| Popis: |
The presented article is devoted to consideration of two issues: the culture of conducting scientific discussion and the arguments for and against the theory of an oral document in modern document science. Based on the analysis of the main statements set forth in the article "On the "Left" and "Right" Deviations in Russian Documentation" (2019), the main theoretical arguments of E. A. Pleshkevich are revealed and criticized. Disagreement is expressed with the fact of the existence of any biases in documentology. It is noted that an extensive understanding of the document, as well as its document philosophical interpretation indicate only the presence of different views on a particular scientific issue. The thesis regarding the right of a scientist to his own vision of the subject of documentology is defended, and it’s emphasized the lack of his right to consider as deviators those who disagree with him. Attributing deviations to someone suggests that only the critic himself follows a direct, steady course and voluntarily assumes the right to consider the others as those who deviate from the right path. It is shown that in fact the criticism of E. A. Pleshkevich is groundless and also contradictory in its essence. Additional arguments are given in favour of the concept of "oral document", the universal nature of the conventionality of a document, the need to develop a universal theory of the document. The modern scientific views on the issue of oral documentation are highlighted. The legal validity of the status of an oral document, known since the time of Roman private law, which separated verbal and literal (written) agreements, is emphasized. The legal force of oral transactions and contracts is ascertained. The position is substantiated, according to which the subject of documentology is beyond the scope of library science and bibliography, and the broadest understanding of the document can be extended to the whole world. |
