Max Weber analyzes the science of the Modern Period. The revolution in physics at the beginning of the 20th century, the creation of quantum mechanics bring to the fore another type of scientific thinking. It is important to note that past knowledge in this case is not refuted, not destroyed, it becomes marginal and enters into communication with its competitor. It is this type of communication with Weber’s philosophy of scientific thinking that helps us to understand its specificity. According to (...) Weber, new knowledge is derived from the previous one, refuting its truth. On this basis, Weber writes that science is different from the art, where the created works retain their significance regardless of the time when they were created. For modern science the predecessor is necessary as another, without which not any communication is possible. Classical science, about which Weber writes, is necessary and continues to function. Satisfying the reemerging needs of society, it can detect previously hidden possibilities and, at the same time, encourage new scientific thinking to strengthen its position.The concept of revolution disappears gradually from the works on science. Instead, sociological concepts such as an innovation center or a technopark that combine simultaneously changes in the logic of knowledge and in the technical equipment of society are becoming popular. Logical and social characteristics of science are combined, the boundary between them becomes less noticeable. If in the era of classics the artificial world surrounding man was built on the basis of the laws of nature, now it is being created on the basis of the laws of thinking. For Weber, this world was silent and dead, this is what classical science testified to. Now the world around us is endowed with artificial intelligence, and we must be able to communicate with it. To understand Weber, it is necessary to establish contact with the world of classics, and not to try to destroy it and to declare it worthless. (shrink)

The article discusses the differences between the classical logic of science (17th-20th centuries) and non-classical logic (20th century). While classical logic is based on the general properties of the objects studied, non-classical logic is based on the special, individual. The classical logic singled out in the studied objects their common properties that united them and ensured their independence of human. The scientist and his social connections are volatile and cannot serve as a stable basis for obtaining the only possible true (...) result during examination of particular object. At the same time, it was not taken into account that scientists themselves endowed nature with this property of independence. It would be more correct to say that scientist distinguished from all properties of reality precisely these properties as the most convenient for constructing a logical system that explains the entire surrounding world. All other properties were ignored. In the 20th century attention was shifted to the properties of objects and events that determine their identity, which means their ability to communicate. After all, for a communication at least two interlocutors are needed who differ from each other. Each of them has its own origin, which is formed by the context. At the origin of the formation of knowledge there is still no division between subject and object. The surgeon works with his hands guided by his theoretical knowledge. When he encou difficulty, he can modify the theory, thus solving the practical problem that has arisen. In the structure of science, knowledge is embedded in this form, without division between man and the surrounding world. However this last division remains only possible but not essential for logic. The main problem that needs to be further seriously considered is to understand how the social is included in the philosophy of science. (shrink)

In Russia, works on the philosophy of scientific knowledge formed the basis of science studies. In the West, the priority in the discussion regarding science studies was given to sociology. Over time, the problematic of the philosophical and sociological trends moved closer and the border between them shifted. As a result, understanding the role of science in society has changed substantially. Accordingly, there is a fundamental change both in the subject matter of epistemological investigations and in epistemological concepts.

Recognizing the necessary social aspects of scientific knowledge leads to a serious shift in the analysis of science. Whereas until recently the study of scientific knowledge in terms of its social qualities began with its logical structure, today the primary focuses of analysis are the human brain, the material carrier of computer programs, the economic relations in the society of commodity production, and so forth. All of this is not science, but is involved in the production of new knowledge. The (...) boundary between the spiritual and the material, between the scientific and nonscientific is blurred. To study this phenomenon, the vector of research shifts: social qualities are not sought in scientific knowledge, but the external world of non-science exhibits signs of the presence of the spiritual in the form of emerging scientific knowledge. (shrink)