What factors influence the degree of telling the truth in academic research?
I have humanities in mind, particularly politics related topics.
How much where a researcher comes from influences his/her inclination to reveal the truth? What triggered this question is a declaration by a European teacher that researchers from the Middle East don't tell the truth in their writings!
Dear Muthana Makki Mohammedali,
Scientific research should be used to learn the truth about the world around us, about ourselves, etc.
Best wishes
Yes, sir.
The pursuit of truth and revealing it should be the endeavor of every respected individual whether in academia or outside it.
My question is, how much does the human community, whether in the East or the West, cares about and values this pursuit.
How much academic freedom do researchers enjoy in academia? Could this freedom threaten what civilized communities have long struggled for; things like equal opportunities, and values of fraternity and human rights?
Have a look at this article. What if Dr. Watson declaration was based on what HE sees as a scientific fact rather than racism?
No offence to people of color is intended.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46856779
The truth is a relative problem, even in scientific research. In non-modern or non-democratic environments, there are clearly many restrictions. However, in "civilized" countries there are also: for example, the commodification of science imposes serious restrictions on the truth in all fields. The truth can be very inconvenient, not only when it threatens beliefs, but also when it threatens business.
In politics we should try to ensure to get to the truth though the use of a reliable methodology
How do ethics and politics-related research go together?
The relativity thing is a double edged weapon, I believe.
It's not a matter of ethics, politics are not ethical. Out duty is being of academically honest showing the things as they are, not as we wish them to be or trying to manipulate the facts for ideological reasons.
The case of the atomic bomb remains the key to this discussion. Scientific ethics is based on correctly applying their methods in search of the truth. However, the knowledge produced by the scientist has consequences beyond the scientific field. Therefore, it is necessary to introduce more general values into the scientific profession.
The scientific “search of the truth” in nature is not the issue. Philosophical reformation following any scientific discovery, the issue becomes one of morality, to blame discovery is a failure in reason and ethics!
As for the humanities in “politics,” like scientific discovery, the issue becomes one of morality, to blame politics is a failure in reason and ethics!
As for the “European teacher’s” claim about the “Middle East,” I do not understand those cultures as well as I should. Perhaps, I should be more sensitive to information as a function of culture.
Galilio was not a middle eastern! It happens everywhere when truth revealation threatens hegemony.
You may want to check this out!
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06769-4
Good article about Galileo! Relative to “research and truth” Galileo did has best dealing with the cultural realities of his time. That is true for all researchers, we have to deal with the introduction of our discoveries. One would think a new discovery implies a short transition relative to the period of prior theories, however; the conservative nature of historical acceptance of new paradigms will filter through a repository of short-lived anecdotes to preserve the status quo. The new concept will not be forthcoming until scrutinizing historical issues promoting philosophical reformation. This is the phase I’m currently going through with my own work:
https://www.academia.edu/37021128/Scientific_Proof_of_Our_Unalienable_Rights
@Agnieszka Will geb. Gronek , Can you elaborate on your interesting phrase of the "lying text"?
Does it relate to the Galileo case in the article above?
Thanks!
Most of this discussion has already been developed by K. Popper and J. Habermas. See Adorno, Albert, Dahrendorf, Habermas, Pilot und Popper, The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, Heinemann London 1976 and Harper Torchbook 1976.
@ Agnieszka Will geb. Gronek , thanks!
RE: "What could be the reason of accusing OTHERS to lie."
Two issues here:
1. The attitude of othering sets individuals away from the I. And this othering is a way of creating an imaginary or real enemy.
"we say that somebody lies when we believe in a different version of truth or facts."
What if those who accuse us of lying where themselves liars?
Yes, Fateh. Objectivity is very essential in scientific research and without presenting any proofs we have no case.
Relativity is a very confusing quality in humanities, isn't it?
But how about a general tendency or inclination towards a certain quality that is influenced by cultural and political factors? For example, it is relative to say that Americans are friendly, but we cannot deny that the trait of friendliness is a general tendency of the American people.
Dear @Katya Gomes and @ Agnieszka Will geb. Gronek ,
Here is the context: The teacher was a female from Sweden commenting on Edward Said's writings on the Arab-Israeli relations. According to the teacher, Said stresses in his writings a cut of dialogue between the two sides, the Arabs and the Israelis. The teacher referred to Said as an intellectual who does not communicate truth. The truth, according to the Swedish teacher, being that Arabs are actually naturalizing relations with Israel.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics