Vlad Kuznetsov

The monograph presents an original and generalizing substantive vision of the philosophy of science through the prism of a detailed analysis of the polysystem structure of scientific theories. Theories are considered, firstly, as complex specialized forms of developed scientific thinking about the realities studied by natural science, secondly, as constantly improving tools for the production of new knowledge in interaction with experimental research, and thirdly, as carriers of ordered and verified knowledge. Emphasis is placed on their nominal and ontic subsystems.

The monograph presents an original and generalizing substantive vision of the philosophy of science through the prism of a detailed analysis of the polysystem structure of scientific theories. Theories are considered, firstly, as complex specialized forms of developed scientific thinking about the realities studied by natural science, secondly, as constantly improving tools for producing new knowledge in interaction with experimental research, and thirdly, as carriers of ordered and verified knowledge. Emphasis is placed on their nominal and ontic subsystems.
The monograph develops personal and joint research of the authors (theoretical physicist and philosopher), the experience of teaching philosophy of physics at NaUKMA, philosophy of science at the Higher School of Philosophy at the Institute of Philosophy named after H.S. Skovorody of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and theoretical physics at the National Technical University "Ihor Sikorskyi Kyiv Polytechnic Institute".
The research is based on a significant source base represented by the works of modern Western researchers in natural science and philosophy of science.
For students, teachers, and scientists who are interested in the problems of modern philosophy of science and have a certain amount of scientific knowledge, and will also be useful for high school students who dream of becoming scientists.

CONTENT
Acknowledgments
Part I. INTRODUCTION
Part II. SYSTEMS AS RECONSTRUCTIONS OF THEORIES
Part III. OVERVIEW OF SOME PROTOTYPICAL THEORIES
Part IV. NAMES
Part V. REALITIES
Part VI. HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS OF SOME SCIENTIFIC AND NON-SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF PHYSICS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE POLYSYSTEM RECONSTRUCTION OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES
Epilogue.
Name index

The unity of the physical world is ensured by the exchange processes of interaction between its material realities. Some of these realities also function as carriers of information, the exchange of which is necessary for the emergence, unity, diversity, and evolution of the biological, social, and scientific worlds.
The acts of scientific communication are understood as the exchanges of information between scientists with the help of specific material realities. It means that these acts have physical, biological, and social prerequisites.
The first chapter examines the significance of exchange processes for the unity of physical, biological, and social worlds; the second – the role of communication in the emergence, functioning, and development of science; the third – the history of the use of material resources and the opportunities that modern electronic networks open up to enhance scientific progress; the fourth – the importance of detailed ideas about scientific theories for understanding the objective content of acts of communication; the fifth – N. Bohr's thesis on the inevitability of the classical space-time description of the data of any physical experiments and D. Bohm's thesis on the unity of communication and perception; the sixth – the peculiarities of scientific communicative acts in the cognition of complex realities; the seventh – changes in such acts in collectivizing and cooperating scientific research. The conclusions compare communicative situations in Ukrainian and Western sciences.

Physical theories are complex and necessary tools for gaining new knowledge about their areas of application. A distinction is made between abstract and practical theories. The last are constantly being improved in the cognitive activity of professional physicists and studied by future physicists. A variant of the philosophy of physics based on a modified structural-nominative reconstruction of practical theories is proposed. Readers should decide whether this option is useful for their understanding of the philosophy of physics, as well as other philosophies of particular sciences.
The article is written within the theme “Communicative transformations in modern science” of “Program-targeted and competitive topics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine”.
Keywords: practical physical theories; physical lingua franca; subsystems of theories; subsystem flexibilities; main and auxiliary components; basic and satellite levels.

Olexander Gabovich, Vоlоdymyr Kuznetsov, Nadezhda Semenova. Kyiv: Editing House “Kyiv-Mohyla Academy”
ISBN 978-966-518-675-5 (In Ukrainian with Abstract and Content in English)
Certain principle aspects of the fundamental science state in Ukraine as of 2014 were analyzed. It was shown that no awareness exists in the country that the main although not unique task of the science consists in the creation of new knowledge. The special attention was paid to state academies of science, in particular, to the National academy of science of Ukraine. It was demonstrated that the active law concerning science as well as the project of the new law have substantial shortcomings from the judiciary viewpoint and inhibit a free progress of science in line with general trends of the developed countries. The existing status of the autonomous state academies, being a peculiar symbiosis the non-governmental organization and state institution, was criticized. The general concept of an elite and certain scientometric data were used for the analysis of Ukrainian scientific elite quality.  A very unsatisfactory situation with social sciences and humanities was shown. Criteria were discussed for the future audit of the Ukrainian science in order to reform it in the European style.
CONTENTS

PREFACE   6
INTRODUCTION
Problem Formulation   9
Deep and Surface Structures in the Context
of Scientific Values 20

CHAPTER I
EXPLICATIONS
Academy and «Academies» 24
«West» and Post-Soviet Interpretation
of the Term «Academy» 29
«Academy» and «Academicians» 31
Types of Membership in the National Academy
of Sciences of Ukraine 33
Potential of Ukrainian Science and Obstacles
to its Implementation 37

CHAPTER II
PHILOSOPHICAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS
OF THE ACADEMIC SCIENCE ORGANIZATION
The Constitution of Ukraine as the Source
of European and Native Legal Values 44
Was the Pre-Reform Russian Academy of Sciences Perfect? 47
Historical Overview of the State-Academies Foundation 51
Modern Settlement of Legal Relationships in Science:
the Role and Status of Academies 57
Which Category of Entities Do Academies Belong To? 61
Which is Higher – the Home Rule or the Rule of Law? 69
The NASU Charter as a Depositary of Soviet Law «Values» 73
Legal Conclusions 88

CHAPTER III
ELITES AND VALUES
The Concept of Elite 96
Basic Science as a Mechanism to Produce New Knowledge 101

New Knowledge as Precondition for the Researcher
Membership in the Scientific Elite 110
Prestige of a Scientist and his Presence in Social Space 112
Imperative Requirements to Ordinary and Personal
Academy Members Concerning their Research 118
Lifelong Stipend as a Motivation Against
the Scientific Activity 120

CHAPTER IV
EUROPEAN SCIENTOMETRIC VISION OF SCIENCE
AND SCIENCE ELITE IN UKRAINE
National and International Assessments
of Scientific Achievements 126
Who is Who in Accordance with Scopus 133
Google Scholar versus Web of Science
and Nature Index 2014 137
Summary 142
CHAPTER V
SOME PUBLISHED AND UNPUBLISHED
MATERIALS ABOUT SCIENCE
K. Twardowski. On the Dignity of the University 146
Symptoms of a Serious Illness,
or What is the National Science? 150
Letter to the President of Ukraine Victor Yushchenko 158
Proposals for the Project «Conception
of the Development of Ukrainian Science» 159
O. Gabovich. Outsider's Notes 166
Open Letter «The First Step to Overcome Corruption
in Science and Education» 171
Info on the Session of the Committee of Science
and Education of Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine 28.03.2014. 176
Press Release NAS of Ukraine 176
Press Release Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine 182
Some Speeches
V. Kuznetsov 184
I. Yehorchenko 186
Letter to the Prime Minister of Ukraine
Arseniy Yatsenyuk 21.06.2014 192
Letter from the Ministry of Education
and Science of Ukraine 195
Letter to the First Deputy Minister of Education
and Science of Ukraine I. Sovsun 196
V. Adzhiyev. Theses and Reputation: the Case of Albion 200
Abstract 204

Vladimir Kuznetsov
A CONCEPT AND ITS STRUCTURES: THE METHODOLOGICAL ANALYSIS.
Kiev: Institute of Philosophy of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 1997. VIII +
238. (in Russian) ISBN 966-7234-05-3
© Vladimir Kuznetsov

Contents and Summary in English

Abstract
The triplet model treats a concept as complex structure that expresses three kinds of information. The first is about entities
subsumed under a concept, their properties and relations. The second is about means and ways of representing the first information
in intelligent systems. The third is about linkage between the first and second ones and methods of its constructing. The application
of triplet models to generalization and development of concept models in philosophy, logic, cognitive psychology, cognitive science,
linguistics, artificial intelligence has been demonstrated. The componential structure of the triplet model and extended concept
classification have been given. Theoretical considerations are combined with historical case-studies of concept history.
For scientists and students with an interest in problems of knowledge structure and representation.

It is proposed an original and productive approach to the concept of a scientific law. It proceeds from the structure-nominative reconstruction of a scientific theory, uses the apparatus of the theory of named sets and general theory of abstract properties. Among new results: the discovery of metamorphoses of scientific laws as scientific theory components; the study of functioning numerous hierarchies and classifications of laws in scientific cognition; the explication of such features of laws as forms and formulations, orders and ranges; the elaborating of the system of evaluations of laws and their typologies; the analysis of law specificity (in particular, symmetry and supersymmetry principles) in advanced physics.

The textbook presents the evolution of law understanding from the ancient times to the end of XX century. It exposes some directions of Western philosophy of law (legal positivism, naturalism, realism, economical, critical and postmodernist studies of law, etc) that are of crucial importance for improving Ukrainian legal system.
The textbook includes also numerous excerpts from classics of the Western legal philosophy and contemporary Ukrainian and Russian authors.



FOREWORD AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

INTRODUCTION
1. Main objectives of philosophy of law
2. Interpretations of law
3. Problems of philosophy of law
4. Legal concepts and philosophy of law
5. The relevance of philosophy of law
6. Does a jurist need philosophy of law?
7. The practical knowledge and understanding of law
[Excerpts: Explanatory Dictionary of Politics; Nersesyanz; Del Veccio; Shiner; Finnis; Hoecke; Batchinin and Salnikov; Philosophical Dictionary; Didier Julia; Black's Law Dictionary; Posner; Honore; Shkoda; Batchinin and Panov; Andreytsev; Kitaygorodska; Zadorogny]

Part I. UNDERSTANDING AND LAW MODELING
1. Structure and features of understanding
[Excerpt: Batchinin and Salnikov]
2 . Understanding in the context of thought,
knowledge and opinion
3. Complexity of law and its understanding
3.1. Objective complexity
3.2. Problem complexity
3.3. Epistemic complexity
4. Modeling in philosophy of law
4.1. The concept of modeling
4.2. Peculiarities of law modeling

Part II. ANCIENT GREECE PHILOSOPHY OF LAW
1. Pre-Socratics
1.1. The Greece contribution to philosophy of law
1.2. Legal as a reflection of Logos
1.3. Law as a human invention
1.4. Law as an embodiment of justice
1.5. The emergence of ideas of legal positivism
and naturalism
[Excerpts: Anaximander; Heraclitus; Pericles; Sophocles; Protagoras; Antiphon; Democritus; Xenophon; Thrasymachus; Callicles; Shkoda; Explanatory Dictionary of Politics; Batchinin and Salnikov; Black]
2. Socrates
2.1. Justice and knowledge
2.2. Human nature as a factor of law understanding
[Excerpts: Xenophon; Sokolov]
3 . Plato
3.1. The ideal state and ideal law .
3.2. Value justice and procedural justice
[Excerpts: Plato; Zolatarev]
4. Aristotle
4.1. Distributive and corrective justice
4.2. State constitution, laws and form of governance
4.3. Law and trial
4.4. On specifics of ancient Greece understanding of law
[Excerpts: Aristotle]

Part III. ROMAN AND MEDIEVAL PHILOSOPHIES OF
LAW
1. Roman philosophy of law
1.1. Stoic notions of humanity and universe
1.2. Cicero and Seneca: reason, physis, justice, and fate .
1.3. Differentiation, classification and
systematization as forms of understanding
1.4. Interpretations of interconnections between natural,
national and civil laws (Gaius, Ulpian, Institutes
of Justinian)
[Excerpts: Cicero; Seneca; Gaius; Ulpian; Digest]
2. Medieval philosophy of law
2.1. Christian teaching, law and stoic philosophy
2.2. Augustine: divine, natural and secular laws
2.3. Isidore of Seville: quality of law
2.4. Canonists and civilians: from interpretation
to systematization of law
3 . Thomas Aquinas
3.1. The final foundation of law: reason or will
3.2. Law as an equitable reasonable foundation
for human actions
4. Voluntarism, rationalism, theism, and naturalism
in law
[Excerpts: Augustine; Isidore of Seville, Gratian, Irnerius, Thomas Aquinas, Novoprudsky].

Part IV. RENAISSANCE AND NEW TIMES
. The legal anthropic voluntarism ...
1.1. Absolutism and voluntarism
1.2. Bartol, Machiavelli and Boden: will of sovereign
as a source of law
[Excerpts: Bartol; Machiavelli; Boden]
. Law underpinning
2.1. Vitoria and Suarez
2.2. Grotius: humanity of man as a basis of law
[Excerpts: Suarez; Grotius]
3. Philosophical-legal implications of interpretations
of human nature ,
3.1. Hobbes: law as a means of human pacification
3.2. Pufendorf: an idea of state of culture
3.3. Locke: protection of life and property
as a goal of law
[Excerpts: Hobbes; Pufendorf; Locke, Sokolov; Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought; Explanatory Dictionary of Politics]
4. New understandings of natural law and will
4.1. Montesquieu: the spirit of laws
4.2. Rousseau: the common will
4.3. Natural law, justicement, and constitutional law
[Excerpts: Montesquieu; Rousseau; Unanimous Declaration; Constitution of the USA;
Declaration of the Rights; Constitution of Ukraine]
5. Kant and Kantians
5.1. Kant: reason and free will
5.2. Stammler: natural law with variable content
[Excerpts: Kant; Stammler]
6. The legal historicism
6.1. Hegel: law as realization of the freedom
of objective spirit
6.2. Savigny: law as a product of development
of Volksgeist
6.3. Maine: rules of law development
[Excerpts: Hegel; Savigny; Maine]
7. Critique of metaphysics in philosophy of law
7.1. Comte, Spencer, Darwin: new paradigm
of studies of law
7.2. Malinowski: meanings of «law»

Part V. PHILOSOPHY OF LAW IN THE XIX
AND THE FIRST HALF OF THE XX CENTURIES
1. New tasks of law and its philosophy
1.1. Industrial revolution and law
1.2. The main meanings of «legal positivism»
1.3. On the notion of norm
[Excerpts: Dent; Bankowski; Borsellino]
2 . The analytical legal positivism
2.1. Bentham: happiness of individuals as an aim of law....
2.2. Austin: a law as a command of sovereign
2.3. Jhering: law as a means of realization of interests
2.4. Kelsen: the pure theory of law
2.5. Radbruch: values of law

[Excerpts: Bentham; Austin; Jhering; Kelsen; Radbruch]
3. The legal economical positivism
3.1. Marx: law as a product of economics
3.2. Weber: critique of economic determinism
[Excerpts: Marx and Engels; Weber].
4. The legal sociological positivism
4.1. Interessenjurisprudenz and free-law movement
4.2. Ehrlich: communities as a source of law
4.3. Pound: law and fulfillment of human needs
[Excerpts: Ehrlich; Pound]
5 . The legal realism
5.1. The problem of existence and law
5.2. An overview of legal realism
5.3. Holmes and Bingham: model of law
as a means of prediction of judgements of court ...
5.4. Frank: normative and factual uncertainty of law
5.5. Llewellyn: law as a means of resolving disputes
5.6. Hägerström: psychological foundations of law
5.7. Olivecrona: psychological explanation
of normativity of law
5.8. Ross: law as a means of interpretation
of legal practice
[Excerpts: Shkoda; Holmes; Frank; Llewellyn; Hägerström; Olivecrona; Ross]

Part VI. SOME SCHOOLS OF PHILOSOPHY OF LAW
IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE XX CENTURY
. The legal criticism
1.1. Analysis of court trials as a method of law critique .....
1.2. Critique of legal liberal thinking
1.3. Unger: super-liberalism
1.4. Problems of legal criticism
[Excerpts: Gabel; Harris; Gordon; Kelman; Popovich]
2. The legal feminism
2.1. Basic principles of legal feminism
2.2. General and particular problems of legal feminism
[Excerpts: Voitenko; Bozman; Dovgenko; Gatash; Smith; Popova, Wishik; Wollf; Feofanova, Bezkorovaina]
3. The race-oriented legal criticism
[Excerpts: Bovt; Cooper and Cooper]
4. The legal postmodernism
4.1. Principal statements of postmodernism
and legal postmodernism
4.2. Postmodern understanding of legal argumentation
5. The legal economism
5.1. Three main theses of legal economism
5.2. Legal-economic analysis of law
5.3. Posner
[Excerpts: Paquet and Pestieau]

Supplement. CLASSIFICATION OF DIRECTIONS
IN PHILOSOPHY OF LAW
1. The problem of classification of approaches
in the contemporary legal philosophy
2. The scheme of classification of features
of legal philosophy approaches
3. Positionality
4. Unarity
5. Differentiality
6. Binarity
7. Specificity
8. Kinds of comparison of legal philosophy approaches
Bibliography
Author Index

Summary
A new and detailed methodological model of scientific knowledge is constructed and studied. This model unites and develops other approaches in the modern methodology of science such as standard conception (R.Carnap, A.Tarski, C.Hempel), structuralist program (J.D.Sneed, W.Balzer, C.U.Mouines), instrumentalist view (P.W.Bridgman), etc. Тhе suggested model of scientific values is built on the basis of structure-nominative approach that includes informal heuristic ideas and precise mathematical tools from the new field of mathematics – the theory of named sets.
One of the principal systems of scientific knowledge is the axiological system. Its study is the main goal of the book. The basic concepts of the axiological system are the estimation and value. Their informal analysis is supplemented by their precise modeling by theory of abstract properties. It opens the way to investigate not only such values as truth and consistency, but also such estimations as theoreticity, fundamentality, heuristicity, validity, importance, beauty, practicality and so on. The authors present different new results of scientific axiology. It gives a new and promising insight in many important problems of general axiology.

СONTENTS


Introduction             3

Chapter 1.
Mathematical tools of modern methodology of science
1.1. Fundamentals of set theory and category theory     13
1.2. Basic constructions of named set theory             16
1.3. Some concepts of the theory of relations             18
1.4. Elements of the general theory of properties             19

Chapter2.
The structure-nominative approach in methodology of science
2.1. Methodological models of scientific knowledge          46
      systems                                                           
2.2. The structure-nominative reconstruction of scientific    52
      theory                                                 
2.3. Levels and subsystems of scientific theory                58
2.4. The structure-nominative classification of knowledge  76
2.5. Scientific theory and creativity                                83

Chapter3.
Axiological structures in scientific knowledge
3.1. The concept of estimation                     87
3.2. Estimations and their models                     99
3.3. Values and their types                         112

Chapter 4.
Theoretical systems and their estimations
4.1. Theoreticity                             123
4.2. Fundamentally                             137
4.3. Heuristicity and validity                     159
4.4. Significance and beauty                     165
Conclusion                             172
Bibliography                             173
Subject index                                     179
Summary                                     181

The methodology of science is studied as an exact science that analyzes the composition, structures and functions of scientific knowledge systems. The book enounces major informal ideas and basic formal tools of the structure-nominative methodology of science that models knowledge systems as complex and hierarchical polysystems. Their highest hierarchy level includes the logico-linguistic, model-representing, problem-heuristic and pragmatico-procedural subsystems. The beginning analysis of real knowledge systems from mathematics, physics and social science is given.

CONTENTS

Foreword 3
1. Knowledge and Scientific Activity 5
2. Science and Its Features 7
3. Cognitive System of Science 8
4. The Subject and Methods of the Methodology of Science 9
5. The Methodology of Science and Laymen 10
6. Implicit and Explicit Aspects of Scientific Activity 11
7. Science and Society 12
8. The Importance of Knowledge about Scientific Knowledge 13
9. The Practical Usefulness of Theoretical Scientific Knowledge13
10. The Measure of Scientificity of Modern Social Science 15
11. Scientification of Scientific Activity 16
12. Scientific Theories as the Cornerstones of Modern Science 16
13. The Demand for Empirical Study of Scientific 17
Knowledge Systems
14. The Role of Methodology of Science for Science 18

Chapter 1. Informal and Exact Methods of Analysis of Knowledge
1.1. The Informal and the Exact in the Methodology of Science 21
1.2. The Theory of Named Sets 25
1.3. Mathematical Logic 36
1.4. The Theory of Sets 47
1.5. "Ordinary" Sets as Named Sets 53
1.6. The Set Scale 54
1.7. Fuzzy Sets and Multisets 56
1.8. The Theory of Abstract Properties 59
1.9. Algorithms and Turing's Machines 73

Chapter 2. Scientific Knowledge as an Object of Methodological Modeling
2.1. The Definition of the Methodology of Science 82
2.2. The General and Particular Methodologies of Science 84
2.3. Modeling as a Method of the Methodology of Science 84
2.4. Model and Its Composition 87

Chapter 3. Polysystem Nature of Scientific Knowledge
3.1. Scientific Knowledge Systems and Scientific Theories 97
3.2. Systems and Their Properties 98
3.3. Hierarchical Systems 100
3.4. The Systemic Character of Scientific Knowledge 102
3.5. Polysystemity of Scientific Theories 104
3.6. The Structure and Functions of Scientific Theories 108
3.7. The Structure-Nominative Analysis of Concrete Theories. 112
A First Approximation
3.8. Levels and Hierarchies of Scientific Theories 117

Chapter 4. Reality Representation in Scientific Theory
4.1. The Domain of a Theory and the Area of Applications 130
of a Theory
4.2. Model as a Tool of Representation of the Theory Domain 141
4.3. Typology of Models 142
4.4. The Primary Models 149
4.5. Hierarchy of Levels in the Model-Representing 150
Subsystem of Knowledge System
4.6. The Levels of Theoreticity, Constructivity and Structuralization 156
4.7. The Hierarchy of Laws 160

Chapter 5. Language as a Tool for Scientific Knowledge Expression
5.1. The Language as Building Material for Theories 163
5.2. The General Idea of Language 165
5.3. The Language as Sign System 168
5.4. On One Classification of Sign Systems 173
5.5. The Language as Sign System of Reality Structurization 176
5.6. The Language, Speech and Speech Activity 180
5.7. Hierarchies in Language 185
5.8. Semantics of Language 187
5.9. Types of Superlanguages 192
5.10. The Development of Linguistic Tools of Science 194
5.11. The Languages of Preliminary Description 197
of the Domain of a Theory
5.12. The Representation of Facts in Languages of Scientific Theory 207
5.13. The Nomological Level of Description 210
5.14. The Functional Typology of Languages of a Scientific Theory 212
5.15. The Levels of Logico-Linguistic Subsystem of 214
Knowledge System

Chapter 6.The Procedural Nature of Scientific Knowledge Systems
6.1. Operations, Actions, Processes, Procedures and Algorithms 219
6.2. The Properties of Operations 221
6.3. Realizability and Complexity as Estimations of 230
Actions and Operations
6.4. The Operational Side of Logic 232
6.5. Models of the Notion of Algorithm 234
6.6. Hierarchies of Pragmatic-Procedural Subsystem of 237
Knowledge System

Chapter 7. The Problem Character of Scientific Knowledge Systems
7.1. Problems, Tasks, Questions and Assignments 244
7.2. The Relationships between Problems, Questions and 248
Assignments
7.3. Tasks in Scientific Knowledge Systems 252
7.4. The External Structures of Tasks 256
7.5. The Levels of Tasks of Scientific Knowledge Systems 262
7.6. Hierarchies of Problem Subsystem of Knowledge System 264

Chapter 8. Estimating Component of Scientific Knowledge System
8.1. The Notion of Estimation as an Element of Scientific Knowledge 269
8.2. Scientific Estimations and Its Structure-Nominative Analysis 271
8.3. The Typology of Estimations 276
8.4. The Estimations and Axiological Components of 287
Scientific Knowledge Systems

Chapter 9. The Heuristicity of Scientific Knowledge System
9.1. The Scientific Theory and Scientific Creativity 290
9.2. Heuristicity and Heuristicality as Estimations of Scientific Theory 294
9.3. Heuristical Procedures 296
Conclusion

Abstract

Are theories the fruits of scholasticism that are far apart from reality? Is progress in any area of our life cogitable without theories? Is it possible to make any serious decision without theoretical support? Answers to such questions take for granted the clarification of nature, composition, and functions of theories. The polemical and non-standard formulation of problems concerning theoretical mind and its practical role in contemporary society and science is a distinguished feature of the book.

                          CONTENTS

Introduction 5

I. Maps and atlases of a scientific theory 19

II. On systems, hierarchies and the methodology          29
    of science
1. Systemic character of scientific knowledge 30
2. Why the unified theory is absent in science 46
3. The large-scale map of a scientific theory 51

III. Does the methodology of science                          65
    need mathematics?
1. What is the methodology of science? 66
2. Mathematics as a tool of methodology 87
3. The state and tendencies of the contemporary        100
    methodology of science

IV. How reality is represented in a theory               109
    or what is a model?
1. Reality – model – theory               110
2. Levels of the model-representative subsystem        128
    of a theory 
3. The theory of gods and its models               133

V. The theory of language and languages of a theory    145
1. Languages are building materials of a theory            146
2. The development of language tools of science          175
3. The description of facts: phenomenon and essence  178
4. Levels of the logico-linguistic subsystem of a theory 199

VI. Social progress and scientific theories 205
1. How much do we know on theories used 206
2. How to build a new society 215

Conclusion 226

Bibliography 229

CONTENTS

Introduction

I. Methodological analysis of theoretical approaches to subnuclear
physics

1. Some tasks of elementary particles theory
Particles and their interactions
Current theoretical problems of elementary particles physics
Contemporary conceptions of particles physics and history of science

2. The structure of theoretical-physical knowledge
Mathematical apparatus and abstract objects of a physical theory
Theoretical and experimental situations

3. Classification of major theoretical approaches
Kinds of theoretical structures
Basic components of space-time descriptions
Descriptions in terms of interactions

II. Interplay between theoretical approaches and experimental basis of
elementary particles physics

1. Developments of experimental means of physics and formulating the
concept “elementary particle”
The role of scattering experiments in subnuclear physics.
Scattering, theoretical structures and notions of elementary particles.
Scattering theory as a fragment of the future theory of particles and
their interactions.

2. The problematic nature of the conception of hierarchy of material levels
in high energy physics
Two aspects of an idea of levels
Structural levels of microworld
Transmutability of particles and the search for elementary objects
The role of the conception of hierarchy of levels in theoretical
constructions of subnuclear physics

3. On the problem of framing the unified theory of particles and their
interactions
The discussion on the nature of future theory
The unified theory and the system of theories
Presuppositions of framing the unified theory of elementary particles

III. On methodological evaluation of the theoretical state of subnuclear
physics

1. The shift of prerequisites of structure of theory and theoretical
descriptions

2. The splitting of particles world

3. The epistemological situation in elementary particle physics

Bibliography

Setting-up a problem (instead of foreword)
I. Substance
1. Problem of objective and relative in contemporary science
2. The problem of relativity of substance
3. Scientific aspect of unity of absolute and relative
II. World
1. The problem of the world as a whole in physical cognition
2. The conception “World”. Categories of world representation
3. Typology of worlds
4. Man and Universum
III. Reflection
1. Peculiarities of scientific world picture and its contemporary stage
2. The idea of field and its conceptual tools
3. Observation principle and typology of existence
4. Vacuum and infinity
5. System-genetic features of nature in the modern scientific world picture
6. World understanding and problem of understanding of a scientific theory

Conclusion
Bibliography

One of the vividly discussed topics in the contemporary philosophy of science (especially physics) is the opposition between Realism and Anti-Realism. The supporters of the first way of thinking trust in the objective existence of realities studied by science. They consider theories as approximate descriptions of these realities (Psillos 1999, xvii), whereas their opponents do not. However, both sides base their argumentation on simplified notions of scientific theories. In this paper, we present a more general approach, which can be coined as “Theoretical Physics Realism” (TPR). It is based on the detailed reconstruction of the polysystemic nature of physical theories. The consequences of this reconstruction for understanding the genuine relationship between theories and experiments in studying the realities are indicated. The paper distinguishes between abstract (general) and domain-dependent theories and appeals to specific physical theories together with their application domains rather than to general speculations.

The article examines the relationship between science and the philosophy of science through the prism of modeling scientific theories, which are much more complex systems than are usually described in professional literature. Many specialists related to science,  its teaching,  and administration have simplified ideas about the component composition of theories, which are the main tools of scientific thinking. It is, therefore, necessary to develop a unifying yet detailed view of the theories. It is appropriate to base it on analyzing theories used in scientific practice. The author proposes to place a polysystemic vision of theories at the center of the philosophy of science and other metasciences about science (science of science, history of science, sociology of science, psychology of science, science management, etc.). Such a vision is useful for philosophers and scientists, teachers of scientific disciplines and students, those who manage science as a social institution for producing new knowledge, and those who evaluate its results.

One of the vividly discussed topics in the contemporary philosophy of science (especially physics) is the opposition between Realism and Anti-Realism. The supporters of the first way of thinking trust in the objective existence of realities studied by science. They consider theories as approximate descriptions of these realities (Psillos 1999, xvii), whereas their opponents do not. However, both sides base their argumentation on simplified notions of scientific theories. In this paper, we present a more general approach, which can be coined as “Theoretical Physics Realism” (TPR). It is based on the detailed reconstruction of the polysystemic nature of physical theories. The consequences of this reconstruction for understanding the genuine relationship between theories and experiments in studying the realities are indicated. The paper distinguishes between abstract (general) and domain-dependent theories and appeals to specific physical theories together with their application domains rather than to general speculations.

We analyzed remarkable stories linked to the famous Anatoly Vlasov equations in plasma physics. Their creation, modification, and application are interesting from the scientific viewpoint. We also show the relations between those equations dealing with electromagnetism and analogous Jeans equations describing, in particular, gravitational instability in astrophysics. The second half of the essay is devoted to the controversies and political struggle in Soviet (before 1991) and Russian (after 1991) physical communities related to Vlasov’s personality, career, and posthumous recognition. The never-ending destructive influence of the Russian totalitarianism on science is demonstrated.

We analyzed remarkable stories linked to the famous Anatoly Vlasov equations in plasma physics. Their creation, modification, and application are interesting from the scientific viewpoint. We also show the relations between those equations dealing with electromagnetism and analogous Jeans equations describing, in particular, gravitational instability in astrophysics. The second half of the essay is devoted to the controversies and political struggle in Soviet (before 1991) and Russian (after 1991) physical communities related to Vlasov’s personality, career, and posthumous recognition. The never-ending destructive influence of the Russian totalitarianism on science is demonstrated.

We analyze the development of the natural sciences according to the scheme: "… reality-attributes-reality-attributes". Any material reality is interpreted as a carrier of attributes manifested in a certain range of its experimental study and at a certain theoretical level of data understanding. More sophisticated experiments and refined theories lead to a more detailed and correct vision of realities and their attributes. The latter initiates new experiments and creation of new theories. These cognitive processes lead to the discovery of new material realities with their additional or refined attributes compared to those previously known. The objectivity and relative truth of scientific statements about the realities under study and their attributes are based on a qualitative or quantitative correspondence between theoretically calculated values of attributes and their experimentally measured values. We emphasize that the isolation and adequate historical and philosophical analysis of those cycles requires professional knowledge of the analyzed complex scientific material and cannot be implemented within the framework of oversimplified ideas about science and the role, which theories play in it. Examples of such ideas are the understanding of theories solely in terms of their refutation and confirmation or even the replacement of theories with fuzzy sociological concepts such as a paradigm and sociocultural determination of the scientific results. Those views often become the source of idealistic, irrational, and postmodernist interpretations of science and its history.
https://vestnikdnu.dp.ua/index.php/ifnit/article/view/113/119

Varieties of modern philosophies of mathematical and natural sciences are represented. Specific features of those sciences are analyzed on the basis of graph classifications of the respective phi-losophies. The importance of reconstructions of practical theories is emphasized for all kinds of philosophies of science used by them.

The first part outlines the purpose of the article and considers subject and theoretical, the sec- ond — evaluative, nominal, theoretical-reconstructive and linguistic-reconstructive classifica- tions of philosophies of science. The conclusions are made about the problematic application of these classifications to the philosophies of social sciences and humanities.

Philosophical Problems of Physics (Philosophy of Physics) is a philosophical discipline that consists of three interrelated parts. Epistemology of physics studies 1) the construction of physics as a branched coherent complex set of knowledge systems about the fundamental components of the material world, their properties, and patterns; 2) the internal construction of physical theories as systems of knowledge and the relationship between them; 3) the role of physical theories as tools for gaining new knowledge about their subject areas. The methodology of physics explores the methods, procedures and processes of obtaining, forming, evaluating (substantiation, verification), development and application of systems of physical knowledge. The ontology (metaphysics) of physics 1) explains the ideas about the material world that follow from the physical systems of knowledge and 2) analyzes the worldview problems posed by these ideas.

Due to newspaper requirements references were deleted from the printed version https://dt.ua/SCIENCE/chi-ye-naukoyu-filosofiya-nauki-309070_.html (In Ukrainian) https://zn.ua/SCIENCE/yavlyaetsya-li-naukoy-filosofiya-nauki-315326_.html (in Russian) Initially, the paper was sent to the general scientific journal “Visnyk of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine” (http://www.visnyk-nanu.org.ua/en) and rejected without any written explanation. Contents Basic question was formulated but has not discussed Is the philosophy of science a philosophy? What is a science? New knowledge is the main scientific product The philosophy of science as one of metasciences about science Features of the philosophy of science as science Abstract The philosophy of science is understood as a meta-science about science. Its domain includes components, subsystems, structures, functions, and interconnections of systems of scientific knowledge as rational means of generating new knowledge. Some scientific criteria, which are satisfied by the philosophy of science: demarcating and modeling its domain, verifying its statements, identifying and solving original problems, describing dynamics of knowledge systems in terms of their components and subsystems, are formulated. The structure-nominative direction in the philosophy of science has included into systems of scientific knowledge more forms of its differentiation than informal-conceptual, propositional/standard, logical, instrumentalist/operationalist, erothetic/interrogative, semantic, and structuralist directions. Scientists construct a balanced system of scientific knowledge as the device of producing new knowledge by systemically ordering ties between these forms. The modification of the structure-nominative direction proposes more detailed («microscopic») consideration of compositions, transformations, interdependencies, and dynamics of subsystems of systems of scientific knowledge. In any particular system of scientific knowledge, the following agreed subsystems are singled out: ontic (initial ideas about the indisputable attributes of realities from the domain of the knowledge system in question); denominative (names of realities both from the domain and names of components of the system itself); language (system of languages of the knowledge system); logistic (means of ordering subsystems); nomic (laws, axioms, postulates that represent the regularities and regularities of the domain, as well as the principles of the system itself); model (abstract models); representative (models whose prototypes are realities from the domain); problem / interrogative or erothetic (problems, issues, tasks that are being formulated and solved); operational (actions with components and structures of knowledge system in question); procedural (rules for performing actions); evaluative or axiological (assessments of components, structures, subsystems and the system as a whole); hypothetical (assumptions); heuristic (useful, but not rigorous means of reasoning); approximative (approximations) and binding (connections of subsystems and their components) subsystems. The results of the article are useful in the philosophy of science, sociology of science and history of science, as well as in the teaching of corresponding university courses. Key words: science as a social institution, philosophy of science, meta-science, production of knowledge, system of scientific knowledge, polysystem, components, subsystems, modified structural-nominative reconstruction, scientific criteria.

Summary A new and detailed methodological model of scientific knowledge is constructed and studied. This model unites and develops other approaches in the modern methodology of science such as standard conception (R.Carnap, A.Tarski, C.Hempel), structuralist program (J.D.Sneed, W.Balzer, C.U.Mouines), instrumentalist view (P.W.Bridgman), etc. Тhе suggested model of scientific values is built on the basis of structure-nominative approach that includes informal heuristic ideas and precise mathematical tools from the new field of mathematics – the theory of named sets. One of the principal systems of scientific knowledge is the axiological system. Its study is the main goal of the book. The basic concepts of the axiological system are the estimation and value. Their informal analysis is supplemented by their precise modeling by theory of abstract properties. It opens the way to investigate not only such values as truth and consistency, but also such estimations as theoreticity, fundamentality, heuristicity, validity, importance, beauty, practicality and so on. The authors present different new results of scientific axiology. It gives a new and promising insight in many important problems of general axiology. СONTENTS Introduction 3 Chapter 1. Mathematical tools of modern methodology of science 1.1. Fundamentals of set theory and category theory 13 1.2. Basic constructions of named set theory 16 1.3. Some concepts of the theory of relations 18 1.4. Elements of the general theory of properties 19 Chapter2. The structure-nominative approach in methodology of science 2.1. Methodological models of scientific knowledge 46 systems 2.2. The structure-nominative reconstruction of scientific 52 theory 2.3. Levels and subsystems of scientific theory 58 2.4. The structure-nominative classification of knowledge 76 2.5. Scientific theory and creativity 83 Chapter3. Axiological structures in scientific knowledge 3.1. The concept of estimation 87 3.2. Estimations and their models 99 3.3. Values and their types 112 Chapter 4. Theoretical systems and their estimations 4.1. Theoreticity 123 4.2. Fundamentally 137 4.3. Heuristicity and validity 159 4.4. Significance and beauty 165 Conclusion 172 Bibliography 173 Subject index 179 Summary 181

Physical theories are complex and necessary tools for gaining new knowledge about their areas of application. A distinction is made between abstract and practical theories. The last are constantly being improved in the cognitive activity of professional physicists and studied by future physicists. A variant of the philosophy of physics based on a modified structural-nominative reconstruction of practical theories is proposed. Readers should decide whether this option is useful for their understanding of the philosophy of physics, as well as other philosophies of particular sciences.The article is written within the theme “Communicative transformations in modern science” of “Program-targeted and competitive topics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine”.

Ключевые слова: Ukraine, organization of fundamental science, state academies, academicians, corresponding members, personal and 'no-named'researchers, lifelong privileges, scientometric indicators of research productivity, Украина, организация фундаментальной науки, государственные академии наук, академики, члены-корреспонденты, персональные и рядовые исследователи, пожиз-ненные привилегии, наукометрические показатели/индикаторы продуктивности научной деятельности

Some aspects of the radical change of value orientations in modern western science are considered. Influenced by leftist ideology and under the slogans of abstract justice, the leadership of European and North American institutions is trying to expand the presence of new members in the scientific and educational spheres on the quota basis, taking into account racial and gender rather than meritocratic characteristics (high-quality basic and university education level, persistence to obtain new knowledge, developed mental abilities in this area). It has been shown that the rapid legislative or illegal introduction of quotas for minorities instead of increasing their scientific level and well-being can only limit the recruiting of talented people of any gender or race into science and will result in the decline of the world science as a whole.

Physical theories are complex and necessary tools for gaining new knowledge about their areas of application. A distinction is made between abstract and practical theories. The last are constantly being improved in the cognitive activity of professional physicists and studied by future physicists. A variant of the philosophy of physics based on a modified structural-nominative reconstruction of practical theories is proposed. Readers should decide whether this option is useful for their understanding of the philosophy of physics, as well as other philosophies of particular sciences.
The article is written within the theme "Communicative transformations in modern science" of "Program targeted and competitive topics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine".
Keywords: practical physical theories; physical lingua franca; subsystems of theories; subsystem flexibilities; main and auxiliary components; basic and satellite levels.

A plenty of periodization schemes were proposed for studying the history of science. The adoption of a certain scheme is largely determined and largely determines the scientist views on the history of science. Scientific theories constitute the main tool of the knowledge production. Hence, it is reasonable to distinguish between pre-theoretical and theoretical periods of the science evolution. For instance, physics as the modern science was created by Newton. It was also the starting point of the methodological approach in the natural sciences as a whole. To distinguish theoretical periods in the history of physics, one should unite various theories on the basis of their methodological background. In particular, it is sometimes stated that there exist classical and non-classical stages of the physics development. Now, it should be considered as too simplified. In particular, relativistic physics should be treated as an important amendment to the classical physics, dealing with the same problems that troubled Newton. The non-classical, i.e. quantum mechanical stage of physical theory and physical experiment (!) revealed that our classical world has an obligatory quantum mechanical background. For instance, the stability of matter itself is due to the quantum mechanical character of inter-atomic forces (Earnshaw's theorem). At high energies the special relativity and quantum theory are united into a quantum field theory, which is far from being completed. Such a theory would be a starting point of the third stage of the physical science. In view of this clear evidence, it seems strange that a new concept has appeared that (i) adds a new "post-non-classical period" to the periodization of physics, (ii) generalizes this modified classification from physics to the science as a whole, (iii) characterizes the modern state of science as that corresponding to the purported post-non-classical period. Indeed, no significant changes in the structure of scientific theories occurred after the classical theories were gradually transformed into modern ones. Nowadays the processes, which control the scientific activities, become more and more sophisticated. Gradual and sometimes radical changes take place in the widely accepted world picture. Nevertheless, as in times of Newton, a scientist creates, modifies, checks and applies models. He (she) tries to explain the available experimental data on the basis of the proposed theoretical constructions, estimates any his actions, according to the conventionally approved or specifically applied criteria. At the same time, the appearance of the future science periodization requires such a progress of natural sciences, which could be confirmed with the quantum mechanical revolution. The periodization might particular rather than general. For instance, a biological breakthrough or a creation of the high-level artificial intellect in cybernetics may lead to the necessity of specific periodizations for those branches of science.

Due to newspaper requirements references were deleted from the printed version
https://dt.ua/SCIENCE/chi-ye-naukoyu-filosofiya-nauki-309070_.html (In Ukrainian)
https://zn.ua/SCIENCE/yavlyaetsya-li-naukoy-filosofiya-nauki-315326_.html (in Russian)
Initially, the paper was sent to the general scientific journal “Visnyk of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine” (http://www.visnyk-nanu.org.ua/en) and rejected without any written explanation.

Contents
Basic question was formulated but has not discussed
Is the philosophy of science a philosophy?
What is a science?
New knowledge is the main scientific product
The philosophy of science as one of metasciences about science
Features of the philosophy of science as science

Abstract
The philosophy of science is understood as a meta-science about science. Its domain includes components, subsystems, structures, functions, and interconnections of systems of scientific knowledge as rational means of generating new knowledge. Some scientific criteria, which are satisfied by the philosophy of science: demarcating and modeling its domain, verifying its statements, identifying and solving original problems, describing dynamics of knowledge systems in terms of their components and subsystems, are formulated.
The structure-nominative direction in the philosophy of science has included into systems of scientific knowledge more forms of its differentiation than informal-conceptual, propositional/standard, logical, instrumentalist/operationalist, erothetic/interrogative, semantic, and structuralist directions. Scientists construct a balanced system of scientific knowledge as the device of producing new knowledge by systemically ordering ties between these forms.
The modification of the structure-nominative direction proposes more detailed («microscopic») consideration of compositions, transformations, interdependencies, and dynamics of subsystems of systems of scientific knowledge.
In any particular system of scientific knowledge, the following agreed subsystems are singled out: ontic (initial ideas about the indisputable attributes of realities from the domain of the knowledge system in question); denominative (names of realities both from the domain and names of components of the system itself); language (system of languages of the knowledge system); logistic (means of ordering subsystems); nomic (laws, axioms, postulates that represent the regularities and regularities of the domain, as well as the principles of the system itself); model (abstract models); representative (models whose prototypes are realities from the domain); problem / interrogative or erothetic (problems, issues, tasks that are being formulated and solved); operational (actions with components and structures of knowledge system in question); procedural (rules for performing actions); evaluative or axiological (assessments of components, structures, subsystems and the system as a whole); hypothetical (assumptions); heuristic (useful, but not rigorous means of reasoning); approximative (approximations) and binding (connections of subsystems and their components) subsystems.
The results of the article are useful in the philosophy of science, sociology of science and history of science, as well as in the teaching of corresponding university courses.
Key words: science as a social institution, philosophy of science, meta-science, production of knowledge, system of scientific knowledge, polysystem, components, subsystems, modified structural-nominative reconstruction, scientific criteria.

Due to newspaper requirements references were deleted from the printed version
https://dt.ua/SCIENCE/chi-ye-naukoyu-filosofiya-nauki-309070_.html (In Ukrainian)
https://zn.ua/SCIENCE/yavlyaetsya-li-naukoy-filosofiya-nauki-315326_.html (in Russian)
Initially, the paper was sent to the general scientific journal “Visnyk of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine” (http://www.visnyk-nanu.org.ua/en) and rejected without any written explanation.
Contents
Basic question was formulated but has not discussed
Is the philosophy of science a philosophy?
What is a science?
New knowledge is the main scientific product
The philosophy of science as one of metasciences about science
Features of the philosophy of science as science

Abstract
The philosophy of science is understood as a meta-science about science. Its domain includes components, subsystems, structures, functions, and interconnections of systems of scientific knowledge as rational means of generating new knowledge. Some scientific criteria, which are satisfied by the philosophy of science: demarcating and modeling its domain, verifying its statements, identifying and solving original problems, describing dynamics of knowledge systems in terms of their components and subsystems, are formulated.
The structure-nominative direction in the philosophy of science has included into systems of scientific knowledge more forms of its differentiation than informal-conceptual, propositional/standard, logical, instrumentalist/operationalist, erothetic/interrogative, semantic, and structuralist directions. Scientists construct a balanced system of scientific knowledge as the device of producing new knowledge by systemically ordering ties between these forms.
The modification of the structure-nominative direction proposes more detailed («microscopic») consideration of compositions, transformations, interdependencies, and dynamics of subsystems of systems of scientific knowledge.
In any particular system of scientific knowledge, the following agreed subsystems are singled out: ontic (initial ideas about the indisputable attributes of realities from the domain of the knowledge system in question); denominative (names of realities both from the domain and names of components of the system itself); language (system of languages of the knowledge system); logistic (means of ordering subsystems); nomic (laws, axioms, postulates that represent the regularities and regularities of the domain, as well as the principles of the system itself); model (abstract models); representative (models whose prototypes are realities from the domain); problem / interrogative or erothetic (problems, issues, tasks that are being formulated and solved); operational (actions with components and structures of knowledge system in question); procedural (rules for performing actions); evaluative or axiological (assessments of components, structures, subsystems and the system as a whole); hypothetical (assumptions); heuristic (useful, but not rigorous means of reasoning); approximative (approximations) and binding (connections of subsystems and their components) subsystems.
The results of the article are useful in the philosophy of science, sociology of science and history of science, as well as in the teaching of corresponding university courses.
Key words: science as a social institution, philosophy of science, meta-science, production of knowledge, system of scientific knowledge, polysystem, components, subsystems, modified structural-nominative reconstruction, scientific criteria.

The paper explicates the stages of the author’s philosophical evolution in the light of Kopnin’s ideas and heritage.
Starting from Kopnin’s understanding of dialectical materialism, the author has stated that category transformations of physics has opened from conceptualization of immutability to mutability and then to interaction, evolvement and emergence. He has connected the problem of physical cognition universals with an elaboration of the specific system of tools and methods of identifying, individuating and dis-tinguishing objects from a scientific theory domain. The role of vacuum conception and the idea of existence (actual and potential, observable and non-observable, virtual and hidden) types were analyzed.
In collaboration with S.Crymski heuristic and regulative functions of categories of substance, world as a whole as well as postulates of relativity and absoluteness, and anthropic and self-development principles were singled out.
Elaborating Kopnin’s view of scientific theories as a practically effective and relatively true mapping of their domains, the author in collaboration with M. Burgin have originated the unified structure-nominative reconstruction (model) of scientific theory as a knowledge system. According to it, every scientific knowledge system includes hierarchically organized and complex subsystems that partially and separately have been studied by standard, structuralist, operationalist, problem-solving, axiological and other directions of the current philosophy of science. 1) The logico-linguistic subsystem represents and normalizes by means of different, including mathematical, languages and normalizes and logical calculi the knowledge available on objects under study. 2) The model-representing subsystem comprises peculiar to the knowledge system ways of their modeling and understanding. 3) The pragmatic-procedural subsystem contains general and unique to the knowledge system operations, methods, procedures, algorithms and programs. 4) From the viewpoint of the problem-heuristic subsystem, the knowledge system is a unique way of setting and resolving questions, problems, puzzles and tasks of cognition of objects into question. It also includes various heuristics and estimations (truth, consistency, beauty, efficacy, adequacy, heuristicity etc) of components and structures of the knowledge system. 5) The subsystem of links fixes interrelations between above-mentioned components, structures and subsystems of the knowledge system.
The structure-nominative reconstruction has been used in the philosophical and comparative case-studies of mathematical, physical, economic, legal, political, pedagogical, social, and sociological theories. It has enlarged the collection of knowledge structures, connected, for instance, with a multitude of theoreticity levels and with an application of numerous mathematical languages. It has deepened the comprehension of relations between the main directions of current philosophy of science. They are interpreted as dealing mainly with isolated subsystems of scientific theory. This reconstruction has disclosed a variety of undetected knowledge structures, associated also, for instance, with principles of symmetry and supersymmetry and with laws of various levels and degrees.
In cooperation with the physicist Olexander Gabovich the modified structure-nominative reconstruction is in the processes of development and justification.
Ideas and concepts were also in the center of Kopnin’s cognitive activity.
The author has suggested and elaborated the triplet model of concepts. According to it, any scientific concept is a dependent on cognitive situation, dynamical, multifunctional state of scientist’s thinking, and available knowledge system. A concept is modeled as being consisted from three interrelated structures. 1) The concept base characterizes objects falling under a concept as well as their properties and relations. In terms of volume and content the logical modeling reveals partially only the concept base. 2) The concept representing part includes structures and means (names, statements, abstract properties, quantitative values of object properties and relations, mathematical equations and their systems, theoretical models etc.) of object representation in the appropriate knowledge system. 3) The linkage unites a structures and procedures that connect components from the abovementioned structures. The partial cases of the triplet model are logical, information, two-tired, standard, exemplar, prototype, knowledge-dependent and other concept models. It has introduced the triplet classification that comprises several hundreds of concept types. Different kinds of fuzziness are distinguished. Even the most precise and exact concepts are fuzzy in some triplet aspect. The notions of relations between real scientific concepts are essentially extended. For example, the definition and strict analysis of such relations between concepts as formalization, quantification, mathematization, generalization, fuzzification, and various kinds of identity are proposed. The concepts «PLANET» and «ELEMENTARY PARTICLE» and some of their metamorphoses were analyzed in triplet terms.
The Kopnin’s methodology and epistemology of cognition was being used for creating conception of the philosophy of law as elaborating of understanding, justification, estimating and criticizing legal system. The basic information on the major directions in current Western philosophy of law (legal realism, feminism, criticism, postmodernism, economical analysis of law etc.) is firstly introduced to the Ukrainian audience. The classification of more than fifty directions in modern legal philosophy is suggested.
Some results of historical, linguistic, scientometric and philosophic-legal studies of the present state of Ukrainian academic science are given.
Key words: Kopnin, science, categories, concepts, theory, philosophy of physics, philosophy of science, philosophy of law, organization of science.

The paper explicates the stages of the author’s philosophical evolution in the light of Kopnin’s ideas and heritage.

Starting from Kopnin’s understanding of dialectical materialism, the author has stated that category transformations of physics has opened from conceptualization of immutability to mutability and then to interaction, evolvement and emergence. He has connected the problem of physical cognition universals with an elaboration of the specific system of tools and methods of identifying, individuating and distinguishing objects from a scientific theory domain. The role of vacuum conception and the idea of existence (actual and potential, observable and non-observable, virtual and hidden) types were analyzed.

In collaboration with S.Crymski heuristic and regulative functions of categories of substance, world as a whole as well as postulates of relativity and absoluteness, and anthropic and self-development principles were singled out.
Elaborating Kopnin’s view of scientific theories as a practically effective and relatively true mapping of their domains, the author in collaboration with M. Burgin have originated the unified structure-nominative reconstruction (model) of scientific theory as a knowledge system. According to it, every scientific knowledge system includes hierarchically organized and complex subsystems that partially and separately have been studied by standard, structuralist, operationalist, problem-solving, axiological and other directions of the current philosophy of science. 1) The logico-linguistic subsystem represents and normalizes by means of different, including mathematical, languages and normalizes and logical calculi the knowledge available on objects under study. 2) The model-representing subsystem comprises peculiar to the knowledge system ways of their modeling and understanding. 3) The pragmatic-procedural subsystem contains general and unique to the knowledge system operations, methods, procedures, algorithms and programs. 4) From the viewpoint of the problem-heuristic subsystem, the knowledge system is a unique way of setting and resolving questions, problems, puzzles and tasks of cognition of objects into question. It also includes various heuristics and estimations (truth, consistency, beauty, efficacy, adequacy, heuristicity etc) of components and structures of the knowledge system. 5) The subsystem of links fixes interrelations between above-mentioned components, structures and subsystems of the knowledge system.
The structure-nominative reconstruction has been used in the philosophical and comparative case-studies of mathematical, physical, economic, legal, political, pedagogical, social, and sociological theories. It has enlarged the collection of knowledge structures, connected, for instance, with a multitude of theoreticity levels and with an application of numerous mathematical languages. It has deepened the comprehension of relations between the main directions of current philosophy of science. They are interpreted as dealing mainly with isolated subsystems of scientific theory. This reconstruction has disclosed a variety of undetected  knowledge structures, associated also, for instance, with principles of symmetry and super-symmetry and with laws of various levels and degrees.
In cooperation with the physicist Olexander Gabovich the modified structure-nominative reconstruction is in the processes of development and justification.
Ideas and concepts were also in the center of Kopnin’s cognitive activity.
The author has suggested and elaborated the triplet model of concepts. According to it, any scientific concept is a dependent on cognitive situation, dynamical, multifunctional state of scientist’s thinking, and available knowledge system. A concept is modeled as being consisted from three interrelated structures. 1) The concept base characterizes objects falling under a concept as well as their properties and relations. In terms of volume and content the logical modeling reveals partially only the concept base. 2) The concept representing part includes structures and means (names, statements, abstract properties, quantitative values of object properties and relations, mathematical equations and their systems, theoretical models etc.) of object representation in the appropriate knowledge system. 3) The linkage unites a structures and procedures that connect components from the abovementioned structures. The partial cases of the triplet model are logical, information, two-tired, standard, exemplar, prototype, knowledge-dependent and other concept models. It has introduced the triplet classification that comprises several hundreds of concept types. Different kinds of fuzziness are distinguished. Even the most precise and exact concepts are fuzzy in some triplet aspect. The notions of relations between real scientific concepts are essentially extended. For example, the definition and strict analysis of such relations between concepts as formalization, quantification, mathematization, generalization, fuzzification, and various kinds of identity are proposed. The concepts «PLANET» and «ELEMENTARY PARTICLE» and some of their metamorphoses were analyzed in triplet terms.
The Kopnin’s methodology and epistemology of cognition was being used for creating conception of the philosophy of law as elaborating of understanding, justification, estimating and criticizing legal system. The basic information on the major directions in current Western philosophy of law (legal realism, feminism, criticism, postmodernism, economical analysis of law etc.) is firstly introduced to the Ukrainian audience. The classification of more than fifty directions in modern legal philosophy is suggested.

Some results of historical, linguistic, scientometric and philosophic-legal studies of the present state of Ukrainian academic science are given.
Key words: Kopnin, science, categories, concepts, theory, philosophy of physics, philosophy of science, philosophy of law, organization of science.

Contents
Beginnings
My Philosophical Viewpoint
Philosophy of Physics
Philosophy of Science as an Analysis of Scientific Theories
Conceptual Analysis
Philosophy, History of Philosophy and Philosophy of Law
Academic Science Organization in the Light of European Values
Some Results and Perspectives of Philosophic-Methodological Analysis of Scientific Theories 
References
Bibliography

Philosophical Thought 2016, 6: 30-33 (In Ukrainian)

An overview of 1) the history of the department of logic and methodology of science of the Institute of philosophy named after G.S.Skovoroda of the National academy of sciences of Ukraine and 2) the present studies of its coworkers.

Scientific knowledge systems function as effective and specialized apparatus for formulating, analyzing and solving scientific problems. In science, problems become internal parts of the knowledge systems; thus they acquire new forms and properties in comparison with common-sense problems. Definite theoretical structures connected with problems and questions appear in the theory. Among them are erotetic expressions and languages, calculi and algebras of problems. On the basis of the structure nominative reconstruction of a theory, the unified treatment of these structures is given. Methods of the theory of named sets are used in the logical analysis of problems and their systems. As a consequence a new formalized model of the problem part of theory is constructed.

In Social Cognition: Principles, Forms, Functions, Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 1988. P. 90-107
The article describes some fragments of structural-nominative reconstruction of scientific theories, which uses the methods and means of the named sets theory. The analysis of major subsystems of scientific theories, as well as elements and levels of their model-representative subsystems shown the unity and the distinction of the structural features of the social and natural sciences theories.

In  Anglo–Ukrainian Studies in the Analysis of Scientific Discourse. Reason and Rhetoric / Ed. by R.Harre. – Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1993. P.63-93
Any contemporary science is organized in a form of theories and their nets. At large, its development consists of processes of formulation, justification, criticism, application and rejection of specific scientific theories. That is why the picture of knowledge is essentially determined by an understanding of a scientific theory, its structure and properties. The elaboration of sufficiently adequate, full and precise methodological models or reconstructions of real scientific theories and cognitive processes of their use is the principal task of the exact methodology of science. The paper gives an attempt of the exact analysis of such a "vague" property of scientific theory as its beauty.

Computing Systems (Special Issue: Methodological and Technological Problems of Information and Logical Systems), 1988, 125: 104-125. (In Russian)

In the framework of the structure-nominative approach to philosophy of science, the paper explicates some common patterns in the structure of scientific theories. By means of named sets and their morphisms, a rigorous description of the situation of constructing irrational numbers is given.

Philosophical Problems of Physics (Philosophy of Physics) is a philosophical discipline that consists of three interrelated parts. Epistemology of physics studies 1) the construction of physics as a branched coherent complex set of knowledge systems about the fundamental components of the material world, their properties, and patterns; 2) the internal construction of physical theories as systems of knowledge and the relationship between them; 3) the role of physical theories as tools for gaining new knowledge about their subject areas. The methodology of physics explores the methods, procedures and processes of obtaining, forming, evaluating (substantiation, verification), development and application of systems of physical knowledge. The ontology (metaphysics) of physics 1) explains the ideas about the material world that follow from the physical systems of knowledge and 2) analyzes the worldview problems posed by these ideas.

The importance of theories in modern science and their reconstructions in the philosophy of science is emphasized. Abstract theories are contrasted with practical theories that are used in the cognitive activity of scientists and in teaching students. Subsystems of scientific theory as polysystems are briefly described. In the frame of a modified structure-nominative reconstruction, the idea of the philosophical foundations of scientific theories is critically analyzed. A distinction is made between global and local understandings of the philosophy of science. It is assumed that the development of theoretical medicine is primarily associated with the construction and application of empirically testable domain-confined medical theories.

The philosophy of science is understood as a metascience about science. Its domain includes systems of scientific knowledge as rational means of generating new knowledge. The philosophy of science fills main scientific requirements: demarcating, splitting, and modeling its domain, verifying statements about domain, its components and subsystems, identifying and solving original problems of domain studying, describing trends of domain developments in terms of changes of domain components and subsystems.
The structure-nominative direction in the philosophy of science has included into systems of scientific knowledge more forms of its differentiation than informal-conceptual, propositional/standard, logistic, instrumentalist/operationalist, erotetic/interrogative, semantic, structuralist, and extended structuralist directions. Scientists construct a balanced system of scientific knowledge as the device of producing new knowledge by both systemically ordering ties between these forms and empirical/experimental investigations of the domain of the system at issue.
The modification of the structure-nominative direction proposes more detailed («microscopic») consideration of compositions, transformations, interdependencies, and dynamics of subsystems of systems of scientific knowledge. In any particular system of scientific knowledge, the following agreed subsystems are singled out: ontic (initial ideas about the indisputable attributes of realities from the domain of the knowledge system in question); denominative (names of realities from the domain and names of components of the system itself); language (system of languages of the knowledge system); logistical (means of ordering subsystems); nomic (laws, axioms, postulates that represent the regularities of the domain, as well as the principles of the system itself); model (abstract models); representative (models whose prototypes are realities from the domain); problem / interrogative / erotetic (problems, issues, tasks that are formulated and solved); operational (actions with components and structures); procedural (rules for performing actions); evaluative or axiological (assessments of components, structures, subsystems and the system as a whole); hypothetical (assumptions); heuristic (useful, but not rigorous reasoning); approximative (approximations) and binding (connections of subsystems and their components) subsystems.
Key words: science as a social institution, philosophy of science, metascience, production of knowledge, system of scientific knowledge, polysystem, components, subsystems, modified structural-nominative reconstruction, scientific criteria.
The paper was accepted for publication in Philosophical Dialogs’2018. – Kyiv: G.S. Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy of NANU, 2019.
The paper is an extended English version of the paper that was published in the bilingual newsweekly “The Mirror of Week” (N 1240, April 20-25) in both Ukrainian (https://dt.ua/SCIENCE/chi-ye-naukoyu-filosofiya-nauki-309070_.html) and Russian (https://zn.ua/SCIENCE/yavlyaetsya-li-naukoy-filosofiya-nauki-315326_.html).

Dear colleagues!
I would be very grateful to your criticism, notes, remarks, advices, amendments, and additions to the project of questions and bibliography for the entrance examination to the postgraduate study program "Philosophy of Science" at Kyiv NASU Institute of Philosophy named after G.S.Skovoroda.
To my opinion, those who wish to become PhD in the field of philosophy of science 1) should demonstrate a substantial body of knowledge of philosophy, science and philosophy of science, and 2) should be able to prepare for Exam within 2-3 months, using Ukrainian, English and Russian sources.
Each test-paper includes three questions from "A) Questions for oral examination" and another issue from "B) Philosophy of particular sciences". The last one is to clarify the ideas of entrants about their chosen field of philosophy of science. It should be prepared before and reported on Exam.

Regards,
Volodymyr Kuznetsov
07 07 2017

The structure-nominative philosophy of science is a growing net of studies of ideographic and connected abstract and concrete systems of scientific knowledge systems of various commonality levels. These are considered as carriers of reliable and well-warranted information about their domains and modeled as hierarchical multileveled polysystems. The distinguished feature of this philosophy is case-studies of knowledge systems from logic, mathematics, physics, chemistry, sociology and economical science and suggesting plausible and testable hypotheses on patterns of their structure, functions, interconnections, developments, and applications.

The monograph presents an original and generalizing substantive vision of the philosophy of science through the prism of a detailed analysis of the polysystem structure of scientific theories. Theories are considered, firstly, as complex specialized forms of developed scientific thinking about the realities studied by natural science, secondly, as constantly improving tools for the production of new knowledge in interaction with experimental research, and thirdly, as carriers of ordered and verified knowledge. Emphasis is placed on their nominal and ontic subsystems.