Iryna Khomenko

The paper deals with the problem of the nature of logic and its normativity in the context of the normativity of scientific knowledge in general. We proceed from a division between fundamental aspects of scientific knowledge which are related to the nature and subject matter of particular sciences, and its applied aspects which are related to the possible applications of sciences. This division fully applies to logic. The authors note that if we view logic as a completely objective discipline, devoid of any "anthropological basis", then the only rational alternative to anti-realist approaches is an ontological (realistic) strategy to justify the logical ones that seek to justify a certain kind of being. To do this, it is necessary to abandon the normative interpretation of logical evaluations and logical systems. Logic can gain a true ontological foundation, based on the devoid of the normative color of understanding logical evaluations as a particular kind of object. Logic has both a deductive core, and various applied disciplines, modern informal logic among them. While formal deductive logic is concentrated on the systems of abstract logical entities (objects) such as truth values and logical functions, the main task of informal logic consist in studying a real argument, which people apply in communicative processes, by elaborating certain standards, criteria and procedures for their interpretation and evaluation. No science can be normative in its basic (fundamental) aspects, and so is logic. Nevertheless, any science is in some degree normative with respect to its applied aspects, and informal logic perfectly illustrates this in view of a normative evolving of applied systems of the modern theories of argumentation. In addition to denying the normativity of formal deductive logic as a fundamental theoretical discipline, the authors of this article demonstrate the fundamental possibility of normative measurement of logical knowledge, in particular in the applied aspect of the development of modern informal logic.

Nowadays researchers working in various fields study the issues of argument. They represent different approaches which distinguish with theoretical and practical comprehension of argument problems. Informal study of argument is one of the approaches. The key reason of its appearance was the criticism of formal logic in the late 20th century. Researchers consider the argument from the different point of view. Formal dialectics and pragma-dialectics were based on dialectics. Contemporary rhetorical theories of argument were created on the rhetorical grounds; theory of speech acts on the basis of practical philosophy etc.. This paper is devoted to some theoretical problems of informal logic which was formed on the logic background in the late 70’s. In spite of numerous papers, books, and text-books on informal logic published over the last thirty years, logicians has not achieved consensus so far on many issues. Among the numerous problems are: what is the subject matter of informal logic? Does informal logic belong to the realm of logic? Is it applied epistemology? What is a real argument? And what are the criteria for evaluating of such arguments?

One of the important goals of the philosophy of cosmology is to study the meaningful historical works of Aristotle, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, and others. From viewpoint of the history of cosmology, these texts are important not only as examples of understandings of the universe but also because they can be considered as leading historical illustrations of original approaches to the question of scientific rationality and types of scientific controversies. Like many other classic scientifical texts, they are multidimensional works. It can be distinguished many focus points which the books may be explored (history, science, philosophy, literature, and others). In this paper, I consider the possibility of reading the texts concerning the important cosmological issues from the point of argumentative view. In this regard, the key tasks of my research are (1) to explore the central characteristics of the argumentation dimension and (2) to consider some methodological tools that will be useful for scholars studying outstanding historical books from the field of philosophy of cosmology.

Cosmology is often viewed as the study of the physical universe. However, it does not mean that the issues of philosophy of cosmology relate only to research fields of physics, astronomy, astrophysics, and mathematics. It should be noted that cosmology explores the physical situation in the large context of human existence. In global times, new issues arise in the field of philosophical cosmology. How is the human mind changing with the improvement of human knowledge about the universe? What knowledge and skills should have a person of the future? Is it possible to create a universal human community, members of which will explore space, fly and live beyond the Earth? Can people of various cultures communicate with each other within this community? For the answers, scholars should conduct theoretical as well as empirical research. In this context, I have turned to current cross-cultural studies of communication, in which researchers explore how people from various cultural perspectives establish a dialogue in global times and what challenges they face. In the paper, I focus on the international project of comparing arguing in various countries across the globe. In my mind, its findings are important for two reasons: a substantial and a methodological one. I pay particular attention to the latter.

Cosmology is often viewed as the study of the physical universe. However, it does not mean that the issues of philosophy of cosmology relate only to research fields of physics, astronomy, astrophysics, and mathematics. It should be noted that cosmology explores the physical situation in the large context of human existence. In global times, new issues arise in the field of philosophical cosmology. How is the human mind changing with the improvement of human knowledge about the universe? What knowledge and skills should have a person of the future? Is it possible to create a universal human community, members of which will explore space, fly and live beyond the Earth? Can people of various cultures communicate with each other within this community? For the answers, scholars should conduct theoretical as well as empirical research. In this context, I have turned to current cross-cultural studies of communication, in which researchers explore how people from various cultural perspectives establish a dialogue in global times and what challenges they face. In the paper, I focus on the international project of comparing arguing in various countries across the globe. In my mind, its findings are important for two reasons: a substantial and a methodological one. I pay particular attention to the latter.