Везде
Brave new world: on science transformation into technoscience
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Brave new world: on science transformation into technoscience
Annotation
PII
S1811-833X0000616-7-1
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Olga Koshovets  Igor Frolov
Edition
Volume 57 Issue 1
Pages
20-31
Abstract
The article focuses on the crucial changes that science as an established social institution and an epistemological enterprise is undergoing, the key one is the loss of its monopoly on the production of socially useful knowledge and gradual transformation into something new, which, due to institutional and cultural reasons, we continue to call ‘science’. We suppose that the most appropriate conceptualization of the new phenomenon, which is replacing science as an institution, is “technoscience”, since the technical component in scientific practices has now taken a dominant position and technology production has become more important than fundamental knowledge. Technoscience has at least two sources: 1) capitalization of scientific activity that has led to classical science has been replaced with technoscience developing on first-priority funded applied research; 2) theorization and autonomy of the techno sphere, which have resulted in instrumentalization of all levels of knowledge production as well as in technological / symbolic construction of reality and tangled ontologyof technoscientific objects. We discuss both of these sources, with particular attention being paid to such trends as epistemic strategies transformation, modified reality, social sciences and humanities conformation to technoscience norms, and knowledge bearers egalitarianization. A crucial transformation ofboth science itself and its position in society breaks inevitably a demarcation line that separates scientific knowledge from other types of knowledge while promotes the replacement of scientific theory with discourses. Apparently, in “technoscience” an ethos of its own is being formed, where interaction with the “external environment” (with other social spheres) is crucial. In this context, scientific activity is becoming more and more transepistemic, transinstitutional practice, and accordingly ceases to be guided by the classical scientific ethos determined by the goals and objectives of academic community itself.
Keywords
technoscience, academic science, epistemic strategies, ontology, modified reality, capitalization of science
Date of publication
01.03.2020
Number of purchasers
22
Views
623
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf

References



Additional sources and materials

    

  1. Angrist, J.D., Pischke, J.-S. “The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design is Taking the Con out of Econometrics”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2010, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 3‒30.
    2. 

  2. Bensaude-Vincent, B., Loeve, S., Nordmann, A., Schwarz, A. “Matters of interest: the objects of research in science and technoscience”, Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 2011, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 365‒383.
    3. 

  3. De Vroey, M., Pensieroso, L. “The Rise of a Mainstream in Economics”, Université Catholique de Louvain. IRES Discussion Paper, 2016, no. 26, pp. 2‒27.
    4. 

  4. Forman, P. “The Primacy of Science in Modernity, of Technology in Postmodernity, and of Ideology in the History of Technology”, History and Technology, 2007, no. 23 (1/2), pp. 1‒152.
    5. 

  5. Frolov, I.E. “Problemy kapitalizatsii rossiiskoi nauki: produktivnost’, rezul’tativnost’, effektivnost’” [Capitalization of Russian Science and Its Effect on Productivity
    6. 

  6. and Effectiveness of Research Sector], Studies on Russian Economic Development, 2015, no. 26 (3). pp. 205‒217. (In Russian)
    7. 

  7. Galison, P. “Trading zone. Coordinating Action and Belief”, in: M. Biagioli (ed.). The Science Studies Reader. London: Routledge, 1999. pp. 137‒160.
    8. 

  8. Hacking, I. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, 287 pp.
    9. 

  9. Haklay, M. Citizen Science and Policy: A European Perspective. Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, 2015, 76 pp.
    10. 

  10. Haraway, D. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan©Meets_OncoMouse™: Feminism and Technoscience. London: Routledge, 1997, 378 pp.
    11. 

  11. Koshovets, O.B. “Ekspert i vosproizvodstvo nauchnogo znaniya” [Expert and the Production of Scientific Knowledge], in: Ananin, O.I. (ed.). Ekonomika kak iskusstvo [Economics as an Art]. Moscow: Nauka, 2015, pp. 210‒249. (In Russian)
    12. 

  12. Koshovets O.B., Frolov I.E. “Ontologiya i real’nost’: problemy ih sootnosheniya v metodologii ekonomicheskoj nauki” [Ontology and Reality: The Problem of Their Relation in the Methodology of Economics], in: Ananin, O.I. (ed.). Teoreticheskaya ekonomika: ontologii i etika [Theoretical Economics: Ontology and Ethics]. Moscow: Institute of Economics RAS, 2013, pp. 27‒112. (In Russian)
    13. 

  13. Latour, B. Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. New York: Harvard University Press, 1987, 168 pp.
    14. 

  14. Nordmann, A. “Collapse of Distance: Epistemic Strategies of Science and Technoscience”, Danish Yearbook of Philosophy, 2006, no. 41, pp. 7‒34.
    15. 

  15. О’Malley, M.A. “Making Knowledge in Synthetic Biology: Design Meets Kludge”, Biological Theory, 2009, no. 4, pp. 378‒389.
    16. 

  16. Rheinberger, H-J. Toward a History of Epistemic Things. Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. New York: Stanford University Press, 1997, 340 pp.
    17. 

  17. Shore, C. Building Europe. The Cultural Politics of European Integration. London: Routledge, 2000, 258 pp.
    18.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate