<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE root>
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">RUDN Journal of Philosophy</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="en">RUDN Journal of Philosophy</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Cерия: Философия</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn publication-format="print">2313-2302</issn><issn publication-format="electronic">2408-8900</issn><publisher><publisher-name xml:lang="en">Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University)</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">38428</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.22363/2313-2302-2024-28-1-136-147</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="edn">ADGFFB</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>Philosophy and sciences</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>Философия и наука</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="article-type"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title xml:lang="en">Are the Ideals of Rationality Rational? On the Experimenter’s Regress, the Theoretician’s Regress, and the Epistemologist’s Progress</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Рациональны ли идеалы рациональности? О регрессе экспериментатора, теоретика и прогрессе эпистемолога</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0033-5906</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Stoliarova</surname><given-names>Olga E.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Столярова</surname><given-names>Ольга Евгеньевна</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="en"><p>DSc in Philosophy, Leading Researcher</p></bio><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>доктор философских наук, ведущий научный сотрудник</p></bio><email>olgastoliarova@mail.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff1"><aff><institution xml:lang="en">Institute of Philosophy of Russian Academy of Sciences</institution></aff><aff><institution xml:lang="ru">Институт философии Российской академии наук</institution></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2024-03-15" publication-format="electronic"><day>15</day><month>03</month><year>2024</year></pub-date><volume>28</volume><issue>1</issue><issue-title xml:lang="en">MAHAYANA BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY</issue-title><issue-title xml:lang="ru">ФИЛОСОФИЯ БУДДИЗМА МАХАЯНЫ</issue-title><fpage>136</fpage><lpage>147</lpage><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2024-03-27"><day>27</day><month>03</month><year>2024</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement xml:lang="en">Copyright ©; 2024, Stoliarova O.E.</copyright-statement><copyright-statement xml:lang="ru">Copyright ©; 2024, Столярова О.Е.</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2024</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Stoliarova O.E.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Столярова О.Е.</copyright-holder><ali:free_to_read xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/"/><license><ali:license_ref xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0</ali:license_ref></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://journals.rudn.ru/philosophy/article/view/38428">https://journals.rudn.ru/philosophy/article/view/38428</self-uri><abstract xml:lang="en"><p style="text-align: justify;">The research is devoted to the problem of philosophically justifying rationality, which inevitably takes the form of a circular argument: to define what rationality is, we must refrain from referring to its criteria, which must be rationally defined beforehand. This epistemic circle is compared to the so-called “experimenter’s regress”. The experimenter’s regress involves reasoning in which judging the correctness of obtained scientific results can only be based on the correctness of the procedure of obtaining them and judging the correctness of the procedure of obtaining them can only be done by relying on the obtained results. From the perspective of social researchers of science, the experimenter’s (and the theoretician’s) regress casts a shadow on traditional theories of rationality that take science as a model of rational knowledge. The research analyzes the experimenter’s regress in the context of virtuous and vicious circles. It is shown that the experimenter’s regress is overcome by turning to external factors. These factors are proposed to be interpreted in terms of extended rationality. By analyzing the experimenter’s regress, social epistemologists consciously or unconsciously rationalize these “external” factors and enrich the concept of rationality. This allows qualifying the circle described by rationality in defining itself as virtuous and the work of the epistemologist as a progressive activity, during which both epistemology and its subject undergo qualitative changes.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="ru"><p style="text-align: justify;">Исследование посвящено проблеме философского обоснования рациональности, которое неизбежно принимает форму кругового доказательства: чтобы определить, что такое рациональность, мы не можем не ссылаться на ее критерии, которые должны быть заранее рационально определены. Данный эпистемический круг сопоставляется с так называемым «регрессом экспериментатора». Регресс экспериментатора представляет собой рассуждение, при котором судить о правильности получаемых научных результатов можно только на основании правильности процедуры их получения, а судить о правильности процедуры их получения можно, только опираясь на полученные результаты. С точки зрения социальных исследователей науки, регресс экспериментатора (и теоретика) бросает тень на традиционные теории рациональности, которые принимают науку за образец рационального познания. В исследовании регресс экспериментатора анализируется в контексте концепций добродетельного и порочного круга. Показано, что регресс экспериментатора преодолевается за счет обращения к внешним факторам. Эти факторы предлагается трактовать в терминах расширенной рациональности. Анализируя регресс экспериментатора, социальные эпистемологи вольно или невольно рационализируют «внешние» факторы и обогащают понятие рациональности. Это позволяет квалифицировать круг, описываемый рациональностью при определении самой себя, как добродетельный, а работу эпистемолога - как прогрессивную деятельность, в ходе которой качественно изменяются и эпистемология, и ее предмет.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>standards of rationality</kwd><kwd>epistemology</kwd><kwd>science</kwd><kwd>circular reasoning</kwd><kwd>closure of disputes in science</kwd><kwd>vicious circle</kwd><kwd>virtuous circle</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>стандарты рациональности</kwd><kwd>эпистемология</kwd><kwd>наука</kwd><kwd>доказательство по кругу</kwd><kwd>закрытие споров в науке</kwd><kwd>порочный круг</kwd><kwd>добродетельный круг</kwd></kwd-group><funding-group/></article-meta></front><body></body><back><ref-list><ref id="B1"><label>1.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Shvyrev VS. Rationality as a Cultural Value. Tradition and Modernity. Moscow: Progress-Traditsija publ.; 2003. (In Russian).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Швырев В.С. Рациональность как ценность культуры. Традиция и современность. М. : Прогресс-традиция, 2003.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B2"><label>2.</label><mixed-citation>Zalta EN, editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/ (accessed: 10.08.2023)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><label>3.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Porus VN. Rationality. In: New Philosophical Encyclopedia. In 4 vols. Vol. 3. Moscow: Mysl' publ.; 2001. P. 425-427. (In Russian).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Порус В.Н. Рациональность // Новая философская энциклопедия в 4-х т. Т. 3. М. : Мысль, 2001. С. 425-427.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B4"><label>4.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Porus VN. Rationality. Science. Culture. Moscow: URAO publ.; 2002. (In Russian).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Порус В.Н. Рациональность. Наука. Культура. М. : Университет Российской академии образования, 2002.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B5"><label>5.</label><mixed-citation>Audi R. The Architecture of Reason: The Structure and Substance of Rationality. Oxford University Press; 2001.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><label>6.</label><mixed-citation>Collins HM. Changing Order. Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. London, Beverley Hills, and New Dehli: Sage; 1985.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><label>7.</label><mixed-citation>Godin B, Gingras Y. The Experimenters’ Regress: From Skepticism to Argumentation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 2002;33(1):133-148.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><label>8.</label><mixed-citation>Koyré A. An Experiment in Measurement. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 1953;97(2):222-237.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><label>9.</label><mixed-citation>Guttinger S. The Limits of Replicability. European Journal for Philosophy of Science. 2020;10(2):10. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13194-019-0269-1 (accessed: 27.08.2023).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><label>10.</label><mixed-citation>Cling AD. The Epistemic Regress Problem. Philosophical Studies. 2008;140:401-421.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><label>11.</label><mixed-citation>Gooding D. Experiment and the Making of Meaning. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1990.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><label>12.</label><mixed-citation>Kennefick D. Star Crushing: Theoretical Practice and the Theoreticians’ Regress. Social Studies of Science. 2000;30(1):5-40.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><label>13.</label><mixed-citation>Chalmers DJ. Why Isn’t There More Progress in Philosophy? Philosophy. 2015;90(1):3-31.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><label>14.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Kasavin IT, Sokuler ZA. Rationality in Knowledge and Practice. Critical Essay. Moscow: Nauka publ.; 1989. (In Russian).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Касавин И.Т., Сокулер З.А. Рациональность в познании и практике: критический очерк. М. : Наука, 1989.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B15"><label>15.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Pruzhinin BI. Rationality and Historical Unity of Scientific Knowledge (Gnoseological Aspect). Moscow: Nauka publ.; 1986. (In Russian).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Пружинин Б.И. Рациональность и историческое единство научного знания (гносеологический аспект). М. : Наука, 1986.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B16"><label>16.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Antonovski AYu. Incommensurability and Communication: To the Communicative Turn in Philosophy of Science. Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. 2022;59(4):92-110. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202259460</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Антоновский А.Ю. Несоизмеримость и коммуникаия: к эволюционно-коммуникативному повороту в философии науки // Эпистемология и философия науки. 2022. Т. 59. № 4. С. 92-110. https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202259460</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B17"><label>17.</label><mixed-citation>Sellars W. Empiricism and Philosophy of Mind. Harvard University Press; 1997.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><label>18.</label><mixed-citation>deVrie WA, Triplett T. Reading Wilfrid Sellars’s ‘Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind’ (Including the Complete Text of Sellars’ Essay). Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc; 2000.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><label>19.</label><mixed-citation>Collins HM. A Strong Confirmation of the Experimenters Regress. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 1994;25(3):493-503.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><label>20.</label><mixed-citation>Franklin A. How to Avoid the Experimenter’s Regress. Studies in History and Philosophy of Scienc. 1994;25:463-491.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><label>21.</label><mixed-citation>Polanyi M. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press; 1974.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B22"><label>22.</label><mixed-citation>Dreyfus HL. What Computers Can’t Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason. Harper &amp; Row; 1972.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B23"><label>23.</label><mixed-citation>Collins HM. Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2010.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B24"><label>24.</label><mixed-citation>Forster MN. After Herder: Philosophy of Language in the German Tradition. Oxford University Press; 2010.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>
