CONTINUITY AS A CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL LANDMARK OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
The article discusses a complex of methodological issues generated by the fragmentation of the subject of scientific research. These processes today capture various fields of science. First of all, they are found in interdisciplinary research programs implying the involvement of disciplines with various languages and methods and, moreover, oriented towards an applied result. In addition, the processes of fragmentation of subjectivity arise in research carried out by large scientific communities, i.e. the collective subject of knowledge, where the scientist has access only to certain parts (aspects) of the studied subject and, for a number of technical reasons, is deprived of access to the knowable reality as a whole. Meanwhile, the scientist, as suggested by the fundamental scientific attitude, should be critical of everything that cannot be tested in his/ her individual rational practices. In modern science, these practices themselves have changed, which is in the center of the attention of philosophers of science. All this stimulates the relativization of fundamental epistemological attitudes, eroding the very foundations of the cultural status of science. The article advocates the thesis that one can resist these trends by turning the methodological consciousness to the cultural and historical dimensions of scientific activity and emphasizing the importance of the idea of the continuity of scientific knowledge underlying these dimensions.
While nobody left any comments to this publication.
You can be first.
Descartes, R. (1950) “Principia philosophiae”, in Descartes, R. Izbrannyye proizvedeniya, Politidat, Moscow, Russia, 409-544 (in Russ.).
Galison, P. (2003), “The Collective Author”, Galison, Peter, Biagioli, Mario (ed.), Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science, Routledge, New York and Oxford, 325-353.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1935) Filosofiya istorii [Vorlesungen ьber die Philosophie der Geschichte] Translated by Voden, A. M., Sotcekgiz, Moscow, Leningrad, Russia (in Russ.)
Pronskikh, V. S. (2018) ‘The collaboration of big science as a challenge to a transcendental subject’, Voprosy Filosofii, 5, 88-92 (in Russ.).
Pruzhinin, B. I. (1979) ‘Preyemstvennost' i dialektika istoricheskoy deyatel'nosti’ [Continuity and dialectics of historical activity], in Problemy materialisticheskoy dialektiki kak teorii poznaniya. Ocherki teorii i istorii [Problems of materialistic dialectics as a theory of knowledge. Essays on theory and history], Nauka, Moscow, Russia, 321-355 (in Russ.).
Pruzhinin, B. I. (2019) «Kollektivnyy subiyekt» v nauchnoy traditsii (filosofsko-metodologicheskiye zametki) [The «collective subject» in scientific tradition: philosophical and methodological notes], Humanities Research in the Russian Far East, 2, 105-110 (in Russ.).
Shchedrina, T. G. (2010) Gustav Shpet kak filosof nauki: opyt antidogmaticheskogo prepodavaniya [Gustav Shpet as a philosopher of science: the experience of anti-dogmatic teaching], in: Shpet, G. G. Filosofiya i nauka. Lektsionnyye kursy [Philosophy and science. Lecture courses], ed. T. G. Shchedrina, ROSSPEN, Moscow, Russia, 7-16 (in Russ.).
Shpet, G. G. (2010) Konspekt kursa lektsiy po istorii nauk [Lecture notes on the history of sciences], in: Shpet, G. G. Filosofiya i nauka. Lektsionnyye kursy [Philosophy and science. Lecture courses], ed. T. G. Shchedrina, ROSSPEN, Moscow, Russia, 323-340 (in Russ.).
Vernadsky, V. I. (1988) O neobkhodimosti sozdaniya komissii po istorii nauki, filosofii i tekhniki [On the need to create a commission on the history of science, philosophy and technology], in: Vernadskiy, V. I. Trudy po vseobshchey istorii nauki [Transactionses on the general history of science] Nauka, Moscow, Russia, 266-268 (in Russ.).
Vernadsky, V. I. (1993) Mysli o sovremennom znachenii istorii znaniy [Thoughts on the modern significance of the history of knowledge], in: Vernadsky, V. I. Zhizneopisaniye. Izbrannyye trudy. Vospominaniya sovremennikov. Suzhdeniya potomkov [Biography.Selected Works. Memoirs of contemporaries. Judgments of posterity] Sovremennik, Moscow, Russia, 538–555 (in Russ.).