The research analyzes the process of formation of the ethics committee as a new institution in the system of regulation of genetic research. The external factors of this process are the increasing digitalization of medical and research practices, as well as the special situation that is developing in the field of genomic research and the use of genetic technologies, where issues of philosophy, jurisprudence and administration have generated many fundamentally new, and sometimes unexpected contexts. The author shows the similarity and (...) difference of approaches to the inclusion of the ethics committee in the national regulatory systems of different countries and determines the prospects for further integration of the new institution into normative and administrative-regulatory and law enforcement practices. The research applies all the main methods of system analysis and structural and functional analysis, as well as the comparative legal method. At the stage of generalization of empirical material, the author turns to the means and methods of philosophical phenomenology and phenomenological sociology. The study revealed that the ethics committee may have different institutional and regulatory functions in a variety of management and legal systems. Being hybrid in nature, the ethics committee performs various functions, and in various state legal systems and traditions it can combine elements of legislative, executive and judicial power. At times, the ethics committee may go beyond the scope of both a purely administrative and exclusively legal regulator. All this indicates that the integration of this institution into the legal system and into a variety of social practices is far from being completed. (shrink)

In the Renaissance period, being a “humanist” meant graduating from a philosophical faculty and teaching the collection of disciplines necessary to become a university student. In this view, the humanist is the man of the unaccomplished higher education, or, a school teacher. Neither his status, nor the status of the disciplines he taught was high. Over time the situation changed. Studying ancient languages opened a whole world of the disappeared civilization, obvious ancestors to the Renaissance; a conception of humanitarian-historical cognition (...) was founded. The Renaissance was the first to formulate a problem of comprehension—of the historical epochs passed, of the texts based on other experience and different mentality. In the context of unique singularitythe concepts of fate and biography were overestimated. The thesis of micro and macrocosm unity was revived. The humanists have created a new translation of the Holy Writ; as a result, the sense of many rite ceremonies of liturgy became clearer. Historicism and criticism have brought a new type of thinking and a new system of values in the long run. Humanistic values constructed the first system that had no need in religious foundation, and its relation with Christianity was not logical, but historical.All this, though well known, gains quite other sense today. The world becomes more and more complicated and multicultural. A post-secular, polio-confessional socium comes to replace the secular society. The former needs a new experience, as unique as that of Renaissance humanitarians. (shrink)

The philosophy of a science has arisen as a result of inability of the theory of knowledge to reply to important questions which were rised before scientific community on a boundary of the XIX and XX centuries. Further the philosophy of a science and the theory of knowledge developed separately from each other. They had a big influence on each other, but their tasks were always different. The main distinction between them epistemology is a theoretical and projective kind of knowledge (...) while philosophy of a science – post theoretical discipline. Epistemology is the theory including an explanatory scheme, it is a philosophical project of knowledge, and it is the discipline containing a set of interdictions and instructions. The philosophy of a science is interested in studying of scientific knowledge as a real event, which went through, making an expert estimation of results. The philosophy of a science assumes critical and reflective comparison of the project and result whereas the theory of knowledge improves specifications and discipline of cognitive activity. While the theory of knowledge creates a methodand is guided by a method the philosophy of a science prefers a historical and critical reflection, the logical-grammatical analysis, searches of cultural or social determination. (shrink)

Философия науки возникла в итоге неспособности теории познания ответить на важные вопросы, вставшие перед научным сообществом в конце XIX века. И в дальнейшем философия науки и теория познания шли каждая свом путем, оказывая друг на друга немалое влияние, но ставя и решаявесьма разные задачи. Главным различием между ними является то, что эпистемология является теоретическим видом знания, тогда как философия науки – посттеоретическая дисциплина. Эпистемология – это теория, включающая в себя объяснительную схему, это философский проект познания, это дисциплина, содержащая набор запретов (...) и предписаний. Философия науки представляет собой изучение научногопоиска как состоявшегося реального события, а также экспертную оценку результатов. Философия науки предполагает критическое и рефлексивное сравнение проекта и результата, тогда как теория познания совершенствует нормативы и регулятивы познавательной активности. Там, где теория познания создает метод и сама опирается на метод, философия науки обходится историко‐критической рефлексией, логико-грамматическим анализом, поиском культурных или социальных детерминант. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to compare two models of reality construction and their applicability to explain the various effects of the digitalization process. The evolution of the constructivist ideas about reality is reconstructed in the context of the dispute among realists and constructivists, which was one of the most significant events in the epistemology and philosophy of science of the 20th century. The author points out the differences between the intellectual and the social construction of reality, and carries (...) out a comparative analysis of the philosophical theories and concepts describing the aforementioned alternatives. The intellectual construction of reality, which often takes place in theoretical physics at different stages of its development, is also analyzed. Particular consideration is given to the philosophic-scientific contexts generated by the sociology of knowledge, the theory of speech acts, and the actor-network theory. The article also shows a distinction between the construction and the constitution of reality. The constitution of reality within various types of non-theoretical thinking, fixed using the means and methods of phenomenological philosophy of science, allows identifying and describing the main contexts through which the word reality acquires significance and is endowed with meaning in the present-day intellectual and social practices. Special attention is paid to the concepts of virtual reality and digital reality. The features of the intellectual construction of virtual reality are described. The difference between the intellectual and the social construction of digital reality is substantiated as between two alternative practices, which determine the meaning, and the prospects of digitalization. This distinction may be of particular interest to those who design digital platforms and implement digitalization in various areas of human life and society, especially in as education, legal procedure, management, economics, and business. Today, when partly spontaneous, partly controlled digitalization is taking place in these spheres, the results of this study make it possible not only to understand the logic of the changes taking place but also to apply forecasting and planning methods actively, i.e., constructing the digital reality. (shrink)