CLASSICAL PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH’ INSTITUTIONALIZATION IN COGNITIVE SOCIETY

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

  Oleksandr Levchenko

  Al-Ghazali Ameen Saif Ali

Abstract

The subject of publication is the theoretical generalization of the philosophical foundations of fundamental scientific research (FSR). The stages of institutionalization of attitude to the FSR are considered, from the stage of critical discussion of the conditions for obtaining true knowledge of the Hellenistic period to the developed system of teaching about the transcendental logic of Kant and Hegel’s logical teaching about being, essence and concept in the context of fundamental scientific research. The methodology is based on generalization of the most radical points of view and approaches of representatives of different philosophical schools and research programs to clarify the essence and ways of FSR. The causes and gnoseological origins of the FSR scientific method change to the modern form of the method of verification toleration of scientific theories of post-positivism and metapositivism (Popper, Lakatos, Kuhn, Feyerabend) are described. As a result of the study, it was concluded that the period of radical rethinking of the classical paradigm of fundamental theoretical research, which is set out in the teachings of researchers of the ancient period, the New Time, classical German, Marxist philosophy, has started. Instead of the deterministic method of scientific thinking, the verification logic of substantiation of the process of generating new knowledge (line Descartes&Pascal), the method of verification toleration/refutation of Popper is adopted by scientists. At the same time, the justification for the truth of the FSR is based on the development of Descartes’ teachings about the method. The applied result of the practical application of the Popper’s concept in the field of FSR implementation is a deliberately probabilized style of scientific cognition, the principle of verifying the intermediate interpretation of the truth, updating practical approaches to demarcation procedures, justifying the partial and permissible value of scientific theories as “points of invariability” in the continuum of continuous inaccuracy and uncertainty (Hume/Berkeley vs. Bacon/Newton line).

How to Cite

Levchenko, O., & Ameen Saif Ali, A.-G. (2020). CLASSICAL PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH’ INSTITUTIONALIZATION IN COGNITIVE SOCIETY. Three Seas Economic Journal, 1(4), 67-76. https://doi.org/10.30525/2661-5150/2020-4-10
Article views: 12 | PDF Downloads: 7

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

fundamental science research, cognitive society, philosophical foundation of FSR, verification of science theories and knowledge

References

Achinstein, P.; Barker, S. F. (1969). The Legacy of Logical Positivism: Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Johns Hopkins Press, 300 p.

Aristotle (1853). Ἀναλυτικὰ ὑστερα The Organon, Or Logical Treatises, by Owen, O.F. (Literally translated, with notes, syllogistic examples, analysis, and introduction) London: Henry G. Bohn. Internet archive.

Aristotle (2004). Ἀναλυτικὰ πρότερα Prior Analytics, Jenkinson, A.J. (Trans.). Wayback Machine.

Αριστοτέλης (2011). Έργα Ι Κατηγορίαι Categories. About interpretation. Protoporia.

Ayer, A. (Ed.) (1959). Logical positivism. issuu.com.

Bacon, F. (1620). Novum Organum The New Organon or True Directions Concerning the Interpretation of Nature. metaphysicspirit.com.

Bogomolov, A. S. (1962). Philosophy of Anglo-American Neorealism. Moscow: Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta, 448 p.

Baklanova, O., Petrova, M., Koval, V. (2020). Institutional Transmission in Economic Development. Ikonomicheski Izsledvania, 29(1), 68-91.

Bogomolov, A.S. (1969). German bourgeois philosophy after 1865. Moscow: Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta, 448 p. (in Russian)

Carnap, R. (1971). Philosophical Foundations of Physics. Introduction to the philosophy of science. Moscow: Progress, 390 p. (in Russian)

Charlesworth, M. J. (1959). Philosophy and Linguistic Analysis. Pittsburg: Duquesne University, 234 p.

Descartes, R. (2018). Discourse on the method. Moscow: Azbuka, 320 p.

Dewey, J. (2001). Reconstruction in Philosophy. Zanadvorov, M.; Shikov, M. (Trans). Moscow: Logos, 94 p.

Engels, F. (1955). Anti-Duhring. in: Marx, K.; Engels, F. Collected Works, 2nd ed., V. 20.

Engels, F. (1955). Dialectics of Nature”, in: Marx, K.; Engels, F. Collected Works, 2nd ed., V. 20.

Frank, F. (2007). Philosophy of Science: Communication between Science and Philosophy, ed. 2nd, Kursanov, G.A. (Trans.). Moscow: Izdatelstvo LK.

Gryaznova, A.F. (Ed.). (1993). Analytical philosophy: Selected texts. Moscow: Izd-vo MGU, 191 p.

Hegel, G.V.F. (1929). Collected Works. In 14 volumes. Vol. 1. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoye izdatelstvo politicheskoy literatury.

Hegel, G.V.F. (1934). Collected Works. In 14 volumes. Vol. 2. Moscow: Sotsekgiz.

Hegel, G.V.F. (1937). Collected Works. In 14 volumes. Vol. 5. Moscow: Sotsekgiz.

Hegel, G.W.F. (2019). Phenomenology of spirit, Tarashchuk, P. (Trans.). Kyiv: Folio, 476 p. (in Ukrainian)

Husserl, E. (1994). Philosophy as a strict science. Novocherkassk: Saguna, 357 p. (in Russian)

James, W.; Russell, B. (2010). Introduction to Philosophy. Philosophy problems. Moscow: Republic, 318 p. (in Russian)

Kant, I. (1994). Critique of the ability to judge. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 367 p. (in Russian)

Kant, I. (2000). Critique of pure reason, Burkovsky, I. (Trans.). Kyiv: Universe, 504 p. (in Ukrainian)

Kant, I. (2018). Prolegomeny to every future metaphysics, which may appear as a science, Terletsky, V. (Trans.). Kharkiv: Folio, 288 p. (in Ukrainian)

Koval, V., Duginets, G., Plekhanova, O., Antonov, A., & Petrova, M. (2019). On the supranational and national level of global value chain management. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(4), 1922-1937. http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2019.6.4(27)

La Mettrie, J.O. de; Hunauld, F.J. (2018). Histoire Naturell de Láme. Wentworth Press, Paris, 372 p.

Leibniz, G. V. (2017). Monadology, Bartusyak, P. (Trans.), Khoma, O. (Ed.).: Café Philosophique, Lviv. issuu. Available at: https://issuu.com/twtdt/docs/monadologie (accessed date: 12.09.2020)

Lenin, V. I. (1972). On the meaning of militant materialism. Moscow: Politizdat, 16 p. (in Russian)

Locke, J. (2002). Exploration of human understanding, Bordukova, N. (Trans.). In 4 books. Vol. 1. books.google.com. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?id=LvZJjAX1xAYC&pg=PA5&hl=uk&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad (accessed date: 25.09.2020)

Lukasiewicz, J. (1959). Aristotelian syllogistics from the point of view of modern formal logic. Moscow: Izdatelstvo inostrannoy literatury, 312 p. (in Russian)

Marx, K. (1955). Theses on Feuerbach. in: Marx, K.; Engels, F. Collected Works, 2nd ed., V. 3. www.marxists.org. Available at: https://www.marxists.org/russkij/marx/cw/t3.pdf (accessed date 14.10.2020)

Marx, K.; Engels, F. (1960). Works, 2nd ed., Vol. 2. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoye izdatelstvo politicheskoy literatury, p. 143. (in Russian)

Narsky, I. S. (1961). Modern positivism. Moscow: AS SSSR, 423 p. (in Russian)

Oizerman, T. I. (1962). Fichte’s philosophy. Moscow: Znaniye, 47 p. (in Russian)

Panin, A. V. (1981). Dialectical materialism and post-positivism (a critical analysis of some modern bourgeois concepts of science). Moscow: Izd-vo MGU, 240 p. (in Russian)

Plato. (1965). Selected dialogues, Asmus, V. (Comp.); Egunov, A. (Ed. trans.); Soloviev, V. S. and others. (Trans.). Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, 442 p. (in Russian)

Politis, V. (2006). “Aporia and Searching in Early Plato”. Judson L. & Karasmanis V. (Eds.). Remembering Socrates: Philosophical Essays. academia.edu.

Serezhnikov, V. K. (1936). Plato. Theetetus, Serezhnikov, V.K. (Trans.), Vandek V.M. (Ed.). Sotsekgiz, Moskow-Leningrad, 192 p.

Spinoza, B. (1957). Selected works: in 2 volumes, Vol. 1. Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 631 p.

Yeshchenko, M., Koval, V., & Tsvirko, O. (2019). Economic policy priorities of the income regulation. Espacios, 40 (38), 11.