PT 1: Do historians and human scientists have an ethical obligation to follow the directive: “do not ignore contradictory evidence”? Discuss with reference to history and the human sciences.
Ethics "which focuses on exploring ethics and ethical considerations that have an impact on inquiry in the different themes and areas of knowledge" interrelated with ethical obligation
ethical obligation
contradictory evidence
contradictory = two claims are directly opposed to each other, cannot exist at the same time
evidence = used to support or justify a claim, belief, or argument
sense of what is right and what is wrong
Are ethical obligations in area of knowledge of history and human science different?
Does all human scientists and historians obey ethical obligations?
How should historians and human scientists approach contradictory evidence?
In what way does being selective to evidence affect the validity of research in history and human science?
What counts as ethical obligation in the pursuit of knowledge?
Can ethical obligations conflict with scientific progress?
How does the presence of contradictory evidence challenge the validation of theories in history and human sciences?
To what extent does contradictory evidence stimulate progress in historical and scientific research?
Directive
a form of authoritative instructions
Should historians and human scientist obey to directives when these contradict with ethics?
To what extent does adhere to directives impact the subjectivity of historias and human scientist?
How do directives influence the acceptance of contradictory evidence in research?
information or data that challenges, opposes, or refutes existing knowledge claims, theories, or perspectives. In the context of knowledge production, especially in history and human sciences, it represents the diversity of viewpoints or findings that may not align with the dominant narrative or accepted theory.
Ethical frameworks
Connections between keywords
ethical obligation refers to the moral duty or responsibility that individuals, especially knowers in various fields, have to act according to ethical principles such as honesty, fairness, and respect for truth.
It involves making decisions that align with ethical standards, particularly in the production and dissemination of knowledge.
For historians and human scientists, this could mean presenting evidence and interpretations honestly, without bias or distortion, and acknowledging the bro
invites a re-evaluation of previously held beliefs, fostering deeper understanding and more nuanced interpretations.
How incorporating with such evidence can lead to more balanced interpretations?
contradictory evidence + ethical obligation
If contradictory evidence is presented, then historians and human scientists are ethically obligated to integrate it into their analysis, as failing to do so compromises the pursuit of truth and objectivity.
Directive → contradictory evidence
The connection between these two concepts is that the directive is in place to ensure that contradictory evidence is considered and not ignored. In other words, the directive underscores the importance of critical engagement with contradictory evidence as part of the knowledge-building process.
Directive →ethical obligation
The directive is essentially an expression of the ethical obligation historians and human scientists have. The ethical framework they operate within compels them to follow such a directive because ignoring contradictory evidence would be unethical.