Home – Home – Jornals – Philosophy of Sciences 2022 number 4

The article considers the idea of the formation of a new paradigm in science proposed by a number of authors. According to this idea, the new scientific paradigm, which is the fourth in succession, consists in the fact that scientific research is increasingly based on the analysis of big data. It results in the change of the basic process: the production of scientific knowledge is replaced by the analysis of big data. The article examines the arguments of the authors of the idea of the fourth scientific paradigm and attempts to identify the rationale for such an assumption. It is shown that a new paradigm really starts to form in science, but its core is not so much the analysis of big data (which, of course, takes place, but this is one of the criteria related to the instrumental and technological aspect of the issue), but the change in the very reality of the world. The latter consists in the transition to the paradigm of the world of worlds, the paradigm of the hybrid (social-digital) world, which also implies the formation of a new ontology. It is argued that the new paradigm requires the development of new philosophical and methodological foundations, the lack of which is felt by the authors of this idea. The question of the emerging trend of rethinking the active role of a research scientist and the need to develop a new human-artificial intelligence interface is considered. In a situation of heavy growth of big data, not so much the human scientist himself begins to play an active role in collecting, processing and analyzing data, but his digital assistant; thus, clearly expressed functional outsourcing takes place. It is shown that the key criterion for the transition to a new paradigm is not the growth of data by itself, but overcoming the border of the human dimension of the world.

By analogy with practical akrasia, epistemic akrasia is considered from two perspectives - its fundamental possibility and its rationality. Although this phenomenon is well known, it is not easy to explain it, since it seems to be a clear indication of irrationality. The conditions for the possibility of epistemic akrasia include some form of control over our opinions and beliefs, as well as awareness of choice. Its rationalization requires weakening the tenets of rationality - from strict logical consistency towards pragmatism. Further rationalization of such cases is possible with an appropriate interpretation of the “ought implies can” formula, which would limit and weaken our epistemic obligations.

The article proposes a preliminary version of the concept describing the influence of scientific philosophers on scientific knowledge. Firstly, this influence consists in criticizing the shortcomings of scientific knowledge, since science is not accustomed to criticize methods if there are no alternative approaches. Secondly, it reflects in criticism of the incorrect use of philosophical ideas in science, because non-philosophers do not always have deep and wide knowledge of philosophy. With this concept in mind, the author has analyzed Hume's Treatise on Human Nature and shows that Hume had neither original results in probability theory, nor special interest in this science. The fact is that probability theory is not suitable for the study of problems relevant to Hume, and therefore there is no reason to talk about his direct influence on it. However, Hume's criticism of this science, as well as some of his considerations, which may be interpreted as a challenge to scientists, could initiate their research in the field of probability theory, so Hume's indirect influence on this science may be logically assumed.

The article deals with the problem of demarcation between abstract and concrete entities. In its first part, the thesis about the internal variability of the spatiotemporal criterion of demarcation between abstract and concrete entities is substantiated, as well as some variants of this criterion are analyzed. The second part of the article shows how various forms of the spatiotemporal criterion can influence the determination of the status of individual entities. We consider two examples of entities, which some authors view as abstract entities, while other authors view as concrete ones. Namely, we address the problem of zero-dimensional material objects and the issue of the ontological status of possible worlds.

The paper reveals the difficulties of applying the proof verification concept to collectively obtained mathematical results using the classification theorem for finite simple groups as an example. It is shown that the difficulties that arise when trying to use the concept of proof verification to collective results can be overcome by means of socio-epistemological research. The latter allow not only to overcome the inapplicability of the classical concepts of the epistemology of mathematics to collective results, but also to create new concepts that are applicable, including beyond the limits of exclusively collective results.

"Agrocyborg" is a scientific term, the meaning of which is formed at the interface of biological-technical and cultural-philosophical concepts of the construction and functioning of a biomachine system that enhances the physical capabilities of a human being through technical means, causally controlled by the correlates of private phenomena of his consciousness. In the initial version, the agrocyborg is an agricultural worker and a bearer of soil traditions. Due to the symbiosis with the means of high technologies, the agrocyborg is an electronic personality, a representative of eHomo. In various conditions of attributing vital, mental and personal private phenomena to the biomachines of the agro-industrial complex, the cyborg self appears under the guises of a cyborg human, a cyborg animal, and a cyborg plant. The agrocyborg project is included in the methodology for building and using biomachine systems and is grounded by the "human-machine-living" triad. The "machine" block of the system includes solvers with elements of artificial intelligence technology and uses invasive implants and non-invasive interfaces, which enables the integration of biological and technical components to implement the agrocyborg concept. The authors offer concrete ways of constructing and using agrocyborgs in livestock breeding and crop production. This makes it possible to single out unsolvable, i.e. philosophical, aspects of the agrocyborg project. These include the problem of causal informational interactions of bio- and techno-subsystems, the problem of trusted attribution of cognitive phenomena to agrocyborgs of various classes, and the problem of interdisciplinary coordination.

Ideas about the visual analyzer appeared in ancient times. The ideas that arose about the functioning of vision in humans were often influenced by various philosophical systems then, while some eye surgery was already performed. In modern times, the accumulation of knowledge continued through observations and experiments and significant discoveries were made in this scientific field. Nowadays, the physiology of vision and ophthalmology are important areas of physiology and medicine. The purpose of the article is to identify and describe the main periods of the formation and development of ideas about the visual analyzer. When writing it, the comparative-historical and analytical methods, which are employed in research on the history of medicine, were used. The main results consist in identifying the stages in the development of ideas about the visual analyzer and describing the contribution of leading scientists in this field. The conclusion is made about the process of formation and development of ideas concerning the visual analyzer as a branch of biomedical knowledge.

The article considers the evolution of the concept of "state" during the formation and development of natural science cognition. It is shown that the interpretation of this concept determined the content of the scientific picture of the world

The discussion on the boundary between the semantics and pragmatics of natural language was held as part of the XX International Conference of Young Scientists in the Humanities and Social Sciences "Languages and Meanings" (October 25-27, 2022, Novosibirsk) and became a continuation of two previous events on this topic . The previous similar discussion was organized in the format of a round table "Semantics vs Pragmatics" within the framework of the International Scientific Conference "uAnalyticon-2022: Abstract Objects" (May 13-14, 2022, Yekaterinburg). The initiator was O.A. Kozyreva, and her main opponent - E.V. Borisov.

The article discusses the relationship between semantics and pragmatics of natural languages. The idea that we have to modify D. Kaplan’s semantics for dealing with indexicals and demonstratives is presented; an objection to this idea based on the unnecessary character of such semantic modification because we can explain the controversial cases by appealing to pragmatics is considered. The author argues that the attempts to pragmatize semantics are based on the idea that semantics is subordinated to the goal of explaining language communication.

In the paper under discussion, O.A. Kozyreva claims that D. Kaplan’s semantics of indexicals needs a modification because it cannot explain some controversial cases of communication. She also argues that the needed modification of Kaplan’s semantics entails a revision of the distinction between semantics and pragmatics. The author objects to the first claim, which also calls into question the second one. His objection is that Kaplan’s semantics supplemented by some pragmatic ideas successfully explains “controversial” cases of communication.

In their articles on the distinction between semantics and pragmatics of natural language, O.A. Kozyreva and E.V. Borisov present polar opinions. There is also an intermediate position (it is defended, in particular, by J. Perry), according to which there are reasons to maintain the distinction between semantics and pragmatics, but the number and set of semantically significant context factors can be radically expanded by including factors such as language. Therefore, the concept of semantic meaning is also expanded; it is proposed to be defined as a set of propositions and propositional functions that express the conditions for the statement truth, depending on the context. The article presents arguments in favor of such a position.

The article considers the application of the “semantics with an agent” and “semantics without an agent” proposed by O.A. Kozyreva to mathematical sentences. If it is possible to prove that mathematical sentences are context-dependent, these sentences will need semantic interpretation along with other context-dependent sentences. The author presents an interpretation of mathematical sentences as context-dependent by appealing to the epistemic contextualism and the epistemology of computer proof. Based on this interpretation, he argues that the understanding of semantics as “semantics with an agent” is compatible with the thesis of context dependence of mathematical sentences, while the understanding of semantics as “semantics without an agent” will require additional formalization of pragmatic factors to achieve compatibility with such sentences.

The article presents the author’s comments on the remarks of the discussants and her answers to some of their criticisms.