Some methodological issues of the history of science and technology

  • Leonid Griffen National Historical and Architectural Museum “Kyiv Fortress”
  • Nadiia Ryzheva V. O. Sukhomlynskyi National University of Mykolaiv
  • Dmytro Nefodov V. O. Sukhomlynskyi National University of Mykolaiv
  • Lyudmila Hryashchevskaya V. O. Sukhomlynskyi National University of Mykolaiv
Keywords: history of science and technology, technosphere, noosphere, productive forces, social division of labor, social consciousness

Abstract

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Carrier, M., & Gartzlaff, M. (2020). Responsible research and innovation: Hopes and fears in the scientific community in Europe. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 7(2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2019.1692571

Garanina, O. D. (Ed.) (2020). Chelovek i tekhnika. Tekhnika kak sociokulturnyj obekt i sfera deyatelnosti cheloveka [Man and technology. Technology as a socio-cultural object and sphere of human activity ]. Moskva: Dashkov i K. [in Russian].

Glozman, A. B. (2008). Logika razvitiya tekhniki: immanentno tekhnicheskoe i deyatel'nostnoe [The logic of the development of technology: immanently technical and activity]. Filosofiya i Obshchestvo – Philosophy and Society, (1), 139–157. Retrieved from https://www.socionauki.ru/journal/files/fio/2008_1/razvitie_techniki.pdf [in Russian].

Gorokhov, V. G. (2015). Evolyuciya inzhenerii : ot prostoty k slozhnosti [The development of engineering from simplicity to complexity]. Moskva: RAS Institute of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://www.phantastike.com/other/evolyutsiya_inzhenerii/pdf/ [in Russian].

Griffen, L., & Ryzheva, N. (2021). Technology as a socio-historical phenomenon. History of Science and Technology, 11(1), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.32703/2415-7422-2021-11-1-26-37

Griffen, L., Ryzheva, N., Nefodov, D., & Hryashchevskaya, L. (2021). Historical stages in the formation of the scientific knowledge system in a theoretical and methodological context. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(2), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.21744/lingcure.v5nS2.1333

Herrmann-Pillath, C. (2018). The case for a new discipline: technosphere science. Ecological Economics, 149, 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.024

Ilenkov, E. (2009). Dialektika idealnogo [The dialectic of the ideal]. Logos – Logos, (1(69)), 6–62. Retrieved from http://www.intelros.ru/pdf/logos_01_2009/1.pdf [in Russian].

Jaspers, K. (1986). Sovremennaya tekhnika [Modern technology]. In P. S. Gurevich (Ed.), Novaya tekhnokraticheskaya volna na Zapade – New technocratic wave in the West (pp. 119–121). Moskva: Progress [in Russian].

Kabulov, R. T. (n. d.). Otricatelnaya entropiya i sushchnost zhizni [Negative entropy and the essence of life]. Retrieved from http://www.chronos.msu.ru/old/RREPORTS/kabulov_otritsat_entropiya.pdf [in Russian].

Karpov, E. M. (1990). Intellektualnoe povedenie zhivyh i tekhnicheskih sistem [Intellectual behavior of living and technical systems]. Pushchino: RAS [in Russian].

Kipyatkov, V. E. (1985). Proiskhozhdenie obshchestvennyh nasekomyh [Origin of social insects]. Moscow: Knowledge [in Russian].

Kont, O. (1899). Kurs polozhitelnoj filosofii [Positive Philosophy Course]. St. Petersburg: Bookstore of the Association “Mediator” [in Russian].

Kuzin, A. A. (1990). Specifika istorii tekhniki kak predmeta issledovaniya [The specifics of the history of technology as a subject of study]. In A. A. Kuzin, & G. G. Grigoryan (Eds.), Aktualnye voprosy istorii tekhniki – Current issues in the history of technology (p. 9). Moskva: Nauka [in Russian].

Lahoz-Beltra, R. (2018). The “Crisis of Noosphere'” as a limiting factor to achieve the point of technological singularity. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems: INDECS, 16(1), 92–109. https://doi.org/10.7906/indecs.16.1.7

Melnik, V. P. (2010). Fіlosofіya. Nauka. Tekhnіka: metodologіchno-svіtoglyadnij analіz [Philosophy. The science. Technique: methodological-light-gazing analysis]. Lviv: Publishing House Ivan Franko National University of Lviv [in Ukrainian ].

Ortega y Gasset, J. (1993). Razmyshleniya o tekhnike [Reflections on technology]. Voprosy filosofii – Questions of Philosophy, (10), 164–232 [in Russian].

Popkova, N. V. (2008). Filosofiya tekhnosfery [Philosophy of the technosphere]. Moskva: URSS, LKI [in Russian].

Popkova, N. V. (2018). Controllability of technosphere and paradigm of global evolutionism. Philosophy and Cosmology, 21, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.29202/phil-cosm/21/3

Pylypchuk, O. Ya., Strelko, О. H., & Pylypchuk, O. O. (2021). Akademik V. I. Vernadskyi pro spokonvichnist zhyttia v kosmosi (Do 100-richchia yoho pratsi “Pochatok i vichnist zhyttia”) [Academician V. I. Vernadsky about the originality of life in Space (To the 100th anniversary of his work “The Beginning and Eternity of Life”). Kosmichna Nauka i Tekhnolohiia – Space Science and Technology, 27(2). https://doi.org/10.15407/knit2021.02.085 [in Ukrainian].

Reuleaux, F. (1885). Tekhnika i ee svyazs zadacheyu kul'tury [The influence of the technical sciences upon general culture]. St. Petersburg [in Russian].

Rozin, V. (2001). Filosofiya tekhniki. Ot egipetskih piramid do virtual'nyh real'nostej [Philosophy of technology. From Egyptian pyramids to virtual realities]. Moskva: NOTA BENE [in Russian].

Rozin, V. (2017). Technology as a time challenge: Study, concept and types of technology. Philosophy and Cosmology, 19(1), 133–141. Retrieved from http://ispcjournal.org/journals/2017-19/Rozin_19.pdf [in Russian].

Schrödinger, E. (2002). Chto takoe zhizn'? Fizicheskij aspekt zhivoj kletki [What is life? The physical aspect of a living cell]. Moskva. Izhevsk: Scientific Publishing Center "Regular and chaotic dynamics" [in Russian].

Sideris, L. H. (2017). Biosphere, Noosphere, and the Anthropocene: Earth’s Perilous Prospects in a Cosmic Context. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature & Culture, 11(4), 399–419. https://doi.org/10.1558/jsrnc.35055

Sismondo, S. (2017). Post-truth? Social Studies of Science, 47(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0306312717692076

Smotrickij, E. Yu. (2010). Tekhnosfera: opyt filosofskoj refleksii (na primere transporta). [Technosphere: the experience of philosophical reflection (on the example of transport)]. Visnyk Dnipropetrovskogo Universytetu. Istoriya i Filosofiya Nauky i Texniky – Bulletin of Dnipropetrovsk University. History and Philosophy of Science and Technology,18 (1/2) [in Russian].

Tarle, E. V. (1903). Chem obyasnyaetsya sovremennyj interes k ekonomicheskoj istorii. [What explains the modern interest in economic history]. Vestnik i Biblioteka Samoobrazovaniya – Journal and Library of Self-Education, (17), 739–743 [in Russian].

Trischler, H. (2018). Wissenschafts- und Technikhistoriker/-innen als Zeitenfresser. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 41(4), 429–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/bewi.201801914 [in German].

Vernadskij, V. I. (1991). Nauchnaya mysl kak planetnoe yavlenie [Scientific thought as a planetary phenomenon]. Moscow: Nauka [in Russian].

Wilson, A. (2017). Biosphere, Noosphere, Infosphere: Epistemo-Aesthetics and The Age of Big Data. Parallax, 23(2), 202–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2017.1299297.

Wolff, E. (2012). Tegnologie as kritiese sosiale teorie. Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe, 52(1), 36–51. Retrieved from https://journals.co.za/doi/epdf/10.10520/EJC20276.

Zwart, H. (2022). Philosophy of Technoscience: From Cis-Continental to Trans-Continental. In Continental Philosophy of Technoscience, (Vol. 38, pp. 229–245). Springer: Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84570-4_8.


Abstract views: 44
PDF Downloads: 15
Published
2022-06-19
How to Cite
Griffen, L., Ryzheva, N., Nefodov, D., & Hryashchevskaya, L. (2022). Some methodological issues of the history of science and technology. History of Science and Technology, 12(1), 31-54. https://doi.org/10.32703/2415-7422-2022-12-1-31-54