Epistemology & Philosophy of Science

The article provides an overview of discussions of the notion of understanding in various philosophical disciplines such as hermeneutics, social sciences, analytic philosophy. Some general conclusions are made about its relevance to some current issues in contemporary Russian philosophy.

Critical theory of technology brings technology studies to bear on the social theory of rationality. This paper discusses this connection through a reconsideration of thecontribution of the Frankfurt School to our understanding of what I call the paradox of rationality, the fact that the promise of the Enlightenment has been disappointed as advances in scientific and technical knowledge have led to more and more catastrophic consequences. The challenge for critical theory is to understand this paradox without romantic and antimodern afterthoughts as a contribution to a progressive worldview.

The article studies proof and argumentation (mainly in logic and mathematics) as a form of plea to scientific community with heavy ethical background. Proof is presented as a form of convincing scientific (sub)community (rather then the form of the quest for truth) and the tool which enables to take the responsibility for the thesis soundness, gained usually as an insight, irradiation.

The author considers the socalled “counterfactual objection” to the deflationary conception of truth, and argues that it is in error. To show this one can involve R. Stalnaker’s possible world semantics for counterfactuals and S. Kripke’s theory of rigid designators. It is also important to take into account the difference between sentences and propositions as possible truth-bearers.

The author argues that logical semantics which treats linguistic expressions only as denoting objects and states of affairs faces many problems and moves away from natural language. Critical arguments are offered against a deflationary theory of truth. It is stressed that a semantic theory aimed at an analysis of natural language must take into account not only the function of denoting but also a function of expressing information of sense. The author formulates a three-level model of the sense of linguisticexpressions.

The article investigates an evolution of the notion of technology in philosophy of technology and its applicability to social technologies. J.Beckmann defined the notionsof a particular and general technology (Allgemeine Technologie). The definitions of the words general technology and praxeology as a science of efficient action was first given by a French sociologist and philosopher Alfred Espinas. Technology as the action side of technique is also analyzed from the standpoint of modern philosophers of technology especially in Germany

A review of problems considered by feminist philosophy of science is given. Belonging of the feminist philosophy of science to the sphere of social epistemology is proved. Possibility of use of its results in teaching of epistemological subjects is demonstrated

In the paper it is traced how the question of language knowledge proved to be clue to the understanding the meaning of linguistic expressions. It happened when, in Dummett’s words, the conception of language as a code of thought was replaced by the conception of language as a vehicle for thought and, more important, when meaning ceased to be treated as a kind of entity (mental or abstract) and the conception of meaning as use appeared. According to Dummett, linguistic knowledge has a number of peculiarities which are discussed in the paper.

There is a famous argument of the Evil Genius in Descartes’ philosophy. When applied to modern multivalued logic this argument claims a challenge to foundations of basic hypotheses about the nature of logical values, properties of languages of logical theories, and logic itself. Most part of finitely valued logics, thus, appear to be in some sense Cartesian, while there is no philosophical argument for such a necessity. Surprisingly, the property of “being a Cartesian” for an arbitrary logic is deeply related to theexistence of an algorithm for construction of a Suszkostyle bivalent semantics for this logic.

Since the advent of Modern Physics in 1905, we observe an increasing activity of “interpreting” the new theories. We mention here the theories of Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Similar activities for the theories of Classical Physics are not known. The reasons for the different ways to treat classical physics and modern physics are rather surprising: In contrast to the theories of Modern Physics, Classical Physics is based on several metaphysical hypotheses that cannot be justified by rational reasoning or by experimental evidence. Elimination and relaxation of these hypotheses lead to the two theories of Modern Physics mentioned and thus to a “physics without metaphysics”.“Interpretations” of these theories in the sense of instrumentalism and positivism are needed only, if classical physics and its metaphysical basis is taken for granted. Hence, Modern Physics allows also for a realistic understanding without “interpretation”.

Based on the unpublished materials from the archive of Moscow State University this paper analyses details of word usage that gave birth to the Stalinist science. The author argues that the defeat of genetics in Soviet Union could be explained in terms of inappropriate linguistic and hermeneutical strategies

In the article an attempt is undertaken to consider the development of idea of a critical method from I. Jungius to I. Kant Instead of the traditional «linearly-providential» approach which was characteristic for Hegelian and Kantian schools in the history of philosophy and was based on a number of insolvent preconditions, the author offers to use more natural and fruitful «perspective» approach according to which each philosophical system opens its perspectives of development. By comparison of the critical bases of methodological ideas of Leibniz, Tetens and Kant the author tries to show an inconsistency of Kantian claims on exclusiveness or advantages of Kant model of criticism. The author shows that the Kant model «transcendental criticism» was preceded at least by three models: «Constructive» (I.Jung), «methodically-analytical» (Leibniz) and «phenomenologicallyanalytical» (I.N.Tetensa), each of which has its specificity and advantages.