The Fundamental and the Applied: Transformation of Archetypes
The aim of the article is to study the evolution of ideas (archetypes) about fundamental and applied science. On the example of a number of historical cases (Britain, Germany, the USA), epistemic and socio-epistemic peculiarities of ideas about pure science are discussed in the light of the development of the concept of fundamental/basic research, taking into account institutional factors (academic and industrial research), as well as political connotations of the concepts of pure and fundamental science. The concepts that play the modern discursive and political role of fundamental and applied research (frontiers and challenges) are considered. Mainly, at the internal level of the study of science, frontier and challenge are not fundamentally new concepts for science. There are many topics in the history of science, for the epistemic characterization of which the concept of challenge can be used (the search for proofs of mathematical theorems, the struggle of medicine with complex diseases). Nevertheless, in a wide socio-epistemic aspect, the vocation of a scientist to engage in science in the modern world inevitably contains a readiness for challenges, which can impose certain features on their field of activity. An important link is the linear model of innovation as the simplest scheme for understanding the interaction of the fundamental and the applied. It should be emphasized that, in this regard, the very concept of a model is important. The problem of developing and building models (reality) should be referred to as topical issues of modern philosophy (T. Williamson). In connection with the problem of the evolution and transformation of the archetypes of the fundamental and the applied, an attempt was made to consider these concepts as having the attribute of specific models. The specificity lies in the fact that the situational visions of socio-technical realities (socio-technical imagi-naries, S. Jasanoff) act as objects of modeling. At the same time, the fundamental and the applied become characteristic model-concepts.
Keywords
fundamental,
applied,
frontier,
challenge,
model,
sociotechnical imaginariesAuthors
| Zharkov Evgeniy A. | Russian Society for History and Philosophy of Science; Nizhny Novgorod State University N.I. Lobachevsky | flash45@yandex.ru |
Всего: 1
References
Fuller S. If science is a public good, why do scientists own it? // Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. 2020. Vol. 57, № 4. P. 23-39.
Касавин И.Т. Наука как политический субъект // Социологические исследования. 2020. № 7. С. 3-14.
Shapin S. The scientific life: a moral history of a late modern vocation. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press, 2008. 468 p.
Chebotareva E.E. Engineers: bridging the gap between mechanisms and values // Social Epistemology. 2020. Vol. 34, № 2. P. 151-161.
Galison P. Ten Problems in History and Philosophy of Science // Isis. 2008. Vol. 99, № 1. P. 111-124.
Dear P. Science Is Dead; Long Live Science // Osiris. 2012. Vol. 27, № 1. P. 37-55.
Bud R. Categorizing Science in Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century Britain // Basic and Applied Research: The Language of Science Policy in the Twentieth Century / eds. D. Kaldewey, D. Schauz. New York ; Oxford : Berghahn Books, 2018. P. 35-63.
Clarke S. Pure Science with a Practical Aim: The Meanings of Fundamental Research in Britain, circa 1916-1950 // Isis. 2010. Vol. 101, № 2. P. 285-311.
Godin B. The Linear Model of Innovation: The Historical Construction of an Analytical Framework // Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2006. Vol. 31, № 6. P. 639-667.
Phillips D. Francis Bacon and the Germans: Stories from When ‘Science' Meant ‘Wissen-schaft' // History of Science. 2015. Vol. 53, № 4. P. 378-394.
Schauz D., Lax G. Professional Devotion, National Needs, Fascist Claims, and Democratic Virtues. The Language of Science Policy in Germany // Basic and Applied Research: The Language of Science Policy in the Twentieth Century / eds. D. Kaldewey, D. Schauz. New York ; Oxford : Berghahn Books, 2018. P. 64-103.
Lucier P. The Origins of Pure and Applied Science in Gilded Age America // Isis. 2012. Vol. 103, № 3. P. 527-536.
Kaldewey D., Schauz D. Transforming Pure Science into Basic Research: The Language of Science Policy in the United States // Basic and Applied Research: The Language of Science Policy in the Twentieth Century / eds. D. Kaldewey, D. Schauz. New York ; Oxford : Berghahn Books, 2018. P. 104-140.
Pielke R. ‘Basic Research' as a Political Symbol // Minerva. 2012. Vol. 50, № 3. P. 339-361.
Godin B, Schauz D. The Changing Identity of Research: A Cultural and Conceptual History // History of Science. 2016. Vol. 54, № 3. P. 276-306.
Godin B. Models of Innovation: The History of an Idea. Cambridge : MIT Press, 2017. 324 p.
Flink T., Kaldewey D. The Language of Science Policy in the Twenty-First Century: What Comes after Basic and Applied Research? // Basic and Applied Research : The Language of Science Policy in the Twentieth Century / eds. D. Kaldewey, D. Schauz. New York ; Oxford : Berghahn Books, 2018. P. 251-284.
Hicks D. Grand Challenges in U.S. Science Policy Attempt Policy Innovation // International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy. 2016. Vol. 11, № 1/2/3. P. 22-42.
Schauz D., Kaldewey D. Introduction: Why Do Concepts Matter in Science Policy // Basic and Applied Research: The Language of Science Policy in the Twentieth Century / eds. D. Kaldewey, D. Schauz. New York ; Oxford : Berghahn Books, 2018. P. 1-32.
Cahn R.W. The Coming of Materials Science. Amsterdam & New York : Pergamon, 2001. 571 p.
Feyerabend P. Science in a free society. London : NLB, 1978. 221 p.
Douglas M. Purity and danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London ; New York : Routledge, 1984. 199 p.
Мамчур Е.А. Взаимодействие науки и технологии: поиски адекватной модели // Взаимосвязь фундаментальной науки и технологии как объект философии науки / отв. ред. E. А. Мамчур. М. : ИФ РАН, 2014. С. 6-31.
Williamson T. Model-Building in Philosophy // Philosophy's Future: The Problem of Philosophical Progress / eds. R. Blackford, D. Broderick. Hoboken : Wiley, 2017. P. 159-171.
Weisberg M. Who is a Modeler? // British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 2007. Vol. 58, № 2. P. 207-233.
Гребенщикова Е.Г. Социотехнические мнимости технонауки // Вопросы философии. 2018. № 3. С. 59-67.
Jasanoff S. Future Imperfect: Science, Technology, and the Imaginations of Modernity // Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power / eds. S. Jasa-noff, S. Kim. Chicago : Chicago University Press, 2015. P. 1-33.
Касавин И.Т. Университет Гумбольдта и его альтернативы в условиях рыночной науки // Вопросы философии. 2021. № 3. С. 41-46.
