The problem of the scientific status of geology and how to resolve it in the works of Russian researchers in the 20th-21st centuries

The article considers the main stages of the development of the Russian tradition of philosophical and methodological studies of geological knowledge. The first step to solve the problem of the scientific status of geological knowledge is the concept proposed by Kedrov concerning the geological form of movement of matter as a special object of knowledge which requires a special branch of science - geology. The category "geological form of movement of matter" has caused the emergence of discussions on the features of this form of movement, its place among other natural sciences, as well as why the introduction of such a category is reasonable and necessary. A slightly different approach is the research of philosophical and methodological problems of geology, which consist of the creation of classifications of the various branches of geology based on various criteria such as degree of precision of the discipline, features of the subject of study, etc. Geology in these studies is defined as a complex of sciences about the Earth, and the methodological feature of seology is its complexity as its specific feature. Within this approach geology, in a sense, ceases to be a science and becomes only the name of the direction of different sciences to study the Earth; however, this direction examines the theoretical basis of geological knowledge. Due to the fact that the concepts "complexity" and "synthesis" did not disclose the algorithm of geological knowledge, a number of Russian researchers began to consider the method of modeling as the main synthesizing method of geology from the standpoint of a systemic approach. According to it, geologists have identified three main areas of knowledge of geological objects-systems, namely static, dynamic and retrospective studies, where empirical testing of static models was the most accurate. In spite of the possibility of empirical verification of geological models of different types, these models are hypothetical in nature, and depend not only on empirical data, but at least on two subjective factors, too: aims of the researcher and imagination of the researcher. One group of researchers believed that by using mathematical methods, methods of physics and chemistry, dependence of research results on subjective factors could be overcome in the future. Other researchers believed that the interpretive nature of geology and its dependence on subjective factors were a specific feature of geological knowledge. Thus, it is not far from the truth that Russian researchers have made a significant contribution to the development of ideas on the role of geological modeling as an integrating method of cognition of all Earth sciences. Further philosophical reflection on the modeling method seems promising, as it can serve as an effective means of disclosing the principles of geological knowledge and justification of the scientific status of geology.

Keywords

Authors

References