Is the philosophy of science a science? (In Ukrainian)

Newsweekly “Mirror of Week”, 2019

Due to newspaper requirements references were deleted from the printed version https://dt.ua/SCIENCE/chi-ye-naukoyu-filosofiya-nauki-309070_.html (In Ukrainian) https://zn.ua/SCIENCE/yavlyaetsya-li-naukoy-filosofiya-nauki-315326_.html (in Russian) Initially, the paper was sent to the general scientific journal “Visnyk of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine” (http://www.visnyk-nanu.org.ua/en) and rejected without any written explanation. Contents Basic question was formulated but has not discussed Is the philosophy of science a philosophy? What is a science? New knowledge is the main scientific product The philosophy of science as one of metasciences about science Features of the philosophy of science as science Abstract The philosophy of science is understood as a meta-science about science. Its domain includes components, subsystems, structures, functions, and interconnections of systems of scientific knowledge as rational means of generating new knowledge. Some scientific criteria, which are satisfied by the philosophy of science: demarcating and modeling its domain, verifying its statements, identifying and solving original problems, describing dynamics of knowledge systems in terms of their components and subsystems, are formulated. The structure-nominative direction in the philosophy of science has included into systems of scientific knowledge more forms of its differentiation than informal-conceptual, propositional/standard, logical, instrumentalist/operationalist, erothetic/interrogative, semantic, and structuralist directions. Scientists construct a balanced system of scientific knowledge as the device of producing new knowledge by systemically ordering ties between these forms. The modification of the structure-nominative direction proposes more detailed («microscopic») consideration of compositions, transformations, interdependencies, and dynamics of subsystems of systems of scientific knowledge. In any particular system of scientific knowledge, the following agreed subsystems are singled out: ontic (initial ideas about the indisputable attributes of realities from the domain of the knowledge system in question); denominative (names of realities both from the domain and names of components of the system itself); language (system of languages of the knowledge system); logistic (means of ordering subsystems); nomic (laws, axioms, postulates that represent the regularities and regularities of the domain, as well as the principles of the system itself); model (abstract models); representative (models whose prototypes are realities from the domain); problem / interrogative or erothetic (problems, issues, tasks that are being formulated and solved); operational (actions with components and structures of knowledge system in question); procedural (rules for performing actions); evaluative or axiological (assessments of components, structures, subsystems and the system as a whole); hypothetical (assumptions); heuristic (useful, but not rigorous means of reasoning); approximative (approximations) and binding (connections of subsystems and their components) subsystems. The results of the article are useful in the philosophy of science, sociology of science and history of science, as well as in the teaching of corresponding university courses. Key words: science as a social institution, philosophy of science, meta-science, production of knowledge, system of scientific knowledge, polysystem, components, subsystems, modified structural-nominative reconstruction, scientific criteria.

Philosophical Dialogs’2018, 2019

The philosophy of science is understood as a metascience about science. Its domain includes systems of scientific knowledge as rational means of generating new knowledge. The philosophy of science fills main scientific requirements: demarcating, splitting, and modeling its domain, verifying statements about domain, its components and subsystems, identifying and solving original problems of domain studying, describing trends of domain developments in terms of changes of domain components and subsystems. The structure-nominative direction in the philosophy of science has included into systems of scientific knowledge more forms of its differentiation than informal-conceptual, propositional/standard, logistic, instrumentalist/operationalist, erotetic/interrogative, semantic, structuralist, and extended structuralist directions. Scientists construct a balanced system of scientific knowledge as the device of producing new knowledge by both systemically ordering ties between these forms and empirical/experimental investigations of the domain of the system at issue. The modification of the structure-nominative direction proposes more detailed («microscopic») consideration of compositions, transformations, interdependencies, and dynamics of subsystems of systems of scientific knowledge. In any particular system of scientific knowledge, the following agreed subsystems are singled out: ontic (initial ideas about the indisputable attributes of realities from the domain of the knowledge system in question); denominative (names of realities from the domain and names of components of the system itself); language (system of languages of the knowledge system); logistical (means of ordering subsystems); nomic (laws, axioms, postulates that represent the regularities of the domain, as well as the principles of the system itself); model (abstract models); representative (models whose prototypes are realities from the domain); problem / interrogative / erotetic (problems, issues, tasks that are formulated and solved); operational (actions with components and structures); procedural (rules for performing actions); evaluative or axiological (assessments of components, structures, subsystems and the system as a whole); hypothetical (assumptions); heuristic (useful, but not rigorous reasoning); approximative (approximations) and binding (connections of subsystems and their components) subsystems. Key words: science as a social institution, philosophy of science, metascience, production of knowledge, system of scientific knowledge, polysystem, components, subsystems, modified structural-nominative reconstruction, scientific criteria. The paper was accepted for publication in Philosophical Dialogs’2018. – Kyiv: G.S. Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy of NANU, 2019. The paper is an extended English version of the paper that was published in the bilingual newsweekly “The Mirror of Week” (N 1240, April 20-25) in both Ukrainian (https://dt.ua/SCIENCE/chi-ye-naukoyu-filosofiya-nauki-309070_.html) and Russian (https://zn.ua/SCIENCE/yavlyaetsya-li-naukoy-filosofiya-nauki-315326_.html).

The metaphysical basis of science 9

Revista Pesquisa em Fisioterapia, 2017

in: World Conference on Science. Science for the Twenty-First Century: A New Commitment (ed. by A.M. Cetto), Paris: UNESCO, 2000, pp. 52-56, 2000

De Gruyter eBooks, 2020

This paper addresses the question of what the heart (or the "nature") of science is. After a short introduction, I will first make a few preliminary historical and systematic remarks. Next, in answering the main question, I shall propose the following thesis: Scientific knowledge is primarily distinguished from other forms of knowledge, especially from everyday knowledge, by being more systematic. This thesis has to be qualified, clarified, developed and justified. In particular, I will develop the thesis in nine dimensions in which it is claimed that science is more systematic than everyday knowledge: regarding descriptions, explanations, predictions, the defense of knowledge claims, critical discourse, epistemic connectedness, an ideal of completeness, knowledge generation and the structure and representation of knowledge. Finally, I will compare my answer with alternative answers. In diesem Aufsatz wird die Frage gestellt und beantwortet, was Wissenschaft ist. Dazu mache ich zunächst einige historische und systematische Vorbemerkungen, worauf folgende These vorgeschlagen wird: Wissenschaftliches Wissen unterscheidet sich von anderen Wissensarten, besonders dem Alltagswissen, primär durch sein höheren Grad an Systematizität. Diese These muss erläutert und begründet sowie der Begriff der Systematizität geklärt werden. Die These wird schließlich in neun Dimensionen entwickelt, die jeweils zeigen, dass Wissenschaft systematischer als das Alltagswissen ist: dies sind Beschreibungen, Erklärungen, Vorhersagen, die Verteidigung von Wissensansprüchen, der kritische Diskurs, epistemische Vernetztheit, ein Ideal der Vollständigkeit, die Vermehrung von Wissen sowie die Strukturierung und Darstellung von Wissen. Abschließend vergleiche ich meinen Ansatz mit anderen Positionen.

This section intends to present a conceptual analysis of basic terms in the history and philosophy of science. The history and philosophy of science is a study of the gradual development of the entire series of human activities which has culminated in what is now termed science. As can be seen and expected, the terms, “History”, Philosophy” and “Science”, stare us in the face begging for explanations. We shall, therefore, analyze these terms in their nuances and ramifications. The question of science, what science is and what it exists for will be presented. There will be an attempt to analyze “scientific method” and distinguish it from “scientific technique”. The features and goals of science will also be discussed here. The notions of facts, hypothesis, scientific theory and scientific law will be briefly explained. With an analysis on the scientific method, we shall realize that the scientific process involves inductive reasoning in the most part and a quantum of deduction. There will be a cursory explanation of the nature and place of philosophy of science.

Metascience, 2019

The two concepts of the style of scientific thinking compares in the article. With the epochal point of view style of thinking reflects the phases in the development of science, the nature of it’s induced by scientific methodology of epoch, and respectively styles come and go over time. With the disciplinary point of view style of thinking associated with a specific scientific discipline, the nature of it’s induced by the subject and methodology the discipline, respectively different styles coexist in the same time. The relation of style of thinking to the scientific picture of the world is discussed. There are the two different models of the world pattern. In one model, all things are treated as derivatives of the space, in the other one, the world is presented as a set of hierarchically organized systems. From this viewpoint the classical and non-classical styles of thinking can be combined in the space-atomistic metastyle. The demonstrations of this metastyle are observed not only in the natural sciences, but also in linguistics, history, and sociology. The problem of relations of style of scientific thinking and other ways of describing the world is discussed. A sociocultural component of scientific activity lies in the center of paradigms and research programs. The typological correspondence between them and style of thinking is not revealed because of focusing on different aspects of scientific activity. A relatively complete correspondence between styles and basic cognitive models is revealed.

Andreanský, E.: Chapters on the Contemporary Philosophy of Science. Košice: UPJŠ, 2015

The book deals with the demarcation problem (differences between scientific and non-scientific approach), characteristic features of holism and its critics, the problem of realism in science and philosophy, essentialism in scientific exploration and finally the problem of reductionism and the idea of unified science.