Systematicity
Systematicity referred structuralism a general aspect of the theorem of the arbitrariness of Ferdinand de Saussure . Systematicity means that the relative importance of an individual element ( morpheme , word, etc.) of a language does not result from this itself, but from the totality of the relations of the elements of the language.
criticism
The concept of systematicity refers to the predominance of structure over the elements and implies a “decentering of the subject”, as post-structuralists and discourse theorists such as Louis Althusser and Michel Foucault criticize. Althusser rejects the deductive systematicity which he recognizes in Marxism (as in other ideologies) and which it shares with German idealism . As a result, the individual cannot be understood as the center of his activity, but appears determined by systems such as economy, language, and politics.
Systematicity as a concept of the philosophy of science
Paul Hoyningen-Huene uses the concept of systematicity to name a common characteristic of all sciences , i.e. the natural, social, human and formal sciences , which separates them from largely unstructured everyday knowledge and at the same time includes a number of other (partial) dimensions which have a certain "family resemblance". These dimensions are description , explanation , prediction , defense of knowledge claims , critical discourse , epistemic networking (i.e. the explanatory, defining, commenting, etc. relationships between different reference levels of knowledge, terms or texts), the ideal of completeness , the genesis of new knowledge and the representation of knowledge. Science describes, explains, predicts, criticizes etc. more systematically than everyday knowledge. However, not every scientific discipline has to include all nine dimensions in order to be considered such.
With this approach, Hoyningen-Huene distinguishes itself from a traditional understanding of science, which defines science through its methodology, but today can only determine the divergence of the individual sciences with their different methodologies. In contrast, he postulates that the core of today's science is to use existing knowledge systematically to generate new knowledge. Scientific work is stimulated much more strongly by systematic processing of existing scientific work than by abstract methodological rules.
Martin Carrier criticizes Hoyningen-Huene's attempt to save the idea of a non-fundamentalist unified science , which had already been undertaken by the Vienna Circle with language-analytical means and by Rudolf Carnap with the concept of physicalism : the model of systematicity is because of the overlap criticize several of the dimensions and their causal dependence on each other. The ability of a theory to predict obviously depends on its ability to explain. Medieval theology or astrology, for example, are also conceived in a highly systematic manner, but these are not generally regarded as sciences. Carrier therefore postulates that empirical verification and critical discussion continue to be the main features of testing and confirming knowledge claims.
Hoyningen-Huene replies that the dimension of defending knowledge claims is also indispensable in systematic theory and that this fact is underestimated by Carrier.
literature
- Hoyningen-Huene, Paul : Systematicity: The Nature of Science. Oxford University Press 2013.
- Carrier, Martin: Systematicity: A Systematic Characterization of Science? Commentary on Paul Hoyningen-Huene's 'Systematicity' . In: Journal for Philosophical Research. Issue 2 (69) 2015, pp. 230-234.
- Hoyningen-Huene, Paul: Replicas . In: Journal for Philosophical Research. Issue 2 (69) 2015, pp. 243–246.
Individual evidence
- ↑ Critical to: Derriennic, Jean-Pierre: Lire Althusser. In: Revue française de science politique, Issue 2 (18) 1968, pp. 376–384, here: p. 381. online
- ^ Paul Hoyningen-Huene: The systematic nature of science. In: H. Franz u. a. (Ed.): Knowledge society. Conference from 13-14 July 2000 at Bielefeld University. IWT Paper 25, Bielefeld 2001.