General Theory Of Science Research Articles

New horizons of book science and bibliography

Abstract: In contrast to the sciences, that were formed gradually and in many ways spontaneously, the development of bibliological disciplines was based on their theoretical comprehension without the expectation that they would all arise naturally. The central question remains unclear: is bibliology and its derivatives (library science, bibliography science) a complex of scientific disciplines or a complex discipline? In most cases, their union is limited to separate concepts that unite an established range of problems. This article aims to consider theoretical questions about the book and the bibliography as properties of living systems: what is their purpose, how do they “work” in the body, how do they arise in the course of evolution and how do they behave? Based on the achievements of neuroscience, first of all, on the research of Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences K. V. Anokhin and his colleagues, the author considers the book as an external cognitome. It is a complete, alienated system of subjective experience formed in an organism in the process of evolution, individual development and learning. In other words, the book is already in us, it is already “embedded” in the body. The author must not invent it, he must translate it. Therefore bibliography can be viewed as a superstructure over an external cognitome. This is a network over a network, i. e. a hypernet. The main general theory is the understanding of the mechanism of interaction of three elements: books (kniga in Russian – K) and (in Russian– I) a bibliography (bibliografiya in Russian – B) – these stands for KIB, where I (and) is the key element. The article considers the issues of reading as a challenge for the brain and thinking in the digital age. Particular attention is paid to “distant reading” (F. Moretti) by using Digital Humanities. F. Moretti's predecessor was the Russian researcher B. I. Yarkho (1889–1942). It concludes that the general theory of science about a book and bibliography should be based on three components: 1) understanding the mechanism of the relationship between a book as an external cognitome and bibliography as a hypertext (KIB); 2) exploring the study of close and distant reading in the digital age; 3) the formation of the foundations of the theory exact study of bibliography.

E. Husserl, Logic and general theory of science

E. Husserl, Logic and general theory of science

A New Globalization From the East

The development of mankind in the 21st century requires new changes in international relations and questions about the world order. Day after day, the destruction of the borders between the economy and political relations gives new impetus to globalization. In this article, it is planned, based on the examples of European, Soviet, and American globalization, to make a scientific examination of the Chinese model of globalization, which is the subject of hot discussions at present. New globalization from the East is not just a rumor; the People’s Republic of China is actually implementing it. At the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century, Chinese scientists began to search for the Chinese theory of international relations. If we take into account that the general theory of science can become a common value only when it is accepted by all mankind, it seems that some theories and scientific principles proposed by Chinese scientists are being asked for general use. In addition, Chinese globalization is combined not only from a scientific point of view, but also with global projects such as «One Belt – One Road».Key words: A new globalization, People’s Republic of China, Chinese dream, Xi Jinping, China’s International relation theory.

Husserl’s Noetics – Towards a Phenomenological Epistemology

ABSTRACTFor Husserl, noetics is the most fundamental science and the centrepiece of a phenomenological epistemology. Since in his major works Husserl does not develop noetics systematically but uses its main ideas and achievements often in apparent isolation without clarifying their systematic unity, the significance of noetics is often overlooked. Although Husserl has repeatedly stressed the importance of a phenomenological epistemology, what the concrete theses of such an undertaking are supposed to be often remains obscure. We shall see that the best way to clarify this is by providing a detailed account of Husserl’s noetics as it is developed in Husserl’s lecture courses “Introduction to Logic and Theory of Knowledge” (1906/07) and “Logic and General Theory of Science” (1917/18). This is the main aim of the present paper. We will shed light on the significance, systematic unity, and concrete theses of noetics. Furthermore, I shall show in what way the main theses of noetics are present in Husserl’s other works, even if the term noetics does not even occur. Finally, we will see that some basic ideas of Husserl’s noetics play an important role in current analytic epistemology and we will indicate how a phenomenological epistemology could enrich current debates.

Is there any hope for ‘truth’ and ‘progress’ in theological thinking today?

To provide the historical-theological background to his own intellectual pursuit of interdisciplinary theology, Wentzel van Huyssteen tells his story that was prompted in his student days at Stellenbosch by the then young, newly appointed lecturer Johan Heyns. It sprung from the basic understanding and confrontation with the question: How is theology to be understood as a science? The very question became Van Huyssteen’s most basic research question for his academic career, guided by the deep conviction that Heyns adamantly proclaimed, namely that the content and methodology of theology could never be deduced from ‘the truth of revelation’ itself, but would in fact always be shaped by ‘a general theory of science’. For Van Huyssteen, this conviction pointed directly to the tentative and hypothetical nature of all theology. It helped him to put into words what would eventually become the defining character of his own theology, namely seeing the intellectual context of theology as a deeply cultural and contextual venture in which the sciences, politics and philosophy would play a defining role. This role is explicated in the article by focusing firstly on the structure of theological solutions, secondly on interdisciplinarity as challenge, subsequently on continuity and change, and lastly on problem-solving within a post-foundationalist theology.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: A post-foundational approach argues for the interdisciplinary character of theology as science. The approach transcends traditional boundaries of theological, philosophical and social reflection, establishing an intellectual context of theology as a deeply cultural and contextual venture.

After Restoration Of The Bridge Linking Theory Science With The General Theory Of Knowledge: A Proposal For Linking Legal Epistemology The Right To Justice

After Restoration Of The Bridge Linking Theory Science With The General Theory Of Knowledge: A Proposal For Linking Legal Epistemology The Right To Justice

Consideraciones sobre una semiología de la ciencia

One of the main deficiencies of the twentieth century philosophy of science, in spite of evident achievements in the logical analysis and reconstruction of scientific theories, is the separation between formal sciences and those sciences with empirical contents. This distinction derives from Carnap and it was generally admitted by the Vienna Circle since the publication of “Formalwissenschaft und Realwissenschaft” in Erkenntnis in 1935. Later philosophy of science, in spite of other criticism of the neopositivist programme, has maintained this separation. It can be claimed that Realwissenschaften, physics in particular, have determined the development of later philosophy of science. Analyses of scientific theories most of the time refer to physical theories, and occasionally to biological ones. There is still a lot to be done in the field of mathematics and logic, in order to analyse and reconstruct their theories.
 But even if this task is undertaken, and some progress has been done lately, there is still a lot of work to do before a general theory of science can be proposed which transcends such a division between formal and empirical sciences, let alone the human or social sciences. This paper is intended as a contribution to supersede the first dichotomy between formal and physical sciences.
 One of the main problems in order to make some progress along these lines is that since its origins logical positivism had a deficient theory of knowledge, and the same happened with analytical philosophy developed immediately afterwards. This paper thus criticises examples of such a type of theory of knowledge, as expressed in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, and Russell’s Philosophy of Logical Atomism. The core argument is as follows: these theorizations are inadequate for scientific knowledge; this type of knowledge, particularly the notion of ‘sign’ cannot be adapted to the simple scheme proposed in those works.
 The criticism here undertaken is developed from a rationalist point of view, in a sense which is closer to Leibniz and Saussure, than to recent philosophers fascinated with the word ‘reason’. Some new proposals are put forward, necessarily provisional, which justify the term, which in turn could be perfectly substituted by another, of Semiology of Science.