Russian Studies in Philosophy 12 (4):52-63 (1974)

Abstract
No one denies that in his research the historian, whether consciously or not, guides himself by already acquired knowledge of reality past and present that has undergone certain interpretation. It is usually said that he possesses a certain "view of the world." a certain understanding of the historical process, a certain theory , i.e., conceptions from which he cannot detach himself in the course of his research. Some regard this situation as a kind of "inevitable evil" inherent primarily in the social sciences and demand "pure," "objective" research, i.e., for historical research, that it not be guided by anything but the sources actually employed. There are others who are not disturbed by this situation, for they recognize that "pure" research does not exist even in the natural sciences. And if they make certain demands in this regard, it is not for elimination of the researcher's particular standpoint, guided by the knowledge already acquired, but rather enrichment and perhaps qualitative reconstruction of the knowledge he employs in his research. This knowledge is treated in the given case as a kind of governing mechanism in the process of research. The proponents of both points of view strive for a particular goal: attainment of research results as adequate to reality as possible in a given field, with the only difference that they suggest different paths for attainment of this goal. It may even be stated that these standpoints are not debatable, for adherents of the second point of view will undoubtedly agree that in order to enrich and perhaps reorganize the knowledge used in the research it is necessary to eliminate from it elements of low quality, i.e., speculative, unsupported knowledge that impedes the research. Adherents of the former point of view, however, would not maintain too extreme a position if the knowledge they want to eliminate proves to be scientific knowledge, i.e., confirmed knowledge or, to put it differently, true knowledge. Naturally, this does not mean that no differences exist between these viewpoints
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.2753/RSP1061-1967120452
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,843
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Contemporary Scepticism and the Cartesian God.Jennifer Nagel - 2005 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 35 (3):465-497.
The Significance of Cognitive Phenomenology.Declan Smithies - 2013 - Philosophy Compass 8 (8):731-743.
Knowledge as Historical.Tom Rockmore - 2000 - The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 5:123-132.
First-Person Knowledge in Phenomenology.Amie L. Thomasson - 2005 - In David Woodruff Smith & Amie L. Thomasson (eds.), Phenomenology and Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 115-138.
The Nature of Cognitive Phenomenology.Declan Smithies - 2013 - Philosophy Compass 8 (8):744-754.
A Role for Representation in Cognitive Neurobiology.Jacqueline Anne Sullivan - 2010 - Philosophy of Science (Supplement) 77 (5):875-887.
Let the Brain Explain the Mind: The Case of Attention.M. Ruz - 2006 - Philosophical Psychology 19 (4):495-505.
How Knowledge Works.John Hyman - 1999 - Philosophical Quarterly 49 (197):433-451.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-12-11

Total views
11 ( #807,230 of 2,427,269 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #540,061 of 2,427,269 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes