An article by T. Rockmore, published in the journal “Epistemology and Philosophy of Science” in 2009 (Vol. XXII. No. 4, pp. 14‒29), claim that naturalism is by its nature an example of anti-Kantianism, for it treats philosophy as a continuation science and recognizes science as a legitimate source of knowledge, does not allow a priori, relies on an a posteriori approach, empiricism in the pre-Kantian sense, and insists on the possibility of revising the knowledge acquired. This article has a goal to show that T. Rockmore point of view should be revised due to the progress of modern cognitive research and, first of all, neuroscience, in which all the features of the naturalistic approach are implemented and in which the “Kantian program” of brain research is developed. In the context of this program, the existence on the ontological level (i.e., in the brain) of certain neural structures that make it possible and play a crucial role in the cognitive activity of a person is recognized. Those concepts that Kant treated as components of cognitive activity in modern neuroscience acquired ontological status in the form of the activity of certain neural structures, which turn out to be prerequisites and components of this activity. We claim that in the context of the Kantian research program in neuroscience, the metaphor "Kantian brain" naturally entered the vocabulary of neuroscientists, and certain specific operations and functions of the brain began to be associated with individual elements of Kant's ideas. It is in this context attempts are made to comprehend the mechanisms of the brain in the "stimulus – activity" mode, when an external effect leads to the excitation of certain neural structures. The brain is capable to anticipate the long-term results of certain actions of the subject. In the case of foresight, the brain generates “internal” models and uses for their correction external data that constantly provided from reality across the subject. At the same time, some kind of self-correcting mechanisms implements, which from a formal point of view described by the Bayes theorem, using a priori evaluations of upcoming events and changes in these evaluations as result of experience. Thus, naturalism and Kantianism understood in the context of the progress of modern science, despite T. Rockmore idea, are completely compatible.
{"title":"Naturalism and Kantianism","authors":"V. Bazhanov","doi":"10.5840/eps202057225","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202057225","url":null,"abstract":"An article by T. Rockmore, published in the journal “Epistemology and Philosophy of Science” in 2009 (Vol. XXII. No. 4, pp. 14‒29), claim that naturalism is by its nature an example of anti-Kantianism, for it treats philosophy as a continuation science and recognizes science as a legitimate source of knowledge, does not allow a priori, relies on an a posteriori approach, empiricism in the pre-Kantian sense, and insists on the possibility of revising the knowledge acquired. This article has a goal to show that T. Rockmore point of view should be revised due to the progress of modern cognitive research and, first of all, neuroscience, in which all the features of the naturalistic approach are implemented and in which the “Kantian program” of brain research is developed. In the context of this program, the existence on the ontological level (i.e., in the brain) of certain neural structures that make it possible and play a crucial role in the cognitive activity of a person is recognized. Those concepts that Kant treated as components of cognitive activity in modern neuroscience acquired ontological status in the form of the activity of certain neural structures, which turn out to be prerequisites and components of this activity. We claim that in the context of the Kantian research program in neuroscience, the metaphor \"Kantian brain\" naturally entered the vocabulary of neuroscientists, and certain specific operations and functions of the brain began to be associated with individual elements of Kant's ideas. It is in this context attempts are made to comprehend the mechanisms of the brain in the \"stimulus – activity\" mode, when an external effect leads to the excitation of certain neural structures. The brain is capable to anticipate the long-term results of certain actions of the subject. In the case of foresight, the brain generates “internal” models and uses for their correction external data that constantly provided from reality across the subject. At the same time, some kind of self-correcting mechanisms implements, which from a formal point of view described by the Bayes theorem, using a priori evaluations of upcoming events and changes in these evaluations as result of experience. Thus, naturalism and Kantianism understood in the context of the progress of modern science, despite T. Rockmore idea, are completely compatible.","PeriodicalId":44031,"journal":{"name":"Epistemology & Philosophy of Science-Epistemologiya i Filosofiya Nauki","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5840/eps202057225","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46176320","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Two conceptions of the contemporary philosophy of science are taken under consideration: scientific realism and constructive empiricism. Scientific realism presupposes 1) the conception of truth as the correspondence of knowledge to reality, 2) the real existence of entities postulated by a theory. The constructive empiricism puts forward the idea of empirical adequacy: science aims to give us the theories which are empirically adequate and acceptance of the theory involves as belief only that it is empirically adequate. To compare methodological resources of these two positions in the philosophy of science the problem of the interpretation of quantum mechanics is involved. As a methodological realization of scientific realism the ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanics is taken under consideration. K.Popper’s version of the ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanics is outlined along M. Jammer’s book on the history of the philosophy of quantum mechanics. As a contemporary version of the ensemble approach L.Ballentine’s book on quantum mechanics is mentioned. Van Fraassen’s version of the modal interpretation of quantum mechanics is taken under consideration to show a methodological realization of constructive empiricism.
{"title":"Scientific Realism and Constructive Empiricism","authors":"A. Pechenkin","doi":"10.5840/eps202057229","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202057229","url":null,"abstract":"Two conceptions of the contemporary philosophy of science are taken under consideration: scientific realism and constructive empiricism. Scientific realism presupposes 1) the conception of truth as the correspondence of knowledge to reality, 2) the real existence of entities postulated by a theory. The constructive empiricism puts forward the idea of empirical adequacy: science aims to give us the theories which are empirically adequate and acceptance of the theory involves as belief only that it is empirically adequate. To compare methodological resources of these two positions in the philosophy of science the problem of the interpretation of quantum mechanics is involved. As a methodological realization of scientific realism the ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanics is taken under consideration. K.Popper’s version of the ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanics is outlined along M. Jammer’s book on the history of the philosophy of quantum mechanics. As a contemporary version of the ensemble approach L.Ballentine’s book on quantum mechanics is mentioned. Van Fraassen’s version of the modal interpretation of quantum mechanics is taken under consideration to show a methodological realization of constructive empiricism.","PeriodicalId":44031,"journal":{"name":"Epistemology & Philosophy of Science-Epistemologiya i Filosofiya Nauki","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5840/eps202057229","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42295266","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article substantiates the possibility of interpreting expertise as a research communicative practice, in contrast to the expert “comparison with the sample”. Inside the so-called examinations, a counter-examination is institutionally integrated. The communication of expert and counter-expert position, which is a phenomenological personality choice, can take a form of personal institutionalized communication, and can be mediated by mediators and media texts. The results of examination and counter-interaction are determined by many factors, among which the coincidence (mismatch) of the images of the future. Communication between a layman and an expert about science-dimensional situations can be considered in prism of various optics – linguistic, sociological, socio-political, psychological optics, fixing a number of several paradoxes (equality, limited choice, excess / deficit).
{"title":"Expert and Layman","authors":"Е.В. Брызгалина, В.Н. Киселёв","doi":"10.5840/eps202057218","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202057218","url":null,"abstract":"The article substantiates the possibility of interpreting expertise as a research communicative practice, in contrast to the expert “comparison with the sample”. Inside the so-called examinations, a counter-examination is institutionally integrated. The communication of expert and counter-expert position, which is a phenomenological personality choice, can take a form of personal institutionalized communication, and can be mediated by mediators and media texts. The results of examination and counter-interaction are determined by many factors, among which the coincidence (mismatch) of the images of the future. Communication between a layman and an expert about science-dimensional situations can be considered in prism of various optics – linguistic, sociological, socio-political, psychological optics, fixing a number of several paradoxes (equality, limited choice, excess / deficit).","PeriodicalId":44031,"journal":{"name":"Epistemology & Philosophy of Science-Epistemologiya i Filosofiya Nauki","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5840/eps202057218","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45425134","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article gives a generalized view of the historical epistemology and highlights its main problems: the nature of historical reality, historical knowledge and historical agent. The historical epistemology represents a special philosophical discourse, the purpose of which is constructing historical knowledge for cultural assimilation of the new historical reality at the intersection of science and society. A distinction is proposed between the position of a historian of science and a historical epistemologist in terms of the essence of historical event and historical fact. The historical epistemology reveals its boundaries and a position within modern epistemological approaches. On the one hand, it is the substantialist interpretation of the historical event, which loses its a priori status only by socio-epistemological explanation. On the other hand, a figure of the historical agent (hero and author) keeping the status of a theoretical fiction in historical epistemology, acquires the adequate meaning in the existential philosophy of science.
{"title":"Knowledge and Reality in the Historical Epistemology","authors":"I. Kasavin","doi":"10.5840/eps202057216","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202057216","url":null,"abstract":"The article gives a generalized view of the historical epistemology and highlights its main problems: the nature of historical reality, historical knowledge and historical agent. The historical epistemology represents a special philosophical discourse, the purpose of which is constructing historical knowledge for cultural assimilation of the new historical reality at the intersection of science and society. A distinction is proposed between the position of a historian of science and a historical epistemologist in terms of the essence of historical event and historical fact. The historical epistemology reveals its boundaries and a position within modern epistemological approaches. On the one hand, it is the substantialist interpretation of the historical event, which loses its a priori status only by socio-epistemological explanation. On the other hand, a figure of the historical agent (hero and author) keeping the status of a theoretical fiction in historical epistemology, acquires the adequate meaning in the existential philosophy of science.","PeriodicalId":44031,"journal":{"name":"Epistemology & Philosophy of Science-Epistemologiya i Filosofiya Nauki","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5840/eps202057216","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45108890","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The thesis of this paper is that our understanding of life, as reflected in the biological and medical sciences but also in our everyday transactions, has been hampered by an inappropriate metaphysics. The metaphysics that has dominated Western philosophy, and that currently shapes most understanding of life and the life sciences, sees the world as composed of things and their properties. While these things appear to undergo all kinds of changes, it has often been supposed that this amounts to no more than a change in the spatial relations of their unchanging parts. From antiquity, however, there has been a rival to this view, the process ontology, associated in antiquity with the fragmentary surviving writings of Heraclitus. In the last century it has been especially associated with the work of the British metaphysician and logician, Alfred North Whitehead. For process ontology, what most fundamentally exists is change, or process. What we are tempted to think of as constant things are in reality merely temporary stabilities in this constant flux of change, eddies in the flux of process. My main claim in this paper will be that a metaphysics of this latter kind is the only kind adequate to making sense of the living world. After explaining in more detail, the differences between these ontological views, I shall illustrate the advantages of a process ontology with reference to the category of organism. Finally I shall explore some further implications of a process ontology for biology and for philosophy.
{"title":"Life as Process","authors":"J. Dupré","doi":"10.5840/eps202057224","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202057224","url":null,"abstract":"The thesis of this paper is that our understanding of life, as reflected in the biological and medical sciences but also in our everyday transactions, has been hampered by an inappropriate metaphysics. The metaphysics that has dominated Western philosophy, and that currently shapes most understanding of life and the life sciences, sees the world as composed of things and their properties. While these things appear to undergo all kinds of changes, it has often been supposed that this amounts to no more than a change in the spatial relations of their unchanging parts. \u0000From antiquity, however, there has been a rival to this view, the process ontology, associated in antiquity with the fragmentary surviving writings of Heraclitus. In the last century it has been especially associated with the work of the British metaphysician and logician, Alfred North Whitehead. For process ontology, what most fundamentally exists is change, or process. What we are tempted to think of as constant things are in reality merely temporary stabilities in this constant flux of change, eddies in the flux of process. \u0000My main claim in this paper will be that a metaphysics of this latter kind is the only kind adequate to making sense of the living world. After explaining in more detail, the differences between these ontological views, I shall illustrate the advantages of a process ontology with reference to the category of organism. Finally I shall explore some further implications of a process ontology for biology and for philosophy.","PeriodicalId":44031,"journal":{"name":"Epistemology & Philosophy of Science-Epistemologiya i Filosofiya Nauki","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5840/eps202057224","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43043098","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The following article discovers current trends of contemporary epistemology, related to epistemological subject and his/her activities. A number of issues raised here describe internal experience of the agent, such as (in)voluntary nature of belief formation, trust in one’s faculties of perception, correspondence of formed beliefs to evidence, demarcation between purely epistemological and pragmatic rationality. Another part of the issues is related to external experiences of the agent. The most crucial among them are: blameworthiness of the agent’s belief system, limited intake of testimonial knowledge as a result of social bias; epistemic disagreement and “epistemic peers” as the sources of knowledge or additional pressure from the environment. Virtue epistemology as a new way of performing epistemological normativity.
{"title":"Epistemology of Belief","authors":"Алина Олеговна Костина","doi":"10.5840/eps202057233","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202057233","url":null,"abstract":"The following article discovers current trends of contemporary epistemology, related to epistemological subject and his/her activities. A number of issues raised here describe internal experience of the agent, such as (in)voluntary nature of belief formation, trust in one’s faculties of perception, correspondence of formed beliefs to evidence, demarcation between purely epistemological and pragmatic rationality. Another part of the issues is related to external experiences of the agent. The most crucial among them are: blameworthiness of the agent’s belief system, limited intake of testimonial knowledge as a result of social bias; epistemic disagreement and “epistemic peers” as the sources of knowledge or additional pressure from the environment. Virtue epistemology as a new way of performing epistemological normativity.","PeriodicalId":44031,"journal":{"name":"Epistemology & Philosophy of Science-Epistemologiya i Filosofiya Nauki","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5840/eps202057233","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47149386","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article discusses the crisis situation in sociology, and in connection with this, ideas are outlined aimed at constructing a methodological concept of sociality. It is noted that the crisis in sociology takes place due to the transition of sociologists to interdisciplinary research. It seems that such an interdisciplinary turn is unsafe for sociology as a scientific discipline, primarily in terms of understanding the subject and the integrity of the reality being studied. Analyzing the crisis in sociology, the author considers himself as methodologist and culturologist, setting the task to implement cultural, historical and phenomenological approaches in the social sciences. In this regard, the methodological, cultural, historical and phenomenological features of the study are characterized. They are compared with sociological ones. The sociological approach is distinguished by four characteristics: 1) assessment of sociality as well as an indication of the type of social action aimed at changing or optimizing sociality, 2) description of the mass behavior of people and the social order that determines this behavior, 3) attitude toward the study of sociality and a description of “social nature”, 4) consideration of sociality only within the framework of the modern culture (this approach is contrasted with the cultural-historical interpretation of sociality). The author agrees with these characteristics, although believes that they need to be problematized. He considers the current understandings of justice and social nature and concludes that sociality is not equal to itself, it is rather a historically determined phenomenon. In conclusion, the author outlines the stages of research and the construction of a methodological concept of sociality. The author believes since the problematization and case studies have already been carried out, the next step is the cultural and historical reconstruction of the main types of sociality (mainly, the European types).
{"title":"The Basic Ideas for Constructing Methodological Concept of Sociality","authors":"Вадим Маркович Розин","doi":"10.5840/eps20205719","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/eps20205719","url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses the crisis situation in sociology, and in connection with this, ideas are outlined aimed at constructing a methodological concept of sociality. It is noted that the crisis in sociology takes place due to the transition of sociologists to interdisciplinary research. It seems that such an interdisciplinary turn is unsafe for sociology as a scientific discipline, primarily in terms of understanding the subject and the integrity of the reality being studied. Analyzing the crisis in sociology, the author considers himself as methodologist and culturologist, setting the task to implement cultural, historical and phenomenological approaches in the social sciences. In this regard, the methodological, cultural, historical and phenomenological features of the study are characterized. They are compared with sociological ones. The sociological approach is distinguished by four characteristics: 1) assessment of sociality as well as an indication of the type of social action aimed at changing or optimizing sociality, 2) description of the mass behavior of people and the social order that determines this behavior, 3) attitude toward the study of sociality and a description of “social nature”, 4) consideration of sociality only within the framework of the modern culture (this approach is contrasted with the cultural-historical interpretation of sociality). The author agrees with these characteristics, although believes that they need to be problematized. He considers the current understandings of justice and social nature and concludes that sociality is not equal to itself, it is rather a historically determined phenomenon. In conclusion, the author outlines the stages of research and the construction of a methodological concept of sociality. The author believes since the problematization and case studies have already been carried out, the next step is the cultural and historical reconstruction of the main types of sociality (mainly, the European types).","PeriodicalId":44031,"journal":{"name":"Epistemology & Philosophy of Science-Epistemologiya i Filosofiya Nauki","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5840/eps20205719","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45420322","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article is the study of some aspects of the methodology of scientific knowledge that F. Bacon addressed in his treatise «New Organon» (1620) and in other works in one way or another related to his work on the project of the «Instauratio Magna Scientiarum». The article focuses on the following three questions: Bacon’s attitude to Aristotle’s legacy, the context of Bacon’s doctrine of idols and the reasons for the English philosopher to choose a fragmented (aphoristic) form of presentation of his ideas in the «New Organon» and in some other works. Based on an analysis of Bacon’s works related to the above project, it was shown that his statements about Aristotle and his philosophy were differentiated depending on whether the corresponding text was intended for printing or served as a working draft. In the latter case, the estimates of Aristotle by Bacon were more stringent. Baconian criticism of Aristotelianism was formed in the context of the development by the English philosopher of the doctrine of the idols of knowledge. The article shows that developing this doctrine, Bacon proceeded from the idea of mass insanity of the human race (insania publica), which has ancient roots and was shared by a number of contemporaries of F. Bacon. At the same time, the latter considered Aristotle as the creator of «a kind of art of insanity (artemque quondam insaniae componere).» As a cure for «insania universalis,» Bacon proposed a new method (the «new organon») of cognition, and the presentation of his ideas in the form of separate, but conceptually related aphorisms, as a way of activating the reader’s thought process.
{"title":"The Gay Science of Francis Bacon","authors":"Игорь Сергеевич Дмитриев","doi":"10.5840/eps202057114","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202057114","url":null,"abstract":"The article is the study of some aspects of the methodology of scientific knowledge that F. Bacon addressed in his treatise «New Organon» (1620) and in other works in one way or another related to his work on the project of the «Instauratio Magna Scientiarum». The article focuses on the following three questions: Bacon’s attitude to Aristotle’s legacy, the context of Bacon’s doctrine of idols and the reasons for the English philosopher to choose a fragmented (aphoristic) form of presentation of his ideas in the «New Organon» and in some other works. Based on an analysis of Bacon’s works related to the above project, it was shown that his statements about Aristotle and his philosophy were differentiated depending on whether the corresponding text was intended for printing or served as a working draft. In the latter case, the estimates of Aristotle by Bacon were more stringent. Baconian criticism of Aristotelianism was formed in the context of the development by the English philosopher of the doctrine of the idols of knowledge. The article shows that developing this doctrine, Bacon proceeded from the idea of mass insanity of the human race (insania publica), which has ancient roots and was shared by a number of contemporaries of F. Bacon. At the same time, the latter considered Aristotle as the creator of «a kind of art of insanity (artemque quondam insaniae componere).» As a cure for «insania universalis,» Bacon proposed a new method (the «new organon») of cognition, and the presentation of his ideas in the form of separate, but conceptually related aphorisms, as a way of activating the reader’s thought process.","PeriodicalId":44031,"journal":{"name":"Epistemology & Philosophy of Science-Epistemologiya i Filosofiya Nauki","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5840/eps202057114","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45848536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article outlines a look at technoscience or mode 2 as a results of the development of statistics as a mathematical method and an instrument of social management, as well as the deprofessionalization of science due to the overproduction of specialists and the introduction of design forms of work into the practice of the scientific community. A decrease of the scientists’ expert status is noted, and an assessment is given of the prospects for the complete degeneration of classical science into the technoscience.
{"title":"Technoscience – Science Without Scientists?","authors":"Taras A. Varkhotov","doi":"10.5840/eps20205713","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/eps20205713","url":null,"abstract":"The article outlines a look at technoscience or mode 2 as a results of the development of statistics as a mathematical method and an instrument of social management, as well as the deprofessionalization of science due to the overproduction of specialists and the introduction of design forms of work into the practice of the scientific community. A decrease of the scientists’ expert status is noted, and an assessment is given of the prospects for the complete degeneration of classical science into the technoscience.","PeriodicalId":44031,"journal":{"name":"Epistemology & Philosophy of Science-Epistemologiya i Filosofiya Nauki","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5840/eps20205713","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47125586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article deals with the forms of epistemic injustice associated with the scentization of expertise, its locking in a separate scientific discipline. Counter-expertise is directed against deprivation of the right to speak out about one's own interests which is the most common form of epistemic injustice. But the most radical form is related to the comprehension of other’s phenomenal experience as a derivative of the parameters measured by expert. In this regard, the concept of embodiment can play a crucial role both in preventing epistemic injustice and in overcoming the crisis of expertise.
{"title":"Incline and Admonish","authors":"S. Shevchenko","doi":"10.5840/eps202057217","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202057217","url":null,"abstract":"The article deals with the forms of epistemic injustice associated with the scentization of expertise, its locking in a separate scientific discipline. Counter-expertise is directed against deprivation of the right to speak out about one's own interests which is the most common form of epistemic injustice. But the most radical form is related to the comprehension of other’s phenomenal experience as a derivative of the parameters measured by expert. In this regard, the concept of embodiment can play a crucial role both in preventing epistemic injustice and in overcoming the crisis of expertise.","PeriodicalId":44031,"journal":{"name":"Epistemology & Philosophy of Science-Epistemologiya i Filosofiya Nauki","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5840/eps202057217","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71001427","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：