Three Aspects of the Phenomenon of Science: In Search for Unity among Sociologists

Introduction. In today’s globalising world, science acquires a crucial importance: integrating humanity within the framework of solving global problems, it becomes one of the leading factors in social development, facilitating work and diversifying leisure time, as well as serving as an instrument of transformations in the political sphere. Undoubtedly, the social aspects of contemporary science are capturing the attention of a huge number of researchers. However, it is not clear that all areas of the sociology of science treat the object of their study in the same way.

Aim. A lack of reflection on the unity or otherwise in the understanding of the essence of science in the various fields of sociological research makes it difficult to compare different theories of the institutional, cultural, social and communicative contexts of scientific development. An urgent methodological task therefore consists in developing an understanding of the various definitions of the concept of “science” used in the framework of contemporary sociological analysis of this phenomenon.

Results and scientific novelty. In this paper, two dominant sociological views on science – as an experimental-mathematical approach to cognising the world and as a system of representations in general – are compared. We conclude that while researchers studying institutional aspects of science tend to interpret it in terms of the “heritage” of post-Enlightenment European rationalism, constructionist and communicatively-oriented researchers tend to approach science as the system of knowledge and cognition that is formed in any human society, having its own specific sociocultural features in each respective case. While each of these two approaches undoubtedly has its own methodological potential, in order to provide such a diverse field of studies with a common ground, it would be necessary to balance them with a third aspect. We argue that this balancing role, since both common for all mankind and unique for every culture, could be played by Heidegger’s conceptualisation of science as “the theory of the real”.

Practical significance. In order to avoid a pluralism of incompatible theories, it is important to continually pose the question “what is the object of study when conducting a sociological study of various scientific phenomena?” – as well as to understand the “limits of applicability” of the particular interpretation of science on which basis sociological analysis proceeds.

1. Latour B. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; 1987.

2. Foucault M. The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. London, New York: Routledge; 2002.

3. Robert K. Merton. Sociology of science and Sociology as science [Internet]. Ed. by Craig Calhoun. Columbia University Press/SSRC; 2010 [cited 2018 Sep 05]. Available from: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978–0-231–15112– 2/robert-k-merton

4. Merton R. K. The Matthew effect in science, II. Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS. 1988; 79: 606–623.

5. Bloor D. Knowledge and social imagery. 1st edition. London: Routledge; 1976.

6. Habermas J. Technology and science as ‘ideology’. Toward a rational society: Student protest, science, and politics. Boston: Beacon Press; 1971. p. 81–122.

7. Fuller S. Customized science as the reflection of ‘protoscience’. Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. 2015; XLVI(4): 52–69.

8. Etzkowitz H. Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science. Minerva. 1983; 21: 198–233.

9. Antonovskii A. Yu. Communicative interpretation of science in the context of classical epistemological problems. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. 2016; 18(2): 159–175. (In Russ.)

10. Bakeeva Е. V. Modern science: Reflectivity and localisation. Nauchnyi ezhegodnik Instituta filosofii i prava Ural’skogo otdeleniya Rossiiskoi akademii nauk = Research Yearbook. The Institute of Philosophy and Law. Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2014; 14(4): 22–34. (In Russ.)

11. Biricheva Е. V. Social’naja kommunikacija v sfere nauki = Social communication in the sphere of science. Upravlenie i kommunikatsii: analiz tendentsii i perspektivy razvitiya = Management and communication: Analysis of trends and perspectives of development. Cheboksary; 2016. p. 39–46. (In Russ.)

12. Bryanik N. V. Samobytnost’ russkoj nauki: predposylki i real’nost’ = Originality of Russian science: Factors and reality. Ekaterinburg; 1994. (In Russ.)

13. Bucheister J. Toward a theory of academic self-awareness. Teaching and learning together in higher education [Internet]. US: Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College; 2016 [cited 2016 Oct 12]. Available from: http://repository.brynmawr.edu/tlthe/vol1/iss12/1

14. Chernikova I. V., Chernikova D. V. The new concept of knowledge production in technoscience. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofija. Sociologija. Politologija = Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 2017; 39: 48–58. DOI: 10.17223/1998863X/39/6 (In Russ.)

15. History of artificial cold, scientific, technological and cultural issues [Internet]. K. Gavroglu (Ed.). Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science / еd. by A. Bokulich, R. Cohen, J. Renn, K. Gavgorlu. Vol. 299. Springer; 2014 [cited 2018 Sep 05]. Available from: http://www.springer.com/series/5710

16. Kasavin I. Т. Predmet i metody social’noj jepistemologii = Subject and methods of social epistemology. Yazyk, znanie, sotsium: Problemy sotsial’noi epistemologii = Language. Knowledge. Society: Problems of social epistemology. Moscow; 2007. p. 3–13. (In Russ.)

17. Perovic S., Radovanovic S., Sikimic V., Berber A. Optimal research team composition: Data envelopment analysis of Fermilab experiments. Scientometrics. 2016; 108: 83–111.

18. Popova N., Moiseenko Ya., Beavitt T. Conformity in modern science: An engine of societal transformation? Changing Societies & Personalities. 2017; 1 (3): 237–258. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15826/csp.2017.1.3.017

19. Popova N. G., Beavitt T. A. English as a means of scientific communication: Linguistic imperialism or interlingua? Integraciya obrazovaniya = Integration of Education. 2017; 21(1/86): 54–70.

20. Popova N. G., Biricheva E. V. Purpose-oriented approach to the reader’s assessment of the quality of research papers. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Change [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Sep 05]. 4: 148–168. Available from: https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2018.4.09

21. Romanovskaya Т. B. K analizu ponjatija «nacional'naja nauka»: postanovka problemy = To the analysis of the concept “national science”: Problem statement. Sotsiokul’turnyi kontekst nauki = Sociocultural Context of Science. Moscow: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences; 1998. p. 70–83. (In Russ.)

22. Walsh J., Lee Y. The bureaucratization of science. Research Policy. 2015; 44: 1584–1600.

23. Kant I. Critique of Pure Reason. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1998.

24. Marx K. The German Ideology [Internet]. [cited 2016 Aug 30]. Available from: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm

25. Kant I. Critique of Practical Reason. Indianapolis, Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company; 2002.

26. Comte A. Course of Positive Philosophy [Internet]. [cited 2018 Sep 05]. Available from: http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/comte_cpp.html

27. Heidegger M. Overcoming of Metaphysics. In: The End of Philosophy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2003. p. 84–111.

28. Husserl E. The Crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Evanston: Northwestern University Press; 1970.

29. Chernozub S. P. The concept of national science in a new discourse of civilizations. Istoricheskaya psikhologiya i sotsiologiya istorii = Historical Psychology and Sociology of History. 2012; 1: 43–61. (In Russ.)

30. Gadamer H.-G. Istorija ponjatij kak filosofija = History of notions as philosophy. Aktual’nost’ prekrasnogo = Relevance of beauty. Moscow; 1991. p. 26–43. (In Russ.)

31. Descartes R. Principles of Philosophy. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1991.

32. Lévi-Strauss C. Structural Anthropology. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books; 1967.

33. Feyerabend P. Against Method. 4th ed., New York: Verso Books; 2010.

34. Ortega y Gasset J. History as a system and other essays toward a philosophy of history. New York; London: Norton & Company; 1962.

35. Polanyi M. Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. University of Chicago Press; 1958.

36. Weber M. Science as a vocation [Internet]. [cited 2018 Sep 05]. Available from: http://anthropos-lab.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Weber-Science-as-a-Vocation.pdf

37. Meillassoux Q. After Finitude: An essay on the necessity of contingency. Continuum; 2008.

38. Mamardashvili M. K. Prostranstvo mysli i jazyk filosofii = Space of thought and the language of philosophy. Filosofskie chteniya = Philosophical readings. Saint-Petersburg; 2002. p. 62–78. (In Russ.)

39. Heisenberg W. Abstrakcija v sovremennoj nauke = Abstraction in the contemporary science. Shagi za gorizont = Steps beyond the horizon. Moscow; 1987. p. 241–257. (In Russ.)

40. Heidegger M. Science and reflection. The question concerning technology and other essays. New York; London: Garland Publishing; Inc; 1977: 155–182.

41. Parmenides. On Nature [Internet]. [cited 2018 Sep 05]. Available from: http://www.platonic-philosophy.org/files/Parmenides%20-%20Poem.pdf

42. Aristotle. Metaphysics. London: Henry G. Bohn; 1857.