Expertise as a form of development of science: Fundamental vs applied

Authors

  • Boris I. Pruzhinin Institute for Logic, Cognitive Science and Development of Personality, 70A, pr. Mira, Moscow, 129110, Russian Federation; Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences, 12/1, Goncharnaya ul., Moscow, 109240, Russian Federation
  • Vladimir A. Vetrov Institute for Logic, Cognitive Science and Development of Personality, 70A, pr. Mira, Moscow, 129110, Russian Federation; State Academic University for the Humanities, 26, Maronovsky per., Moscow, 119049, Russian Federation

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2022.408

Abstract

The article discusses the epistemological functions of expertise in modern science and substantiates the thesis that the emergence of expert knowledge is associated with the transformations of science (its technization, digitalization and application) and the anthropological crisis of the 20th–21st centuries. The authors believe that due to expert assessments, the target settings that are present in specific scientific research programs are explicated — both cognitive ones and focused primarily on solving various kinds of socially significant practical problems. Thus, the examination, in fact, opens up opportunities for clarifying the most effective ratio of fundamental and applied research settings in a particular cognitive activity. The authors demonstrate that expert activity allows scientists to consciously (with appeals to the semantic content of specific research projects) and, thus, more adequately (taking into account applied problems) assess the epistemological prospects of certain areas of research and thereby contribute to the expansion of the scope of scientific knowledge, development science as a cultural and historical phenomenon. To concretize the reasoning, the authors focus on how the implementation of the cognitive functions of expertise in science takes place and appeal to the legal precedent (the Kass vs. Kass process), which has become one of the models for resolving disputes in the field of biomedical research of objects with an unstable subject, ethical and legal status (cryopreserved embryos). Particular attention is paid to the fundamental predictive functions of expert knowledge, which has dignity, i. e. taking into account socio-political and existential-humanitarian restrictions, on the one hand, and contributing to the expansion of the scientific horizon, on the other.

Keywords:

expertise, peer review, science, applied research, basic research, bioethics, biomedical expertise

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

Литература

Юдин, Б.Г. (2008), Технонаука, человек, общество: актуальность гуманитарной экспертизы, Век глобализации, № 2, с. 146–154.

Климова, С.М. (2017), Гуманитарная экспертиза и экспертное сообщество: постановка проблемы, Философские науки, № 4, с. 68–80.

Тищенко, П.Д. (2008), Философские основания гуманитарной экспертизы, Знание. Понимание. Умение, № 3, с. 198–205.

Тульчинский, Г.Л. (2008), Гуманитарная экспертиза как социальная технология, Вестник Челябинской государственной академии культуры и искусств, № 4 (16), с. 38–52.

Туманов, С.В., Оносов, А.А. и Савина, Н.Е. (2017), Гуманитарная экспертиза: теоретические подходы и практики их реализации, Вестник московского университета, сер. 7: Философия, № 5, с.97–112.

Черных, А.И. (2010), Экспертное знание и публичная экспертиза (препринт WP14/2010/05), М.: Изд. дом Гос. ун-та — Высшей школы экономики.

Пружинин, Б.И. (2021), Экспертиза как эпистемологический феномен, Вестник СанктПетербургского университета. Философия и конфликтология, т. 37 (3), с. 393–402.

Тищенко, П.Д. и Юдин, Б.Г. (2007), Философские аспекты биомедицинских исследований, в: Этическая экспертиза биомедицинских исследований в государствах-участниках СНГ (социальные и культурные аспекты), СПб.: Феникс, с. 50–69.

Пономарева, Д.В. и Сорокина, Е.М. (2020), Биоэтика и судебная практика Соединенных штатов Америки в области эмбриологических исследований, Вестник Университета имени О.Е.Кутафина, № 4 (68), с. 97–107.

Рыжова, А.А. (2017), Статус эмбриона в решении апелляционного суда Нью-Йорка по делу «Касс против Касс», Наука. Общество. Государство, № 3 (19). URL: https://esj.pnzgu.ru/files/esj.pnzgu. ru/ryzhova_aa_17_3_13.pdf (дата обращения: 15.07.2022).

Summers, K. (2000), Kass v. Kass, Blazing Legal Trails in the Field of Human Reproductive Technology, Cleveland State Law Review, vol. 48 (3), pp. 637–651. URL: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio. edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1457&context=clevstlrev (дата обращения: 15.07.2022).

Звягина, Ж. (2021), Понятие «научная экспертиза» предложили закрепить законодательно, Парламентская газета, 26 августа. URL: https://www.pnp.ru/economics/ponyatie-nauchnayaekspertiza-predlozhili-zakrepit-zakonodatelno.html (дата обращения: 15.07.2022).

Коваль, С.Л. (2017), Эксперт против ученого. Когнитивные особенности получения знания экспертом, в: Когнитивные исследования на современном этапе (КИСЭ-2017). URL: http://dspace. kpfu.ru/xmlui/handle/net/117767 (дата обращения: 15.07.2022).

Щедрина, Т.Г.и Пружинин, Б.И. (2020), «Назад к Аристотелю»: достоинство знания как проблема эпистемологии, Вопросы философии, № 1, с. 19–27.

Шпет, Г.Г. (2006), Мудрость или разум?, в: Шпет, Г. Г., ,Philosophia Natalis. Избранные психологопедагогические труды, М.: РОССПЭН, с. 311–365.

Пружинин, Б.И., Автономова, Н.С., Бажанов, В.А., Грифцова, И.Н., Касавин, И.Т., Лекторский, В.А., Махлин, В.Л., Микешина, Л.А., Ольхов, П.А., Порус, В.Н., Сорина, Г.В., Филатов, В.П. и Щедрина, Т.Г. (2016), «Достоинство знания как проблема современной эпистемологии». Материалы «круглого стола», Вопросы философии, № 8, с. 20–56.


References

Yudin, B.G. (2008), Technoscience, Human, Society: the Relevance of Humanitarian Expertise, Vek globalizatsii, no. 2, pp. 146–154. (In Russian)

Klimova, S.M. (2017), Humanitarian expertise and expert community: problem statement, Filosofskie nauki, no. 4, pp. 68−80. (In Russian)

Tishchenko, P.D. (2008), Philosophical foundations of humanitarian expertise, Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie, no. 3, pp. 198–205. (In Russian)

Tulchinsky, G.L. (2008), Humanitarian Expertise as a Social Technology, Vestnik Cheliabinskoi gosudarstvennoi akademii kul’tury i iskusstv, no. 4 (16), pp. 38–52. (In Russian)

Tumanov, S.V., Onosov, A.A. and Savina, N.E. (2017), Humanitarian expertise: theoretical approaches and practices of their implementation, Moscow University Bulletin. Series 7: Philosophy, no. 5, pp. 97–112. (In Russian)

Chernykh, A.I. (2010), Expert knowledge and public examination (preprint WP14 / 2010/05), Moscow: HSE Publishing House. (In Russian)

Pruzhinin, B.I. (2021), Expert examination as an epistemological phenomenon, Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, vol. 37, iss. 3, pp. 393–402. (In Russian)

Tishchenko, P.D. and Yudin, B.G. (2007), Philosophical Aspects of Biomedical Research, in: Eticheskaia ekspertiza biomeditsinskikh issledovanii v gosudarstvakh-uchastnikakh SNG (sotsial’nye i kul’turnye aspekty), CIS Ethics Committee Forum, St Petersburg: Feniks Publ., pp. 50–69. (In Russian)

Ponomareva, D.V. and Sorokina, E.M. (2020), Bioethics and Judicial Practice of the United States of America in the Field of Embryological Research, Vestnik Universiteta imeni O.E.Kutafina, no. 4 (68), pp. 97‒107. (In Russian)

Ryzhova, A.A. (2017), The Status of the Embryo in the Decision of the New York Court of Appeal in Cass v. Cass, Nauka. Obshchestvo. Gosudarstvo, no. 3 (19). Available at: https://esj.pnzgu.ru/files/esj.pnzgu. ru/ryzhova_aa_17_3_13.pdf (accessed: 07.15.2022). (In Russian)

Summers, K. (2000), Kass v. Kass, Blazing Legal Trails in the Field of Human Reproductive Technology, Cleveland State Law Review, vol. 48 (3), pp. 637‒651. Available at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio. edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1457&context=clevstlrev (accessed: 15.07.2022).

Zvyagina, Zh. (2021), The concept of ‘scientific expertise’ was proposed to be enshrined in law, Parlament’skaya gazeta, 26, August. Available at: https://www.pnp.ru/economics/ponyatie-nauchnaya-ekspertiza-predlozhili-zakrepit-zakonodatelno.html (accessed: 15.07.2022). (In Russian)

Koval, S.L. (2017), Expert vs Scientist. Cognitive aspects of obtaining knowledge by the expert, in: Kognitivnye issledovaniia na sovremennom etape (KISE-2017). Available at: http://dspace.kpfu.ru/xmlui/ handle/net/117767 (accessed: 15.07.2022). (In Russian)

Shchedrina, T.G. and Pruzhinin, B.I. (2020), ‘Back to Aristotle’: the Dignity of Knowledge as a Problem of Epistemology, Voprosy filosofii, no. 1, pp. 19–27. (In Russian)

Shpet, G.G. (2006) Wisdom or Reason, in: Shpet, G.G., Philosophia Natalis. Selected psychological and pedagogical works, Moscow: ROSSPEN Publ., pp. 311–365. (In Russian)

Pruzhinin, B.I., Avtonomova, N. S., Bazhanov, V.A., Griftsova, I.N., Kasavin, I.T., Lektorskii, V.A., Makhlin, V.L., Mikeshina, L.A., Olkhov, P.A., Porus, V.N., Sorina, G.V., Filatov, V.P. and Shchedrina, T.G. (2016), ‘The Dignity of Knowledge as a Problem of Modern Epistemology’. Materials of the round table, Voprosy filosofii, no. 8, pp. 20–56. (In Russian)

Downloads

Published

2022-12-31

How to Cite

Pruzhinin , B. I., & Vetrov, V. A. (2022). Expertise as a form of development of science: Fundamental vs applied. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 38(4), 534–546. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2022.408

Issue

Vol. 38 No. 4 (2022): Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies

Section

Philosophy

License

Articles of "Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.