Science as not a Set of Results but the Way of Obtaining Them

The article discusses the differences between the classical logic of science (17th-20th centuries) and non-classical logic (20th century). While classical logic is based on the general properties of the objects studied, non-classical logic is based on the special, individual. The classical logic singled out in the studied objects their common properties that united them and ensured their independence of human. The scientist and his social connections are volatile and cannot serve as a stable basis for obtaining the only possible true result during examination of particular object. At the same time, it was not taken into account that scientists themselves endowed nature with this property of independence. It would be more correct to say that scientist distinguished from all properties of reality precisely these properties as the most convenient for constructing a logical system that explains the entire surrounding world. All other properties were ignored. In the 20th century attention was shifted to the properties of objects and events that determine their identity, which means their ability to communicate. After all, for a communication at least two interlocutors are needed who differ from each other. Each of them has its own origin, which is formed by the context. At the origin of the formation of knowledge there is still no division between subject and object. The surgeon works with his hands guided by his theoretical knowledge. When he encou difficulty, he can modify the theory, thus solving the practical problem that has arisen. In the structure of science, knowledge is embedded in this form, without division between man and the surrounding world. However this last division remains only possible but not essential for logic. The main problem that needs to be further seriously considered is to understand how the social is included in the philosophy of science.

1. Bibler V.S. (1991) From Science to the Logic of Culture. Two Philosophical Introductions to the 21st Century. Moscow: Politzidat (in Russian).

2. Deleuze G. (1969) Logique du sens. Paris: Editions de Minuit (Russian translation: Moscow: Raritet, 1998).

3. Duhem P. (1913) Le Systeme du Monde. Paris: Hermann.

4. Fuller S. (2011) Humanity 2.0: What it Means to be Human. Past, Present and Future. London: Palgrave, Macmillan, 2011.

5. Fuller S. & Lipinska V. (2014) The Proactionary Imperative: A Foundation for Transhumanism. London: Palgrave, Macmillan.

6. Goldman A. (1999) Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

7. Goldman A. (2010) Why Social Epistemology is Real Epistemology. In: Haddock A., Millar A., & Pritchard D. (Eds.) Social Epistemology (pp. 1-28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

8. Kasavin I.T. (2008) Text. Discourse. Context. Introduction to the Social Epistemology of Language. Moscow: Kanon+ (in Russian).

9. Kasavin I.T. (2017) Victorian Philosophy of Science: William Hewell (Reflections on a Book). Voprosy filosofii. 2017. No. 3, pp. 23-33 (in Russian).

10. Kasavin I.T. (2016) Social Philosophy of Science and Collective Epistemology. Moscow: Kanon+ (in Russian).

11. Kasavin I.T. & Shchavelev S.P. (2004) Analysis of Everyday Life. Moscow: Kanon+ (in Russian).

12. Kuhn T. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press (Russian translation: Moscow: Nauka, 1977).

13. Latour B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Russian translation: Moscow: HSE University Press, 2014).

14. Latour B. (2007) A Textbook. Case Revisited. Knowledge as a Mode of Existence. In: Hackett E.J., Amsterdamska O., Lynch M.E., & Wajc-man J. (Eds.) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (3rd ed.; pp. 83-112). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

15. Latour B. & Woolgar S. (1986) Laboratory Life. The Construction of Scientific Facts. Prinston, NJ: Princeton University Press.

16. Mamardashvili M.K. (1996) The Arrow of Knowledge. Sketch of Natural Historical Epistemology. Moscow: Shkola; Yazyki russkoy kul’tury (in Russian).

17. Markova L.A. (2016) A Turn in Studies of the Social Nature of Scientific Knowledge. Voprosy filosofii. 2016. No. 4, pp. 182-193 (in Russian).

18. Markova L.A. (2017a) Another Science, Resulting in a New Science Policy. Voprosy filosofii. 2017. No 12, pp. 91-102 (in Russian).

19. Markova L.A. (2017b) Scientific Revolution. In: Kasavin I.T. & Feigel-man A.M. Revolution and Evolution: Development Models in Science, Culture, Society (pp. 89-92). Nizhny Novgorod: Nizhny Novgorod State University Press (in Russian).

20. Markova L.A. (2017c) Social Epistemology in the Context of the Past and the Future. Moscow: Kanon + (in Russian).

21. Marx K. (1969) Grundrisse der Kritik der Politischen Okonomie: 18571858. In: Marx K. & Engels F. Collected Works (Vol. 46, part 2). Moscow: Politizdat (Russian translation).