جهت‌داری معرفت‌شناختی و مبانی آن؛ نقد دیدگاه فرهنگستان علوم اسلامی

هدف این پژوهش معرفی و نقد نظریه فرهنگستان علوم اسلامی درباره جهت‌داری معرفت‌شناختی علوم است و روش آن توصیفی-تحلیلی و از نوع کتابخانه‌ای است. یافته ها نشان می دهد از منظر فرهنگستان علوماسلامی، جهت داری علوم به سه معنا ی کارآمدی، متدولوژی و معرفت شناختی است. فرهنگستان مدعی است معنای اول و دوم حتی بر مبنای معرفت شناختی رایج قابل اثبات است ؛ ولی معنای سوم صرفاً مبتنی بر مبانی معرفت شناختی این مجموعه است. جهت داری علوم به معنای معرفت شناختی دارای پنج مبناست: اصل فاعلیت به جا ی اصل علیت ؛ تناسب صورت با خارج به جای تطابق آن دو ؛ ارزیابی معرفت با سنجه حقو باطل به جای صدق و کذب ؛ نسبیت در فهم و آمیختگی انگیزه و انگیخته. از آنجا که همه این مبانی با نقد جدی مواجه هستند، این نظریه نیز غیرقابل پذیرش است .

epistemological orientation and itsfoundations; criticism of the view of theqom academy of islamic sciences

introduction: qom academy of islamic sciences was founded by seyyed muniruddin hosseini, and after his death, it is managed by hojat al-islam seyyed mohammad mahdi mirbaghri. this collection has uniqueideas. what differentiates the theory of the academy in various subjectssuch as humanities, religious science, islamic civilization, western studies,etc., is more than anything rooted in the epistemological opinions of thiscollection. on the other hand, the theory of orientation of science can beintroduced as the main result and product of this type of epistemology.this article consists of three parts. first, the term orientation isconceptualized and its three meanings are examined from theperspective of the academy. in the next part, the foundations andepistemological principles governing the orientation of sciences (thethird meaning) are explained. and in the final part, these principles willbe criticized and evaluated. the method of this research is descriptiveanalyticaland library type. the findings show that from the perspectiveof the academy of islamic sciences, the direction of science has threemeanings: efficiency, methodology and epistemology. farhangistan claims that the first and second meanings can be proven even on thecommon epistemological basis, but the third meaning is based only onthe epistemological foundations of this collection.findings: the direction of science in the epistemological sense hasfive foundations:first: the principle of effectiveness instead of the principle ofcausality; that is, when a person enters the operation of understanding,it is not only chemical interactions that determine the fate ofknowledge. rather, a more important role is played by the originality ofa person's agency and will.second: the fit of the face with the exterior instead of the matchingof the two; that is, according to the process of effectiveness and theeffect of wills in understanding and on the other hand, theunreasonableness of matching the face and the outside, the matching ofthe mental face with the outside is bound and becomes proportion.that is, the perception or perceptual form is proportional to reality,evidence and other things.third, evaluation of knowledge by measuring truth and falsehoodinstead of truth and falsehood; that is, the evaluation of humanknowledge should use the criteria of right and false. in the processof understanding before the discovery of reality occurs; an optionaloperation has been performed. if the conscious agent's will in theprocess of understanding is in accordance with god's servitude andobedience, his understanding will be right, and if it is based on rebellionand disobedience to god, his understanding will be invalid.fourth: relativity in understanding and worship; the difference inunderstanding is rooted in the relativity of worship. where there isinfallibility in worship, there will be no difference in understanding.fifth: the combination of motivation and motivation; to the extentthat the motivations are incorrect, the motivations and the content willbe inherently affected, and the motivations cannot be separated from themotivation and used for other purposes.conclusion: since all these foundations face serious criticism, thistheory is also unacceptable. other theories of the academy, which arebased on this type of epistemology, will become indefensible. amongothers, we can mention the theory of direction of science, religiousscience and ‘philosophizing’.