The article shows that Russian philosophical community is very sensitive towards the history and the current state of philosophy of science and of science studies, which are a subject matter of special interest by virtue of a dedicated space in the university education system. This status is also supported by its proximity to the international philosophical mainstream of the 20th century and its specific object, its connection with science. Philosophy of science at the same time retains some neutrality in relation (...) to the dominant political ideology and proposes claims for an objective knowledge. History of philosophy of science, therefore, serves largely as a history of philosophical rationalism, and its prospects are determined by the strengthening of the role of science in modern culture. However, the modern existence of philosophy of science is undergoing substantial change and experiences a series of challenges. Among them there are the humiliation of intellectuals and scientists in society political voluntarism, mass consumption and the cult of mysticism. Under these conditions, a philosophical study of science and technology is forced to take on the challenges of social criticism and shape special civil institutions for self-preservation. Thus philosophy of science integrates the political, ethical and even social engineering components that allow for treating it as a hard core of interdisciplinary interaction of all socio-humanitarian disciplines. (shrink)

All speculations on «the meaning of history» are argued to exceed the epistemological capacities of historical science. Nevertheless, the author argues, such speculations are significant for a philosophy which treats historical development as a real phenomenon. For many philosophies of this sort, freedom of a human-being is the main goal of the historical process. The author notes that such «historical optimism» is in conflict historical practice. And he argues that it can be dangerous if transformed into a slogan.

В статье обсуждаются подходы к проблеме методологического плюрализма в психологии. Вместо иерархии «уровней объяснения», принципиально редуцируемых к некоему фундаментальному уровню, предложена идея «топологической системы» объяснений, взаимосвязанных так, что экспериментальное опровержение какой-то объясняющей гипотезы затрагивает не только эту гипотезу (шире: не только систему теоретических взглядов, в рамках которой эта гипотеза выдвинута), но весь или почти весь комплекс научнопсихологических объяснений, который не мог бы оставаться индифферентным к такому опровержению. Психология, сохраняя свой методологический плюрализм, стала бы дисциплинарным организмом с единой «нервной системой», реагирующей (...) на результаты эмпирических исследований. (shrink)