Methodological Paradigm of Non-Classical Science
Keywords:non-classical rationality, operational relativity, complementarity principle, symmetry, indeterminism
Scientific theories and methods developed within the framework of quantum and relativistic physics are the most representative paradigmatic instantiations of non-classical science. The profile of non-classical science is exposed through the analysis of a set of epistemic ideals and methodological principles. The adoption of the principle of operational relativity of phenomenal descriptions showed that a reference to the means of observation had become an intrinsic part of scientific description strategies. The transformation of the concept of objectivity can be seen in a specific combination of operationalism with interactional phenomenalism and constructivism. The introduction of the principle of complementarity marked the deviation from the standards of a monologic and linear description of the objects under study. This principle provides the operational basis for the integration of different parts of our knowledge with regard to non-trivial cognitive situations featured by the indeterminacy relations. Another prominent methodological trend is the reconsideration of the value of strict deterministic explanation strategies in favour of probabilistically oriented approaches. Scientists have encountered a new class of regularities that are typically analysed in terms of various types of statistical and non-causal determination. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to assume that any probabilistic account of natural phenomena implies indeterminism.
Bacciagaluppi, G. (2013). Measurement and classical regime in quantum mechanics. In The Oxford handbook of philosophy of physics (pp. 304 -335). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Bohr, N. (1963a). The unity of human knowledge. In N. Bohr (Ed.), Essays 1958-1962 on atomic physics and human knowledge (pp. 8-16). New York: Interscience Publishers.
Bohr, N. (1963b). Quantum physics and philosophy - causality and complementarity. In N. Bohr (Ed.), Essays 1958-1962 on atomic physics and human knowledge (pp. 1-7). New York, London: Interscience Publishers.
Bohr, N. (1948). On the notions of causality and complementarity. Dialectica, 2(3/4), 312-319.
Brading, K., & Castellani, E. (2007). Symmetries and invariances in classical physics. In J. Butterfield, & J. Earman (Eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Science. Philosophy of Physics. Part A (pp. 1331-1367). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bryanik, N. V. (2019). The comparative analysis of epistemological distinctions between laws in classical, non-classical and post-non-classical science. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 48, 5-14. doi: 10.17223/1998863X/48/1
Djidjian, R. (2016). Paradoxes of human cognition. Wisdom, 7(2), 49-58. https://doi.org/10.24234/wisdom.v2i7.137
Earman, J., & Norton, J. (1987). What price spacetime substantivalism: The hole story. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 38, 515-525.
Earman, J. (1986). A primer on determinism. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Earman, J. (2007). Aspects of determinism in modern physics. In J. Butterfield, & J. Earman, (Eds.), Handbook of the philosophy of science. Philosophy of physics. Part A (pp. 1369-1434). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fano, U., & Rao, A. R. P. (1996). Symmetries in quantum physics. London: Academic Press.
Heisenberg, W. (1990). The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. In W. Heisenberg, Physics and philosophy. The revolution in modern science (pp. 14-25). London: Penguin Books.
Horgan, T, & Tienson, J (1994). A nonclassical framework for cognitive science. Synthese, 101(3), 305-345. doi: 10.1007/BF01063893
Il'in, V. V. (1994). Teoriya poznaniya. Epistemologiya (Theory of knowledge. Epistemology, in Russian). Moscow: MGU.
Kargon, R. H. (1966). Atomism in England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Markova, L. A. (1998). O transformaciyakh logiki estestvennonauchnogo myshleniya v XX veke (On the transformation of the logic of scientific thinking in XX century, in Russian). Filosofija nauki (Philosophy of science, in Russian) (Vol. 4, pp. 73-87). Moscow: IFRAN.
Norton, J. (2020). The hole argument against everything. Foundations of Physics, 50(4), 360-378.
Ovchinnikov, N. F. (1997). Metodologicheskie principy v istorii nauchnoi mysli (Methodological principles in the history of scientific thought, in Russian). Moscow: Jeditorial URSS.
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos. Manís new dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam Books.
Romanovskaya, T. B. (1995). Nauka XIX-XX vekov v kontekste istorii kul'tury (Science of XIX-XX centuries in the context of culture history, in Russian). Moscow: Radiks.
Stefanov, A. S. (2018). Approaches to the theme about non-classical science. Philosophy, 27(2), 152-159.
Stepin, V. S. (1995). Sistemností teoreticheskih modelej i operacii ih postroenija (Systemic Value of Theoretical Models and Operations of their Constructing, in Russian). In Filosofiya nauki (Philosophy of science, in Russian) (Vol. 1, pp. 26-57). Moscow: IFRAN.
Weatherall, J. O. (2020). Some philosophical prehistory of the (Earman-Norton) hole argument. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 70(2020), 79-87.
Whitaker, A. (1996). Einstein, Bohr and the quantum dilemma. Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wigner, E. P. (1964). Symmetry and conservation laws. Physics Today, 17(3), 34-40. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3051467
Zhdanov, G. B. (1995). Vybor estestvoznaniya: 8 principov ili 8 illyuzii racionalizma? (The choice of natural science: 8 principles or 8 illusions of rationalism?, in Russian). Filosofija nauki (Philosophy of Science, in Russian) (Vol. 1, pp. 58-86). Moscow: IFRAN.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2022 scientific journal WISDOM
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial (CC BY-NC). CC BY-NC allows users to copy and distribute the article, provided this is not done for commercial purposes. The users may adapt – remix, transform, and build upon the material giving appropriate credit, providing a link to the license. The full details of the license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.