Realism or idealism, but still not both (Реализм или идеализм, но все еще не оба; пер. с английского Евстигнеев М.Д.)
Today, computer simulations are used in numerous research practices of experimentation, prediction and the construction of theories. For a short historical period, the use of computer simulations influenced the philosophy and methodology of a scientific experiment, which, however, is only now beginning to be realized by philosophers and is considered by them as the source or factor of the emergence of a new epistemological pattern of experimentation through the adoption of ontological independence of computer simulations. Despite the ongoing, in the author's opinion, transformations in the philosophy of the experiment, stimulated by practitioners of computer simulations, a consensus on their basic characteristics has not yet been found. There is a lack of clear technical boundaries in the understanding and definition of computer simulations of scientific experiments. Discussions about the primary epistemological significance of one of the four experiment's types (field, laboratory, computer simulation, mathematical modeling) on the criterion of their relationship with the material substrate of the target system the experiment (materiality argument) do not abate. Despite the significant contribution of computer simulations to the practice of modern scientific research and experimentation, discussions continue about the presence or absence of their philosophical significance, including their value as a source of new knowledge. The author of the report will try to identify the main directions in the development of the concept computer simulations of scientific experiments in order to establish the causes of contemporary philosophical discussions and ambiguous view problems, as well as determine the degree of significance the transcendental foundations in computer simulations that can transform the modern philosophy of science. For this, the author chooses an original classification of approaches to the formulation the concept under study, which is a dichotomy formed in the course of a controversy between two groups of philosophers, so classified due to directly opposite views on computer simulations, in terms of their value to philosophy.
This article aims to establish a connection between Kant's Lectures on Anthropology and his political writings.
A neat split-up of methods into qualitative and quantitative ‘boxes’ works with just a bunch of elementary and time-tested research devices. It would not easily apply such a division to multiplying cases of new designs for productive investigations. Often they are compound research capacities. A new and trendy ‘box’ termed mixed methods is ready at hand. However, compound structures are not just amalgamations. Their effectiveness rests on structural propensities and not on amassing of their initial components. Furthermore, steadily multiplying new research principles rest on neither quantity nor quality but on something transcending the quality – quantity dichotomy, e.g. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) or Lijphartian analysis of patterns of democratic rule. Methodological domains can diverge or converge. They can dispose of all ‘deceitful’ aberrations and shrink to a single ‘authentic’ set of algorithms (methodological monism or in its radical display methodological rigorism). They can also entangle alternative research capacities (methodological liberalism or pluralism). The authors would explicate their methodological stance as ‘democratic’. This is more than just a pompous political analogy. Modern democracy converges all sorts of rule to make them good enough for accountable and inclusive governance. Likewise, advanced methods of our age merge any kinds of exploratory faculties to make them good enough for valid and comprehensive investigation. Just as modern democratic practices and conventions have been emerging only recently, current multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary methods still evolve as trial aptitudes for making research far-reaching and reliable enough. Both modern democracy and transdisciplinary are more of a promise rather than long established paragons. The authors perceive the entire methodological realm as shaped into three overlapping but still very distinct major methodological domains – mathematical, morphological and semiotic organons of learning and research. They coalesce around fundamental and abiding principles. Their mundane and transient apparitions are grand methodological approaches and paradigms not say nothing about claims and technical devices of specific schools of thought and research. Mathematical organon integrates a relatively comprehensive domain. Morphological and semiotic ones only crudely amalgamate assortments of areas, branches and endeavors of research that are still at variance with each other. The task is to overcome residual discrepancies and to advance integrating principles of general or ‘pure’ semiotics (Morris) and morphology. The principles of organons derive from our basic sensoria and other primary cognitive abilities. Some originate in our sense of order, measure and quantity to produce mathematical organon. Others commence with our perception of forms, shapes and configurations to yield a would-be morphological organon. Further ones amplify our faculty to re-create and discover meanings in our intercourse with the world and each other to commence a budding semiotic organon. Immanuel Kant, Charles Sanders Pierce and other great minds provide guidelines for trichotomous structure of organons. It is tempting to proclaim analogy between the trichotomous structure of organons and current vague distinction of quantitative, qualitative and ‘mixed’ clusters of methods. One has to explore the analogy. Correlations between configurational comparative studies and morphology or between qualitative studies and semiotics are still problematic. Furthermore, it would be premature to expect a quick integration of entire domains of morphology or semiotics. It is pragmatic to work for integration of selected focal core areas. Possible options are reshaping of neo-institutional paradigms into morphological ones, integration of biological and linguistic morphologies as well as further advancement of biosemiotics and biopolitics.
"The Transcendental Turn in Contemporary Philosophy (3): The Nature and Specificity of Transcendental Philosophy." Book of Abstracts of the International Workshop in Moscow, 19–22 April 2018