp.266-281). New York and London: Routledge.