The Post-Academic Trend in the Evolution of Methodological Consciousness

Abstract

The development of science at all stages of its penetration into a technogenic society is accompanied by changes in methodological consciousness in its various incarnations. However, preferring to analyze the metamorphoses of science as special knowledge about the world, to examine the evolution of its methodological tools, forms of structural and functional organization of scientific and cognitive activity, at the same time, modern research practices leave aside the evolution of methodological consciousness as such. Although, according to the author, analysis of this phenomenon makes possible to define, if not a paradigmatic, then at least a syntagmatic approach to the study of modern post-academic science. The representation of methodological consciousness can be carried out in different versions. The article considers its evolution at various levels of functioning – individual and supra-individual, embodied in the methodological innovations of science itself as well as in the philosophical and methodological discourse interconnected with it. The assertion of unique forms of methodological consciousness at the supraindividual level, in particular, characterizes the development of modern social physics, which combines syntagmatics, inter- and transdisciplinarity as strategies of scientific search. The evolution of methodological consciousness at the individual level is inextricably linked with the renewal of the scientific habitus of individual scientists. In the context of the commercialization of post-academic science, destructive changes in the qualities of scientific creativity and scientific ethos undoubtedly affect the mental and cognitive components of the scientific habits of researchers. For the majority of the scientific community, the transformation of the scientific habitus proceeds spontaneously. Awareness of the uniqueness of post-academic science today occurs mainly within the framework of philosophical and methodological discourse. The result of this process is problematized by the author as a phenomenon of “post-academic philosophy of science,” characterized by a number of features of a substantive, methodological, and institutional nature. The question of its correlation with the traditional philosophy of science, on the one hand, and with disciplinary strategies in the study of science, on the other, opens up prospects for the emergence of new paradigms of modern philosophical and methodological discourse.