ISSN 1811-833Х (Print)
ISSN 2311-7133 (Online)
The social nature of modern science is observable, measurable phenomenon and is manifested in the ability of science to provide a powerful impact on society. This phenomenon cannot be reduced to the close relationship of science and technology, but one should seek its essence in the changing functions of scientific laboratory. The latter becomes a social space-time machine, in which the ontological and epistemological transitions between the natural and the artificial, the living and the non-living, the external and the internal, theory and fact, discovery and justification, proof and persuasion, fundamental research and its practical application are analyzed and modeled. Modern science appears as holistic natural process that requires new methodological approaches for its analysis. On this way, the shortcomings of the standard model of science should be overcome.
However, this image of science and philosophical quest for a new view of science remains in contrast to the economic dimension of the scientific and technical system, which depreciate fundamental research and absolutizes the role of instrumental product of science. This raises the question of the possibility and need for a new «social philosophy of science», which has to respond to two topical challenges: 1) restructure Russian tradition in the philosophy of science of the 20_21 centuries, combining the ideas of Gustav Shpet, Boris Hessen, Vladimir Vernadsky, Mikhail Bakhtin, Mikhail Petrov, with the achievements of Western philosophy of science within the framework of interdisciplinary synthesis of the philosophy of science and the broadly taken cognitive sciences; 2) justify the strategy for the development of science and technology in the framework of the sixth Economic-technological trend («uklad»), developing a balanced interaction of social-engineering technology and global philosophical vision for long-term planning and forecasting according to the socio-cultural and civilizational prospects.
Bakhtin M.M. (1979) Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva. Moscow.
Borichevsky I.A. (2013) Naukovedenie kak strogaya nauka // Sociologia nauki I tekhnologiy. Tom 4, N 3. C. 11.
Encyklopeia epistemologii I filosofii nauki” (2009) Moscow; Ezhegodnik “Filosofia nauki” (1995-2013) Moscow; “Soziologia nauki I tehnologiy” (2010-2014).
Feyerabend, P. (1975) Against Method. Outline of the Anarchist Theory of Knowledge. London: New Left Books.
Fuller, S., Lepinski, V. (2014) The Proactionary Imperative: A Foundation for Transhumanism. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hübner, K. (1978) Kritik der wissenschaftlichen Vernunft. Karl Alber, Freiburg/München.
Iljenkov E.V. (1962) Idealnoye // Filosofskaya enziklopedia. T. 2. Moscow. C. 221.
Kedrov B.M. (1972) O naukah fundamentalnih I prikladnih // Voprosi filosofii. N. 10. C. 40.
Lakatos I. (1978) History of science and its rational reconstruction // Struktura I razvitie nauki. M., C. 203.
Latour, B. (1983) Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world’, in K. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay (eds), Science Observed (London: Sage). Pp. 141–170.
Petrov M.K. (1991) Yazik. Znak. Kultura. Moscow.
Petrov M.K. (2010) Filosofia Rossii vtoroj polovini XX veka. Moscow.
Popper, K. (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London, Hutchinson & Co.
Quine, W. (1951) Two Dogmas of Empiricism, in: The Philosophical Review, Vol. 60, No. 1. Pp. 20-43.
Shpet G.G. (1999) Vnutrennaya forma slova. Ivanovo.
Stepin V.S. (2000) Teoreticheskoe znanie. Moscow. C. 697.