Path of Science: International Electronic Scientific Journal

The article examines the theoretical, conceptual and methodological relations between scientific rationality, epistemological concepts and types of epistemology. Several relevant philosophical aspects of classifying epistemology into classical, non-classical and post-non-classical types are analysed. It was highlighted that at the current juncture, there are conceptual approaches to the elements above of scientific knowledge acquisition, justification, rationality, knowledge application, and the criteria for its authenticity. In this context, philosophers argue for developing new epistemological frameworks to facilitate an adequate philosophical comprehension of contemporary scientific knowledge. A variety of ideas have been proposed. In addition, there is a need to clarify terminology.

Furthermore, philosophers are engaged in a debate regarding the most appropriate terminology to describe modern epistemology. One such debate concerns the merits of designating modern epistemology as "post-non-classical" or "post-neoclassical" about science. The article demonstrates that in addition to these, the norms, rules, boundaries of scientific understanding, the strategy and methodology of scientific activity, the rationality of scientific knowledge, its justification, the criteria of scientific truth and their search logic have been renewed. Researchers have finally designated this innovation as a post-non-classical (or post-neoclassical) type of scientific understanding. The article analysed whether modern epistemology is correctly described as "post-non-classical" or "post-neoclassical" from a philosophical perspective. The methodological principles of systematicity, non-linearity, intersubjectivity and synergetic formation were selected for the interdisciplinary approach. System analysis and dynamic integration are employed as methodologies. The scientific novelty is that the modern epistemological situation can be described as either "post-non-classical" or "post-neoclassical," which is related to how scientific understanding has evolved historically. In this context, the distinction between the terms is not a matter of differing interpretations of the underlying processes. This represents a distinct articulation of analogous concepts.

classical; non-classical; post-non-classical; neoclassical; post-neoclassical; scientific rationality; anthropometric systems; complexity; uncertainty

1. Abbasov, A. (2019). Filosofija slozhnosti kak mezhdisciplinarnaja osnova integracii: logiko-metodologicheskie osobennosti teorii i praktiki [Philosophy of complexity as an interdisciplinary basis for integration: logical and methodological features of theory and practice]. Scientific-methodological foundations of the integration of natural, social-political and humanitarian sciences, 40–84 (in Russian).

2. Alexander, J. (2007). Analytical debates: Understanding the relative autonomy of culture. Sociological Review, 6(1), 17–37.

3. Alekseev, A.Y. and others (2021). Mezhdisciplinarnyj podhod k problemam iskusstvennogo intellekta, osnovannyj na issledovanijah na styke fundamental'noj matematiki i nejrobiologii [Interdisciplinary approach to the problems of artificial intelligence, based on research at the intersection of fundamental mathematics and neurobiology]. Biomasistema, 5(1), 5–7 (in Russian).

4. Arshinov, V., & Budanov, V. (2016). Paradigma slozhnosti i sociogumanitarnye proekcii konvergentnyh tehnologij [Complexity paradigm and socio-humanitarian projections of convergent technologies]. Voprosy filosofii, 1, 59–70 (in Russian).

5. Arshinov, V. I., & Budanov, V. G. (2021). The Phenomenon of Complexity and Quantum Semiotics. Voprosy Filosofii, 12, 67–77. doi: 10.21146/0042-8744-2021-12-67-77

6. Goldman, A. (2024, March 22). Social epistemology. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-social/

7. Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2022). Is Kuhn's "World Change through Revolutions" Comprehensible? Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 59(4), 55–72. doi: 10.5840/eps202259458

8. Kuipers, T. A. F. (2001). Structures in Science. New-York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-9739-5

9. Kuipers, T. (2005). A brand new type of inductive logic. Reply to Diderik Batens. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30494061_A_brand_new_type_of_inductive_logic_Reply_to_Diderik_Batens

10. Lebedev, S. (2013). Postneklassicheskaja jepistemologija: osnovnye ponjatija [Post-non-classical epistemology: basic concepts]. Philosophical Sciences, 4, 69–83 (in Russian).

11. Lubsky, A. (2015). Postneklassicheskaja racional'nost' i neoklassicheskaja model' social'no-gumanitarnyh issledovanij [Post-non-classical rationality and the neoclassical model of social and humanitarian research]. Nauchnaja mysl' Kavkaza, 1, 21–30 (in Russian).

12. Lubsky, A. (2016). Transdisciplinarnye issledovanija: problemy sovremennogo gnoseologicheskogo diskursa [Transdisciplinary research: problems of modern epistemological discourse]. Gumanitarnye, social'no-jekonomicheskie i social'nye nauki, 5, 61–66 (in Russian).

13. Montuori, A. (2015). Complex Thought. An Overview of Edgar Morin's Intellectual Journey. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/4074758/COMPLEX_THOUGHT_An_Overview_of_Edgar_Morin_s_Intellectual_Journey

14. Nikiforov, A. (1998). Filosofija nauki: istorija i metodologija [Philosophy of science: history and methodology]. Moscow: Dom inellektual’nykh knig (in Russian).

15. Smirnov, A. (2019). Voprosy filosofii [Questions of Philosophy]. Nauka, 3, 5–14 (in Russian).

16. Stepin, V. (2009). Klassika, neklassika, postneklassika: kriterii differenciacii [Classics, non-classics, post-non-classics: criteria for differentiation]. In Postneklassika: filosofija, nauka, kul'tura (pp. 249–295) (in Russian).

17. Stehr, N. (2023). Social Scientific Knowledge about Knowledge and Information. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 60(3), 131–170. doi: 10.5840/eps202360346

18. Zborovsky, G. (2008). Metaparadigmal'naja model' teoreticheskoj sociologii [Metaparadigm model of theoretical sociology]. Sociologicheskie issledovanija, 4, 3–19 (in Russian).