Modeling technoscience: From epistemic networks to discursive games | Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 2018. № 46. DOI: 10.17223/1998863Х/46/8

Modeling technoscience: From epistemic networks to discursive games

In this paper, the author proposes a set of methodological approaches to the study of technoscien-tific projects. Their application allows to overcome two main shortcomings of modern science and technology studies (STS): (1) orientation only on the description of existing practices; (2) reduction of objects to their interactions. Humanitarian expert examination is a variant of overcoming of the first STS deficiency, as it implies a ‘forward reaction' to the risks associated with the development of a specific technology. Simultaneously, the methodology of humanitarian expert examination includes the most dynamically developing approaches of the STS program: the study of social expectations and “sociotechnical imaginaries”, the development of new approaches to expert practices. At the same time, the necessity to predict the socio-humanitarian effects of a technoscientific project assumes the creation of models of such development. The structure of epistemic networks and network models of innovation diffusion are considered as methodological variants of modeling, not so widely known yet in the Russian tradition of STS. In the framework of the humanitarian expert examination of a significant technoscientific project, a comparison of the structures of epistemic networks and networks models of innovation diffusion allows us to specify the class of strategies within which the adequacy of knowledge about the possibilities of technology can be sacrificed for the effectiveness of its dissemination. The implementation of these network models can overcome the first of the above-mentioned shortcomings of the STS program, but it is not free from the second one. Reduction of the social object to its interactions, in particular, does not allow to solve the problem of time lag between the development of innovation and its application. This problem is central for a number of areas of technoscience, for example, for translational medicine. In the framework of overcoming the second of the indicated shortcomings, the structure of network models should be supplemented by a more local and detailed consideration of the ontology of social objects and the discursive games occurring within the framework of their interaction. Ontological problems can be dealt with both within the concept of formation of group intentions elaborated by John Searle and within Gilbert Harman's object-oriented ontology. The conceptual apparatus for investigating discursive games is most fully described in Robert Bran-dom's Making It Explicit.

Download file
Counter downloads: 183

Keywords

технонаука, гуманитарная экспертиза, методология, technoscience, humanitarian expert examination, methodology

Authors

NameOrganizationE-mail
Shevchenko Sergey Yu.Institute of Philosophy, RASsimurg87@list.ru
Всего: 1

References

Черникова И.В., Черникова Д.В. Новая концепция производства знания в технонауке // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Философия. Социология. Политология. 2017. № 39. С. 48-58
Фуллер С. Социология интеллектуальной жизни: карьера ума внутри и вне академии / пер. с англ. С. Гавриленко, А. Морозова, П. Хановой. М. : Изд. дом «Дело», 2017.
Харман Г. Имматериализм : Объекты и социальная теория / пер. с англ. А. Писарева. М. : Изд-во Ин-та Гайдара, 2018.
Юдин Б.Г. От этической экспертизы к экспертизе гуманитарной // Гуманитарное знание : тенденции развития в XXI веке : В честь 70-летия Игоря Михайловича Ильинского / под общ. ред. В.А. Лукова. М., 2006. С. 214-237.
Collins H.M., Evans R.J. The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience // Social Studies of Sciences. 2002. Vol. 32, № 2. P. 235-296
Jasanoff S. Kim S.-H. Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea // Minerva. 2009. 47 (2). P. 119-146.
Юдин Б.Г. Об этосе технонауки // Философские науки. 2010. № 12. С. 58-66.
Rosenstock S., Bruner J., O'Connor C. In Epistemic Networks, Is Less Really More? // Philosophy of Science. 2017. № 2. P. 234-252.
Venkatesh B., Goyal S. Learning from Neighbours // Review of Economic Studies. 1998. № 65. P. 565-621.
Zollman, K.J. The Communication Structure of Epistemic Communities // Philosophy of Science. 2007. № 74 (5). P. 574-587.
Geroski P.A. Models of Technology Diffusion // Research Policy. 1999. № 29. Р. 603-625.
McCullen N.J., Rucklidge A.M., Bale C.S.E., Foxon T.J., Gale W.F. Multiparameter Models of Innovation Diffusion on Complex Networks // SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems. 2013. Vol. 12, № 1. P. 515-532.
Тулупьев А.Л., Николенко С.И., Сироткин А.В. Байесовские сети: Логико-вероятностный подход. СПб. : Наука, 2006.
Morris Z.S., Wooding S., Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research // Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2011. № 104 (12). P. 510-520.
Brandom R. Making it explicit Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge; London : Harvard University Press, 1994.
Searle J.R. Collective Intentions and Actions // Intentions in Communication / Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan and Martha E. Pollack (eds.). Cambridge : Bradford Books, 1990. P. 401-415.
 Modeling technoscience: From epistemic networks to discursive games | Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 2018. № 46. DOI:  10.17223/1998863Х/46/8

Modeling technoscience: From epistemic networks to discursive games | Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 2018. № 46. DOI: 10.17223/1998863Х/46/8

Download full-text version
Counter downloads: 1531