Dobrov Institute for Scientific and Technological Potential and Science History Studies of the NAS of Ukraine

Nauka naukozn. 2022, 4(118): 66–83

Section: Vital  Problems  of  Modern  Science
Language: Ukrainian
Abstract: It is substantiated that along with the growth of the role of science in all spheres of life, as well as with the spread of globalization processes, pluralism, and multiculturalism, the assessment of scientific knowledge should include not only logical-epistemological, semantic criteria, but also existential meanings and values, general historical, cultural, political interests and traditions, as well as sociotechnical ideas about the desired future of humanity, which play a performative role. At the same time, the assessment of scientific knowledge is interpreted as truth, as well as post-truth, and post-factuality. The latter is because socio-technical images of the future are oriented toward changes, constancy is changeability, and uncertainty, and the future is desired, modeled, and constructed by a “working artifact”.  Sociotechnical representations are increasingly shaped by technology companies, their interests, business models, and public rhetoric. The latter is often accompanied by the growth of distrust in expert opinion, the involvement of “alternative experts”, the devaluation of education and professionalism, the weakening of critical thinking, rejection of alternative opinions or, on the contrary, the relativization of truth. The above-mentioned trends contribute to creating a situation for which the concept of “post-truth” began to be used for characterization purposes. It is shown that in this case the concept of “post-truth” acquires a multifaceted meaning: from statements about the absence or loss of truth, leveling of facts, and to an attempt to justify its importance as a sign of the newest form of science — technoscience. In the latter case, the performative function of post-truth is essential as a means of initiating creative scientific research, non-standard thinking, ways of developing cognitive creativity and technical construction of the future, and realization of socio-technical ideas about the image of the future. Although in the case of such a perception, one should pay attention to the fact that the future is never determined in advance, even in the case of its techno-scientific construction, and also carries the danger of certain risks. Identifying and eradicating negative manifestations of post-truth is a necessary task of science and education.

Keywords: sociotechnical performatives, construction of the future, assessment of scientific knowledge, truth, post-truth, technoscience.


  1. Jaspers, K. (1991). The meaning and purpose of history. Moscow: Polityzdat [in Russian].
  2. Mikeshina, L.A. (2002). Philosophy of knowledge. Polemic chapters. Moscow: Progress-traditsyia [in Russian].
  3. Bystrytsky, Y. (2018). Existential truth and post-truth. Filosofska Dumka, 5, 54–71 [in Ukrainian].
  4. Heidegger, M. (1989). Basic concepts of metaphysics. Voprosy filosofii, 9, 116–122 [in Russian].
  5. Krymsky, S.B. (2008). Under the signature of Sophia. Kyiv: Kyivo-Mohylianska akademiia [in Ukrainian].
  6. Rommetveit, K. (Ed.) (2022). Post-Truth Imaginations. New Starting Points for Critique of Politics and Technoscience. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429053061
  7. Popova, O.V. (Ed.) (2018). “The Politics of Post-Truth” and Populism. Saint-Petersburg: Skifiya-print [in Russian].
  8. McIntyre, L. (2021). Post-truth. Kyiv: ArtHuss [in Ukrainian].
  9. Khamitov N.V., Krylova S.A. (2022). Human and culture: dictionary. Philosophical anthropology, philosophy of culture, cultural studies. Kyiv: KNT [in Ukrainian].
  10. Bystrytskyi, E., Bily, O., Ermolenko, A., Kasyanov, G., Knyazhytskyi, M., Kostenko N., et al. (2018). Communication and politics in the post-truth era. Filosofska Dumka, 5, 6–35 [in Ukrainian].
  11. Festinger, L. (2018). Cognitive Dissonance Theory. Moscow: Eksmo [in Russian].
  12. Nichols, T. (2019). “Sofa” experts. How unlimited access to information makes us dumber. Kyiv: Nash format [in Ukrainian].
  13. Castoriadis, C. (1975). The Imaginary Institution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  14. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  15. Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (2009) Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47, 119–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4
  16. Jasanoff, S. (2015). Future imperfect: Science, technology, and the imaginations of modernity. URL: https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_fi le/0009/3305673/ 1.-Jasanoff -and-Kim-2015-Dreamscapes-of-Modernity-Sociotechnical-Imaginari. pdf (last accessed:19.08.2022).
  17. Mager, A. & Katzenbach, C. (2020). Future imaginaries in the making and governing of digital technology: Multiple, Contested, Commodified. New Media & Society. 23(2), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820929321
  18. Nordmann, A. (2010). A forensics of wishing: technology assessment in the age of technoscience. Poiesis & Praxis, 7, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-010-0081-7
  19. Popovych, O.S., & Klimenkova, V.І. (2022). Scientific ethics and problems of the purposeful formation of a healthy research environment. Science and Science of Science, 2, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.15407/sofs2022.02.003 [in Ukrainian].
  20. Khamitov, N.V. (2022). Academic philosophy as science and art. Bulletin of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. 4, 59–73. https://doi.org/10.15407/visn2022.04.059 [in Ukrainian].
  21. Khamitov, N.V. (2022). Philosophical anthropology: current problems. From theoretical to practical turn. Kyiv: KNT [in Ukrainian].

Full Text (PDF)