Nine key standards, or principles, of scientific research can be gleaned from texts on research method. As I see them, these are:
1. Universality
7. Objectivity (Pending)
8. Ethics
9. Representativeness.I say something about each of the nine standards in separate posts, as shown in the links above. What I want to briefly talk about here is the universality standard.
Universality:
The tern universality has roots in the broader conception of a pervasive universe, of which we are all inescapably a part. More specifically, it is anchored in the related notion of universals. Thus:
"Universals are features (e.g., redness or tallness) shared by many individuals, each of which is said to instantiate or exemplify the universal...The metaphysical issue is whether or not these features exist independently of the particular things that have them: realists hold that they do; nominalists hold that they do not; conceptualists hold that they do so only mentally"(A Dictionary of Philosophical terms, in Garth Kemerling (2011) The Philosophy Pages. available online).Thus, moreover, "evolutionary universals", as Talcott Parsons argues, are those similitudes, those patterns of resemblance, which scholarship detects -- recognizes -- in the evolution of human society.
Armstrong (1986, 1989) understands that universals do have particulars, the very constituents or components which make universals possible in the first place. Moreover, the particulars of any one universal resemble one another. As resembling constituents of universals multiply within and across universals, what we end up with is identity, which, to repeat, is borne out of resemblance, and which in the end it morphs out of. And so, one can see, universals are made of common particulars.Thus:
"If we consider ordinary, first-order, particulars, then . . . two things, while remaining two, can resemble exactly. At least exact resemblance is possible (assuming that the Identity of Indiscernibles is not a necessary truth). In the limit, resemblance of particulars does not give identity. But now consider the resemblance of universals. As resemblance of properties [monadic universals] gets closer and closer, we arrive in the limit at identity. Two become one. This suggests that as resemblance gets closer, more and more constituents of the resembling properties are identical, until all the constituents are identical and we have identity rather than resemblance." [This quote is from Armstrung (1989) as found in Pautz (1977). The original article is yet to be accessed]So universality is ultimately "standardized" via the metamorphosis of its resembling parts into a more holistic identity recognized by the, or at the very least a, scientific community. The universality standard requires that any research project should be designed and planned in such a way that any competent researcher, not just the one(s) who wrote the proposal, should be able to successfully undertake it. (Leedy, 1980: 46). In this sense, the research project has a life of its own, independent of any particular researcher, within the confines of the relevant discipline or scientific community.
Universality demands a high level of discipline and transparency in the research habits of all who do research. In a sense, too, universality makes all scientific discoveries part of a common, with standard operating procedures and the common ownership of the discoveries claimed and accumulated across geographies, disciplines and time.
READ: Universal (metaphysics)
ALSO READ: Professor JeeLou Lin "D.M. Armstrong, Universals: An Opinionated Introduction"
To partially sum it all up, let's see in this quotation how the International Council for Science (ICSU) defines the universality of Science:
"The universality of science in its broadest sense is about developing a truly global scientific community on the basis of equity and non-discrimination. It is also about ensuring that science is trusted and valued by societies across the world. As such, it incorporates issues related to the conduct of science; capacity building; science education and literacy; access to data and information and the relationship between science and society..." (see ICSU)Furthermore, a noteworthy point -- on the importance of doubt and criticism (including self-criticism) in all claims to, or efforts to affirm, scientific discovery -- is made by Michel Paty (2001: 8) who, inspired by Descartes's Discourse on Method, argues that:
"...the idea of of universality, as well as ideas of reason and of demonstrative (and even objective) science, with which it has a constitutive link, carries with it the requirement of its own criticism...[Thus]... the only true knowledge is that knowledge that, for every thinking subject, overcomes the obstacles [posed] by doubt."
REFERENCES:
Armstrong, D.M. (1986) "In Defense of Structural Universals", Australasian Journal of Philosophy 64 (1986) pp. 85-88.
Leedy, Paul D. (1980) Practical Research: Planning and Design. Second Edition. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.,
Parsons, Talcott (1964) "Evolutionary Universals in Society" American Sociological Review, Vol. 29, Issue 3 (June, 1964), pp. 339-357
Paty, Michel (2001). "Universality of Science : Historical Validation of a Philosophical Idea." in Habib, S. Irfan and Raina, Dhruv. Situating the history of science : Dialogues with Joseph Needham, Oxford India Paperbacks, p. 303-324, 2001. [see p. 7 of the pdf version given in this link]
Pautz, Adam (1977) "An Argument Against Armstrong's Analysis of the resemblance of Universals"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CSO 302
