Heidegger vs. Kuhn: Does Science Think?
This article argues that the origin of the work of art is not some kind of “happening of truth” (Heidegger); rather, it is what the Greeks call “improvisation”—that is, not simply free play, but far more self-schematization.
The paper deals with the prerequisites for the development of integrative complexes due to the global transformation of the institutions of science, education and business, as well as the sociological analysis of the logic of the integrative process.
The book shows as at the end of the 18-th – 19-th centuries Russians "populated” the growing public sphere by the voluntary associations, based on the principles of the Age of the Enlightenment. As a result of the mission of scientific associations, the civil society in Russia became unavoidable connected with patriotism and propagation of scientific knowledge. Analyzing the capabilities of scientific associasions for self-identification, independent activity and organization, the book create the wide institutional context, in the framework of which they acted, and also evaluates their role in the development of civil society in tsarist Russia. The development of voluntary associations in Russia is placed into the comparative context of European history and political thought. Although the historians emphasize the special features of the development of the Russian Empire, particular associations in Russia were the part of the European phenomenon. Their history reveals the important features of the relations between the state and the society under the conditions of the absolutism, when voluntary associations were created and was supported the space of public initiative and independent activity, from where the sprouts of citizenship grew.
The volume contains papers presented at an international colloquium " Russian-French links in biology and medicine" hosted by the St. Petersburg branch of the S.I. Vavilov Institute for the History of Science and Technology at the Russian Academy of Sciences on September 13-14, 2011. The colloquium covered a wide range of subjects on the Russian-French links in biology and medicine ranging from the early 19th until the late 20th centuries. Particular attention was given to the history of Soviet-French and Russian-French cooperation in neurophysiology, physiology, applied biology, microbiology, ecology and genetics. A number of papers was devoted to those Russian biologisrs who carried out their research in France; these papers focused on such issues as the changing institutional frameworks of academic contacts between the two countries, the impact exercised by Russian biology upon French scholarship, transfer and reception of scientific knowledge in various subfields of biology and medicine, and changing state policies on international academic contacts and cooperation.
This paper deals with two philosophical approaches to the problem of practice and its interpretation. It is demonstrated that there is a significant difference between L. Wittgenstein’s and H. Putnam’s theories of practice. According to Wittgenstein, an actor should not interpret the practice and reveal some implied sense for correct rule following. But Putnam argues that without interpretation the practice cannot provide the reference of our language’s terms to the reality. This article demonstrates that this difference in Wittgenstein’s and Putnam’s theories of practice is connected with their philosophical understanding of science and possibility of scientific cognition.
Over the past 20 years, changes in the status, position of the scientists professional group in Russia, under the influence of market reforms and the crisis were so profound in their consequences for the occupational structure and development of society as a whole that they deserve serious attention and study of their various aspects. In this particular case, I will focus on the analysis of work stories of researchers at the Moscow Research Institute of natural sciences profile with the Russian Academy of Sciences in context of changes in government policies in relation to science for the duration of over last 10 years. This data was obtained within the framework of a wider longitudinal study, which was conducted in two phases: 1999-2001 and 2010 (INTAS, RCSF, LSE, the head of S. Ashwin).
Тhе article is devoted to the analysis of science, education and business as key institutional agents of civil identity in contemporary society. The civil identity is specified as a subject-object interaction between an individual and a state. Also preconditions for diversification of state power in the field of civic identity forming are determined.