Home – Home – Jornals – Philosophy of Sciences 2023 number 3

In the proposed series of articles, based on the idea of the unity of scientism and worldview, we intend to identify and analyse the core functions of philosophy and its role in scientific knowledge. This article considers the genesis and foundations of the functions of philosophy in the process of its formation and development.

Obviously, we could have failed to be successful scientists. But a serious question lurks beneath the banal one stated in my title. If the results of a scientific investigation are correct, would any investigation of roughly the same subject matter, if successful, at least implicitly contain or imply the same results? Using examples ranging from immunology to high-energy physics, the paper presents the cases for both positive and negative answers. The paper is deliberately non-conclusive, arguing that the question is one of the few serious philosophical issues that divides protagonists in the «science wars».

Every person has a sense of his uniqueness - a sense of self. This sovereign self is the center of conscious life that ensures the unity of the personality. The desire to solve the mystery of this unity of identity and difference, rest and movement should sooner or later result in the creation of the science of egology which studies the structures of pure consciousness. Explicitly, the idea of egology was first introduced in Husserl’s later works. However, implicitly this idea has ancient origins. Given the antiquity of the egological tradition, I limit myself in this article to the formulation of the idea of egology in Husserl’s philosophy and its perception in the follow-up phenomenological movement. Along with positive arguments, the article also presents the arguments of those who sincerely expressed doubts and objections or quite rejected the possibility of a pure self, and hence the science which deals with it.

One of the significant fields in narrative research is the development of the “narrative paradigm” carried out by W. Fischer. It has been determined that the main differences in the understanding of narrative and the narrative paradigm are associated, firstly, with considering narrative as a universal form of communication and, secondly, with recognizing the “argumentative” function of narrative as a priority. The persuasiveness of a narrative depends on its internal coherence, credibility, and consistency with the values and beliefs of the listener or audience. The advantages of the narrative paradigm in comparison with the rational one are analysed. In W. Fisher’s view, they are that in the narrative paradigm social control is excluded, introducing to it is carried out naturally, the participants in the narrative paradigm are equal due to the exclusion of experts and, in addition, it has not only descriptive, but also normative functions. The moral status of the narrative paradigm is shown to be at least problematic. But social control is possible.

The article deals with the issue of defining the concept of utility. The purpose of the discussion is to characterize metaphysical, scientific and systemic approaches to determining utility and to show their advantages and disadvantages. The argument is based on comparative and transcendental methods. The ideas of metaphysicians, scientists working in the political economic and evolutionary fields, utilitarians, pragmatists, and representatives of the philosophy of technology are considered. As a result of the study, six ways to define the concept of utility are identified and characterized. It is shown that each definition related to utility acts as a way of capturing the relationship between sensuality, mind and reason, the ideal and real worlds. A general definition of utility is formulated as an idea of reason expressing the unity of apperception.

Modern industrial-technological civilization, along with science and mathematics, has entered a crisis period of evolution, which will end only when civilization enters a new, more spiritual stage of development. Rationalism, based upon operating with “fixed” con-cepts (in the spirit of the law of identity in logic), is outdated and unable to express the specificity of developing objects studied by the theory of self-organization. More complex thinking with moving concepts-images is being formed in science. The article describes the difficulties of the development of mathematics in the 21st century and ways to overcome them. New ideas are introduced: the future of mathematics lies in the development of scientists’ creativity, intuitive insight and the promotion of new, deeper concepts and theorems-guesses expressing their properties, rather than in the logical rigor of proofs. A large part of evidence will eventually be transferred to artificial intelligence. Modern mathematical knowledge is growing due to the applied aspect - modeling. Mathematics has already become a “branch of industry”. Science comes close to art. A new criterion of scientific character will appear, that is “truth as beauty”.

The article formulates arguments for the adequacy of philosophical concepts in the context of the use of data analysis and artificial intelligence. Firstly, we show the importance of teaching computer programs in the field of artificial intelligence about causal relationships to increase their adaptability, develop the ability to explain the results obtained and bring them closer to natural intelligence. Secondly, we show the heuristic nature of causal interpretation as a basis for the operational description of biasing factors and their rational blocking in randomized experiments. Finally, we describe the prerequisites for the hypothetical participation in science of philosophers who are proficient in formal methods as critics of their shortcomings and as consultants on the correct application of philosophical concepts in science.

In his recent paper, C. Fuchs formulates QBism in the form of eight postulates. We criticise QBism as an antirealist position and propose an alternative - contextual quantum realism (QCR). 1. A quantum state is not “an agent’s personal judgement” (QBism), nor is it subjective (QBism), but objective (QCR). It describes not the current experience (QBism), but a state of a physical system in context (QCR). 2. A quantum measurement is a (literally) measurement of quantum reality (QCR), rather than an agent’s action upon its external world (QBism). It can only be regarded as an action in the sense in which a cognitive Wittgensteinian language game is an action (QCR). 3. The result of a quantum measurement is objective, though context-sensitive (QCR), rather than subjective (QBism), personal to the agent performing the action (QBism). 4. The quantum formalism is normative (QCR and QBism) and at the same time descriptive (QCR). The wave function tells us what to expect and how a quantum experiment should be conducted (i.e. plays the role of a norm), and also describes the state of a quantum system in context (QCR). 5. Unitary evolution is objective (QCR), not subjective (QBism). It does not express an agent’s degrees of belief (QBism). 6. Probability 1 is ontic (QCR), not an agent’s maximum degree of subjective certainty without ontic content (QBism). 7. In general, measurement outcomes are not predetermined (QCR and QBism), i.e. “unperformed measurements have no outcomes” (for QCR, this is an analytical judgement; for QBism this is a thesis), but they are predetermined in the case of probabilities 1 and 0 (QCR). In the case of probabilities 0 and 1, one can speak of performed measurements (QCR). 8. Quantum theory is a universal Wittgensteinian rule (norm), i.e. a rule (norm) rooted in experience, reality (QCR). It can be used by any competent subject (QCR and QBism). We illustrate the difference between QCR and QBism on the example of how they treat “Wigner’s friend” thought experiment and consider their attitude to phenomenology.

In modern epistemology, the production of knowledge is understood as a collective enterprise, which implies not only the coordination of the efforts of individual researchers, but also the presence of collective agents of cognition. The behavior of such a collective agent is presumably determined by its inherent collective rationality and intentionality. “Bracketing out” the individual agent allows, in particular, to eliminate the gap between individual and collective rationality, which is a significant problem in the production of knowledge understood as a public good, since it can lead to freeriding and scientific egoism. At the same time, the construction of collective agents of cognition does not always seem to be a justified tool in methodological and metaphysical terms. An alternative may be a mixed theoretical scheme, namely the representation of scientific cognition as collective action, but without collective intentionality.

The article is a brief description of the creativity and specifics of the philosophical position of I. Hacking, dedicated to the death of the philosopher.

The article is devoted to a review of the philosophical heritage of J. Hacking. The specifics of his philosophical development are presented and the features of his philosophical research in the main directions of the philosopher’s work are characterized.

The article considers the inconsistences in the higher education system and highlights the main requirements for the professional training of a modern specialist. A cluster approach is proposed as the basis for the methodology of a university design in the developing innovative society. The reasons for the emergence of the cluster form of organization of educational institutions are shown and the principles of constructing such clusters are described. The educational cluster is regarded as a driver for the formation and development of the intellectual capital of society. The ontology of the development of university educational structures is presented in the form of a self-organizing cluster system. The methodology for solving the problem of building an educational cluster is revealed through the conceptual model and instrumental one.