Further development of the history of science and technology requires the solution of a number of methodological problems. The article considers the object and subject of the history of science and technology, its place in the system of sciences. Today, more and more people are turning to the factors that determine the interaction of the society with the environment (productive forces of the society), to study which in the historical aspect and called a special scientific discipline - the history of science and technology. The society as an object of knowledge is a biological organism of the highest level of organization of “cells” - individuals. It exists and develops in the environment due to its own entropy. The society organizes this removal through a specialized subsystem formed on the basis of technical devices – “technosphere”. The success of such a process is ensured (through the information field) by another subsystem - the “noosphere”. These subsystems include both ideal and material objects. The composition and development of the technosphere and noosphere are considered in the article. It is shown that the functioning of the technosphere is based on its interaction with the noosphere, which provides information about the environment and controls the effectiveness of interaction with it. It is formed by combining the mental structures of individuals through sign systems. The production process that ensures the functioning of the society begins with the noosphere, which through individual consciousness controls the actions of each individual, who through the means of production (technosphere) interacts with the natural environment. However, the gradual development of productive forces leads at some point to the fact that the information needed by the individual to perform all necessary actions for the benefit of the society, ceases to fit in his individual consciousness. As a result, there is a new social phenomenon - the social division of labor. On the one hand, there is a division of technological operations between different performers (technological division of labor), and on the other - the selection of individuals who coordinate the efforts of performers and receive impetus to work not directly from public consciousness, but through these persons (social division of labor). As a result, there are special relationships between individuals and their groups (production relations), and thus begins the class period of human existence. And it will continue until the development of productive forces leads to the full transfer of all technological functions to technical systems, which due to the direct interaction of the noosphere and technosphere will put an end to the social division of labor. However, the development of productive forces is also accompanied by the acceleration of entropy in the environment of mankind - the geobiosphere of the planet Earth, which is gradually making it less and less suitable for life. The cardinal solution to the problem is the prospect of humanity entering infinite space.
Current tendencies question the role of science in modern society, force returning to the processes of formation of the scientific paradigm. The latter was complex and nonlinear, and the formation of scientific principles of cognition was their natural result. Throughout human history, the knowledge about the objective world has been acquired and used in various, historically necessary forms – both in the methodology of cognition and in the method of systematisation, which was determined by the level of their accumulation. The accumulation of knowledge took place in different ways: in the process of direct practical activity, on the basis of supposedly “foreign” contemplation and as a result of conscious influence on an object of study (experiment) with their different “specific weight” at different historical stages. As for the systematisation, the need for which was determined by systemic nature of an object of knowledge and the social nature of knowledge, throughout the history of mankind its forms differed considerably, but, in the end, were reduced to three main ones.
В статье представлено исследование социальной природы историко-культурного наследия. Показано, что оно характеризует объекты матери альной культуры прошлого, которые утратили свое первоначальное утилитарное назначение и превратились в материальные свидетельства ушедших культурных и исторических процессов. Сегодня такие памятники истории и культуры являются носителями семантической и аксиологической информации о данных процессах и поэтому, будучи включенными в современный культурный контекст, способствуют социализации индивидов.
When studying the development of a particular object, it could be very valuable to use the general theory of development as a methodological basis. But today, unfortunately, this does not exist. However, two theories have claimed, and still claim, for this role: Hegelian dialectics and general systems theory.However, they consider their object from different angles -dialectics from the "internal" side, and general systems theory -from the "external" side (often as a socalled "black box"). The main drawback of the Hegelian dialectic is that it ignores the external relations of the object (theoretically, the Marxist "materialist dialectic" is no different from the Hegelian one in this), as well as the problems of the genesis of the object. But the main drawback of both the "classical" general systems theory and its more modern version, which considers unstable states of a nonlinear system, is the actual ignoring of its internal structure and the presence of other systems. Although, unlike Hegelian dialectics, it mainly considers the so-called "open systems" and fundamentally recognizes the presence and role of the environment, but the latter is actually presented as a kind of "nutrient broth" and a source of "disturbances". In reality, neither one nor the other case in its pure form has a place.The first one is that since in the world there actually exists a general interaction of by no means eternal and not universal objects, and it is possible to abstract from this, relying solely on the self-development of the object -"eternal" and "universal", only in certain cases and relatively. The second is because the system in its elements is not separated from the environment in an absolute sense. Firstly, the individual elements of the system enter it with more or less strong ties, while maintaining fairly significant own ties with non-systemic elements; secondly, there is an inclusion of the system into other systems -both as a whole into systems of a "higher order", and part of the elements into other systems, and, accordingly, the concepts of both a system and an environment turn out to be far from unambiguous, and, finally, thirdly, the interactions between the system and individual elements of the environment are unequal, including because the latter also contains other systems, including similar ones.Thus, dialectics and general systems theory in their classical form are not concerned with real objects, but with some abstractions representing extreme cases in the real state of things. Either the impacts of the external environment are cut off, the consideration of development is limited by the self-movement of the object, or the
National Historical and Architectural Museum "Kyiv Fortress" UKRAINE Psychologically, a person as a person always consciously or subconsciously feels himself in a certain system of spatial, temporal and social coordinates. Only this gives him the opportunity to determine for himself: who am I? Such a system of coordinates at each moment reflects what in this respect has developed in the human brain, in his memory during his life. However, memory is a limited and unreliable thing. In addition, it is subject to significant deformations as a result of various external influences. This is all the more true for the society to which a person considers himself, when it is no longer about individual, but about social memory, formed by transmitting information from ancestors in one way or another. The leading role in this is played by the so-called "intangible heritage".However, in the end, to a large extent, the relevant information is objectified in those things created by our predecessors that surround a person from birth and, being disobjected by him, fill his consciousness. Moreover, such evidence of the past has the advantages of clarity, objectivity and authenticity. Therefore, there has always been a desire to rely on just such material evidence, confirming the validity of the accepted socio-historical coordinates, being a kind of marks of the trajectory of the movement of man and society in the spatio-temporal and social continuums. It is they, these objects of cultural heritage -monuments of history and culture -that enable a person today in an ideal form to reliably reproduce the past for himself, thus ensuring continuity between it and the present, and, consequently, the corresponding influence of the past on the present and future.But not only the past influences the present. There is also a constant feedback between them. Depending on the current situation, we perceive the past in significantly different ways -primarily because of its desired effect for us on the present, and even more so on the future. Therefore, for us, the past is not at all what it was, but what we would like it to be. And these desires of ours are determined by our present existence. Its connection with the past is a projection by a person of today's image of the world and himself onto something that is long gone.However, no matter how interested individual individuals and social groups may be in this "distortion" of the past, society as a whole still needs its adequate reproduction. It is not easy to achieve this, because the mentioned interest is so powerful that even historical science, source studies, archeology, strict procedures of historical expertise cannot always cope with this method of including people in their past. Consequently, the interpretation of historical and cultural monuments also has a significant subjective component, which significantly prevents them from adequately fulfilling their social function. Nevertheless, the situation in this respect should not be considered hopeless.
The article reveals the authors' vision of the essence of the technology as a sociohistorical phenomenon. It is based on the idea that technology is not only a set of technical devices but a segment of the general system – a society – located between a social medium and its natural surroundings in the form of a peculiar social technosphere, which simultaneously separates and connects them. The main objective purpose of the technosphere is to promote the effective rendering of society-generated entropy outwards; it defines the features of the technosphere as a sociohistorical phenomenon. The analogues of such material formations take place also in wildlife (from the spider-web to the beaver dam) but are very few and arise from the implementation of instinctive programs of the species. In a person's consciousness, such programmes are not given by “nature”, they are formed on the basis of “desobjectivation” of technical objects available in society. In the process of “desobjectivation” the essence, the “logic of the subject” becomes the achievement of a person and due to his abilities is filled with new meaning. As a result, the technology is a materially ideal phenomenon: on the one hand, it is a set of technical objects and on the other hand – technical thinking of a person, the highest manifestation of which is technical sciences nowadays. Properly technical objects are created by society to meet the individual and social needs of a person. These are primarily consumption items; due to their manmade nature, the question of production means development arises, which over time becomes increasingly important, especially by virtue of their significant impact on social relations (which in time also require certain technical devices for their implementation). The complex of these devices forms the techno sphere of society as a compound integrity. Not only groups of different in application technical objects become the constituent parts of the technosphere, but also their conglomerates designed to perform certain functions, which, similar to the biological branch, were called techno enosis; in the latter at the account of a peculiar “competition”, the development of these components in particular and the technosphere integrally takes place. However, despite consistency, the technosphere is a subsystem of a society, therefore, there is no perspective of creating certain laws of its development and an appropriate coherent periodization. For this reason, the scientific periodization of the development of technology as such is connected with the purpose of the given research and is defined by it.
The article examines the historical development of the processes of knowledge accumulation, which eventually led to the formation of the current scientific paradigm, which is the information basis of modern human life. The article is based on the scientific-critical use of previous achievements in the field of history of science. The scientific novelty of the article is a comprehensive presentation of the historical development of the scientific paradigm as a result of a natural dialectical change of its specific stages with appropriate systematization of knowledge (mythology, philosophy, science), caused by the growth of knowledge and development of research methods. contemplation, experiment with the subsequent formation of a theoretical model). Materials, research in the article allow us to say that current trends in the role of science in modern society are forcing us to return to the processes of formation of the scientific paradigm. The latter were complex and nonlinear, and the formation of scientific principles of cognition was their natural result. Throughout human history, the acquisition and use of knowledge about the objective world has been carried out in various, historically necessary forms - both in the methodology of cognition and in the method of systematization, which was determined by the level of their accumulation. The authors note that the accumulation of knowledge in society took place in the process of direct practical activity, on the basis of alleged "external" contemplation and as a result of conscious influence on the object of study (experiment) with their different "specific weight" at different historical stages. Thus, today the scientific paradigm is a natural result of the historical development of forms of knowledge and its highest achievement, and the reduction of its role objectively leads to a decrease in the effectiveness of social development.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.