Классическая эволюционная эпистемология науки свидетельствует против научного реализма
Nowdays every serious attempt to justify scientific realism is obliged to somehow manage van Fraassen’s employment of evolutionary epistemology against the important realistic «no-miracles argument». Thus a systematic translation of arguments pro et contra sufficiency of natural selection for evolutionary progress into epistemological language is needed. The main thesis of this paper is that it is difficult and maybe even impossible to reconcile scientific realism with classic evolutionary epistemology based on selectionist models.
Selectionist evolutionary epistemology allows for both realistic (Popper) and anti-realistic (Toulmin) interpretation while catastrophist/saltationist evolutionary epistemology (Kuhn) leads to anti-realism.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. That’s why biologization of the humanities and development of neurosciences and neurocomputing presupposes taking into account changes in evolutionary theory. Critique of adaptationism is an important part of the modern scientific critique of Darwinism. History of the critique of adaptationism is intertwined with history of sociobiology. This circumstance is embodied by the longstanding confrontation between evolutionary dissidents R.C. Lewontin an S.J. Gould on the one hand and sociobiologists E.O. Wilson and R. Dawkins on the other hand. Meanwhile Soviet Union had its own sociobiological project by V.P. Efroimson. This project was underdeveloped for political reasons. It’s merits were discussed mainly in the context of nature-nurture debate. Among Russian-speaking critique of adaptationism in sociobiology works of ethologist E.N. Panov are worth of special consideration.
The commented famous work by S.J. Gould and R.C. Lewontin is crucial not only to sociobiology critique but to polemics on evolutionary theory in general. Reflection provoked by Gould and Lewontin’s paper in the field of philosophy of biology enables to clarify the relation between the adaptationist program and biological reductionism.
The development of evolutionary thinking is under consideration in the article; heuristic possibilities and possible limits for interdisciplinary synthesis of knowledgeare estimated. It is justified that synthetic, integrative and holistic trends – in contrast to disciplinary differentiation of science in the epoch of Modern time – are predominant in science of the XXI century. Evolutionary thinking which is understood in the most broad sense of its word is based nowadays not only on the theory of biological evolution, but also on the modern theory of complex adaptive systems, network science and nonlinear dynamics. Such a thinking becomes a foundation of a new naturalism which allows us to formulate strategies of evolutionary, naturalistic explanations in epistemology, ethics, politics, aesthetics. Taking as an example evolutionary epistemology, the author analyses its modern trends of development and demonstrates how this field meets interdisciplinary challenges of the modern scientific knowledge.
The complex phenomena of the individual creative activities as well as the historical development of scientific knowledge are under consideration from the point of view of the theory of self-organization (synergetics) in the book. Synergetics is characterized as a new research programme in a wide philosophical, cultural and historical context. The synergetical reinterpretations of some peculiarities of the creative thinking, such as the alternative ways and the scenarios, the latent attitudes and the predeterminations, the self-completing of whole images, are proposed here. The synergetical view of historical development of scientific knowledge is compiled in the book from the notions of the principal nonlinearity and cyclic character of science development,the inertia of the paradigmal consciousness in science, the value of marginal and archaic elements in science. For readers who are interested in evolutionary epistemology and the philosophical problems of synergetics.
Some non-adaptationist concepts of evolutionary biology are classified according to their connection to chance and necessity.
In this paper the impact of adaptationism and genocentrism critique on the development of evolutionary theory in the past half century is examined. This critique was personified in R.C. Lewontin and S.J. Gould attack on sociobiology of E.O. Wilson and R. Dawkins. The conceptual reconstruction of the Modern Synthesis, undertaken by modern supporters of the “Expanded Synthesis” M. Pigliucci and G. Muller, can be reformulated in terms of adaptationism and genocentrism. Thus, adaptationism and genocentrism critique still guides the development of evolutionary theory in the 21st century
Imagination as a problem of evolutionary epistemology is in the focus of attention of the authors of the book. Achievements of the modern cognitive science, life sciences, and neuroscience are involved in the analysis of this traditional epistemological problem, i.e. the problem is under discussion here in the interdisciplinary prospects. The ability of productive imagination is considered in the connection with the newest studies in creativity, the human creative capabilities. The consideration of imagination is placed in the context of the modern discussions of mental imagery, of perceptive thinking, of the role of visualization in mind's games, in the mental processes which take place in different states of consciousness. Imagination is studied in connection with the problems of individual, bodily and spiritual, cultural and social components of the cognitive processes.
A joint research project carried out by an interdisciplinary group of Russian and Swedish linguists, sociologists and educators-psychologists (the Swedish Institute grant), besides solving pragmatic tasks of finding out relative quantitative-qualitative specificity of national cognitive representations of values, first of all, had methodological goals. They were to check the efficiency of the linguistic methods developed in this study (and, thus, to prove the theoretical ideas that served the basis for it) of getting factual data that allow reconstructing and comparing of the corresponding areas of cognitive representations.
The results of cross-cultural research of implicit theories of innovativeness among students and teachers, representatives of three ethnocultural groups: Russians, the people of the North Caucasus (Chechens and Ingushs) and Tuvinians (N=804) are presented. Intergroup differences in implicit theories of innovativeness are revealed: the ‘individual’ theories of innovativeness prevail among Russians and among the students, the ‘social’ theories of innovativeness are more expressed among respondents from the North Caucasus, Tuva and among the teachers. Using the structural equations modeling the universal model of values impact on implicit theories of innovativeness and attitudes towards innovations is constructed. Values of the Openness to changes and individual theories of innovativeness promote the positive relation to innovations. Results of research have shown that implicit theories of innovativeness differ in different cultures, and values make different impact on the attitudes towards innovations and innovative experience in different cultures.