UDC: 167/168
https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2023-6-126
EDN: ZPIEYQ


viewing

CRITERIA OF SCIENTIFICITY AND THEIR EVOLUTION AS A PROBLEM OF PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

N. V. Bryanik
Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin, Yekaterinburg, Russia
e-mail: n.v.brianik@urfu.ru

Abstract. The relevance of research into the criteria of scientificity becomes more acute with each new stage in the development of science, and such a situation has accompanied science since the time when it acquired the status of the epicenter of New European culture. The aim of science at obtaining reliable knowledge, possessing universality and general significance, applicable to all spheres of human life (as emphasized by V.I. Vernadsky), becomes attractive for all those who would like to speak on behalf of science, without having any grounds for it. The aim of the article is to show the complexity of the process of formation of criteria of scientificity at the main stages of development of European science, as well as the search for a general scientific criterion of scientificity within the philosophy of science. Taking into account the dominant tendency of modern philosophy of science – turning to the history of science, the author conducts a comparative analysis of the criteria of scientificity developed in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Modern Age. This method of research is supplemented by an appeal to internal and external factors affecting both the formation of criteria of scientificity and their substitution by pseudoscientific ideas and constructions. As a result of the conducted research, we come to the following conclusions possessing novelty. Firstly, the criterion of scientificity has a historical and systemic character, so it would be more accurate to speak about the criteria of scientificity. Secondly, the only feature that unites the historical forms of criteria of scientificity is the peculiarities of scientific attitude to the world. And, thirdly, the possibility of violating the criteria of scientificity is inherent in the relative nature of scientific knowledge, but this possibility becomes a reality under certain socio-political circumstances. The practical significance of the conducted research is seen in the fact that it creates a methodological basis for assessing the scientificity/ pseudo-scientificity of hypothetical constructions in cases of controversial situations for the scientific community.

Key words: science, pseudoscience, criteria of scientificity, scientific truth, relative truth, scientific attitude, internal/ external factors, V. I. Vernadsky.

Cite as: Bryanik, N. V. (2023) [Criteria of scientificity and their evolution as a problem of philosophy of science]. Intellekt. Innovacii. Investicii [Intellect. Innovations. Investments]. Vol. 6, pp. 126–133. – https://doi.org/10.25198/2077- 7175-2023-6-126.


References

  1. Born, М. (1973) Moya zhizn i vzglyady [My life and my views]. Moscow: Progress, 176 p.
  2. Bryanik, N. V. (2021) Ot klassiki k postneklassike: e`tapy` razvitiya nauki sovremennogo tipa (Filosofskij analiz klassicheskoj, neklassicheskoj i postneklassicheskoj nauki) [From Classical to Post-Non-Classical: Stages in the Development of Modern Science (Philosophical Analysis of Classical, Non-Classical and Post-Non-Classical Science)]. Moscow: Academic project, 373 p. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).
  3. Vernadsky, V. I. (1981) Izbranny`e trudy` po istorii nauki. [Selected Works on the History of Science]. Moscow: Science Publ., 359 p.
  4. Gorinsky, A. S. (2007) [Medieval University]. Obshhie problemy` filosofii nauki : Slovar` dlya aspirantov i soiskatelej [General Problems of Philosophy of Science: Dictionary for graduate students and postgraduates]. Ekaterinburg: Publ. house of the Ural University, pp. 235–237. (In Russ.).
  5. Husserl, E. (1994) [The Crisis of European Humanity and Philosophy]. E`. Gusserl`. Filosofiya kak strogaya nauka [E. Husserl. Philosophy as a rigorous science]. Novocherkassk: Saguna, pp. 101–126. (In Russ.).
  6. Koire, А. (1985) [Aristotelianism and Platonism in medieval philosophy]. A. Kojre. Ocherki istorii filosofskoj my`sli [A. Koire. Essays on the History of Philosophical Thought]. Moscow: Progress, pp. 51–71. (In Russ.).
  7. Kruglyakov, E. P. (2012) [Eternal mover of pseudoscience]. Byulleten` «V zashhitu nauki» [Bulletin “In Defence of Science”]. Vol. 10, pp. 12–17. (In Russ.).
  8. O polozhenii v biologicheskoj nauke. Stenograficheskij otchet Sessii VASXNIL 31 iyulya – 7 avgusta 1948 g. (1948) [On the situation in biological science. Verbatim report of the Session of the VASHNIL 31 July – 7 August 1948]. Moscow: Selkhozgiz, 536 p. (In Russ.).
  9. Popper, K. (1983) Logika i rost nauchnogo znaniya: izbranny`e raboty` [Logic and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge: Selected Works]. Moscow: Progress, 605 p.
  10. Svasyan, K. A. (1989) Iogann Vol`fgang Gete [Johann Wolfgang Goethe]. Moscow.: Mysl, 191 p.
  11. Storozhuk, A. Yu. (2003) Metodologicheskie aspekty` razrabotki kriteriev nauchnosti. Kand. diss. [Methodological aspects of development of criteria of scientificity. Cand. diss.]. Novosibirsk, 179 p.
  12. Tolchelnikova-Murri, S. A. (2000) [Copernicus and the perception of his ideas in the XX century]. Izvestiya Uralskogo gosudarstvennogo yniversiteta [Proceedings of Ural State University]. Vol. 15, pp. 24–40. (In Russ.).
  13. Heidegger, M. (1986) [Time of the World Picture]. Novaya texnokraticheskaya volna na Zapade [The New Technocratic Wave in the West]. Moscow: Progress, pp. 93–118. (In Russ.).
  14. Heidegger, M. (1986) [Science and comprehension]. Novaya texnokraticheskaya volna na Zapade [The New Technocratic Wave in the West]. Moscow: Progress, pp. 67–84. (In Russ.).
  15. Chernikova, I. V. (2012) [The nature of science and criteria of scientificity]. Gumanitarny`j vektor [Humanitarian vector]. Vol. 3(31), pp. 89–97. (In Russ.).