Scientific-technical revolution — important lessons of unimportant concept
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2020.209Abstract
This paper focuses on the concept of the scientific-technical revolution. This concept is relevant today most of all in the context of historiographic studies of the Soviet period or the reflection of contemporary technological transformation from the Marxist position. The article demonstrates its relevance in the context of important contemporary issues. For a conceptual framework, the author uses the works on the social history of science by J. D. Bernal, the contemporary studies of science, technology and society, and the critical theory of technology, which seeks to integrate the philosophy of science and technology into topical socio-political discussions. The author reveals the concept of the scientific-technical revolution as describing the radical transformations taking place since the beginning of the 20 th century in science, society, and technology. These transformations manifest the essential social and technological character of science and its previously hidden contradiction. The social character of science involves an increasing number of participants of these transformations, but the technological character leaves them passive objects of the efficiency requirements. However, the scientific-technical revolution offers a lesson in overcoming this contradiction, creating conditions for the activity of various participants — scientists, nature, lay experts, and technologies themselves. The emphasis on the radical revolutionary changes that have occurred with science allows us to keep in the spotlight the foundations of modern problems and how to solve them.
Keywords:
innovation, scientific community, academic capitalism, uncertainty, post-normal science, communication
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Литература
1. Teich, M. J. D. (2008), Bernal the Historian and the Scientific-Technical Revolution, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 135–139.
2. Воронков, Ю. С. (2014), Концепция НТР: место в истории XX века, в Типы управляемого взаимодействия науки и техники в XX веке. URL: https://mipt.ru/education/chair/philosophy/publications/works/projects/grant-rgnf-14-03-00687/Voronkov.pdf (дата обращения 5.08.2019).
3. Человек — наука — техника (опыт марксистского анализа научно-технической революции) (1973), М.: Политиздат.
4. Smith, G. B., Maggs, P. B. and Ginsburgs, G. (eds.) (1981), Soviet and East European Law and the Scientific-Technical Revolution, Oxford: Pergamon.
5. Bazić, J. and Minić, V. (2009), The Global Affects of Scientific-Technological Revolution on the Social Alternations, Informatologia, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 228–232.
6. Guth, S. (2018), Oasis of the Future: The Nuclear City of Shevchenko/Aqtau, 1959–2019, Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, Bd. 66, Hft. 1, pp. 93–123.
7. Абрамов, Р., Груздев И. и Терентьев Е. (2016), Тревога и энтузиазм в дискурсах об академическом мире: международный и российский контексты, Новое Литературное обозрение, № 2 (138), c. 16–32.
8. Law, J. (2017), STS as Method, in Felt, U., Fouché, R., Miller, C. A. and Smith-Doerr, L. (eds.), The Handbook on Science and Technology Studies, Fourth Edition, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 31–57.
9. Grunwald, A. (2011), Responsible Innovation: Bringing together Technology Assessment, Applied Ethics, and STS Research, Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies, vol. 7, pp. 9–31.
10. Feenberg, A. (2017), Critical Theory of Technology and STS, Thesis Eleven, vol. 138(1), pp. 3–12.
11. Бернал Дж. (1956), Наука в истории общества, М.: Изд-во Иностранной литературы.
12. Bloor, D. (1976), Knowledge and Social Imagery, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
13. Latour, B. (1999), For David Bloor and Beyond, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, part A, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 113–129.
14. Feenberg, A. (2005) Critical Theory of Technology: An Overview, Tailoring Biotechnologies, vol. 1, iss. 1, pp. 47–64.
15. Хабермас Ю. (2007), Технический прогресс и социальный мир, в Хабермас, Ю., Техника и наука как «идеология», М.: Праксис, с. 117–135.
16. Bernal, J. D. (1946), Social Function of Science, London: Geord Routledge & sons LTD.
17. Маркузе, Г. (1994), Одномерный человек, М.: REFL-book.
18. Feenberg, A. (2017), A Critical Theory of Technology, in Felt, U., Fouché, R., Miller, C. A. and Smith-Doerr, L. (eds), Handbook on Science and Technology Studies, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 635–664.
19. Veugelers, R. and Wang, J. (2019), Scientific novelty and technological impact, Research Policy, vol. 48, is. 6, pp. 1362–1372.
20. Cohen, I. B. (1987), Revolution in Science, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
21. Бараш, Р. Э. и Антоновский, А. Ю. (2018), Радикальная наука. Способны ли ученые на общественный протест, Эпистемология и философия науки, т. 55, № 2, с. 18–33.
22. Jasanoff, Sh. (2003), Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science, Minerva, vol. 41(3), pp. 223–244.
23. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P. and Barthe, Y. (2011), Acting in an Uncertain World, Cambridge: MIT Press.
24. Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. (2003), Post-normal science, in Online Encyclopedia of Ecological Economics. URL: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ce91/a2cf9b7e05411fb 5b1b9276b9aaf565bffb2.pdf (дата обращения 15.08.2019).
25. Verbeek, P.-P. (2011), Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26. Gordon, J.-S. (2018), What do we owe to intelligent robots?, AI & Society: journal of knowledge, culture and communication, vol. 33, is. 4, pp. 1–15.
27. Перов, В. Ю. (2018), «Мораль машин» или «мораль для машин»: ценностные и нормативные конфликты, в Зарапина, О. В. (ред.). Философский текст в современной текстовой культуре, Симферополь: Издательская типография Ариал, с. 231–234.
References
1. Teich, M. J. D. (2008), Bernal the Historian and the Scientific-Technical Revolution, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 135–139.
2. Voronkov, Y. S. (2014), The Concept of STR: a Place in the History of the 20 th Century, in Tipy upravliaemogo vzaimodeistviia nauki i tekhniki v XX veke. Available at: https://mipt.ru/education/chair/philosophy/publications/works/projects/grant-rgnf-14-03-00687/Voronkov.pdf (accessed: 05.08.2019). (In Russian)
3. Man — science — technology (experience of the Marxist analysis of the scientific and technological revolution) (1973), Moscow: Politizdat Publ. (In Russian)
4. Smith, G. B., Maggs, P. B. and Ginsburgs, G. (eds) (1981), Soviet and East European Law and the Scientific-Technical Revolution, Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
5. Bazić, J. and Minić, V. (2009), The Global Affects of Scientific-Technological Revolution on the Social Alternations, Informatologia, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 228–232.
6. Guth, S. (2018), Oasis of the Future: The Nuclear City of Shevchenko/Aqtau, 1959–2019, Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, Bd. 66, Hft. 1, pp. 93–123.
7. Abramov, R., Gruzdev, I. and Terentiev, E. (2016), Alarm and Enthusiasm in Discourses on the Academic World: International and Russian Contexts, Novoe Literaturnoe obozrenie, no. 2(138), pp. 16–32. (In Russian)
8. Law, J. (2017), STS as Method, in Felt, U., Fouché, R., Miller, C. A., and Smith-Doerr, L. (eds.), The Handbook on Science and Technology Studies, Fourth Edition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 31–57.
9. Grunwald, A. (2011), Responsible Innovation: Bringing together Technology Assessment, Applied Ethics, and STS Research, Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies, vol. 7, pp. 9–31.
10. Feenberg, A. (2017), Critical Theory of Technology and STS, Thesis Eleven, vol. 138(1), pp. 3–12.
11. Bernal, J. D. (1956), Science in History, transl. by Viazmina, A. M., Makarova, A. M. and Panfilova, E. G., Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Inostrannoi literatury Publ. (In Russian)
12. Bloor, D. (1976), Knowledge and Social Imagery, London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
13. Latour, B. (1999), For David Bloor and Beyond, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, part A, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 113–129.
14. Feenberg, A. (2005) Critical Theory of Technology: An Overview, Tailoring Biotechnologies, vol. 1, is. 1, pp. 47–64.
15. Habermas, J. (2007), Technological Progress and Social World, in Habermas, J., Tekhnika i nauka kak “ideologiia”, transl. by Kildushova, O. V., Moscow: Praksis Publ., pp. 117–135. (In Russian)
16. Bernal, J. D. (1946), Social Function of Science, London, UK: Geord Routledge & sons LTD.
17. Marcuse, H. (1994), One-Dimensional Man, transl. by Ydin, A., Moscow: REFL-book Publ. (In Russian)
18. Feenberg, A. (2017), A Critical Theory of Technology, in Felt, U., Fouché, R., Miller, C. A. and Smith-Doerr, L. (eds.), The Handbook on Science and Technology Studies, Fourth Edition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 635–664.
19. Veugelers, R. and Wang, J. (2019), Scientific novelty and technological impact, Research Policy, vol. 48, is. 6, pp. 1362–1372.
20. Cohen, I. B. (1987), Revolution in Science, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21. Barash, R. E. and Antonovski, A. Y. (2018), Radical Science, Are the Scientists Capable of Social Protest, Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 18–33.
22. Jasanoff, Sh. (2003), Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science. Minerva, vol. 41(3), pp. 223–244.
23. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P. and Barthe, Y. (2011), Acting in an Uncertain World, Cambridge: MIT Press.
24. Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. (2003), Post-normal science, in Online Encyclopedia of Ecological Economics. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ce91/a2cf9b7e05411fb 5b1b9276b9aaf565bffb2.pdf (accessed: 15.08.2019).
25. Verbeek, P.-P. (2011), Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26. Gordon, J.-S. (2018), What do we owe to intelligent robots?, AI & Society: journal of knowledge, culture and communication, vol. 33, is. 4, pp. 1–15.
27. Perov, V. Y. (2018), ‘The Morals of Machines’ or ‘Morals for Machines’: Value and normative conflicts, in Zarapiva, O. V. (ed.), Filosofskii tekst v sovremennoi tekstovoi kul’ture, Simferopol’: Izdatel’skaia tipografiia Arial, pp. 231–234.
Downloads
Published
2020-06-30
How to Cite
Shipovalova, L. V. (2020). Scientific-technical revolution — important lessons of unimportant concept. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 36(2), 313–325. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2020.209
Issue
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.
