The article deals with Kant's Copernican Revolution as an object of philosophical retrospection. It is suggested that Kant's Copernican Revolution can be understood in terms of the conditions of its possibility within the framework of a regressive transcendental argument. The regressive transcendental argument is equated with the universal philosophical method, which is circular in nature: starting with the facts of experience, it concludes about the necessary conditions for the possibility of a given experience and compares these conditions of possibility with (...) what is given in experience. It is shown that in the framework of such an approach, falsification of the initial premises of the Kantian project becomes inevitable. It is shown that the character of this falsification is essentially dialectical. By falsifying the transcendental project of the “Copernican revolution” as a whole, we question the “once and for all” boundary drawn by Kant between the epistemological premises (“idealism”) and ontological foundations (“realism”). (shrink)

The author replies and comments on the critical remarks and ideas expressed by her opponents concerning the principle of reflexivity and its philosophical realization. The general idea of the opponents that philosophical reflection, even if addressed to itself, cannot ignore the results of empirical sciences, is highlighted.

This paper analyzes the two modes of historical approach to science which L.V. Shipovalova puts as “unproblematic” and “ruthless”. First, it is shown that epistemology inevitably becomes historical when it addresses itself to science, because a historical approach meets the demands of the subject (science). Second, it is shown that the relationship between “unproblematic” and “ruthless” historicisms can be considered as the relationship between “identity” and “difference” as this relationship is presented in Émile Meyerson’s doctrine of ontological history of science.

The paper provides a commentary on B.G. Yudin's paper devoted to the relationship between technoscience and contemporary human enhancement technologies. In order to discuss these issues I address to T. Kuhn's conception of two traditions in the development of modern science. I show that technoscience belongs to the tradition that Kuhn calls the Baconian or ”experimental" sciences in contrast to the ”mathematical" sciences. I argue that technoscience creates an experimental environment for the study of a human being as an integral (...) part of this environment. (shrink)

The article discusses the methodological principle of reflexivity as formulated within the strong program of the sociology of scientific knowledge. The applicability of this principle in science and technology studies is analyzed from empirical and theoretical points of view. The principle of reflexivity expresses the requirement of scientific universalism: it forbids the exclusion of one’s own cognitive activity and its results from the world totality of objectively observable things and processes, in this case – beliefs. In D. Bloor’s imperative formulation, (...) the principle prescribes applying the explanatory methodology of the strong program in relation to the strong program’s own fundamental theoretical and methodological concepts. The implementation of this principle in STS faces practical problems and theoretical paradoxes. In line with the methodology of the strong program, the author asks the question about the social conditions of the failure of the principle of reflexivity. The author shows that empirically cognizable social conditions for the realization of the principle of reflexivity can be fulfilled. However, their fulfillment does not lead to reflexive work, which presupposes an external position of the one who explains in relation to what is explained. In accordance with the postpositivist concept of the underdetermination of theory by facts, the external position is achieved through the speculative transition from the factual given to the hypothesis explaining this given. The author shows that the external position taken by internal critics of the STS research community becomes the position of speculative philosophy. (shrink)