The Relative Concerning Scholarship What Is Freestanding Humanity After an Principled Evaluation

Sunil Kumar Saroha; Bakaye Poudiougo; Uttam Anand; Li Zheng

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ss.20190806.12

| Peer-Reviewed

The Relative Concerning Scholarship What Is Freestanding Humanity After an Principled Evaluation

Sunil Kumar Saroha, Bakaye Poudiougo, Uttam Anand, Li Zheng

Published in Social Sciences (Volume 8, Issue 6)

Received: 1 September 2019 Accepted: 8 October 2019 Published: 26 October 2019

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Although the division concerning "internal" constituents besides "peripheral" factors be able to recommend that the public fundamentals belongs individual towards the second province, the situation ought towards be incisively banned that this is not the case, because –in a sense– the societal character of interpretation is correspondingly internal. The reason is clear: each one of the ingredients of interpretation (linguistic, during the, awareness, method, activity, ends, besides ethical principles) is civic insofar by way of science is human-made what is freestanding the human being can only develop those fundamentals indoors society. During the period that assumed in that way, the societal constitution of science is unavoidable. To be sure, the conceptual outline of science belongs to us: science is "our" science. Nearby is no other being on earth able to construct what is freestanding to use the fundamentals distinguishing of science. Consequently, it should be during the period that assumed that nearby is an underlying societal dimension of science which affects every constituent of science. In this sense, civilization is the necessary medium to confirm those specific components of science. These constituents, due to their societal origin what is freestanding insofar during the period that they are human-made products but same as the antique pieces which is of no more use than decoration, but it’s not useless also. Accordingly, it might be during the period that assumed that those components (linguistic, edifice, explanation, manner, pursuit, ends, what is freestanding ethical principles) are neither absolute nor perfect. Further freestanding, if the self-correcting character of scholarship is accepted, then those fundamentals might be revisable indoors their civic medium, which is the methodical unrestricted where they are industrialized.

Published in	Social Sciences (Volume 8, Issue 6)
DOI	10.11648/j.ss.20190806.12
Page(s)	303-313
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2019. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Virtual, Freestanding Values, Humanity, Internal, Peripheral, Commercial of Science, Sociology of Science, STS (Societal Technology Science)

References

[1]	GONZALEZ, W. J., “Prediction and Prescription in Economics: A Philosophical and Methodological Approach,” Theories, v. 13, n. 32, (1998), pp. 321-345.
[2]	GONZALEZ, W. J., “Valores económicos en la configuration de la Tecnología,” Arguments de Razón técnica, v. 2, (1999), pp. 69-96.
[3]	GONZALEZ, W. J., “Ciencia y valores éticos: De la posibilidad de la Etica de la Ciencia al problema de la valoración ética de la Ciencia Básica,” Arbor, v. 162, n. 638, (1999), pp. 139-171.
[4]	GONZALEZ, W. J., “De la Ciencia de la Economía a la Economía de la Ciencia: Marco conceptual de la reflex ion metodológica y axiological,” in AVILA, A., GONZALEZ, W. J. and MARQUES, G. (eds.), Ciencia económica y Economía de la Ciencia: Reflexiones filosófico-metodológicas, FCE, Madrid, 2001, pp. 11-37.
[5]	GONZALEZ, W. J., “Racionalidad y Economía: De la racionalidad de la Economía como Ciencia a la racionalidad de los agentes económicos,” in GONZALEZ, W. J. (ed.), Racionalidad, historicidad y predicción en Herbert A. Simon, Netbiblo, A Coruña, 2003, pp. 65-96.
[6]	GONZALEZ, W. J., “Rationality in Experimental Economics: An Analysis of R. Selten’s Approach,” in GALAVOTTI, M. C. (ed), Observation and Experiment in the Natural and Social Sciences, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2003, pp. 71-83.
[7]	GONZALEZ, W. J., “Las revoluciones científicas y la evolución de Thomas S. Kuhn,” in GONZALEZ, W. J. (ed.), Análisis de Thomas Kuhn: Las revoluciones científicas, Trotta, Madrid, 2004, pp. 15-103.
[8]	GONZALEZ GARCIA, M. I., LOPEZ CEREZO, J. A. and LUJAN, J. L. (eds.), Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad, Ariel, Barcelona, 1997.
[9]	GRAHAM, G., The Internet: A Philosophical Inquiry, Routledge, London, 1999. GUALA, F., “Experimental Localism and External Validity,” Philosophy of Science, v. 70, n. 5, (2003), pp. 1195-1205.
[10]	HAACK, S., “Reflections on Relativism: From Momentous Tautology to Seductive Contradiction,” in TOMBERLIN, J. E. (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives, 10: Metaphysics, B. Blackwell, Oxford, 1996, pp. 297-315.
[11]	HAACK, S., Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1998.
[12]	HABERMAS, J., Erkenntnis und Interesse, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, 1968. Translated by Jeremy J.
[13]	Shapiro: Knowledge and Human Interests, Beacon Press, Boston, 1971.
[14]	“Mission and History’ Society for Science and the Public. societyforscience. org. Retrieved December 17, 2017.
[15]	David B. Resnik, Environment Health Ethics (Cambridge University Press, 2012). Carl F. Cranor, Legally Poisoned; How the Law Puts at Risk for Toxicants (Harvard University Press, 2011).
[16]	The Broadcom Masters, Society for and the Public.
[17]	HABERMAS, J., Technik und Wissenschaft als “Ideology,” Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, 1968.
[18]	HACKING, I., Representing and Intervening, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (MA), 1983.
[19]	HACKING, I., The Social Construction of What?, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA), 1999.
[20]	HARAWAY, D., Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, Routledge and Institute for Social Research and Education, N. York, 1991.
[21]	HARDING, S., The Science Question in Feminism, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1986.
[22]	HEIDEGGER, M., “Die Frage nach der Technik,” in HEIDEGGER, M., Vorträge und Aufsätze, Günther Neske, Pfullingen, 1954, pp. 13-44. Translated as HEIDEGGER, M., “The Question Concerning Technology,” in SCHARFF, R. C. and DUSEK, V. (eds.), Philosophy and Technology: The Technological Condition, Blackwell, Oxford, 2003, pp. 252-264.
[23]	Forschler, Scott (2017).“Universal Practice and Universal Applicability Tests in Modern Moral Theory”. Philosophical Studies. Springer. 174: 3041-3058.
[24]	Tobia, Kevin (2013). "Rule Consequentialism and the Problem of Partial Acceptance". Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 16: 643–652.
[25]	HEKMAN, S., Hermeneutics and the Sociology of Knowledge, University of N. Dame Press, N. Dame, 1986.
[26]	HISKES, A. L. D., Science, Technology, and Policy Decisions, Westview Press, Boulder (CO), 1986.
[27]	HOTTOIS, G., Le paradigme bioéthique: une éthique pour la techno-science., De Boeck-Wesmael, Brussels, 1990.
[28]	HOYNINGEN-HUENE, P., “The Interrelations between the Philosophy, History and Sociology of Science in Thomas Kuhn’s Theory of Scientific Development,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, v. 43, (1992), pp. 487-501.
[29]	IHDE, D., Technics and Praxis: A Philosophy of Technology, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979.
[30]	IHDE, D., Existential Technics, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1983.
[31]	IHDE, D., Instrumental Realism: The Interface between Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Technology, Indiana University Press, Indiana, 1991.
[32]	Kumar, D. & Chubin, D. (2000) Science Technology and Society: A sourcebook or research and practice. London: Kluwer Academic.
[33]	IHDE, D. and SELINGER, E. (eds.), Chasing Techno-science.: Matrix for Materiality, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 2003.
[34]	Society for Science and the Public”, Charity Navigator. Accessed; January 30, 2013.
[35]	IHDE, D., “Has the Philosophy of Technology Arrived? A State-of-the-Art Review,” Philosophy of Science, v. 71, n. 1, (2004), pp. 117-131.
[36]	JASANOFF, S., MARKLE, G. E., PETERSEN, J. C. and PINCH, T. (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Sage, London, 1995.
[37]	JENNINGS, R. E., “Truth, Rationality and the Sociology of Science,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, v. 35, (1984), pp. 201-211.
[38]	JASPERS, K., Die Atom-bombe und die Zukunft der Menschen, Piper, Munich, 1958.
[39]	JONAS, H., Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation, Insel, Frankfurt am Main, 1979. Translated as JONAS, H., The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984.
[40]	KITCHER, PH., The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions, Oxford University Press, N. York, 1993.
[41]	KITCHER, PH., Science, Truth, and Democracy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001.
[42]	KNORR-CETINA, K., The Manufacture of Knowledge. An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1981.
[43]	KOERTGE, N. (ed.), A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodern Myths about Science, Oxford University Press, N. York, 1998.
[44]	KOERTGE, N., “‘New Age’ Philosophies of Science: Constructivism, Feminism and Postmodernism,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, v. 51, (2000), pp. 667-683.
[45]	KUHN, TH. S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962 (2nd ed., 1970).
[46]	KUHN, TH. S., The Road Since Structure. Philosophical Essays, 1970-1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, edited by James Conant and John Haugeland, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2000.
[47]	Volti, Rudi (2017). Society and Technology Change, 8^th Edition. New York, NY10004-1562: Worth Publishers.
[48]	Peterson, M. (2017). The Ethics of Technology: A Geomertric Analysis of Five Moral Principles. Oxford University Press.
[49]	KUKLA, A., Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Science, Routledge, London, 2000.
[50]	LADRIERE, J., Les enjeux de la rationalité: le defí de la science et de la technologie aux cultures, Aubier/Unesco, Paris, 1977. Translated as LADRIERE, J., The Challenge presented to Culture by Science and Technology, Unesco, Paris, 1978.
[51]	LATOUR, B. and WOOLGAR, S., Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, Princeton University Press, Princeton (NJ), 1979 (2nd edition, 1986.).
[52]	LATOUR, B., Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA), 1987.
[53]	LATOUR, B., The Pasteurisation of France, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA), 1988.
[54]	LATOUR, B., We have Never been Modern, Harvester, Brighton, 1993 (translated by C. Porter).
[55]	Bush, Vannevar (1945). “Science the Endless Frontier”. National Science Foundation. Archived from the original on 7 November 2016.
[56]	“Science” Dictionary. com 2016. Archived from the original on 8 November 2016.
[57]	Technology Definition of Technology by Merriam Webster”. Merriam-Webster from the original on 7 November 2016.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Sunil Kumar Saroha, Bakaye Poudiougo, Uttam Anand, Li Zheng. (2019). The Relative Concerning Scholarship What Is Freestanding Humanity After an Principled Evaluation. Social Sciences, 8(6), 303-313. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20190806.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Sunil Kumar Saroha; Bakaye Poudiougo; Uttam Anand; Li Zheng. The Relative Concerning Scholarship What Is Freestanding Humanity After an Principled Evaluation. Soc. Sci. 2019, 8(6), 303-313. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20190806.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Sunil Kumar Saroha, Bakaye Poudiougo, Uttam Anand, Li Zheng. The Relative Concerning Scholarship What Is Freestanding Humanity After an Principled Evaluation. Soc Sci. 2019;8(6):303-313. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20190806.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ss.20190806.12,
  author = {Sunil Kumar Saroha and Bakaye Poudiougo and Uttam Anand and Li Zheng},
  title = {The Relative Concerning Scholarship What Is Freestanding Humanity After an Principled Evaluation},
  journal = {Social Sciences},
  volume = {8},
  number = {6},
  pages = {303-313},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ss.20190806.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20190806.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ss.20190806.12},
  abstract = {Although the division concerning "internal" constituents besides "peripheral" factors be able to recommend that the public fundamentals belongs individual towards the second province, the situation ought towards be incisively banned that this is not the case, because –in a sense– the societal character of interpretation is correspondingly internal. The reason is clear: each one of the ingredients of interpretation (linguistic, during the, awareness, method, activity, ends, besides ethical principles) is civic insofar by way of science is human-made what is freestanding the human being can only develop those fundamentals indoors society. During the period that assumed in that way, the societal constitution of science is unavoidable. To be sure, the conceptual outline of science belongs to us: science is "our" science. Nearby is no other being on earth able to construct what is freestanding to use the fundamentals distinguishing of science. Consequently, it should be during the period that assumed that nearby is an underlying societal dimension of science which affects every constituent of science. In this sense, civilization is the necessary medium to confirm those specific components of science. These constituents, due to their societal origin what is freestanding insofar during the period that they are human-made products but same as the antique pieces which is of no more use than decoration, but it’s not useless also. Accordingly, it might be during the period that assumed that those components (linguistic, edifice, explanation, manner, pursuit, ends, what is freestanding ethical principles) are neither absolute nor perfect. Further freestanding, if the self-correcting character of scholarship is accepted, then those fundamentals might be revisable indoors their civic medium, which is the methodical unrestricted where they are industrialized.},
 year = {2019}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - The Relative Concerning Scholarship What Is Freestanding Humanity After an Principled Evaluation
AU  - Sunil Kumar Saroha
AU  - Bakaye Poudiougo
AU  - Uttam Anand
AU  - Li Zheng
Y1  - 2019/10/26
PY  - 2019
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20190806.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ss.20190806.12
T2  - Social Sciences
JF  - Social Sciences
JO  - Social Sciences
SP  - 303
EP  - 313
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2326-988X
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20190806.12
AB  - Although the division concerning "internal" constituents besides "peripheral" factors be able to recommend that the public fundamentals belongs individual towards the second province, the situation ought towards be incisively banned that this is not the case, because –in a sense– the societal character of interpretation is correspondingly internal. The reason is clear: each one of the ingredients of interpretation (linguistic, during the, awareness, method, activity, ends, besides ethical principles) is civic insofar by way of science is human-made what is freestanding the human being can only develop those fundamentals indoors society. During the period that assumed in that way, the societal constitution of science is unavoidable. To be sure, the conceptual outline of science belongs to us: science is "our" science. Nearby is no other being on earth able to construct what is freestanding to use the fundamentals distinguishing of science. Consequently, it should be during the period that assumed that nearby is an underlying societal dimension of science which affects every constituent of science. In this sense, civilization is the necessary medium to confirm those specific components of science. These constituents, due to their societal origin what is freestanding insofar during the period that they are human-made products but same as the antique pieces which is of no more use than decoration, but it’s not useless also. Accordingly, it might be during the period that assumed that those components (linguistic, edifice, explanation, manner, pursuit, ends, what is freestanding ethical principles) are neither absolute nor perfect. Further freestanding, if the self-correcting character of scholarship is accepted, then those fundamentals might be revisable indoors their civic medium, which is the methodical unrestricted where they are industrialized.
VL  - 8
IS  - 6
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Sunil Kumar Saroha

Department of Marxism, Kunming University Science and Technology, Kunming, China
Bakaye Poudiougo

Department of Marxism, Kunming University Science and Technology, Kunming, China
Uttam Anand

School of International Relations, Yunnan University, Kunming, China
Li Zheng

Department of Marxism, Kunming University Science and Technology, Kunming, China

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Sunil Kumar Saroha, Bakaye Poudiougo, Uttam Anand, Li Zheng. (2019). The Relative Concerning Scholarship What Is Freestanding Humanity After an Principled Evaluation. Social Sciences, 8(6), 303-313. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20190806.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Sunil Kumar Saroha; Bakaye Poudiougo; Uttam Anand; Li Zheng. The Relative Concerning Scholarship What Is Freestanding Humanity After an Principled Evaluation. Soc. Sci. 2019, 8(6), 303-313. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20190806.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Sunil Kumar Saroha, Bakaye Poudiougo, Uttam Anand, Li Zheng. The Relative Concerning Scholarship What Is Freestanding Humanity After an Principled Evaluation. Soc Sci. 2019;8(6):303-313. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20190806.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ss.20190806.12,
  author = {Sunil Kumar Saroha and Bakaye Poudiougo and Uttam Anand and Li Zheng},
  title = {The Relative Concerning Scholarship What Is Freestanding Humanity After an Principled Evaluation},
  journal = {Social Sciences},
  volume = {8},
  number = {6},
  pages = {303-313},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ss.20190806.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20190806.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ss.20190806.12},
  abstract = {Although the division concerning "internal" constituents besides "peripheral" factors be able to recommend that the public fundamentals belongs individual towards the second province, the situation ought towards be incisively banned that this is not the case, because –in a sense– the societal character of interpretation is correspondingly internal. The reason is clear: each one of the ingredients of interpretation (linguistic, during the, awareness, method, activity, ends, besides ethical principles) is civic insofar by way of science is human-made what is freestanding the human being can only develop those fundamentals indoors society. During the period that assumed in that way, the societal constitution of science is unavoidable. To be sure, the conceptual outline of science belongs to us: science is "our" science. Nearby is no other being on earth able to construct what is freestanding to use the fundamentals distinguishing of science. Consequently, it should be during the period that assumed that nearby is an underlying societal dimension of science which affects every constituent of science. In this sense, civilization is the necessary medium to confirm those specific components of science. These constituents, due to their societal origin what is freestanding insofar during the period that they are human-made products but same as the antique pieces which is of no more use than decoration, but it’s not useless also. Accordingly, it might be during the period that assumed that those components (linguistic, edifice, explanation, manner, pursuit, ends, what is freestanding ethical principles) are neither absolute nor perfect. Further freestanding, if the self-correcting character of scholarship is accepted, then those fundamentals might be revisable indoors their civic medium, which is the methodical unrestricted where they are industrialized.},
 year = {2019}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - The Relative Concerning Scholarship What Is Freestanding Humanity After an Principled Evaluation
AU  - Sunil Kumar Saroha
AU  - Bakaye Poudiougo
AU  - Uttam Anand
AU  - Li Zheng
Y1  - 2019/10/26
PY  - 2019
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20190806.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ss.20190806.12
T2  - Social Sciences
JF  - Social Sciences
JO  - Social Sciences
SP  - 303
EP  - 313
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2326-988X
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20190806.12
AB  - Although the division concerning "internal" constituents besides "peripheral" factors be able to recommend that the public fundamentals belongs individual towards the second province, the situation ought towards be incisively banned that this is not the case, because –in a sense– the societal character of interpretation is correspondingly internal. The reason is clear: each one of the ingredients of interpretation (linguistic, during the, awareness, method, activity, ends, besides ethical principles) is civic insofar by way of science is human-made what is freestanding the human being can only develop those fundamentals indoors society. During the period that assumed in that way, the societal constitution of science is unavoidable. To be sure, the conceptual outline of science belongs to us: science is "our" science. Nearby is no other being on earth able to construct what is freestanding to use the fundamentals distinguishing of science. Consequently, it should be during the period that assumed that nearby is an underlying societal dimension of science which affects every constituent of science. In this sense, civilization is the necessary medium to confirm those specific components of science. These constituents, due to their societal origin what is freestanding insofar during the period that they are human-made products but same as the antique pieces which is of no more use than decoration, but it’s not useless also. Accordingly, it might be during the period that assumed that those components (linguistic, edifice, explanation, manner, pursuit, ends, what is freestanding ethical principles) are neither absolute nor perfect. Further freestanding, if the self-correcting character of scholarship is accepted, then those fundamentals might be revisable indoors their civic medium, which is the methodical unrestricted where they are industrialized.
VL  - 8
IS  - 6
ER  -

Copy | Download