Discussion

Publication Type:

Language:

Author(s): 
Elena Mamchur
Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences
Vitaliy Gorokhov
Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences
Vyacheclav Stepin
Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences
Vladimir Arshinov
Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences
Vyacheslav Shuper
Institute of geography, Russian Academy of Sciences
Issue number: 
No. 2 (Vol. 36)
Pages: 
65-107
Abstract: 

In the discussion Prof. Nikiforov’s thesis is countered from various perspectives. V.Gorokhov stresses the rising influence of interdisciplinary research that marks the development of science in the second half of the XXth century and argues that along with contemporary study of complex systems this change blurs the boundaries between fundamental and applied science which must be regarded as a considerable shift in the nature of scientific research. The latter, according to V. Gorokhov, is no longer an unselfish search for truth.

E.Mamchur agrees with A.Nikiforov in understanding the search of truth as the main goal of science but the methodogical principles used have undergone some changes. To her mind the disagreement between A.Nikiforov and V.Stepin is not substantial but merely terminological.

V.Stepin states that A.Nikiforov did not succeed in challenging his theory of postnonclassical science. He clarifies that a change in the types of scientific rationality is associated with a transition to the study of new type of objects: Thus contemporary science is argued to have transferred from a study of simple mechanical systems to the study of complex organized systems and further to the study of complex self-organizing systems. The study of the latter demands accounting for a various collection of social values and not only truth. And this is what is claimed to be postnonclassical science.

V.Arshinov stresses the importance of the observer which is included in the scientific descriptions in postnonclassical science. The author elaborates this point by discussing a possible hierarchy of observers and their role in scientific descriptions.

In his comment V.Shuper discusses interconnections between fundamental and technical science and argues that an advance in one of the two determines an advance of the other. Contemporary state of science is argued to be associated with an advance in technology which calls for an new advance in fundamental science.

V.Porus discusses the topic in terms of interconnections of science and culture. He argues that changes in the standards of scientific rationality are provoked by changes in culture. Postnonclassical science, according to V.Porus, marks the new state of science in which the rational subject and its influence on the self-organizing complex system become parts of the general object studied by science.

References: 

Agazzi E. “Pourquoi une philosophy des science ne peu se reduire a une epistemology des science”. Science and Ethics : The Axiological Contexts of Science. Brussels, 2008.

Apel K.-O. Transformatsiya filosofii (Transformation of philosophy). Moscow, 2001.

Burd'e P. Struktury, habitus, praktiki. (Bourdieu P. Structures, habitus and practices) Sovremennye sotsial'nye teorii. Novosibirsk, 1995.

Vaynberg S. Mechty ob okonchatel'noy teorii (Dreams about the final theory). Fizika v poiskakh samykh fundamental'nykh zakonov prirody. Moscow, 2001.  

Geyzenberg V. Fizika i filosofiya. Chast' i tseloe. Moscow, 1990.

Gorokhov V.G. How science and scientific education are possible in the times of “academic capitalism? (Kak vozmozhny nauka i nauchnoe obrazovanie v epokhu «akademicheskogo kapitalizma»?). Voprosy filosofii, 2010,  no. 10.

Gorokhov V.G. Tekhnicheskie nauki: istoriya i teoriya. Istoriya nauki s filosofskoy tochki zreniya (Science and technology: history and theory). Moscow, 2012.

Gorokhov V.G. Tekhnonauka Galileo Galileya. Razmyshleniya po povodu knigi Mateo Valeriani “Galileo – inzhener” (M. Valleriani. Galileo Engineer. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer, 2010). Voprosy filosofii, 2013,  no. 1.

Gutner G. B. “Subject as energy. A synergetic paradigm” (“Sub"ekt kak energiya. Sinergeticheskaya paradigma”). Kognitivno-kommunikativnye strategii sovremennogo nauchnogo poznaniya. Moscow, 2004.

Gutner G.B. Risk i otvetstvennost' sub"ekta kommunikativnogo deystviya (The risk and responsibility of the subject of communicative action). Moscow, 2008.

Levin A.E. Mif. Tekhnologiya. Nauka. Priroda, 1977,  no.3.

Mamchur E.A. Obrazy nauki v sovremennoy kul'ture (Images of science in contemporary culture). Moscow, 2008.

Mikeshina L. A. Epistemologiya tsennostey (Epistemology of values). Moscow, 2007.

Nikiforov A.L. Struktura i smysl zhiznennogo mira cheloveka (The structure and the sense of the lifeworld of a human being). Moscow, 2012.

Nikiforov A.L. “On sense-verbal construction of the world” (“Chuvstvenno-verbal'noe postroenie mira”). Yazyk – znanie – real'nost' (Language – knowledge – reality). Moscow, 2011.

Ogurtsov A.P. “From normative reason to communicative rationality” (“Ot normativnogo razuma k kommunikativnoy ratsional'nosti”). L.P. Kiyashchenko i E.Z. Mirskaya (eds.) Etos nauki. Moscow, 2008.

Petrov M.K. How science was created? (Kak sozdavali nauku?). Priroda, 1977,  no. 9.

Petrov M.K. Pered «knigoy prirody». Dukhovnye lesa i predposylki nauchnoy revolyutsii XVII v. . Priroda, 1978,  no. 8.

Porus V. N. Perspectives of gnoseology: some trends (Perspektivy gnoseologii: nekotorye tendentsii). Voprosy filosofii, 1997,  no. 2.

Pruzhinin B.I. Dva etosa sovremennoy nauki: problemy vzaimodeystviya. Etos nauki. Otv. red. L.P. Kiyashchenko i E.Z. Mirskaya. Moscow, 2008.

Rayl G. Ponyatie soznaniya (Ryle G. The concept of mind). Moscow, 2000.

Rockmore T. “V.Stepin’s postnonclassical conception of science and epistemological constructivism” (“Postneklassicheskaya kontseptsiya nauki V.S.Stepina i epistemologicheskiy konstruktivizm”). Chelovek. Nauka. Tsivilizatsiya. K 70-letiyu akademika Rossiyskoy akademii nauk V.S.Stepina (Man. Science. Civilization). Moscow, 2004.

Kasavin I.T. (ed.) Sotsial'naya epistemologiya: idei, metody, programmy (Social epistemology: ideas, methods, programs). Moscow, 2010.

Stepin V.S. Classical science, nonclassical science, and postnonclassical science: the criteria of differentiation (“Klassika, neklassika, postneklassika: kriterii razlicheniya”). Postneklassika: filosofiya, nauka, kul'tura. Saint Petersburg, 2009.

Stepin V.S. “Constructivism and the problem of scientific ontologies” (“Konstruktivizm i problema nauchnykh ontologiy”). Konstruktivistskiy podkhod v epistemologii i naukakh o chelovek (A constructivist approach in epistemology and sciences about human). Moscow, 2009.

Stepin V.S. Teoreticheskoe znanie (Theoretical knowledge). Moscow, 2003.

Stepin V.S. Filosofiya nauki. Obshchie problemy (Philosophy of science. General problems). Moscow, 2006.

Stepin V.S. Filosofskaya antropologiya i filosofiya nauki (Philosophical anthropology and philosophy of science). Moscow, 1992.

Stepin V.S., Kuznetsova L.F. “Idealy ob"yasneniya i problemy vzaimodeystviya nauk”. Idealy i normy nauchnogo issledovaniya. Minsk, 1981.

Fantoli A. Galiley: v zashchitu cheniya Kopernika i dostoinstva Svyatoy Tserkvi. Moscow, 1999.

Flek L. Vozniknovenie i razvitie nauchnogo fakta. Vvedenie v teoriyu stilya myshleniya i myslitel'nogo kollektiva. Moscow, 1999.

Khaydegger M. Evropeyskiy nigilizm. (Heidegger M. European nihilism). Khaydegger M. Vremya i bytie. Stat'i i vystupleniya (Heidegger M. Time and Being. Articles and speeches). Moscow, 1993.

Full Text: