2005, Vol.17, No.

Philosophical Investigation 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.41

pISSN : 1598-7213 / eISSN : 2671-7565
https://journal.kci.go.kr/philinst

This paper attempts to examine the contemporary validity of scientific rationality, which goes back to the classical conceptions of science, and to refute the post-modern criticisms of scientific rationality. The main topics of this paper are the deterministic, mechanical belief and methodic conceptions, by means of which the classical sciences were developed. It is true that the theory-ladenness, statistical view and instrumental conception of scientific truth compel us to rethink the validity and meaning of scientific rationality. Nevertheless, I argue that these are not sufficient reasons to regard science as an irrational activity. I also argue that the post-modern criticisms of scientific rationality are bases on a failure to distingush practical (life-world) meaning of rationali modern science, scientific rationality, paradigm, instrumentalism, postmodernism, emotion, lifeworld. reason, T. S. Kuhn, P. Feyerabendty from scientific one.

Scientific authority normally connotes the authority of Zeitgeist in which science represented the ideal of theoretical knowledge. This conception of scientific authority was already shaken in the 19th century scientific communities. This historical fact is still not well known to learned men in other areas. Whereas scientific knowledge has been exaggerated as the only ideal model at which all well established theories aim, scientific knowledge cannot still take an active position in solving social problems. Contrast pictures in understanding scientific authority result in a conceptual and social conflict between science and other areas. Interdisciplinary communication and researches are necessary for solving complex social problems. Therefore, we should make a diagnostic evaluation of scientific authority in a historical context and grope for an arbitration between scientific and other communities.

There is an affirmative and negative side to scientific authority. But the problem is on latter. This will be a scientific authority deteriorated to be mythical. The mythicized science is generated by the blind following to the science. In fact, This kind of deteriorated scientific authority makes the form reinforce its effect or dominance out of its real contents of science in itself. It means that the effect can not have power by the original scientific authority based on the scientific rationality. Deteriorated and scientific authority must be overcome. In order to get over this kind of problem, it should be divided the authority into science, non-science and anti-science in the first place. The ground that can make its border line is come out of the fact that ‘the thing outside of science’ can not substitute from ‘the science in itself.’ The aim of this thesis also focuses on the boundary prepared here to resist about the outside authority.