On the problem of documentology and its methodology

Abstract

The author's appeal to this issue is caused by ambiguous assessments of documentology in the scientific publications as the universal document developed by Yu. N. Stolyarov.

The scientific and methodological prerequisites for the development of documentology, its hypothesis, the theory of relativity of the document as its methodological basis, as well as the laws of documentology, are analyzed in detail. In his analysis, the author comes to the conclusion that the expressed hypothesis about the division of the concept of a document into the substantive and the functional is based on common ideas on using artificially created objects for the intended or unintended purposes. Therefore, this hypothesis is seen as ascientific. The theoretical ascent is based on the discussion of a number of incorrectly formulated examples taken, as they say, "out of the hat". The scientific argumentation is replaced by manipulative reasoning, starting with the justification of the relevance and practical significance of the study and ending with citing both individual authors and regulatory documents. Reasoning contradicts the rules of for-mal logic. There is a constant confusion of theoretical and empirical reasoning. The provisions on the relative, conditional and conventional status of the document are scientifically incorrect. The proposed laws are not scientific.

At the same time, the author believes that his comments reflect the results of following methodological guidelines introduced by Paul Otlet, far from indisputable, and thus the theoretical work done by Yu. N. Stolyarov is of great scientific importance.