Voprosy Filosofii i Psikhologii

9-17

Authors: Sergey A. Lebedev, Oleg A. Chistyakov

The article develops the new, four-level model of the structure of scientific knowledge of particular science. Scientific knowledge is understood as knowledge that meets the following requirements: certainty, evidence, consistency, verifiability, utility, reflexivity, methodology, openness to criticism, ability to change and improve. The totality of these requirements constitutes the concept of scientific rationality and is the criterion of demarcation that distinguishes scientific knowledge from all other types of human knowledge (everyday, artistic, philosophical, religious, mythological, intuitive, etc.). Scientific knowledge is the complex system that has a level structure of its organization in each specific science. The problem of levels of scientific knowledge is one of the main themes of the philosophy of science. Its solution involves reasonable answers to three main questions: 1) how many levels of scientific knowledge make up its complete structure, 2) what is the nature, content, functions and qualitative specificity of each of these levels, 3) what is the form of the relationship between different levels of scientific knowledge and the method of transition from one level of scientific knowledge to another. The classical philosophy of science assumed that the structure of scientific knowledge of each particular science consists of only two levels: sensory and rational, or empirical and theoretical knowledge. We consider the two-level concept of scientific knowledge incomplete and does not correspond to the real structure of scientific knowledge of any particular science. It is a clear simplification of the real structure based on the illegal identification and "gluing" of qualitatively different types of scientific knowledge in their nature and functions: for example, sensory and empirical, or empirical and theoretical, or theoretical and metatheoretical. In each of these cases of such identification, there is a manifestation of reductionist methodology, the basis of which is an underestimation of the real qualitative specificity of the compared items. In our proposed model of the structure of scientific knowledge, it is proposed to distinguish not two, but four qualitatively different levels of knowledge: sensory, empirical, theoretical and metatheoretical. In turn, the knowledge of each of these levels is also vertically structured, but this is already structuring within the qualitative identity of the content of knowledge of each level. The article shows that all four levels of scientific knowledge differ qualitatively in their nature, content and functions, and therefore there is no relation between them of logical deducibility of knowledge of one level from knowledge of another level. The type of relationship that exists between different levels of scientific knowledge is not formally logical, but constructively genetic. The transition from one level of scientific knowledge to another is possible only with the help of such a form of knowledge as the interpretation of knowledge of one level in terms of another level. The basis of this procedure is the subject of scientific knowledge making a cognitive decision about the possible identity of the content of different levels of knowledge. Despite the relative independence of various levels of scientific knowledge, all of them, thanks to the interpretation procedure, are interconnected within the framework of an integral system of scientific knowledge of each of the specific sciences. As a result, any particular science and scientific discipline functions, develops and interacts with other sciences, as well as with various segments of culture and practice as a whole.

26-33

Authors: Natalya N. Rostova

The article analyzes the fate of the question «What is human?» in modern philosophy. The author identifies two basic strategies: posthumanism and postcosmism. The first strategy is dominant for western european philosophy, the second – for russian philosophy. Using the method of comparative analysis, the author characterizes both approaches. Posthumanist strategy is based on the idea of the end of the exclusivity of human existence. The author considers the concept of human death to be the historical source of this idea. This idea is implemented by removing the basic oppositions, namely: «nature and culture», «human and technology», «human and animal», «human and objects». The essence of posthumanistic strategy consists in reducing a human to the world that exists, including him in the determinative whole. The posthumanist tradition is being embodied today in the projects of a new ontology, a new phenomenology, a new anthropology, and a new ecology. In modern russian philosophy, as well as in russian philosophy in general, the question of human determines the question of being. The concept of an anthropological catastrophe appears in russian philosophy and new anthropological projects are formulated that respond to its challenges. Poskosmism of modern russian philosophy consists in overcoming the logic of cosmism and establishing a connection with russian religious philosophy, discovering the essence of human not in nature and the body, but in his metaphysical expansion, transcending himself.

42-48

Authors: Elena A. Volodarskaya

The article reveals the modern approach to building a system of relations between science and society. The phenomenon of "open" science is described. The possible directions of movement towards more accessible for non-specialists scientific results and their participation in the production of new knowledge are analyzed in detail. These are such areas as the fundamentalization of the educational environment, the development of research competencies of students; scientific and educational tourism; revision of the criteria for assessing the scientific result. “Open” science will increase the prestige of the profession of a scientist, build more trusting relationships between participants in this system by promoting scientific knowledge and strengthening the scientific worldview and interest of citizens, creating conditions for the implementation of an applied request from society. Criteria for assessing the conditions for carrying out research activities, the practical value of the economic feasibility of science are becoming more popular and require a review of characteristics traditional for science. The openness of science presupposes the active development of “open” scientific competencies, common both for professionals and for people outside research institutions, which entails the fundamentalization of training for the development of such “open” research knowledge and skills. Scientific tourism combines science and tourism, creates the conditions for a new type of outdoor activities, when non-specialists interested in scientific knowledge, under the guidance of scientists, make their own contribution to the development of science. This allows satisfying the research interest of a non-specialist, forming and supporting his scientific worldview, and reinforcing a positive attitude towards science in society.