Philosophy of Science in Social and Political Contexts

Abstract

Philosophy of science is often seen as complex interdisciplinary research of science as a complex object in the variety of its sides and facets. Why is this complex included in the composition of philosophical disciplines and directions? This question is not trivial. It touches the sensitive nerve of modern philosophy as such: is it destined to preserve and strengthen its disciplinary status or to dissolve in a multitude of special sciences as an ideological and methodological appendage-commentary to their results?

This issue should be discussed and resolved not by abstract reasoning but by studying the objective process of the interdependent development of science and philosophy. The reflection of this process has long been the prerogative of the latter. Modernity adds confidence that this is not a reflection of an outside observer and critic but a participant in a joint movement. Each new step depends on common efforts. Science is becoming more and more philosophized, and philosophy is "scientified" (I beg your pardon for the clumsiness of these terms). Old disputes about the necessity or possibility of the so-called demarcation between philosophical and scientific knowledge, between the activities of a philosopher and a scientist, for the most part, have long gone into history.

The main body of articles in this issue is devoted to issues at the intersection of philosophical and scientific discourses. The primary attention is paid to the connection between the philosophical and historical analysis of science and the problems that arise when discussing the political subjectivity of science.

Igor Dmitriyev raises in his article a rather unexpected question for the philosophy of science about what role the discussion of the theological theme of the Miracle played in the formation of modern science. Neither the philosophy nor the science of modern times was separated by the “Chinese wall” from theology. Scientific problems crystallized in polemical contact with theological, and it happened that the most critical concepts of new science (such as "universal gravitation" and actio in distans in Newton) were formed as results of mutual diffusion of meanings between these spheres of Ratio. Science tried to assimilate the idea of a "miracle", using it as an element of natural philosophy: God appeared in the scientific mirror of nature as a wise coordinator of the actions of his laws.

Nataliya Kuznetsova examines the descriptive function of historical epistemology in the context of the interests of the philosophy of science. Applying the method of discourse analysis in historical and scientific research, one can come to significant epistemological conclusions: the history of science is not only a story about a change in scientific paradigms and interpretations of experiments. It is also an elucidation of the personal identity of a scientist, his cultural codes, which are essential for understanding the stimuli of his actions and a scale for assessing their results. In historical epistemology, there is a growing interest in contingency as a factor in forming research tracks.

Vladimir Porus and Valentin Bazhanov reveal the connection between the epistemological status of the so-called postnormal science (Funtowicz, Ravetz) and the problem of the political subjectivity of science. Acquisition or loss by the science of status of a political subject depends on the nature of the political environment in society. If the political climate is only an imitation, political subjectivity is not the goal and value of science. There are only a few changes here if science takes on a "post-normal" character. For the pursuit of political subjectivity in science to become the norm, science must participate in the movement towards a democratic civil society.

Vladimir Porus and Valentin Bazhanov's article is discussed by Svetlana Shibarshina, Yevgeniy Maslanov, Liana Tukhvatulina and Yevgeniy Zharkov. The authors have noted a multiplicity of factors affecting the blurring of the boundaries between scientific research and its political consequences. The context in which contact between scientific teams, individual actors and the political environment is expanding and becoming more complex. In particular, in the political interactions of scientists with other political actors, people who are not included in the scientific community participate in the role of mediators (Shibarshina). We can talk about the political subjectivity of science in the sense that science is an essential element of managerial and political practices. Scientific theories and technologies, acting as representatives of non-human actors, change the idea of “Nature”, which appears like a stage for political actions and a factor in their transformation, which can be considered an element of political subjectivity (Maslanov). In specific political laboratories, the concepts of "scientific" and "political" are mixed, which, among other things, is fraught with the loss of the moral guidelines of science (Zharkov). The political subjectivity of science is fraught with several threats for science itself and society. First of all, it is the threat of political control over the activities of scientists. It also includes the negative impact of the political selection of scientific expertise. Such threats can be either neutralized or eliminated through the optimal new differentiation of expertise by expanding the circle of experts per the political needs of society.

Anastasiya Ugleva states that trust in authority in science and in those types of practice in which there is a large share of scientific knowledge plays a crucial role in making significant decisions. The very same authority arises and is strengthened due to the recognition of a particular scientist (scientific team) adherence to the so-called "intellectual virtues", that is, the central epistemic values, as guidelines for research activities. This trust plays a unique role when the specificity of practical activity lies in the lack or absence of opportunities for the experiment (for example, in medicine).

In the rubrics adjoining the issue's main topic, articles on a wide range of philosophical problems are proposed. Svetlana Neretina continues the discussion around the philosophical aspects of Fyodor Dostoevsky's work, initiated by the anniversary of the writer. Dostoevsky created in the story “Bobok” a special optics that allows one to see the process of "reflection in reflection", that is, self-understanding through observation of oneself in a borderline situation. The possibility there is not separated from reality by a rigid border, but, on the contrary, they coexist and mutually "flow" one to the other. Neretina supposes that Dostoevsky seemed to foresee some essential features of literature and the philosophy of science of the 20th century.

In their article, Olga Bychkova and Artyom Kosmarski analyze the political genealogy of one of the most promising and influential information technologies of our time - blockchain (or distributed ledger). They point to significant similarities between how blockchain projects work and models of republican governance. From a methodological point of view, the authors primarily refer to classical republicanism and the actor-network theory developed by Bruno Latour and others.

I. Shablinskiy concludes that the correlation of political sovereignty and the general foundations of the theory of democracy can be viewed through the optics of federal politics proposed by J.-J. Rousseau. This model assumes the coexistence of many centres of collective decision-making within one polity.

According to the established tradition, this journal issue publishes a translation of one of the classical philosophical texts with a scientific commentary from the translator. This time it contains a translation of a part of the metaphysical treatise of the Catalan follower of Duns Scotus Peter Thomae “On the types of distinctions” (1325), made by Vitaly Ivanov. This publication will attract the attention of Russian medievalists, logicians, historians of philosophy and culture.

This issue publishes critical bibliographic materials: a review by Sonia Porfirieva on the book Y. Strengers, J. Kennedy “The Smart Wife: Why Siri, Alexa and other Smart Home Devises Need a Feminist Reboot” (Cambridge, 2020), Anna Winckelmann on Robert Darnton's book “Mesmerism and the End of the Enlightenment in France” (Moscow, 2021). Alexander Markov for A. Safronov's book “Causal dualism” (M., 2021), Nikolay Afanasov for the book by Jean-Pierre Dupuis “Sign of the Sacred” (M. 2021 ).

The team that worked on the issue wishes the readers a pleasant and helpful study of the presented materials.

Vladimir Porus