I believe that it should be carried out periodically a kind of 'state of the art' of the interactions between science, lifestyles, ways of thinking and socio-cultural values. It seems to me to have to observe that if it is realized how many, and how humanly important are the problems that remain inaccessible to the logic of science, it is to say that we are still in the dark .The finding may seem disappointing but it is objective, necessary and can be healthy. In fact, it's just disappointing only for the irreducible ideologues and scientists, not for conscious researchers, guided by logic.
It is to stress that this, as a concept and as a term covers a broad range of meanings and concerns all knowledge. In it converge philosophy, sciences of language and signs, mathematics. It deals with the structure of the argument, demonstrative reasoning of their elements: forms, criteria of validity, fairness and expressive possibilities (Agazzi, 1990).
Logic is closely connected to the language and the values that it brings. Together with the sincerity of the declarations and the truth of common and scientific statements, we must also consider the clarity of speech, its effectiveness .The philosophical reflection sensed from the beginning the normative importance of these values.
It is necessary that those who deepen the naturalistic study and those who ponder on its trans-naturalistic dimension do not lose sight of each other, keep the dialogue alive and doing so do not behave like men who claim only a theory, but as scholars that ‘search '.
A scientific humanism where science reveals man to himself, emphasizing the responsibility of humanizing or dehumanizing the world. What it is more of the problem is the infinitely complex. The speed with which information succeed one another more and more numerous and complex does not allow the critical reflection necessary for understanding meaning and value. Specialisation as constitutive character of the ‘scientificity’ caused socio-cultural consequences largely negative, as progressive cultural isolation, excessive fragmentation and loss of unity of discourse of sciences. This "specialism" ever more pressing may hinder communication and, therefore, synthesis, evaluation and comparison discriminating accordingly any ethical deepening?
We move more and more in accordance with a mutual and consistent respect between the two camps: science dedicated to the facts, to data and to the "how"; metaphysics is consecrated to the values, to the ultimate values. However, it took force, next to the still valid 'theory of the two levels' a subsidiary' theory of dialogue 'which refers to the fact that every man has a conscience and, therefore, all research on human life and the relationship with the universe requires a plurality possibly harmonic of routes and outcomes.
The updates that from the world of research pervade every day our contemporaneity –the breaking of disciplinary barriers between the physical and mental health, life and mind natural and artificial, the mechanisms of development and control of biological processes, the intimate relationship between nature and culture - are already the focus of interest of researchers thanks to an intellectual sensibility that now appears very farsighted, with the due detachment of historical judgment.
Human nature, as immediate criterion of moral acting, requires interpretation, understanding and evaluation. For the moral judgment, its value is always relevant. Its assessment uses anthropological concepts and socio-cultural models to compare. The natural and human and social sciences, investigating facts and phenomena according to purpose, methods and limits of their research fields and epistemological statutes, raise delicate issues. Their assertive force is limited and conditioned by structural and sectoral boundaries.
In the laws formulated by them do prevail hypotheses and theories, more capable of explanation, that, however, do not explain in the same way the phenomena and are subject to exceptions and contrasts. Their assertions, therefore, can not override the requirements of anthropological, theological and metaphysical needs, although these must take them into account. Their accuracy, reliability and validity should be checked critically at various levels: epistemological, historical, scientific and philosophical. After these verifications ethics will determine whether they satisfy the actual needs of the good of the person, always remembering that any techno-scientific knowledge can exhaust the depth and complexity of human nature.
The latter, considered in its ontological content, is supported by the teleology of the good and driven by the need to be. This is done by historical experiences always new. That is why ethics is anchored to the truth of human nature, from which the dignity of the person depends. This is not an abstract or unreal nature, but of an objective figure of the person. The subject does not create it, but receives it as original and founding situation. Since the person lives in history, its objective nature is manifested in different cultures, indicating the boundaries of creativity of each subject. Such creativity is never absolute or total so to recognize the borders is important to protect the inviolable rights and the primary duties of the person.
Without the foundation of human nature, there would be no universally valid ethics and objectively justifiable by reason. In the unpredictable situations, caused by the constant techno-scientific developments, an ethics that combines practical wisdom and metaphysical awareness of ends, avoids both the static nature of the principles and the subjectivism of situations. The human and social sciences, with their new acquisitions, renew and expand the anthropological framework of which ethics must take into account.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science