European Journal of Philosophical Research

62-76

Authors: Sergey A. Lebedev

In contrast to the classical philosophy of science the contemporary philosophy of science understands its object, subject and structure more widely. It does not bring philosophical perspectives of science only to the analysis of the process of scientific cognition, its structure and methods. It considers science more broadly, namely as a socio-cognitive activity which is innovative and practical. The object of classical philosophy of science was an ideal science, a science that it should be from the standpoint of philosophy. The object of the modern philosophy of science is a real science and its history.The subject of classical philosophy of science was the process of scientific inquiry, focused on obtaining true knowledge. Therefore, the central problem was the problem of the scientific method, is able to guarantee to provide such knowledge. The subject of the modern philosophy of science is science as a socio-cognitive and innovative system aimed at the application of scientific knowledge in practice. The structure of the classical philosophy of science was subordinated to the disclosure of the structure of scientific knowledge, its various levels and methods of getting each of them the true knowledge.The structure of the contemporary philosophy of science is subordinated to the description of all of the main measurements of the actual functioning of science (ontological, epistemological, socio-cultural, axiological, anthropological, innovative) in their unit. Empirical materials regarding the actual functioning of science and its history is considered in modern philosophy not as the sum of examples to prove this or that philosophical epistemology, but also as a basis and criterion of reasonable choice of the most general theoretical models of science.

91-105

Authors: G.W. Oesterdiekhoff

Historians of philosophy often raised the question whether or not there has been a general trend or a general direction identifiable in the history of philosophy. D´Holbach, Hegel, Comte, Brunschvicq, Cassirer, and Piaget belong to the list of those scholars who tried to describe the history of philosophy as a history of stages of mind. They all described the history of philosophy as a sequence of stages going from more concrete, simple, and childish patterns to more elaborated, systematic, abstract, and mature patterns. Piaget himself made many comparisons between ancient philosophy on the one side and childish stages on the other side, while he identified higher psychological stages only in the sciences and philosophy after 1650. His idea with this regard, supported by T. Kuhn and A. Koyré, has found a couple of followers who likewise contributed to the psychogenetic theory of the philosophy´s history. The new structure-genetic theory programme, however, emphasizes that not only the philosophical theories but also the psychological structures of the philosophers themselves went through the stages developmental psychology has found out. This article here distinguishes six stages identifiable within the history of philosophy: Mythos, archaic philosophy, Ionian philosophy, classical Greek philosophy, early modern philosophy, and modern philosophy, all of them describable in terms of developmental psychology.

13-17

Authors: Fedor I. Girenok

The article is devoted to a problem of crisis of metaphysics. According to the author, the essence of this crisis consists in verbal revolt. One words, such as «substance», «essence», are defined by themselves. Others – are in the subordinated situation, and now they demanded equality. After a modernist style in philosophy there are no final instances, there are no main words. All words are equal now. And if they are equal then philosophy as the metaphysics comes to an end and the philosophy as physics begins. And if the philosophy as physics begins, it means that the philosophy in general disappears. It appears either literature, or physics. In anthropology crisis of metaphysics is swept up shift of interest in madness. Pathology – now a key to norm, but not norm – a key to pathology. Crisis of metaphysics is expressed also in idea about death of the subject. The subject is connected with existence in the world of rules, clear norms, laws and sequences. Behind borders of these norms – chaos. According to the author, time of the subject passed, there came subjectivity time. And it conducts to disappearance in philosophy of epistemo-logical problems. Philosophy not knowledge, but meanings interest.

27-34

Authors: Sergey A. Lebedev

In the article analyzes the problem of the demarcation of scientific knowledge, formulations and justifications of the criterion for distinguishing scientific knowledge from other kinds of knowledge: everyday, philosophical, religious, artistic, etc. The author develops the concept of systematic demarcation of scientific knowledge. It means, first, that the demarcation criterion includes not one property of scientific knowledge, but the system of such properties. The properties of scientific knowledge according to the author are: objects of scientific knowledge, its reasoning, unambiguity of meaning and sense of its concepts and judgments, verification (empirical or analytical), consistency, systematic, justification, generally accepted. And, secondly, that these properties are specific to their specificity towards different structural units of scientific knowledge: scientific knowledge types, levels and atomic units of scientific knowledge. The main conclusion of the article: methodological truth is (should be) equally concrete, like all other truths of science.

48-52

Authors: Elena Volodarskaya

Factor of an assessment of functioning of science is a system of indicators of overall performance of the scientist as which resultant characteristic quality of researches and development can act acts. It is necessary to understand important parameters (indicators) system from the point of view of the consumer of this product as concept of quality of a scientific product. Mark out the internal efficiency of scientific activity connected with efficiency of results of scientific activity in the science and the external efficiency covering all aspects of use of scientific results out of science. In science of science it is about such parameters of scientific result as efficiency, productivity, usefulness, scientific and technical products value. Efficiency is understood as quantity of the scientific production made by the scientist, and as productivity – ability of the scientist to make scientific production of a certain quality. Usefulness and value of scientific production is considered depending on degree of compliance of quality of scientific production to needs of society for new knowledge. Along with the parameter of novelty of scientific result mark out its objectivity, impartiality, importance of a discovery as in the theoretical plan for development of science, and for its practical use, speaking about theoretical and practical importance, the importance of scientific result, and also the characteristic of its prospects, relevance and originality. One of necessary characteristics of the scientific theory is its predictability, that is aiming at the future, predictive nature of result. Ability to scientific anticipation, creation of model of the future defines objectivity of the content of knowledge, its adequacy, a validity, openness to new experience. Predictive nature of methodological approach, the theory is shown in compliance of the results received in follow-up activity, to results on the basis of which this theory is formulated during the concrete historical period. The purpose of work consists in the analysis of a the predictability as one of criteria of an assessment of scientific result and image of science in general on the example of three-aspect the approaches to the analysis of scientific activity developed by very famous domestic psychologist and the historian of science M. G. Yaroshevsky. The idea that studying of scientific activity has to be carried out systemically, taking into account interrelation of three major aspects of scientific creativity is the cornerstone of the principle of a three-pronged approach of studying of phenomena of science: 1) the subject and logical, reflecting internal logic development of scientific knowledge, representation in the program of activity of the scientist of objective logic of the studied subject; 2) social and scientific, characterizing scientific community in general, the relations in scientific community, a social context of functioning of science, and 3) the personal and psychological, including individual and personal features subject of scientific activity, personal parameters of creativity. The subject of scientific creativity – the scientist, scientific groups, science in general, and the ideas of its existing in society can be analysed in three-dimensional space of subject, social and psychological vectors. Studying of image of science and state scientific policy from the point of view of allocation of subject, social and scientific and personal and psychological components is allowed to study how internal logic of development of scientific knowledge, intellectual activity is shown in dynamics of substantial forms of the organization of process of research, to reveal interference macro - and microsocial factors of creativity and social operating conditions of science, to define interrelation of the external and internal factors of scientific search concretized in individual and psychological features of the scientist.