| Abstract | U doktorskom se radu iznose rezultati višegodišnjeg istraživanja o moralnoj dimenziji djelovanja suvremenog znanstvenog sustava. U prvoj istraživačkoj cjelini, naslovljenoj »Metodološke odredbe«, iznose se ključne činjenice o pristupu i provedbi istraživanja. U drugoj istraživačkoj cjelini, naslovljenoj »Princip suvremene znanosti«, iznosi se obrada povijesnog konteksta suvremenog znanstvenog sustava i naravi bića znanosti u epohi tehnoznanosti. S posebnom usmjerenošću na prirodopovijesnu ulogu tehničkog u tvorbi čovjekove kulture, izlučuju se značajna obilježja tehnoznanstvene epohe, oprimjeruje njihova sveobuhvatna prisutnost te utvrđuje i ispituje narav krovnog principa instrumentnost. U trećoj istraživačkoj cjelini, naslovljenoj »Bioetički aspekti suvremene znanosti«, obrađuje se ustroj suvremenog znanstvenog sustava te čimbenici utjecaja na njegovo djelovanje. Na temelju prikaza kompleksnosti sustava, dokazuje se bioetički opseg problema i raskriva zbiljska strukturna raširenost moralnog djelovanja znanstvenika. S obzirom na ulogu znanosti u tvorbi smislenoga života, utvrđuje se ozbiljnost korumpiranja biti znanosti i raspon posljedica djelovanja pod principom instrumentnost da bi se ukazalo na sudjelovanje znanosti u obesmišljenom sadašnjenju čovjekova vremenovanja. U četvrtoj istraživačkoj cjelini, naslovljenoj »Alternativa: princip integritet«, razmatra se alternativa principu instrumentnost na temelju uspostavljanja temeljnog imperativa morala te se iscrtavaju polazišta obrata u znanstvenom djelovanju. Izvorni su doprinos rada čvrsto zasnivanje bioetike znanosti i tehnike na temelju inovativnog, prethodno nepostojećeg usustavljenja principa, obilježja, procesa i svrha suvremene znanosti korištenjem važnih disciplinarnih i izvanznanstvenih gledišta i jezgri znanja upravljanih filozofijskom metodologijom i primjenom aspekata teorije sustava, kompleksnosti, integrativnosti i pluriperspektivnosti, prijedlozi razrješenja različitih sporova o prirodi ključnih fenomena tehnoznanosti utjelovljeni njegovanjem hrvatskog nazivlja, te uspostavljanje temeljnog imperativa morala i koncepcije djelovanja pod principom integritet. |
| Abstract (english) | The dissertation presents the results of several years of research on the moral dimension of the system of contemporary science. The dissertation was divided into four main research sections – an introductory section devoted to methodology, and three sections on primary research and content, presented in detail in successive subsections following the problem area of the research sections. The dissertation aimed to explain the system of contemporary science, the elements of its being and the historical context in which the system perpetuates itself, identify and understand possible principles according to which it operates, explain the operational consequences manifested by its moral dimension of agency, and consider the alternative principle by which to orient the scientific enterprise. In the first research section, entitled “Methodological Specifications”, the conditions, motives and limitations of the research, the methodology used, the choice of knowledge sources, the selection of material and language preference, and the fundamental notions relevant to the research are explained. The research was founded on the multitude of knowledge cores across disciplines and perspectives, from philosophy, over social and natural sciences, to artwork and legal documents. The most important methodological aspects include the use of theory of complexity and systems theory, the approach of integrativism and pluriperspectivism, and the rule of integrativity, pluriperspectivity, transpository caution, systematic dialogics, situation, critical comparativity, clearness and principle. Additionally, the general problem of technoscientific epoch is briefly introduced building upon the collective, cautionary reaction against the dangerous use of scientific knowledge in the last third of the twentieth century, to foreground the problem of human disorientation and discuss the role of science in the waning of meaningful human progress. The second section, entitled “The Principle of Contemporary Science”, sets forth insights into the historical conditions and existence of the technoscientific enterprise, enframed by its significance for human life and the shaping of its future. The argument began by giving attention to numerous warnings about the dangers of human progress and our disorientation in the historical movement. The discursive relationship between the danger of existence and disorientation in existence produced two important phenomena to consider: future and crisis. I pursued the concept of crisis to examine its modality in the contemporary world and to understand whether or not we are dealing with a structural crisis. If crisis is at play at the level of the entire contemporary human world, understanding why it is in effect would allow us to understand what can be done about it, and thus the contemporary science depends on understanding the broader environment of crisis to which it belongs. Analysis led to the conclusion that we are disoriented in our progress and suffer from the illusion of a crisis. The problems that arose in the second half of the twentieth century have not disappeared but persist, thus the sense of humanity’s meaningless existence heading toward oblivion has been transformed into the meaningless existence of the eternal present. The exploration of the causes inferred the phenomenon of technics. I focused on technics and its relation to the organisation of life, uncovering the hypostatisation of instrumentality, now governing the scientific enterprise. I undertook a broader investigation of what it means to be affected by the principle of instrumentality and how it would affect science. In today’s less than optimal natural environment for the existence of too many people, too unequally distributed in both the horizontal and vertical stratification of global society, the widespread biotic and social preservation of certain bestial predilections flourished with particular vigour. Emphasised among the many consequences is structurally entrenched competitiveness, a product of the aggressive instrumentalisation that grows in a materially narrow space for collectively fair human prosperity. To find out if this Gestell stands as it is claimed to be, I tried to find a global example that would demonstrate the effects of instrumentalisation but avoids the private sector, which usually has negative connotations. I examined the founding documents and agendas of the largest international country associations and found evidence in them to support the hypothesis, especially in the documents of the European Union. This led to the postulate of instrumentality and its further exploration in the context of contemporary scholarship. In highlighting a range of problems with which instrumentality is associated, evidence that it is genuinely pervasive supports and implies a broad moral dimension to science, and the response to it has to be equally broad, that is, principled. The literature, however, lacked a clear understanding of the elemental structure of the scientific enterprise and the environmental factors that influence it. In the third research section, “Bioethical Aspects of Contemporary Science”, the elemental structure of contemporary science and the factors that influence it are presented and explained in order to demonstrate the cultural complexity of contemporary science. An extensive survey of the major international journals of the last 30 years was conducted, the major canonical and contemporary authors were examined, and a variety of relevant contemporary encyclopaedias were consulted in order to construct the system of scientific elements and moral issues that leads to the delineation of the crucial principles that govern the structure and action of contemporary science. The theory of complexity and systems theory have been applied. On the basis of cultural complexity, the moral dimension of their action is revealed and the consequences of the principle of instrumentality are exemplified. These consequences are identified as bioethical, which in turn revealed the structural depth and scope of the cultural embeddedness of the moral dimension of scientists, who with increasing propensity are involved in dubious ways in the creation of the overall human (non)sense of existence. In the fourth research section, entitled “Alternative: Integrity”, the results of the attempt to find and construct a suitable alternative to the principle of instrumentality are presented. The analysis was based, first, on the preceding examination of the meaning of science in life, the meaning of life, and the good of life, and, second, on the comparison and reconsideration of the most important proposals for moral imperative thus far, in order to define crucial elements that would imply and advance approaches other than those of the principle of instrumentality. Discussed are the phenomena of responsibility and respect. The first was sublated into the second pursued through the systematic comparison of the crucial elements in the imperatives. The fundamental imperative of morality was developed and proposed and then its content was examined to explain the central principle that determines the possibility of its existence. The study synthesised the concept of integrity, which was first discussed in the context of biotic sovereignty and then deepened by examining its use in various disciplines. Finally, it has been formulated as a principle in its own right, derived from the good of life and governing all our systems for the protection of life and its will to be. The final imperative is developed on the basis of the principle of integrity and then illustrated through scientific enterprise to suggest the initial ways of looking outside the enframing of instrumentalisation. The original contribution to the field consists of laying foundation for a more comprehensive bioethics of science, the previously inexistent formulation of elementary system of science and its principles, characteristics, processes and purposes through the use of scientific and extrascientific perspectives guided by philosophy, and offers of solutions for various theoretical issues regarding technoscience, including proposing the orientational principle of integrity for the instauration of approach to the nature of scientific activity for the meaningful future. |
