First of all, we will try to cover in general terms the problem of classifying sciences throughout the history of scientific knowledge, which has made its way from antiquity through modernity and in the future to the future. The problem of classification of sciences is a problem of connections between sciences and at the same time a problem of the structure of all scientific knowledge. In order to correctly reveal the main trend of its development, it is necessary to look at it from a historical point of view. Then we will discover the loss of the former simplicity and harmony in the general classification of sciences, in the entire structure of scientific knowledge, and the emergence of significantly new aspects that contradict the foundations on which the entire structure of scientific knowledge was based in the relatively recent past.

1. From formal constructions to dialectical ones. From yesterday to today.

The main trend in the evolution of previous classifications of sciences, starting from the Renaissance, when natural science arose as a science, and up to the present, was the movement from their formal constructions, which revealed only external connections between the sciences and, accordingly, between their objects, to the disclosure of their internal connections. This corresponded as a preliminary prerequisite to the movement from the disunity of the sciences to their interconnectedness, although this connectedness initially acted as a simple juxtaposition of them. Subsequently, the evolution of this entire problem led to the penetration here of ideas of development and the universal connection of sciences. The main manifestation of this was a more complete overcoming of their former disunity by discovering organic transitions between different sciences. At first, such transitions were revealed between adjacent and generally close sciences, located in their common hierarchical series, then between increasingly distant ones.

Let us consider five aspects of the evolution of the problem under consideration and, in accordance with them, the various phases of its evolution, remembering that we are always talking not about its detailed consideration, but only about its main tendency.

1. From differentiation of sciences to their integration. When the differentiation of sciences began during the Renaissance, that is, the emergence of separate branches of scientific significance, this process was a clear expression of the fact that human knowledge entered the analytical stage of its development. Integrative tendencies in science were almost completely absent at first. It was important to explore particulars, and this required tearing them out of the general connection. However, in order to avoid all scientific knowledge from scattering into separate, unrelated branches, like beads when a thread breaks, already in the 17th century. General classifications of sciences began to be proposed in order to unite them into one whole. However, no internally necessary connection between the sciences was revealed: the sciences were simply “attached” to one another quite randomly. Therefore, transitions between them could not be detected.

This is how things stood in principle until the middle and even the end of the third quarter of the 19th century. Under these conditions, the differentiation of sciences that continued at an increasing pace, their fragmentation into ever smaller sections and subsections was a trend not only opposite to their integration, but also a trend that complicated and complicated it. And the more new sciences appeared and the more fragmented their own structure became, the more difficult and complex it was to unite them into a single system when creating a general classification.

This happened because the thinking of scientists of that time was dominated by a one-sidedly interpreted analytical method, which, when absolutized, inevitably led to a metaphysical way of thinking. Starting from mid-19th V. Thanks to the emergence of Marxism and its philosophy, the tendency towards the integration of sciences for the first time acquired the opportunity, from a simple addition to the opposite tendency, to acquire a self-sufficient significance and cease to be subordinate in nature.

2. From coordination of sciences to their subordination. The basis of the movement (tendency) from the coordination of sciences to their subordination is the rejection of the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe immutability of things and natural phenomena. But the idea of ​​development presupposes, in any case, two characteristics that are of exceptionally great importance for the problem of classification of sciences. Firstly, the recognition of the genetic connection of higher levels with lower ones, from which these higher ones arose and developed. Hence, the hierarchical series of sciences appears as ascending from lower to higher, from simple to complex, reflecting the principle of development. In this case, the lower appears in the higher as subordinate, secondary, surpassed by this higher. Secondly, the idea of ​​development inevitably leads to the recognition that between adjacent members of the hierarchical series of sciences there must necessarily be transitions, transitional areas, since the process of development itself, being coherent, cannot occur otherwise than through transitions from one to another. The principle of coordination, based on the external juxtaposition of sciences, allows for the formation of sharp gaps and even impassable chasms between adjacent (in a series) sciences. On the contrary, the principle of subordination by its very essence entails “building bridges” through which transitions between sciences and their general interconnection are made.

3. From subjectivity to objectivity in justifying the connection of sciences. In continuity with both previous trends, there is a tendency in the evolution of the classification of sciences, directed from the subjective interpretation of the rationale for their classification to its objective interpretation. Previously, the features of the manifestation of human intelligence (psyche), for example, memory (hence history), reason (hence science), imagination (hence art) were chosen as the basis on which a system of skills and knowledge, including scientific ones, was built. But gradually, step by step, connections between the phenomena of the objective world themselves began to be put forward as a justification for the classification of sciences. Therefore, the sequence in the arrangement of sciences, that is, branches of human knowledge in their general classification, began to be increasingly derived from the sequence of arrangement of things and phenomena, both in nature and in human life.

4. From isolation of sciences to interdisciplinarity. From the second half of the 19th century. as a result of all previous trends in the evolution of sciences and their classification, the gradual filling of previous gaps and gaps between different, and, above all, adjacent sciences in their hierarchical series, began. In this regard, a new trend has emerged - from the isolation of sciences to the emergence of sciences of an intermediate, or transitional nature, forming connecting links between sciences that were previously separated and externally juxtaposed next to each other. The basis for the newly emerged interdisciplinary branches of scientific knowledge were objective transitions between various forms of motion of matter. In inorganic nature, such transitions were discovered due to the discovery of processes of mutual transformation of various forms of energy. The transition between inorganic and organic nature was reflected in F. Engels’ hypothesis about the chemical origin of life on Earth. In this regard, Engels put forward the idea of ​​a biological form of moving matter (organism). Finally, Engels illuminated the transition between it and the social form of moving matter (history) in the labor theory of anthropogenesis.

5. From unilinearity to branching in the depiction of the classification of sciences. This trend in the evolution of the classification of sciences concerns their graphic construction and expression. At first glance, a single-line form is better than others capable of expressing the process of ascent from lower to higher, from simple to complex, and in the general case, from abstract to concrete. So F. Engels compiled a hierarchical series of sciences: mathematics-mechanics-physics-chemistry-biology. However, in the future it was necessary to make significant adjustments.

First of all, at each stage of the development of nature, we observe that this process did not occur unilinearly, but bifurcated into two opposite branches, both of a progressive nature. One of them in the future tended to go beyond the existing qualitative degree and move to a higher level. The other, being also progressive, did not reveal such a tendency and developed only within the limits of the already achieved degree of development, i.e., within the limits of the existing quality. We call the first branch of development promising, the second unpromising. Thus, this takes place in the field of inorganic and organic nature.

The process of development of nature bifurcates into these two branches, starting with chemistry: organic chemistry through biochemistry and bioorganic chemistry and the chemistry of biopolymers leads to biology, primarily molecular biology, which studies life at its lowest (molecular) level. Inorganic chemistry, through physicochemical analysis of multicomponent systems and geochemistry, leads to geology and the entire complex of geological and mineralogical sciences. This polarization of chemistry into its two main branches reflects the process of bifurcation of the development of nature itself, starting from the formation of the first molecules and even earlier, at the atomic level, since carbon atoms turn out to be potential carriers of the properties of living things, which is revealed during the emergence and subsequent complication of its compounds . In accordance with this, we put forward, along with the biological form of the movement of matter, the concept of geological form, which emphasized the fact that the entire process of the development of nature is bifurcated into living and nonliving.

As a result, the general classification of sciences acquires an extremely complex, branched character, replacing its former simplicity and unilinearity. In essence, now it represents the interweaving of all sciences, their network, where the most distant sciences can show direct connections, as can be seen, for example, in the case of bionics, which connects biology and technology.

This is the main trend in the evolution of the classification of sciences, which has clearly manifested itself up to the present day. Let us now turn to its newest trend, which is currently only in its infancy and which is destined to unfold in the near and distant future. It is discussed further in its perspective aspect.

2. From partial dialectics to its completeness. From today to tomorrow.

The main trend in the evolution of modern classifications of sciences, starting approximately from the middle of the 19th century, i.e., from the moment of full development scientific and technological revolution, there was a movement towards an increasingly wider and consistent spread of dialectics to the very foundations of the classification of sciences and, in general, to all its links and details. Despite the fact that the principles of development and universal connection together with the principle of objectivity (the theory of reflection) have penetrated here quite deeply for a long time, nevertheless, in the very structure of scientific knowledge, in its classification, its birthmarks are still strong and make themselves felt, indicating its birth during the period of dominance of the one-sided analytical research method.

Let us consider six aspects of the evolution of the problem under consideration and its current trends, some of which have already fully emerged in the second half of our century, and some of which have just begun to manifest themselves.

1. From the isolation of sciences to their interaction. In the past, the internal connection of sciences was revealed as the emergence of transitional “bridges” between previously separated sciences or entire areas of science. But beyond these “bridges,” that is, outside the interdisciplinary areas of scientific knowledge, each fundamental science continued to deal with its own subject - its specific form of movement or a specific aspect of the subject of study, fencing itself off from other sciences. The exception was Marxism as a holistic doctrine. This state of affairs developed even under the dominance of the analytical approach: each science had its own separate subject, which it dealt with alone and only with that one, without interfering in the affairs of other sciences, not allowing them into its field. For the first time, the need to break out of such isolation and interact with each other arises before the sciences when one and the same subject (object) requires studying simultaneously from its different sides, and each is studied by a special science. This was the case when the task arose to study the phenomenon of life at its lowest, most elementary level—molecular.

As a result, a new methodological approach begins to emerge, which for now operates alongside the previous one. When one subject corresponded to one science, and only this one science corresponded to this one subject, then the relationship between them—science and the subject—was strictly unambiguous. Now it is increasingly discovered that one subject must be studied simultaneously by many sciences; one science must deal not with one, its “own” subject, but with many others. In other words, the relationships between the sciences and the subjects they study change significantly and turn out to be not unambiguous, but multi-valued.

2. From the single-aspect nature of sciences to their complexity. A further step in the same direction, determined by the deepening of the interaction of sciences, is that not only sciences of one general profile, for example, represented only by natural science or only by humanitarian knowledge, but sciences of all profiles enter into interaction. At the same time, their connection intensifies and reaches the formation of some fused complexes. A new, comprehensive research method is being developed, which represents a further development and improvement of the method of materialist dialectics.

Complexity in scientific research is not simply adding the methods of various sciences together, not simply following synthesis after analysis, but the merging of sciences together in the study of a common object. These are the first steps towards a future unified science, which K. Marx wrote about, this is the “embryo” of fundamentally new scientific branches and directions, the subject of which is not just one aspect of natural or social phenomena, but rather the entire object being studied in its entirety and specificity, in the interrelation of all its sides and aspects.

3. From separatism to globality in scientific development. Now we can trace the general basic trend in the evolution of the structure of modern scientific knowledge, and therefore its expression in the field of classification of modern sciences. This evolution, in short, is directed from the disunity of sciences to their united unity. It is based on a strictly objective principle: if the subject (object of research) is one, then the sciences that study it must be captured in a unity corresponding to the unity of the subject (object) common to them.

First, this trend appeared in the formation of interdisciplinary branches of knowledge, cementing fundamental science; then in the form of interaction between different sciences studying the same object simultaneously from different sides; then in the form of strengthening this interaction until the emergence of a complex research method and, as its result, complex sciences studying the same object within a separate scientific field, its profile. Finally, further evolution in the same direction leads to the fact that the interaction of sciences and their complexity reach a universal, or global, scale. Now this extends to objects that are comprehensive, universal in nature. Such a global character of the object itself informs here the same global character of the interconnection of sciences, and therefore their classification.

An example of such an object can be the scientific and technological revolution as a truly global phenomenon of the modern historical era. It is global because it includes countries of different world systems, as well as developing countries, although it manifests itself differently in them; covers all aspects of life modern man material and spiritual, all sciences, all types of art, all branches of the national economy, the entire life of modern people.

Global problems also include: space exploration, economic problems associated with the study of the external human environment; the problem of people's health and longevity, their food, etc. All sciences without exception are called upon to take part in the solution: natural and mathematical, humanities, and technical (generally applied).

Another problem is the study of scientific and technical creativity, which takes the form of scientific discoveries and technical inventions, as well as artistic and social creativity. This is also a global problem, similar to those that relate to the study of scientific and technological progress and science studies. But here the main emphasis is placed on the cognitive-psychological and logical sides of the issue, as well as on biographical data about the scientist, inventor, writer, artist, on the conditions and environment in which their work was prepared and developed.

4. From functionality to substrate. Let us now take a look at the general principle of the construction of almost all basic sciences, and therefore their classification in our time. The basis of their structure, as it has been since the very beginning of their emergence, is a sign of functionality. Sciences were and continue to be distinguished, as a rule, not by object, but by forms of movement or by individual aspects of the subject being studied. True, F. Engels built his classification of sciences according to forms of movement, but at the same time he tried to provide a substrate basis for it. However, the relationship between functionality and substrateity is generally ambiguous. For example, atoms can simultaneously serve as an object of both physics (atomic) and chemistry; in the same way, molecules can be the subject of both chemistry and physics (molecular). Life, a living organism, is the subject of biology and chemistry, physics, and cybernetics.

We see the same picture in the development of society. A separate subject (object) as a stage of historical movement (this or that socio-economic formation, taken as a whole) must be studied by the totality of all social sciences, and, above all, those that deal with the economic basis, political and spiritual-ideological superstructure.

The question arises: will the division of sciences be retained as the main one in the future, and therefore their classification according to functional characteristics, or will the transition to their construction according to substrate characteristics begin? In the first case, the currently existing fundamental sciences will completely determine the main division (basic structure) of all scientific knowledge, and the connections and interactions between them will be strengthened all the time. In the second case, such a tendency in the course of the further movement of modern sciences will only be a prerequisite for a radical restructuring of the entire previous structure of scientific knowledge down to its foundations through its qualitative transformation from a structure determined ultimately functionally into a structure determined primarily by a substrate feature. We are convinced that the latter will happen.

5. From a plurality of sciences to a unified science. It is well known that the world is one and that its unity lies in the materiality of its existence. Being, being primary, defines consciousness as secondary.

The unity of the world, contained in its materiality, presupposes that matter appears in an infinite variety of its types, forms and manifestations. This means that it represents unity in diversity. It follows that the substrate approach to the study of the world must be logically completed: individual global problems must themselves be brought into mutual connection with each other and form a single universal-global problem, the object of development of which will be the whole world as unity in diversity. In this case we are talking about the universal connection of things and phenomena of the world.

The idea that over time all sciences will merge into a single science was expressed by K. Marx. This prediction of Marx is brilliantly confirmed by the entire course of the evolution of modern scientific knowledge, its structure and classification of sciences, which is clearly manifested in its main trend, especially over the past 30 years.

6. From one-dimensionality to multidimensionality in the depiction of the classification of sciences. Discussion of the issue of a graphical representation of the future structure of a unified science and its classification at the present time would be premature, since the relationship between the whole and its internal parts is not yet clear in detail, and most importantly, between these parts themselves within the whole, provided that they lose their former isolation and separation, and even former independence. The only thing that can be stated is that when formulating and solving such a problem, one will have to abandon not only the one-dimensionality, but also the two-dimensionality of depicting the connections between sciences. If earlier development in this area there was a move from unilinearity to divergence and, in general, to the branching of lines depicting the relationships between sciences, up to network-likeness in the idea of general structure scientific knowledge, then the future classification of sciences will require a transition to multidimensionality in this regard. We have so far expressed the basis of their modern classification as a closed “triangle of sciences”, at the apex of which stand the natural, social and philosophical sciences. The future classification of sciences will appear, obviously, in the form of a three-dimensional multidimensional image, within which the so-called “triangle of sciences” will form, as it were, an internal skeleton.

The complete system of modern sciences and the principle of its construction. Object-subject aspect.

Until relatively recently, systems of theoretical and fundamental sciences, mainly natural and mathematical ones, were usually built. The situation was worse with the classification of social sciences and the humanities in general, and even much worse with the classification of applied (practical), and, above all, technical sciences. Meanwhile, the task of building a complete system of sciences presupposes the coverage of all sciences in general, including applied and practical ones. But to solve such a problem, it is necessary to develop a single principle common to all sciences, which would make it possible to include them in a complete system or classification. After this, we could trace how this principle is implemented when considering the three main aspects of the entire body of human knowledge, and in this case we will have to take as a basis not individual sciences and scientific disciplines, but some of their groups, in order to determine their sequential order arrangement and interconnection, expressed through the general principle we have established for the construction of this complete system.

1. The principle of constructing a complete system of sciences and the method of depicting it.

Three main aspects of human knowledge. For a relatively long time, attempts have been made to present the general system of sciences as arising from answers to three successively asked questions: what is being studied? (subject approach); how, in what ways is it studied? (method approach); why, for what, for what purpose is it being studied? (approach from taking into account practical applications).

As a result of the answers to these questions, three different aspects of the complete system of scientific knowledge are revealed: object-subject, methodological-research and practical-target. The connection between these three sides is determined by the consistent increase in the share of the subjective moment during the transition from one side to the other. This is, in our opinion, the general principle that underlies the complete system of scientific knowledge and unites all sciences into one whole.

2. Distinguishing sciences by object (subject), method and practical application.

First class sciences. Let's start with the natural sciences. The natural sciences represent the simplest undeveloped case of the first class of sciences or the first group of sciences of this class. Let us repeat once again in relation to this case that as a result of natural science knowledge, everything introduced from the researcher (subject) himself in the process of knowledge, in the course of scientific discovery must be completely eliminated from its content; a law of nature or a natural science theory turns out to be correct only if it is objective in content. However, the completely subjective moment can and should be eliminated only in relation to the content of scientific knowledge, but not its form, since the latter bears the inevitable imprint of the cognitive process. Adjacent to this first group of the first class of sciences are mathematical and abstract-mathematized sciences, which are among those sciences that differ from each other in their object (subject).

Let's move on to social sciences. The social sciences constitute a more complex and more developed case of the first class of sciences. But in contrast to natural science, much more distortions are introduced into the social sciences in the conditions of modern bourgeois society in the spirit of the ideology of the economically and politically dominant classes than is done in the natural sciences.

In the following, when speaking about social sciences, we mean genuine, i.e., Marxist-Leninist, social sciences. In this science, the principle of partisanship is organically and harmoniously combined with the principle of objectivity. In such a science, the subjective moment is retained not only as a conceptual form of objective content, as is the case in natural science, but also as an indication of the subject of history, the subject social development and social relations, which is organically included in the very object of social sciences. F. Engels noted that “in the history of society there are people gifted with consciousness, acting deliberately or under the influence of passion, striving for certain goals...

What remains for us to say is about the subject of the sciences of thinking. Together with the social sciences, they constitute the humanities, that is, the sciences about man. But unlike the social sciences proper, their subject, strictly speaking, is not the object itself, for example in the form of social relations, but an object reflected in the social or individual consciousness of a person (subject).

So far we have talked about the special sciences and their groups included in the first grade. Being, unlike all other (particular) sciences, a general science, materialist dialectics has as its object (subject) not any one area of ​​research, but the most general laws of all movement, all development that permeate all these areas (nature, society and thinking). Therefore, in relation to all other sciences - fundamental and applied - materialist dialectics acts as an integrative factor promoting their interaction and their interconnection with each other. Dialectics, being the logic and theory of knowledge of materialism, considers both in general form and in relation to any specific situation the epistemological question of the relationship of the subject to the object, the general method of scientific knowledge, the connection with practice, etc. At the same time, Marxist-Leninist philosophy does not act in isolation from the particular sciences, without being isolated from them, but in complete unity with them, thereby embodying the unity of the opposites of the general and the separate.

Second class of sciences. These are sciences that differ in their research method, which is ultimately determined by the nature of the object (subject) being studied, but which is additionally interspersed with a certain amount of subjective element. For we are talking here not just about an object (subject) that exists outside and independently of our consciousness, but about the techniques and methods we used to study it, i.e. about how it is consistently, step by step, recorded in our consciousness.

Third grade science. It consists of applied, practical, including technical, sciences. Here, the subjective moment, while maintaining the determining value of the objective moment, increases to the greatest extent when determining the practical significance of scientific achievements and the practical purposefulness of scientific research. If during the development and application of a research method the subjective moment is of a transient, temporary nature, then in practical sciences it organically enters as a realized goal into the final result. All practical, applied sciences are based on a combination of an objective moment (laws of nature) and a subjective moment (goals technical use these laws are in the interests of man).

Until now, we have strictly adhered to the framework of three questions: what, how, and why is being studied? The answers to these questions allowed us to identify three main classes of sciences and consider them in the object-subject aspect from the position of a single general principle for constructing a complete system of sciences. But other questions can also be raised. For example, the following: who, where, when, why, under what conditions conducted research, made discoveries, made generalizations, etc.? The answers to such questions are very important and interesting, but not for developing a classification of sciences, but for studying the history of science, and especially scientific and technical creativity, which goes beyond the scope of this topic.

INTERDISCIPLINARY- a term expressing an integrative nature modern stage scientific knowledge. On various stages in the history of science, its changes are significantly determined by the complex interaction of the processes of differentiation (the disintegration of a homogeneous, “unified and integral” system of relatively autonomous areas) and integration (the unification of previously independent subject areas, the emergence of “synthetic” disciplines: biophysics, psycholinguistics, etc.). In various historical conditions, one or another specific stage of the functioning of cognition can be determined by the temporary dominance of one of these processes. However, this does not mean the complete displacement of the opposite trend. Essentially, both of these lines mutually presuppose and complement each other.

The development of new areas of reality and the formation of previously non-existent cognitive means and methods determines a more visual manifestation of differentiation phenomena in science and contributes to the formation of increasingly specialized disciplinary areas. Awareness of the need to reliably substantiate the constructed knowledge systems leads to the identification of all kinds of connections between them, which contributes to the unification of previously heterogeneous problematic approaches and developed theories into broader conceptual structures. This is perceived as increased integration in cognition.

The formation of classical natural science occurred in the hope of the possibility of a clear separation of scientific research from those types of knowledge that are not science. And although the efforts of several generations of methodologists to unambiguously solve the “demarcation problem” did not lead to the expected success, some of the original ideological principles of classical science are still preserved. In particular, this refers to the desire of many scientists to find some universal laws of world reality at any level of its organization.

However, the crisis phenomena that science faced at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries led to the understanding of the impossibility of either merging various disciplines into a single field of knowledge, or their unification within the framework of a certain “meta-universal” concept, in the role of which they saw either traditional philosophy, or cybernetics, then “general systems theory”. The division of classical science into the field of “natural sciences” and “spiritual sciences” (which covered everything related to human cultural activity), which V. insisted on. Windelband, G. Rickert and W. Dilthey, demonstrated the radical dissimilarity of different spheres of reality. At the same time, the development of natural science knowledge has revealed a deep dependence of the methods of its organization on the characteristics of human activity. Describe natural world“how it exists in itself,” without taking into account people’s perceptions of it, turned out to be impossible.

Methodological principles such as the “principle of complementarity” (introduced by N. Bohr first in the field of physical research, and then turned into one of the fundamental regulators of general scientific knowledge) or the “anthropic principle” testify, firstly, to the fundamental impossibility of reducing the content of one area of ​​cognition to others (or derive one from others), and, secondly, serve as evidence of the internal connection of various branches of science with each other.

In modern science, processes of knowledge integration dominate, but they manifest themselves in a special form, being determined by the specifics of existing historical realities. The interdisciplinary nature of cognitive activity expresses this specificity most clearly. One of its manifestations is the fairly common transfer of ideas, means and methods of research that arose within one discipline in modern science to others, sometimes quite far from each other. The introduction of physical methods into the practice of chemistry or biology has already become commonplace. But recently, the influence of linguistic and literary approaches on the field of historical disciplines has been clearly revealed (for example, the historiographical concept of “narrative”), a significant intersection of psychological, linguistic and formal-logical models (until recently maximally distanced from each other), the mutual exchange of tasks and methods for solving them is increasing between the spheres of scientific and engineering research proper.

Today, it is most often possible to resolve the difficulties that arise before a particular specialist when this specialist is able to go beyond the narrow framework of his usual canons and norms. The interdisciplinary nature of modern knowledge is largely due to the fact that science from a “disciplinary” sphere of activity turns into “ problem-oriented." For example, mathematicians, engineers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, etc. work on supertasks related to the problem of “artificial intelligence”. This allows us to pose the relevant problems more deeply and broadly and find original and promising solutions.

comprehension carried out outside the framework of a specific scientific discipline. M. consideration and comprehension in science manifests itself in different ways and to varying degrees: in the formulation of problems, in approaches to solving them, in the development of theories, identifying connections between them, and the formation of new disciplines. We can say that there are several options for understanding interdisciplinarity and an interdisciplinary approach:

(1) The researcher uses the language of describing one area to describe another area. For example, an ethnographer uses philological terms to explain ethnic phenomena. In this case, we have metaphorization, which is very important in heuristic terms for searching for non-trivial explanations. The heuristic potential of cultural studies is largely connected with this case.

(2) The researcher uses different languages ​​to describe different segments of a complex complex. For example, marketing research uses concepts, terminology and concepts from economics, psychology, sociology and other sciences at various stages and areas of analysis. But this is not a crumb-shaped pizza method, but a built-in complex of specialized approaches and techniques. I think this version of interdisciplinarity is quite fruitful when applied to the discourse of liminality.

(3) The researcher creates a new synthesis that reveals new reality. And then he uses a new language. This case is a case of creating a new discipline.

To summarize, it should be recognized that interdisciplinarity in science is a matter of degree. You should remember disabilities each level of consideration. It is impossible to talk about everything at once. An interdisciplinary approach is not the “pizza method”. The maxim “anything goes” is good only in a situation of choice, but, after a specific choice, we must already adhere to the chosen path. We can talk about a scale of interdisciplinarity. At one extreme of this scale is a more or less integrated mosaic of disciplinary precise descriptions and explanations. The connections between them (the integrative scheme) can be degenerate or more and more come to the fore, reaching the point of delineating their own boundaries and forming boundary problems and theories. And finally, the other pole is a certain new synthesis, new fundamental metaphors and, thus, the emergence and development of a new scientific discipline.

Language plays a special role in these manifestations of interdisciplinarity and transitions from one degree to another. At one pole of the scale, disciplinary semantics (terminological accuracy of definitions of concepts) is preserved in the descriptions. Interdisciplinarity seems to have a purely syntactic implementation. On the other hand, we are already talking about new semantics, the introduction and definition of new concepts that actually describe a new reality. The degree of interdisciplinarity is, in fact, the essence of the degree of increase in semantic connections and transitions between descriptions of various subject areas in schematism. In the most mature case, we are talking about the formation of a fundamentally new subject area - a new scientific discipline.

An example, it seems, of successful development on the basis of interdisciplinarity of a new discipline is synergetics. However, in this case, in relation to the problem of liminality, further clarifications and reservations are necessary. First of all, this relates to the personological nature of liminality. Synergetics claims to be a universal generalization in describing real world processes. This is a concept of colossal generalizing power, including relatively important aspects processes of transition and transformation. But what is the path to being outside of reality? The variety of actualized types of nonlinear nonequilibrium systems and attractors of their development is fundamentally immense, and their visibility is possible only at the level of potential reality. Therefore, I would like to be able to substantiate an interdisciplinary consideration of liminality and the “possibility of being.” In this regard, it is important to search for general grounds for such consideration in general.

1. Vasilkova V.V. Order and chaos in the development of social systems. St. Petersburg, 1999.

2. Knyazeva E.N., Kurdyumov S.P. Laws of evolution and self-organization of complex systems. M., 1994;

3. Prigogine I., Stengers I. Order out of chaos. A new dialogue between man and nature. M., 1986;

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

interdisciplinarity

INTERDISCIPLINARY - a term expressing the integrative nature of the modern stage of scientific knowledge. At various stages of the history of science, its changes are significantly determined by the complex interaction of the processes of differentiation (the disintegration of a homogeneous, “single and integral” system into a number of relatively autonomous areas) and integration (the unification of previously independent subject areas, the emergence of “synthetic” disciplines: biophysics, psycholinguistics, etc.). d.). In different historical conditions, one or another specific stage of the functioning of cognition can be determined by the temporary dominance of one of these processes. However, this does not mean the complete displacement of the opposite trend. Essentially, both of these lines mutually presuppose and complement each other. The development of new areas of reality and the formation of previously non-existent cognitive means and methods determines a more visual manifestation of differentiation phenomena in science and contributes to the formation of increasingly specialized disciplinary areas. Awareness of the need to reliably substantiate the constructed knowledge systems leads to the identification of all kinds of connections between them, which contributes to the unification of previously heterogeneous problem approaches and developed theories into broader conceptual structures. This is perceived as increased integration in cognition. The formalization of classical natural science occurred in the hope of the possibility of a clear separation of scientific research from those types of knowledge that are not science. And although the efforts of several generations of methodologists to unambiguously solve the “demarcation problem” did not lead to the expected success, some of the original ideological principles of classical science are still preserved. In particular, this refers to the desire of many scientists to find some universal laws of world reality at any level of its organization. However, the crisis phenomena that science faced at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries led to the understanding of the impossibility of either merging various disciplines into a single field of knowledge, or their unification within the framework of a certain “meta-universal” concept, the role of which was seen either as traditional philosophy, now cybernetics, now “general systems theory.” The division of classical science into the field of “natural sciences” and “spiritual sciences” (which covered everything related to human cultural activity), which V. Windelband, G. Rickert and V. Dilthey insisted on, demonstrated the radical dissimilarity of different spheres of reality. At the same time, the development of natural science knowledge has revealed a deep dependence of the methods of its organization on the characteristics of human activity. It turned out to be impossible to describe the natural world “as it is in itself,” without taking into account people’s perceptions of it. Methodological principles such as the “complementarity principle” (introduced by N. Bohr first into the field of physical research, and then turned into one of the fundamental regulators of general scientific knowledge) or the “anthropic principle” indicate, firstly, the fundamental impossibility of reducing the content of one areas of knowledge to others (or to derive one from others), and, secondly, serve as evidence of the internal connection of various branches of science with each other. In modern science, processes of knowledge integration dominate, but they manifest themselves in a special form, being determined by the specifics of existing historical realities. The interdisciplinary nature of cognitive activity expresses this specificity in the most obvious way. One of its manifestations is the transfer of ideas, means and methods of research that arose within the framework of one discipline, quite common in modern science, to others, sometimes quite far from each other. The introduction of physical methods into the practice of chemistry or biology has already become commonplace. But in lately the influence of linguistic and literary approaches on the field of historical disciplines is clearly revealed (for example, the historiographic concept of “narrative”), a significant intersection of psychological, linguistic and formal-logical models (until recently maximally distanced from each other), the mutual exchange of tasks and methods of their decisions between the spheres of scientific and engineering research proper. Today, it is most often possible to resolve the difficulties that arise before a particular specialist when this specialist is able to go beyond the narrow boundaries of his usual canons and norms. The interdisciplinary nature of modern knowledge is largely due to the fact that science is turning from a “disciplinary” sphere of activity into a “problem-oriented” one. For example, mathematicians, engineers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, etc. work on problems related to the problem of “artificial intelligence”. This allows us to pose the relevant problems more deeply and broadly and find original and promising solutions. S.S. Gusev

Science - complex system, it has a hierarchical organization, covers large groups of people, breaks up into many of its constituent areas, etc., but this does not yet reveal the specifics of science. Science is usually identified with system of scientific knowledge: such a representation takes into account the connections between individual scientific disciplines, which are realized, for example, when using mathematical knowledge in natural and technical fields, and natural science knowledge in technical sciences, etc. The presentation of science as a system of knowledge also includes specific ways of obtaining and organizing it and, in addition, considers the functioning of science for the purpose of developing scientific knowledge, i.e. mechanisms for obtaining new knowledge in science. Concepts, methods, principles and other elements of science act as tools for obtaining, recording, processing, and transmitting scientific knowledge.

From a social point of view, science is a special organizational system, focused on obtaining new scientific results. In this sense, we can talk about different organizations of fundamental and applied research, within which there are different value guidelines, forms of scientific activity and ways of relationships between scientists. There are also different ways of organizing and managing research groups, which include, for example, drawing up plans and reports or their absence, the frequency of work performed, forms of their socialization, formal and informal leadership etc. Various types of interest groups can also be identified, effectively representing multiple ways of organizing research: colleagues working in the same discipline; scientists working in different disciplines; intellectuals organized through philosophical awareness or influence on the culture at large; finally, technologists for whom scientific results are interesting only in terms of their technological application.

Thus, science as an organizational system is usually considered from the perspective of its organization and management, the possibilities of optimizing its formal and informal structures, forecasting and planning its development. TO formal Organizations of science include job hierarchy, funding, means of administrative influence, etc. Informal organization and management in science consist of belonging to certain interest groups, blocs of scientists, orientation towards certain value systems, public opinion, judgments of experts and informal leaders. It is necessary to distinguish between controllable parameters that are subject to change and control, such as the number of researchers, funding, etc., and uncontrollable parameters that are recorded only statistically in a large array, for example, the productivity of an individual scientist.

The communication systems existing in science are included in various types scientific practice: improving the structure of scientific knowledge, organizing and managing science, optimizing information services, etc. For example, representatives of a certain scientific school formulate their belonging to it through their attitude to existing types of knowledge, methods of their systematization, ideals of knowledge, and in this case they do not go beyond the framework of the system of scientific knowledge. However, at the same time, representatives of this scientific school are associated with the creation of institutes, participation in the activities of specific laboratories, publications in certain journals, i.e. with the organizational system of science. It is in the functioning of modern research activities that correspondence and unity are established between various systems of connections in science, between the system of scientific knowledge and organizational structures. Thus, the way in which real scientific activity is carried out cannot be understood from the standpoint of any one system of scientific connections. At the same time, it is not enough to study only the functioning of modern scientific activity: it is necessary, using specific historical and scientific material, to analyze its genesis and development.

Improving the system of mass publications, periodicals, permanent conferences, etc. influences the pace of development of science as a knowledge system and the degree of its impact on society. In turn, this entails a change in the organizational system of science (bureaucratization of science, planning of its development and financing, etc.). Accelerating the pace of obtaining scientific knowledge and reducing the time it takes to implement it into practice have a reverse effect on the communication system of science. There is a need to improve the service system, create information retrieval systems, solve the problem of choosing publications, rational use of time, optimize personal contacts, etc. The study of specific historical and scientific samples will allow us to trace and record the complex interaction of the scientific knowledge system with its organizational structure. At the same time, it is important to understand that modern science represents a set of scientific disciplines, each of which has a complex structure.

Scientific discipline is a complexly organized hierarchical system that can be considered in two main aspects:

• 1) how knowledge system which stands out as a relatively homogeneous and thematically unified array of publications;
• 2) how scientific activity, which is a social system distinguished by a relatively stable scientific community consisting of various groups of scientists and institutions.

At the intersection of these two interconnected systems, a specific scientific discipline stands out. Representatives of this scientific community not only work in certain scientific laboratories and institutes, but also produce new scientific knowledge, which is reflected in publications. A scientific discipline includes several research directions and areas of study, as well as the organization of personnel training - courses and departments in higher educational institutions (Fig. 4.1). In addition, a scientific discipline presupposes the presence of limited and specialized research community having a special professional organization - laboratories, research institutes, scientific councils, etc.

Rice. 4.1.

Thus, in this case, science is characterized by external, social or informational parameters, which is important, but not yet sufficient for understanding its functioning in modern society. In principle, one can imagine a case where a certain group of unscrupulous scientists is constituted into a new research direction, imitating a disciplinary organization, creating a scientific community in form, but without producing any scientific knowledge, but only consuming financial resources, referring to each other in meaningless publications, sitting on numerous useless commissions, etc. Of course, in real life public life There are many mechanisms of control and self-control of science, but the above hypothetical example shows that, using sociological parameters alone, it is impossible to distinguish real science from non-science, or fake, charlatan science, if the pseudoscientific community is organized in form like the scientific community. To make such a distinction, in addition to studying external scientific parameters, an analysis is needed content of scientific activity.

New frontier sciences, interdisciplinary and comprehensive research are actively developing.

Philosophy of technology. Philosophical aspects

Scientific and technological progress

Philosophy of technology

Philosophy of technology:

firstly, it explores the phenomenon of technology in general,

secondly, not only its immanent development, but also its place in social development as a whole,

third, it takes into account a broad historical perspective.

However, if the subject of philosophy of technology is technique, then a legitimate question immediately arises: what is technology itself?

Every sensible person will indicate those technical devices and tools that surround us in everyday life - at home or at work. Experts will name specific examples devices of this kind from the types of technology they study or create. But all these are just objects of human technical activity, the material results of his technical efforts and reflections.

Behind all this lies a vast field of technical knowledge and actions based on this knowledge.

Therefore, Fred Bohn gives the concept of “technique” an extremely broad meaning:

“Every activity, and above all every professional activity, needs technical rules.”

He distinguishes several modes of action, giving particular importance purposeful activity in which success is achieved by indicating a guiding means in the preceding reasoning.

This actually sets the boundaries between “technique” and “non-technique”, since this particular mode of action can be classified within the realm of technology.

Technical knowledge is embodied not only through technical activities in various kinds technical devices, but also in articles, books, textbooks, etc., since without an established mechanism for the production, accumulation and transfer of knowledge, no technical development in our modern society would be possible.

This was clearly understood already in late XIX century, the German engineer Franz Relo, who gave a lecture “Technology and Culture” in 1884 in Vienna: “It is not things or inventions, but the ideas accompanying them that represent what should cause changes, innovations... A consciousness has made its way in us, that the forces of nature, in their actions, are subject to certain unchanging laws, the laws of nature, and never, under any circumstances, is it otherwise.” Introduction to technical civilization is not given simply by purchasing advanced technical devices - it must be instilled through education, training, and the transfer of technical knowledge. Proof of this, according to Releaux, is contemporary China, “where all the excellent European material acquired through purchase appears to be useless before a proper attack ...” by Western countries. But the same applies to the industrial sector. As soon as China moved away from the traditional scheme of “purchasing” cars from the West and moved on to restructuring the entire economic, educational and technological sphere, a clear technical and economic growth immediately emerged.

Technology belongs to the sphere of material culture.

This is the environment of our home and social life, the means of communication, defense and attack, all the instruments of action in a wide variety of fields. This is how P. K. Engelmeyer defines technology at the turn of the 20th century: “With its devices, it has enhanced our hearing, vision, strength and dexterity, it reduces distance and time and generally increases labor productivity. Finally, by making it easier to satisfy needs, it thereby contributes to the birth of new ones.” ... Technology has conquered space and time, matter and force, and itself serves as the force that uncontrollably drives the wheel of progress forward.” However, as is well known, material culture is connected with spiritual culture by the most inextricable ties. For example, archaeologists strive to reconstruct in detail the culture of ancient peoples based on the remains of material culture. In this sense, the philosophy of technology is, to a large extent, archeology technical knowledge, if it is directed to the past (especially in the ancient world and the Middle Ages, where the written tradition in technology was not yet sufficiently developed) and methodology technical knowledge, if it is focused on the present and future.

So, technique - This:

A set of technical devices and artifacts - from individual simple tools to the most complex technical systems;

Totality various types technical activities to create these devices - from scientific and technical research and design to their manufacture in production and operation, from the development of individual elements of technical systems to system research and design;

The totality of technical knowledge - from specialized recipe-technical to theoretical scientific-technical and systems-technical knowledge.

Today, the sphere of technology includes not only the use, but also the production of scientific and technical knowledge itself. In addition, the process of applying scientific knowledge in engineering practice is not as simple as it was often thought, and is associated not only with the application of existing knowledge, but also with the acquisition of new knowledge. “The application does not consist in the simple application of sciences to special purposes,” wrote the German engineer and rector of the Berlin Polytechnic A. Riedler. “Before making such an application, numerous conditions must be taken into account this case. The difficulty of application lies in correctly finding the actual conditions of a given case. The conventionally accepted state of affairs and the neglect of certain given conditions deceive about the present reality. Only application leads to full understanding; it amounts to highest level knowledge, and general scientific knowledge is only preliminary stage to him... Knowledge is the daughter of application. Application requires research and ingenuity."

Thus, modern technology, and above all technical knowledge, are inextricably linked with the development of science. Today there is no need to prove this thesis to anyone. However, in the history of the development of society, the relationship between science and technology gradually changed.

28.2. Philosophical aspects of scientific and technological progress

My manual on KSE T. 3

Scientific and technological progress: a single process of upward development science And technology, who became components the same highly organized system.

NTP does not exist in isolation from public progress, but can influence it in different ways. At best, NTP is consistent with the main criterion of social progress, helping to create favorable social conditions for a person to realize his highest potentials and, above all, the need for creativity, freedom and love.

Scientific and technological revolution: accelerating sharply, scientific and technological progress* leads to fundamental changes in the general scientific paradigm, technology, technology and, as a consequence, the very life of society.

Scientific and technological revolution turns science into a direct productive force and the most important factor in social development.

One of the social consequences of scientific and technological revolution: the need for highly qualified and universally trained personnel is increasing.

Scientific and technological revolution not only satisfies people's needs. It also creates new needs and ways to satisfy them (i.e., to some extent, it shapes the people themselves). It is important that homo creativeus plays a meaning-giving role in this interaction.

Life-determining social processes in the surrounding world are accelerating, and their scale is increasing. Scientific and technological revolution increasingly permeates all spheres of public life - industry, agriculture, healthcare, education, and the service sector. The most developed countries are moving from resource- and energy-intensive industries to knowledge-intensive industries. Without innovation orientation, national economies cease to be competitive on the world stage.

A new area of ​​research has emerged - science*. Its representatives cite these numbers. 90% of all available knowledge has been acquired in the last 50 years. About 90% of the scientists who have ever existed are our contemporaries. Of course, the pace of accumulation of scientific information and practical application scientific discoveries are accelerating.

The features of the modern stage of development of science are as follows::

1) Galileo also noted that the book of nature is written in the language of mathematics, and anyone who wants to read it must master this language. It is not surprising that in modern scientific research the role of logically-mathematical operations. Great progress has been made in the mathematical modeling of complex socio-natural processes. The arsenal of methods and techniques used has expanded radically thanks to the information revolution and large-scale computerization.

2) Thanks to intensive computerization And cybernization scientific research, the development of computer science and computer technology, it has become possible to store and process colossal information. Experimental testing by reproducing the corresponding situation on a computer is becoming more and more widespread. The transformed aphorism no longer sounds so ironic: - I think, therefore I exist... on the Internet.

3) Speeded up and went deeper differentiation scientific knowledge , leading to the emergence of ever new sciences, and integration, leading to their ever closer intertwining.

Scientific research reveals ever deeper connections and transitions from one area of ​​phenomena to another in the world around us. As a result, intensive interpenetration of sciences occurs.

The differentiation of sciences is, as it were, the starting point, and integration is the end result of such interscientific interactions. These two processes are inseparable from each other and accompany one another.

Differentiation, if it is not accompanied by integration, leads to the fact that a modern scientist sometimes does not know what his colleague working in a neighboring laboratory or in an adjacent department is doing.

New frontier sciences, interdisciplinary and comprehensive research are actively developing.

Many outstanding achievements belong to “border guards” - those scientists who work on the border strip between traditionally established sciences. Unlike ordinary border guards, these do the opposite: they do their best to ensure that any “information violator” freely crosses the “borders” between sciences.

5) While remaining a fundamental science, physics has ceased to be the sole leader in the study of nature: now the sciences of the biological cycle, as well as research in the field of information and systems theory, have an equally great influence on the general scientific sphere and the life of society.

Indicative in this regard scientific discoveries, recognized as the most significant for 2000. According to expert opinions published in the journal Science, the ten largest scientific achievements primarily include the following:

A complete map of the human genome has been created;

It was possible to establish that the main role in controlling the production of proteins in the cell is played by RNA molecules (this primary nucleic acid on Earth), and not DNA (without which the original forms of earthly life could well have managed);

Fossils of a humanoid creature that lived 1.7 million years ago were found in Georgia;

Advances in “plastic electronics” made it possible to create complex microcircuits on a flexible substrate and the first organic laser;

In-depth studies of “stem cells” were carried out, which in the future will make it possible to obtain any tissue of the body;

Was built detailed map of the young Universe, based on cosmic microwave background radiation.

6) Science is on the threshold of a new stage cosmization.

Either humanity will have a cosmic future, or there will be none.

7) The nature of the interaction between science and practice has changed. On the one hand, science soars to ever higher theoretical skies, and on the other hand, it plunges ever deeper into the soil of practical life, penetrating into all its corners.

Suffice it to mention the comprehensive automation of production, control and management (thanks to the widespread use of computer technology), the discovery and use of new types of energy, etc.

The very cause-and-effect relationship between science and practice has changed.

Previously, as a rule, everyday practical experience and exploratory experimental work preceded scientific research, which boiled down to theoretical understanding and generalization of the results obtained.

Nowadays, scientific and theoretical research largely determines the very area of ​​necessary experimental work and predict possible practical implementations in advance.

As is known, the steam engine was created long before its conceptual justification - the thermodynamic theory of heat. However, electrical processes began to be widely used in practice only in the second half of the 19th century, after J. C. Maxwell developed the foundations of classical electrodynamics. Based on its laws, it was possible to implement radio communication, design an electric motor, etc.

And what can we say about practical consequences theoretical developments in the computer field...

8) Sharply accelerated process practical implementation scientific discoveries.

The practical development of the steam engine took a hundred years; The practical introduction of nuclear energy took almost a decade.

Alice and the Black Queen

9) In the process of modern scientific and technological revolution, science has turned into a direct productive force, its social functions have noticeably expanded, as well as its influence on all spheres of the material and spiritual life of society.

That is why the social and personal responsibility of scientists for the fruits of their activities has increased significantly.

In science there are both evolutionary and revolutionary stages of development. With a revolution in science, the entire scientific paradigm changes.

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS

Philosophy of technology

Origin and nature of technology

The Greek "techne" is translated into Russian as art, skill, skill. Technology, unlike nature, is not a natural formation; it is created. A human-made object is often called an artifact. The Latin "artifactum" means literally artificially made. Technology is a collection of artifacts. The history of the formation of modern people is associated with the complication and development of the phenomenon of technology. Technology did not immediately reach its current heights. In pre-industrial society, technology acts as a skilled craft. Technical skills are transferred from master to apprentice within the framework of a craft-guild organization. These skills, abilities, and knowledge, which are the property of a closed circle of people, most often do not receive high public assessment. The situation changes radically in modern times, when society largely begins to function on a machine basis. The place of the foreman is taken by an engineer, the most technically competent specialist. Unlike a technician, whose activities are limited to ensuring the normal functioning of technical devices, an engineer invents, uses scientific methods, comprehensively develops the technical paradigm.
The philosophy of technology seeks to combine narrow and broad understandings of technology. Technology is a set of artifacts created and used by engineering methods. In a broader sense, technology is a special, technical approach to any area of ​​human activity. The technical approach is in a complementary relationship with the natural scientific approach. In the life of modern society, technology and the technical approach are of fundamental importance. Along with the phenomenon of technology, the phenomenon of technology requires explanation. Technology is a set of operations for the purposeful use of technology. Effective use technology requires its inclusion in technological chains. Initially, at the stage of manual labor, technology had mainly instrumental significance; technical tools continued, expanding the capabilities of a person’s natural organs, increasing his physical power. At the stage of mechanization, technology becomes an independent force, labor is mechanized. The technology seems to be separated from the person, who, however, is forced to be next to it. Now not only the machine is a continuation of the person, but the person himself becomes an appendage of the machine, he complements its capabilities. At the third stage of technology development, as a result of the comprehensive development of automation and the transformation of technology into technology, people act as its (technology) organizer, creator and controller. It is no longer the physical capabilities of a person that come to the fore, but the power of his intellect, realized through technology. There is a unification of science and technology, the consequence of which is scientific and technological progress, often called the scientific and technological revolution. There is a parallel development of various aspects of scientific and technical progress. If the “steam revolution” was separated from the “electricity revolution” by hundreds of years, then modern microelectronics, robotics, computer science, energy, instrument making, biotechnology complement each other in their development, and there is no time gap between them at all. The main problems of the philosophy of technology: Distinction between natural and artificial. Technical objects are the result of the objectification of human activity. In other words, artifacts are symbols of the specificity of human activity. Therefore, they need to be assessed not only from a natural, but also from a social point of view. Technology is a person, but not in his immediate, but in his symbolic existence. In our understanding, technology is the symbolic existence of a person, but this existence is precisely a person. She is his destiny. The technique “arms” a person, it makes him stronger, faster, taller. With such an assessment of the value of technology, numerous conflicts arise. After all, there are negative consequences of technology, and they weaken a person in one way or another, shorten his life expectancy. If we assume that modern people will never give up their technical conquests, then we will have to recognize the need for an optimal combination of the various consequences of that person’s existence. From a philosophical point of view, the fact of the symbolic existence of man in his artifacts is the most fundamental. In the philosophy of technology, the problem of the relationship between technology and science is often discussed. Science is put first and technology second. Technology is often understood as applied science, primarily as applied natural science. In recent years, the influence of technology on science has been increasingly emphasized. The independent significance of technology is increasingly being appreciated. The technical, engineering approach has not canceled or supplanted scientific approaches. Technicians and engineers use science as a means in their orientation to action. Acting is the slogan of the artificial-technological approach. Unlike the scientific approach, it does not hunt for knowledge, but strives to produce apparatus and implement technologies. One more f-i problem technology is an assessment of technology and the development of certain standards in this regard. Technology assessment was introduced in the United States in the late 60s and is now widely practiced in developed industrial countries. Initially the big news was the assessment of what appears to be secondary and tertiary to technical solutions social, ethical and other humanitarian consequences of technology development. Nowadays, an increasing number of technology assessment experts point to the need to overcome the paradigms of fragmentation and reductionism in relation to technology. In the first paradigm, the phenomenon of technology is not considered systematically; one of its fragments is singled out. In the second paradigm, technology is reduced, reduced to its natural foundations. The way out of both situations is associated with a systematic assessment of technology, comparison of alternatives, and prevention of unwanted technical actions. Evaluation of technology cannot be carried out otherwise than based on ideals. The philosophy of technology reveals these ideals. Technical projects must be reasonable, useful, harmless to humans, correspond to what is truly human, their time horizons must be observable. Consequently, the person making those decisions must be prudent and careful, capable of proactively reflecting reality. There are many approaches to assessing the phenomenon of technology. According to the naturalistic approach, man, unlike animals, lacks specialized organs, so he is forced to compensate for his shortcomings by creating artifacts. According to the volitional interpretation of technology, a person realizes his will to power through the creation of artifacts and technological chains. This takes place at the individual, national, class and state levels. The natural science approach views technology as an applied science. The rigid logical and mathematical ideals of the natural scientific approach are softened in the rational approach. Here technology is viewed as a consciously regulated human activity. Rationality is understood as highest type organization of technical activity and in the case of its addition with humanistic components is identified with expediency and planning. Technology and ethics A person can do more than he has the right to do. In this regard, there arises a need for a special ethics, focused on those human activities - technoethics - this is a barrier from technological disasters. Technoethics from the perspective of virtue ethics. An engineer is a rationalist, has a set of technical skills and abilities, has a penchant for inventive activity, is persistent, scrupulous, hardworking, and vigilant. Of particular importance is responsibility for one’s actions to society. No one can be so free as not to be responsible to other people. The technoethics of duty emphasizes the maxims: private, local interests cannot take precedence over the general demands of people, their desire for justice, happiness, and freedom. No aspect of technology is morally neutral. It is unacceptable to make a person an appendage of a machine, an object. So, the list of maxims includes theses regarding justice, happiness, freedom, responsibility, and personal value. To these maxims were added the requirements of safety, environmental perfection, and human health. Six basic values ​​of technoethics (the well-being and health of people, their safety, environmental quality, development of the individual and society) and two related directly to technology (its functional suitability and efficiency) and having a service character relative to the first six. The three technoethics complement each other. Technoethics of virtues is primarily an ethics of consciousness; technoethics of maxims is basically an ethics of laws and ideals; technoethics of values ​​is, first of all, an ethics of activity. In their modern interpretation, each of the three ethical concepts under consideration is logically associated with the topic of responsibility. A person forced to more or less adequately respond to the demands of life inevitably comes to the topic of responsibility.

Anthropology and concepts of biology Kurchanov Nikolay Anatolievich

11.1. Ecology as interdisciplinary science

The term “ecology” (from the Greek. ?ikos – habitat) was proposed back in 1866 by E. Haeckel. Having emerged more than a century and a half ago as the science of the relationships of organisms with each other and with the environment, ecology then greatly expanded its field of research. In her theoretical constructions, she combined the achievements of botany, zoology, physiology, biochemistry, genetics, the theory of evolution, and ethology. There is an inextricable connection between ecology and such natural sciences as chemistry, physics, geology, and geography. No other biological science makes such extensive use of mathematical methods. Based on the foregoing, at present ecology can rightfully be considered an interdisciplinary science.

Having covered such a wide range of problems, ecology itself could not avoid the process of differentiation. How independent disciplines emerged from it general ecology, population ecology, physiological ecology, evolutionary ecology. From evolutionary ecology, in turn, behavioral ecology emerged and is rapidly developing, studying behavioral features (choice of food, behavioral strategies, mating partners) in different environmental conditions.

Ecology has acquired particular importance as a scientific basis rational environmental management and nature conservation. Scientific and technological progress, which gave rise to the environmental crisis, brought to the leading place human ecology as the science of human responses to environmental factors. We have discussed some aspects of the environmental crisis earlier. In general, this problem, perhaps the most pressing for the fate of humanity, requires a special discussion, so it will not be discussed in this chapter.

From the book Ecology [Lecture notes] author Gorelov Anatoly Alekseevich

Topic 11. ECOLOGY AND CULTURE Human values ​​change in the process of transforming the natural environment. But the situation itself changes if new values ​​become the property of the broad masses, that is, if a corresponding ideology and

From the book Ecology by Mitchell Paul

RESTORATION ECOLOGY In recent years, the practice of restoring damaged and degraded ecosystems has spread. It includes four main possibilities: to restore exactly what was before (restoration); recreate the system, in some way

From the book Theory of Adequate Nutrition and Trophology [tables in text] author

HISTORICAL ECOLOGY It is impossible to understand the ecology of our time without knowledge of the ecology of the past. Historical ecology is “the history of vegetation and landscapes” (Rackham, 1998). Over thousands of years, humans have modified many habitats; Currently, many landscapes have

From the book Theory of Adequate Nutrition and Trophology [tables with pictures] author Ugolev Alexander Mikhailovich

LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY Landscape ecology is a new discipline that studies the various ecological processes occurring in areas measured in hectares and square kilometers. Such huge areas usually consist of separate fragments, such as:

From the book Anthropology and Concepts of Biology author Kurchanov Nikolay Anatolievich

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY There are often reports in the press that wildlife traders are trying to sell prohibited species or products made from endangered species of animals, under the guise of trading in completely legal goods. One of the ways to resolve

From the author's book

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY Why do some animals exhibit altruism? What do we mean by "behavior"? The basic tenets of behavioral ecology are that there is a genetic component to behavior that can be regulated by natural

From the author's book

CHEMICAL ECOLOGY Sweaty and bad-smelling feet are not at all fatal or even dangerous to health, but only if you do not live in countries where malaria is common. Mosquitoes that carry malaria are attracted to the smell of various chemicals, which is highlighted

From the author's book

ECOLOGY In a sense, the science of ecology is as ancient as man. People have always depended on the world around them, on the animals and plants they consumed. They needed to know what animals to hunt, what plants to collect and grow. But independent scientific

From the author's book

ECOLOGY OF MICROORGANISMS People are impressed by large sizes. This is probably why, when remembering the Jurassic period, we first of all imagine giant dinosaurs that once “ruled” our planet. However, if any organisms “rule” the Earth, then these are

From the author's book

EXPERIMENTAL ECOLOGY Experiments play a crucial role in science. They are necessary for testing hypotheses; When conducting experiments, certain factors of interest to scientists are subjected to various changes, leaving all other factors unchanged (or at least

From the author's book

From the author's book

From the author's book

Chapter 1. Trophology - a new interdisciplinary science 1.1. Introductory remarks In the preface it is noted that the main purpose of this book is to attempt to characterize and compare two theories of nutrition - the classical (the theory of balanced nutrition) and the new (the theory of

From the author's book

9.6. Trophic chains and ecology One of the consequences of the trophological approach we are developing (see Chapter 1) is the recognition that the prosperity of a species is largely determined by its position in the trophic chain. This position is ensured by the effectiveness of interactions

From the author's book

11.2. Population ecology The main structure of theoretical constructions of ecology is the population. At the population level, basic ecological concepts and

From the author's book

11.5. Community Ecology Community ecology deals with the most complex natural systems, including both biotic and abiotic components. This is the area of ​​greatest disagreement among scientists, an area in which the main theoretical principles are still