Contemporary science and its place in the culture

Abstract

By Russian law we are required to inform readers that Yulia Vadimovna Sineokaya, DSc in Philosophy and corresponding member of Russian Academy of Sciences, 16.02.2024 was formally listed as a Foreign Agent in the register of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation

18+

The history and essence of natural sciences are considered in two different perspectives: cultural-historical perspective derived from the humanities (V. Rosin), and the one coming from the natural sciences, especially the structure and history of physical knowledge (A. Lipkin). V. Rosin argues that it is the technology in a broad sense that makes the context of modern science and the challenges of time and problems are formulated within the technology. A. Lipkin denies it arguing that “time calls” are actual within the “technology in a broad sense” (Rosin’s wording) or “tecno-science” in Lipkin’s terms) rater than in basic science that is still going on as it did it the time of its birth in the 17-th century. It’s logic is based not on practical (pragmatic) goals, as was serted by Rosin, but within the technology own interest according to the models of the development of science of T. Kuhn and I. Lakatos. V. Rosin claims that we are now in a situation of science crisis, that instead of nature we discuss such bizarre notions as rhizoma or complexity. A. Lipkin argues that in the field of natural sciences the principled crisis does not exist, the Kuhn’s model does work, and the postmodern notions like “rhizoma” and others, related to context, are not appropriate, as basic concepts in natural science are contextually independent.