ABOUT THE CATEGORIAL ANALYSIS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHAINS OF COGNITION
1 V.К. SHCHERBIN
1 Center for Systemic Analysis and Strategic Studies at the Belarusian National Academy of Sciences
Nauka naukozn. 2019, 4(106): 24-36
Section: Vital problems of modern science
Abstract: The article considers the problem of identifying and systematizing the categorial means necessary to analyze the technological chains of cognition used in the scientific and technical domain. The article’s main goal is to demonstrate how such chains differ among themselves depending on a) the chain’s structural characteristics; b) topics and genre of scientific discourse in whose framework a specific chain is used. A discourse analysis of various types of technological chains of cognition (a logic scheme, a knowledge continuity chain, a science-intensive closed cycle technology; global, related and captive value chains) is carried out based on the material of scientific discourses differing in subject and genre (a collective scientific monograph, a correspondent article in a scientific newspaper, a topical article in a scientific journal); those technological chains of cognition underpin the mechanism of operation of both the traditional disciplinary science and contemporary technoscience. Noted are recent changes in the composition of the said technological chains of cognition arising out of the transition from traditional disciplinary science to contemporary technoscience. It is hypothesized that the most sophisticated mechanism of contemporary technoscience operation and the latest technological chains of cognition underpinning it can be identified and described through the use of widely understood categorial analysis that employs philosophical categories, generic scientific categorial concepts and concrete scientific categorial concepts. The generic and specific components of the mentioned categorial tools are disclosed. A specific example of running a comprehensive categorial analysis of the mechanism of operation of contemporary technoscience and the technological chains of cognition underpinning it.
Keywords: disciplinary science, contemporary technoscience, technologic chains of cognition, philosophic category, generic scientific categorial concept, concrete scientific categorial concept.
1.Starzhinskij, V.P. (2016). The constructive methodology: from fundamental natural sciences and engineering to high technologies parks. Academician Shirokanov Dmitrij Ivanovich: Philosophy, Methodology, Cognition. Minsk: Pravo i ekonomika. (pp. 246–253) [in Russian].
2.Korchinskij, Dm. (2005). Preface. Pocheptsov G. Revolution com. Fundamentals of Protest Engineering. Moscow: Evropa. (pp. 3–6) [in Russian].
3.Аvtonomova, А.S. (Ed.). (2003) The Social Technologies of Sector Interconnection in Contemporary Russia. Moscow: Fond NAN [in Russian].
4.Lakhvich, F.A. (2007). Bioorganic chemistry: through the study of biomolecules and molecular mechanisms of vital functions to the creation of supplies for medicine and agriculture. The Trailblazer of the Belarusian Competitive Financing of Science (BRFFR: 1991–2006) / V.A. Orlovich (Ed.). Minsk: Belaruskaya navuka. (pp. 409–419) [in Russian].
5.Ponarina, E. (2005). Priority 01: In the sphere of innovations, it is time for the state to transition from political concepts to concrete actions. Poisk, 51, 11–12 [in Russian].
6.Ivanitskij, G.R. (2000). The new start or the last finish? Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 70, issue 3, 203–213 [in Russian].
7.Emelyanovich, I. (2019). Non-material assets in value chains. The Science and Innovations, 5, 33–37) [in Russian].
8.Stepin, V.S. (2009). The changes in the structure of science and the contemporary status of fundamental researches. The Science of Russia. From Today to Tomorrow / V.S. Arutiunova, G.V. Lisichkin, G.G. Malinetsky (Eds.). Moscow: Knizhnyj dom «LIBROKOM». (pp. 150–157) [in Russian].
9.Convergence of biological, information, nano- and cognitive technologies: the challenge to philosophy. Issues of phylosophy, 2012, 12, 3–23 [in Russian].
10.Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences: Volume 9 (Handbook of the Philosophy of Sciences: in 16 volumes). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2009.
11.Judin, B.G. (2004). The point of view of the artificial. Cognitive Thinking and Social Action (heritage of G.P., Shchedrovitsky in the context of Russian and world philosophical thought) / N.I. Kuznetsova (Ed.). Moscow: F.А.С.-media. (pp. 306–335) [in Russian].
12.Harari, Ju.N. (2018). Sapiens. A Brief History of Humankind. Transl. from English. Moscow: Sindbad [in Russian].
13.Harari, Ju.N. (2019). Homo Deus. A Brief History of Tomorrow. Transl. from English. Moscow: Sindbad [in Russian].
14.Ogurtsov, А.P. (2001). The categories. The New Philosophical Encyclopedia: in 4 vols. Vol. 2. Moscow: Mysl (pp. 229–233) [in Russian]. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004832330130
15.Shirokanov, D.I. (2016). The philosophical categories in the natural cognition. Academician Shirokanov Dnitrij Ivanovich: Philosophy, Methodology, Cognition. Minsk: Pravo i ekonomika (pp. 628–665) [in Russian].
16.Mostepanenko, M.V. (1969). Philosophy and Physical Theory. Leningrad: Nauka [in Russian].
16.Кuish, A.L. (2019). The categories of physical science in context of categories of philosophical knowledge. Philosophical Category Structures in the Scientific Cognition. Мinsk: The Institute of Philosophy of the NAS of Belarus (p. 33) [in Russian].
18.Mishuk, S.S. (2019). Heuristic functions of the category Space and Time in contemporary cosmological concepts. Philosophical Category Structures in the Scientific Cognition. Мinsk: The Institute of Philosophy of the NAS of Belarus (pp. 35–36) [in Russian].
19.Philosophical Category Structures in the Scientific Cognition: Abstracts and Program. Мinsk: The Institute of Philosophy of the NAS of Belarus, 2019 [in Russian].
20.Ishlinsky, А.Ju. (Ed.). (2003). The New Polytechnic Dictionary. Moscow: BRE [in Russian].
21.Starzhinskij, V.P., Tsepkalo, V.V. (2017). On the Way to the Society of Innovations. 2nd ed. Мinsk: RIVSH [in Russian].
22.Sidortsov, V.N. (Ed.) (2006). Methodological Problems of History. Мinsk: Tetrasistems [in Russian].
23.Vytiaz, P.А., Shcherbin, V.К. (2019). The modern technoscience as the result of convergence of new forms of organization of scientific research. The National Academies of Sciences: Modern Condition, Problems, Perspectives of Development and Priorities of Collaboration in the IAAS Framework: Proceedings of the International Symposium (Кyiv, Ukraine, June 6–7, 2019) (in print) [in Russian].
24.Sukhotin, А.К. (1978). The Paradoxes of Science. Мoscow: Molodaya gvardija [in Russian].
25.Kozlov, B.I. (2000). Speech at the meeting of the round table “State Scientific Foundations in Russia: Activity, Problems, Perspectives (Survey)”. Science of Science, 1, 7–36 [in Russian].
26.Bogdan, N.I., Кorzun, Т.S. (2005). The reforming experience of the innovative policy in new countries of the European Union and EU accession candidate countries. The Science and Innovations, 8, 62–69 [in Russian].
27.Оbolenskaya, L.V., Zudina, А.B. (2009). Тhe technological function of Russian science: the problem of designing of a map of technological ways. Science in the Conditions of Globalization / А.G. Аllakhverdyan, N.N. Semyonova, А.V. Yurevich (Eds.). Moscow: Logos. (pp. 221–240) [in Russian].
28.Dostanko, А.P., Baranov, V.V. (2002). The evolution of technologies. The Great Reformers of Natural Sciences: Leonardo da Vinci: XVIII International Readings (November 20–21, 2002, Мinsk) / I.F. Gabrus (Ed.). Мinsk: BGUIR. (pp. 6–8) [in Russian].