Valentin Bazhanov

This article highlights a key epistemological dilemma in modern medicine: the conflict between objectivity and subjectivity. The analysis reveals a constitutive epistemological dualism in medical practice: it must simultaneously address objectively verifiable pathologies and the subjective reality of disease, which itself becomes an objective factor determining the patient’s quality of life. The author offers some criticism of the evidence-based medicine paradigm for its prioritization of population-based, averaged “gold standards” that ignore the uniqueness of the patient. On the other hand, the epistemological turn toward personalized (precision) medicine is assessed as an attempt to integrate individual biological and personal traits into clinical reasoning. The article explores the epistemological implications of cognitive biases in clinical judgment, the commercialization of medicine, and publication biases as systemic factors distorting epistemic processes. Oncology serves as a focal case for applied medical epistemology, as it embodies the fundamental dichotomies of the discipline. Ultimately, it is argued that the essence of medicine is integrative and requires constant epistemological considerations. Its scientific rigor must be harmonized with a hermeneutic understanding of the individual patient, recognizing that effective practice is rooted in the dynamic interaction between objective data, clinical experience, and philosophical reflexion on the concepts of health, illness, and evidence.

The article aims to discuss the problem of applicability of quantum-mechanical concepts to the analysis of the mechanisms of brain and the nature of consciousness. Are these tools sufficient and adequate to solve this problem? We claim that despite numerous attempts made in this direction it is difficult to speak about any significant progress. Although the intersection and active interaction between quantum theory and neuroscience forms a kind of “zone of exchange”, allowing us to claim the formation of “quantum neurophysics”, physicalism and reductionism, actually imposed by quantum mechanics, allow us to discuss the nonlocality of neural networks only by analogy with quantum nonlocality. This discussion actually do not touch the underlying machinery of the functionality of these networks, including the processes of their synchronization. Although J. Fodor’s concept of modularity in the context of holism philosophy and ideas of biocultural co-constructivism lead to the idea that it is possible to apply N. Bohr’s complementarity to comprehension of brain functions, but in reality the presence of quantum effects at the level of brain as an integral system is not so obvious. The expression of thought in a word, which means the transformation of a continuous spectrum into a discrete one, only superficially resembles the process of wave function reduction. We can conclude that the boundaries of applicability of quantum-mechanical representations pass through the conceptual space, which does not capture to advance extent the essential features of neither brain, nor consciousness.

This paper assesses, from a philosophical point of view, the latest cultural neuroscience results that suggest the traditional interpretation of subject of cognition be essentially reconstructed. We must move from a universalistic interpretation of cognitive process (mostly manifested in a classical Kantian transcendentalism) to an interpretation taking into explicit account the socio-cultural context of the subject’s activity, as well as often its biological nature. The principle of cultural and cognitive neurobiological determination of knowledge acquisition is proposed. We claim that subject of cognition is fixed in the historical and cultural context and it neurobiologically determined, and thus classical Kantian transcendentalism should be reconsidered in light of recent neuroscience research.

The article explores the genesis and nature of number from the perspective of psychologism, an epistemological trend. It formulates a series of questions aimed at reexamining our understanding of number: What is the mode of existence of number? In what forms or formations does number exist, and what reality serves as its natural “carrier”? Is it justified, following realism, to regard number as an entity independent of human beings? What reasoning challenges the human-independent status of number – a stance embraced by many successful mathematicians – given that this status overlooks key questions about the nature of number? To what extent can it be argued that the phenomenon of number is shaped, among other factors, by the mental and bodily organization of humans, as well as by the cultural characteristics of society? The article draws on recent research in cultural and social neuroscience, which supports the relevance of psychologism as a framework for addressing many questions in the philosophy of mathematics. It also engages with Ian Hacking’s idea of “making up reality” to further illuminate the discussion. Ultimately, the nature and origin of number are defined as abstract mental constructions arising from human cognitive activity. These constructions emerge and are effectively utilized through the interaction and representational procedures of diverse elements and traits within a given cognitive system.

The impact of social factors upon the philosophical investigations in a broad sense is quite evident. Nevertheless their impact upon epistemology as a branch of philosophy, logic, and history of science as fields of research with noticeable philosophical content is not evident enough. We are keen to claim that this impact exists within some limits, although it is not so overtly evident. Moreover in the case of Marxism it is of a paradoxical nature. Marxism always puts the accent on the role of social and economic factors in the development, development of science included. To a large extent due to Marxism, externalism emerged; the key idea of externalism may be expressed through the statement that social and economic reasons are the main sources of development of science. B.M. Hessen declared and did his best in 1931 to justify this statement through the example of the emergence of classical mechanics. Meanwhile the social milieu of Marxist countries placed a taboo on the externalist approach towards epistemology, the interpretation of logic, and history of science. All these fields of knowledge were evolved in the Marxist era in the USSR and Eastern Europe - despite the spirit of Marxism - within strict internalist boarders. We offer the explanation of this contradiction.

The article examines the main ideological content of the work of the community of scientists and philosophers, which entered the history of philosophy under the name “The Vienna Circle”. Representatives of this association viewed their main methodological task in the logical analysis of the language of science in order to eliminate metaphysical – pseudoscientific – concepts. They investigated the structure of scientific theories, the functions of the theory – explanation and prediction, the processes of justification, confirmation and refutation of theories. Their results were widely recognized, set down essential influence on scientific problems as well as style of philosophical and academic studies, and are still included in textbooks on the philosophy of science. The members of the Vienna Circle created the first holistic concept of science, which gave impetus to subsequent developments in the philosophy of science and served as example for the construction of similar concepts. The socio-ideological prerequisite of this philosophical movement was the task of creating a new scientific view of the world, opposing philosophical pessimism and anti-scientism. This worldview, however, was not naive-scientististic, but presented a synthetic project at the intersection of natural science, philosophy, art and social pedagogy.

Argument The life and work of the Russian scholar Ivan E. Orlov (September 1, 1886 – October 13, 1936) is described here in detail for the first time. Orlov is well known as one of the pioneers of relevant logic, but he was also interested in a wide variety of other topics including philosophy, chemistry, and music theory. This article shows that the sociopolitical climate of the1920s and 1930s exerted a significant influence on the style and content of Orlov's work. It theorizes that this climate determined to a considerable degree the evolution of Orlov's interests and also his fate. The Wolfhound Era hurls itself against my shoulders, But I am not by nature a wolf. Osip Mandel'shtam (1931)

Phenomenon of transdisciplinarity was put into the fore of analysis rather recently. In the article an attempt is made to find out whether it is possible to attribute this phenomenon not only to a science of the 21st century, or we have here the case where some scientific realities come to the attention of researchers with certain delay and has its value for the culture in general? It is possible to judge even the emergence of a kind of cognitive revolution affecting both science culture. We need to find out what is meant by a transdisciplinarity, and how it differs from the inter- or multiransdisciplinarity. In the study the method of historical reconstruction, combining elements of presentism and antiqurism, was implemented. This method allows us to interpret historical events in the context of a specific level of knowledge, and at the same time to evaluate them in terms of modern ideas related to transdisciplinarity, inter- and multidisciplinarity. System-structural method, focused on an integrated analysis of the dynamics of development of cognitive processes in culture was implied as well, and the method of comparative analysis, which is aimed at comparing different but conceptually similar processes in various areas of conceptual art practice. It is in the framework of paradigm adopted a tacit agreement among scientists about the validity and effectiveness of research methods and techniques of inquiry. Within the paradigm, which presupposes certain fundamental principles, goals, and certain values shared by the scientific community, the novel sprouts of radical ideas once emerge. The scientific revolution here means a radical revision of the admissibility of accepted and proven methods, goals and values that are common to the members of the scientific community. Typically, new theories and concepts proposed and already mastered new scientific community, which is gradually replacing its representatives on the key command altitudes. The kernel of scientific community in fact is a style of thinking that is emerged in the context of a particular discipline, and then experience expansion in the form of discursive practices at a wide space of science and culture due to the novel cognitive schemes open the way to synthesize various research domains into a certain integrity. There is no question of the scientific revolution in the sense of Kuhn, since any significant goals and values of the scientific communities are not affected. Nevertheless, in some sense cognitive revolution taking place, the revolution of transdisciplinary type. The adoption of a new style of scientific thinking often gives rise to new types of objects and directions of cognitive activity, a new type of explanation that require new types of research proposals and cultural activities. Thus, the main idea of this article is that along with the Kuhn type scientific revolutions, transdisciplinary type scientific revolutions are conceivable, and even transdisciplinary cognitive types. This revolutions manifests in a change in style of reasoning, and it results in the expansion of this style to wide space of science and culture through the cognitive schemes and techniques, which enables to synthesize research and art activity in some integrity. Adoption of a new way of reasoning and the transition to new discursive practices generates new types of research facilities, new mechanisms of explanation, new cultural blueprints and instruments. Cognitive activity, based on a new style of thinking, involves multidisciplinarity, formation of new scientific and cultural institutions, and, therefore, causes a noticeable social change. Based on an analysis of interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary processes in modern science and culture the authors claim that it is namely transdisciplinarity would determine the face of science and culture in the medium term, and will form the basis for the convergence of science, technology, art, and consciousness studies in general.

An article by T. Rockmore, published in the journal “Epistemology and Philosophy of Science” in 2009 (Vol. XXII. No. 4, pp. 14‒29), claim that naturalism is by its nature an example of anti-Kantianism, for it treats philosophy as a continuation science and recognizes science as a legitimate source of knowledge, does not allow a priori, relies on an a posteriori approach, empiricism in the pre-Kantian sense, and insists on the possibility of revising the knowledge acquired. This article has a goal to show that T. Rockmore point of view should be revised due to the progress of modern cognitive research and, first of all, neuroscience, in which all the features of the naturalistic approach are implemented and in which the “Kantian program” of brain research is developed. In the context of this program, the existence on the ontological level (i.e., in the brain) of certain neural structures that make it possible and play a crucial role in the cognitive activity of a person is recognized. Those concepts that Kant treated as components of cognitive activity in modern neuroscience acquired ontological status in the form of the activity of certain neural structures, which turn out to be prerequisites and components of this activity. We claim that in the context of the Kantian research program in neuroscience, the metaphor “Kantian brain” naturally entered the vocabulary of neuroscientists, and certain specific operations and functions of the brain began to be associated with individual elements of Kant's ideas. It is in this context attempts are made to comprehend the mechanisms of the brain in the “stimulus – activity” mode, when an external effect leads to the excitation of certain neural structures. The brain is capable to anticipate the long-term results of certain actions of the subject. In the case of foresight, the brain generates “internal” models and uses for their correction external data that constantly provided from reality across the subject. At the same time, some kind of self-correcting mechanisms implements, which from a formal point of view described by the Bayes theorem, using a priori evaluations of upcoming events and changes in these evaluations as result of experience. Thus, naturalism and Kantianism understood in the context of the progress of modern science, despite T. Rockmore idea, are completely compatible.

. In the XIXth century there was a persistent opposition to Aristotelian logic. Nicolai A. Vasiliev (1880–1940) noted this opposition and stressed that the way for the novel – non-Aristotelian – logic was already paved. He made an attempt to construct non-Aristotelian logic (1910) within, so to speak, the form (but not in the spirit) of the Aristotelian paradigm (mode of reasoning). What reasons forced him to reassess the status of particular propositions and to replace the square of opposition by the triangle of opposition? What arguments did Vasiliev use for the introduction of new classes of propositions and statement of existence of various levels in logic? What was the meaning and role of the “method of Lobachevsky” which was implemented in construction of imaginary logic? Why did psychologism in the case of Vasiliev happen to be an important factor in the composition of the new ‘imaginary’ logic, as he called it?

This is a review of the book: Sheehan H. Marxism and the Philosophy of Science. A Critical History. The First Hundred Years. (L.: Verso, 2017. XII. 450 p.). The keynote of the book serves the conviction that Marxism is a sort of “super-theory” that can explain not only any social and political life, but also profound philosophy of science, including natural science. Science is presented in the book as a form of social practice. The main idea of the Marxist philosophy of science is the status of the theory of dialectical materialism. The author shows that Marxist ideas could be considered as the origins of many disciplines: the sociology of science, the history of science, the history of technology; they had a noticeable effect on non-Marxist thought as well. However, Stalinism and Lysenkoism significantly decelerated the development of the Marxist philosophy of science.

This is review of the book: M. Dafermos. Rethinking Cultural-Historical Theory. A Dialectical Perspective to Vygotsky. (Springer: Singapore, 2018. IX, 309 P. ISBN 978‒981‒13‒0190‒2. Doi: 10.1007/978‒981‒13‒0191‒9). The book is devoted to the making of the cultural-historical approach in psychology in the works of Vygotsky. The author claim that Vygotsky, relying on the ideas of Spinoza, Hegel, Feuerbach and Marx, developed this approach by mastering the dialectical method in his Hegel-Marxist version. The atmosphere of the storm and the onslaught in the social and cultural life of the 1920s – early 1930s contributed to the formation of Vygotsky as a thinker with broad interests and deep philosophical background, who experienced several crises in his intellectual development. These crises forced him to qualitatively revise his ideas and, thus, substantially deepen and improve them. The author shows that Vygotsky’s literary origins allow his life compare with a drama, which accompanied by drama and the proliferation of ideas. This, in particular, expressed in his criticism of Gestalt psychology, theory of J. Piaget, ultimately a divergence of views with a number of his students who created Kharkov psychological school. Vygotsky left a great scientific legacy, which includes an analysis from the standpoint of the cultural-historical approach of the nature of consciousness, the relationship between thinking and language, the evolution of personality, a multitude of other psychological problems and art.

Author discusses the specifics of the orthodox Marxist-Leninist philosophical principles in the context of ideological pressure in 1970–1980 s. He analyzes the concepts and approaches that have given rise to some new Post-Marxist ideas. He shows that the revision of the orthodox Marxism was possible exclusively due do the delicate usage of Marxist-Leninist conceptual background. He claims that it was necessary to in order to avoid accusations in revisionism and popularization of ideologically alien views. The author pays special attention to activity approach, which was represented in the works by I.S. Alexeev and M.A. Rozov. He argues that the development of this approach was one of the most significant achievements of non-orthodox Marxism in the Soviet era.

The paper presents an attempt to reassess from the philosophical standpoint the latest social and cultural neuroscience results. These results enables to put forward the idea that traditional comprehension of subject of cognition interpretation should be reconstruct radically. We must move from its universalistic interpretation mostly manifested in transcendentalism to interpretation explicitly taking into account socio-culturalcontext of subject's activity, and sometimes its biological background.

The article deals with the dramatic opposition of psychologism and anti-psychologism. Due to the evident success of classical branches of mathematical logic in XX century psychologism was eliminated for its conceptual insufficiency. However, nonclassical logics and recent neuroscience vigorous development have contributed to the renaissance of psychologism. Author makes an attempt to analyze the reasons for the revival of psychologism and some prospects for keeping its leading position among the other modern cognitive science conceptions. Author claims that the revival of psychologism is closely connected with current neuropsychological studies. The ontogenetic mechanisms of acquisition of socio-cultural experiences by defining the general principles of the construction and configuration of neural circuits of the brain are responsible for the shaping of psychological organization and the nature of the cognitive activity. An analysis of the epigenetic landscape of different people and cultures makes it possible to use the notion of social psychologism. This notion is aimed to reflect some cognitive qualities in their connection with the epigenetic features of certain social communities.