Diagnostics is becoming one of the most important kinds of epistemic practice: accurate and timely diagnosis is necessary not only for ill people, but for economic, social and political systems and institutions, culture, science, technology, and ecosystems. The analysis of researches into diversity of diagnostics used in various branches enabled the author to develop the outline of the philosophical theory of diagnostics, to identify its subject matter and problems, to name the categories and principles of the epistemological and methodological analysis (...) of diagnostics activities, and to characterize its essential components. Diagnostics is defined as the process of developing cognitive perception of the object being investigated (sought for) and identifying it with existing knowledge of the object (orobjects of the same type). Diagnostics has the following constituents: a) determining something known and constant in the unknown and inconstant; b) identifying the single and occurent with the “ready-made” classification schemes and explanatory patterns, i.e. identifying it with the common and consistent; associating new facts with the known, common and consistent by applying well-tried methods, algorithms and technologies. The author identifies two levels of diagnostics: factual (empirical) and discursive. Discourse is defined as a finite course of reasoning based on a common concept. Reasoning is defined as the search for an answer to a cognitively significant question through drawing a conclusion (making a deduction). The author also analyses the role of argumentative, interpretative (explanatory), qualifying and predictive reasoning in the diagnostic thinking. The specific character of the diagnostic search is determined by an all-important role played in its process by a priori normative (paradigmatic) knowledge, as well as by its orientation to the cognition of the single and individual. The article alsotouches upon the issue of relationship between diagnostics and research investigation. This enables the author to specify the nature of scientific work and identify the correlation of existing knowledge and innovations. (shrink)

In his later work, Metafizicheskie predpolozheniia poznaniia. Opyt preodoleniia Kanta i kantianstva [Metaphysical Presuppositions of Knowledge. An Attempt to Overcome Kant and Kantianism], Evgeny N. Trubetskoy tried to overcome the Kantian tradition in philosophy in order to advance his conception of all-unity and the philosophy of absolute and unconditional consciousness. Despite insisting on the distinction between the “historical Kant” and Neo-Kantianism, in reality Trubetskoy was strongly dependent on the Neo-Kantian interpretation of Kant’s philosophy, which meant that his fight against Kantian (...) philosophy was really fought against a conception of Kant he unconsciously adopted from the Neo-Kantians. Evidence of this can be seen in his interpretation of the theory of knowledge and its tasks, his thesis concerning the antimetaphysical direction of Kantian philosophy, and his insistence on the presence of the transcendental method in Kant’s philosophy. (shrink)

In this note we study several topics related to the schema of local reflection \\) and its partial and relativized variants. Firstly, we introduce the principle of uniform reflection with \-definable parameters, establish its relationship with relativized local reflection principles and corresponding versions of induction with definable parameters. Using this schema we give a new model-theoretic proof of the \-conservativity of uniform \-reflection over relativized local \-reflection. We also study the proof-theoretic strength of Feferman’s theorem, i.e., the assertion of 1-provability (...) in S of the local reflection schema \\), and its generalized versions. We relate this assertion to the uniform \-reflection schema and, in particular, obtain an alternative axiomatization of \. (shrink)

Phylogenetic systematics is one of the most important analytical frameworks of modern Biology. It seems to be common knowledge that within phylogenetics, ‘groups’ must be defined based solely on the synapomorphies or on the “derived” characters that unite two or more taxa in a clade or monophyletic group. Thus, the idea of synapomorphy seems to be of fundamental influence and importance. Here I will show that the most common and straightforward understanding of synapomorphy as a shared derived character is not (...) sufficient and eventually must be rejected in favor of Nelson’s relational interpretation of such term. Arguing for this point and using three examples from previously published Apes’ genomic matrices, I explicitly demonstrate that the relationship )) with Hylobatidae as a sister taxon, may be successfully recovered by three-taxon statement analysis and three-taxon statement average consensus analysis even if all of the evident standard shared derived molecular characters of the relationship )) with Hylobatidae as a sister taxon, have been excluded from the molecular alignments. Neither conventional Maximum Parsimony nor Maximum Likelihood or Bayesian Inference can do this in such situation. Thus, our results show that the relationship )) with Hylobatidae as a sister taxon has appeared, in some way, behind standard shared derived characters: the last ones could be excluded, but the relationship remains the same. (shrink)

In their article, A.M. Dorozhkin and S.V. Shibarshina focus on the concepts of problem, task, and features of a creative personality as a single isolated agent. To a certain extent, such view is “opposed” by the socio-epistemic approach, since today it is extremely difficult to consider a person outside the socio-cultural context. In my paper, I discuss the distinctive features of the concepts of tasks and problems in connection with the fields of science and education. As an example of a (...) kind of creative adaptation practice, to which modern scientists are forced to resort (taking into account difficult socio-economic realities), I consider “tayloring” – a type of activity of “creative” written justification of the importance and usefulness of basic research (J. Calvert). The collective and institutional aspects of modern science, which play a role in the possible limitation of the process of generating new (creative) ideas in science, are discussed (P. Stanford). I agree with A.M. Dorozhkin and S.V. Shibarshina, that the method of epistemological randomization is most specific for the field of philosophy. Following C. Rovelli, it is emphasized that philosophy can serve as an important “creative resource” for scientific activity. (shrink)

"Full of vitality as well as profundity, and resonating with something I can only term friendship, these meditations / memoirs belong to the great tradition of metaphysical prose, alongside the works of Nietzsche, Shklovsky, Kierkegaard,...

The discussion is devoted to the notion of context and its use in connection to the notion of interdisciplinarity. These two notions are claimed to be crucial for understanding how “naturalization of social epistemology” can be possible and whether it can be exhausted by an interpretation of knowledge in social context and whether it has its own philosophical importance. These questions were initially raised in the works of I.Kasavin.

Leibniz’s philosophy enjoyed a Russian fandom that endured from the eighteenth century to the death of the last exiled Russian philosophers in the twentieth century. There was, to begin with, Leibniz’s direct impact on Peter the Great and on the scientific development of Saint Petersburg. Then there was, still in the eighteenth century, Mikhail Lomonosov, who was sent to study with Christian Wolff in Marburg, and who came back to Saint Petersburg with a watered-down Leibnizian worldview, which he applied to (...) the study of chemistry and physics. Another eighteenth century philosopher, Alexander Radishchev, who studied in Leipzig, displayed acquiescence with a number of key elements from Leibniz’s philosophy. Russian Lebnizianism as a continuous philosophical movement was considerably reinvigorated in the 1870s when the Leibnizian German philosopher Gustav Teichmüller took a position at the University of Dorpat (nowadays Tartu, Estonia), which was then located within the Russian Empire. Teichmüller influenced a number of Russian philosophers into adopting a “Teichmüllerian” version of Leibnizianism. Among these philosophers were Evgeny Bobrov and Alexei Kozlov. In Saint Petersburg, Kozlov influenced his own son, Askoldov, and the latter’s friend — Nikolai Lossky. In the meanwhile, in Moscow Lev Lopatin, Nikolai Bugaev, and Petr Astafiev developed their own Leibnizianism in seemingly relative independence from Teichmüller’s influence and presumably, in some cases, under the partial influence of Vladimir Solovyov. Despite this relative independence, however, the fact remains that there was in late nineteenth and early twentieth century Russia a network of more or less loosely interconnected Leibnizian philosophers who read each other and wrote about each other, who exchanged ideas, and who constituted a movement that we might characterize as “Russian Leibnizianism” or “Russian Neo-Leibnizianism.” In this chapter, I tell the story of the intellectual lineage of Russian Leibnizianism. (shrink)

This is the first book to explore the cognitive science of effortless attention and action. Attention and action are generally understood to require effort, and the expectation is that under normal circumstances effort increases to meet rising demand. Sometimes, however, attention and action seem to flow effortlessly despite high demand. Effortless attention and action have been documented across a range of normal activities--from rock climbing to chess playing--and yet fundamental questions about the cognitive science of effortlessness have gone largely unasked. (...) -/- This book draws from the disciplines of cognitive psychology, neurophysiology, behavioral psychology, genetics, philosophy, and cross-cultural studies. Starting from the premise that the phenomena of effortless attention and action provide an opportunity to test current models of attention and action, leading researchers from around the world examine topics including effort as a cognitive resource, the role of effort in decision making, the neurophysiology of effortless attention and action, the role of automaticity in effortless action, expert performance in effortless action, and the neurophysiology and benefits of attentional training. -/- Contributors: Joshua M. Ackerman, James H. Austin, John A. Bargh, Roy F. Baumeister, Sian L. Beilock, Chris Blais, Matthew M. Botvinick, Brian Bruya, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Marci S. DeCaro, Arne Dietrich, Yuri Dormashev, László Harmat, Bernhard Hommel, Rebecca Lewthwaite, Örjan de Manzano, Joseph T. McGuire, Brian P. Meier, Arlen C. Moller, Jeanne Nakamura, Evgeny N. Osin, Michael I. Posner, Mary K. Rothbart, M. R. Rueda, Brandon J. Schmeichel, Edward Slingerland, Oliver Stoll, Yiyuan Tang, Töres Theorell, Fredrik Ullén, Robert D. Wall, Gabriele Wulf. (shrink)

Hilbert-style axiomatic systems are presented for versions of the modal logics K, where {D, 4, 5}, with noncontingency as the sole modal primitive. The classes of frames characterized by the axioms of these systems are shown to be first-order definable, though not equal to the classes of serial, transitive, or euclidean frames. The canonical frame of the noncontingency logic of any logic containing the seriality axiom is proved to be nonserial. It is also shown that any class of frames definable (...) in the noncontingency language contains the class of functional frames, and dually, there exists a greatest consistent normal noncontingency logic. (shrink)

A peculiarity of early medieval geometrical texts was that alongside Euclid's Elements they transmitted remnants of the corpus of Roman land surveyors and metaphysical digressions extraneous to geometry proper. Rather than dismissing these additions as irrelevant, this essay attempts to elucidate the cultural grounds for the indiscriminate mixture of the three disciplines -- geometry, surveying, and metaphysics. Inquiry into the broader context of early medieval culture suggests that neither geometry nor surveying was treated as an independent discipline. Texts on geometry (...) and surveying were studied mainly because they were thought to provide good opportunities for enlarging the scope of meditation on spiritual subjects. Accordingly, the main concern of this essay is to show how Christian symbolism influenced both the composition and the study of geometrical texts. The essay is based on a wide range of sources: treatises on geometry and surveying, pictorial representations of Creation, and philosophical literature in which geometry was used in arguments about ontological doctrines. (shrink)

This paper analyzes the creative interaction between Ivan Bunin and Lev Shestov. After providing constructive feedback on observations and reflections from the preceding scholarly literature on the subject the author argues that the main point of convergence between the writer and the philosopher is their works on Leo Tolstoy. The study includes a textual analysis of the elements of Shestovian discourse that were discovered in Bunin’s essay The Liberation of Tolstoy. The author argues that the ending of The Liberation of (...) Tolstoy can be understood only in the context of existentialist discourse. Bunin's objections to the Shestov's view of Chekhov’s creative work have been studied in detail. In general, Bunin does not appear to be a “disciple” of Shestov, as he is engaged in a philosophical dialogue with him on equal terms. Existentialism is the closest philosophical tradition to Bunin’s thought than any others that arose in the twentieth century. (shrink)