We are planning the following sessions:

Session 1. The Philosophy of Science: A Historical Perspective and Futurological Projections
Aleksandr M. Dorozhkin, Svetlana V. Shibarshina (Lobachevsky State University)

Today, the social and collective component of science is strengthening and interdisciplinary interactions are intensifying, stimulating us into rethinking of the epistemological status for the subject of scientific knowledge. While analyzing the present of science and its possible future scenarios, scholars also inevitably address its previous steps, the historical forms of its organization, scientific rationality, etc. Along with it, the recognition of general patterns in the evolution of science requires attempts to analyze the structure and dynamics of specific academic disciplines. Thus, the framework of this session suggests considering the theoretical and practical aspects of philosophical and epistemological problems of science and its specific areas; the emergence and historical dynamics of the scientific knowledge; contemporary trends in the study of science and technology.

Session 2. Innovative Technologies and the Prospects for Humanity.
Vladimir A. Kutyrev, Dmitry Yu. Shatalov-Davydov (Lobachevsky State University)

The rapid development of information technologies, including the anticipated stages of digitalization and artificial intelligence, raises the question of their fateful impact on humanity’s further destiny and the preservation of nature and life on Earth itself. Opportunities for active technological intervention in human corporeality and consciousness are opening up. Within the framework of transhumanism, the ideas of “improving a person” are promoted by connecting humanity with a machine, transformation into a kind of cyborg. All the newest trends in the development of technoscience represent fundamental challenges and threats that require a comprehensive discussion including the prospects for the further existence of humanity and human society. Philosophy is responsible for evaluating the things happening around; it has to comprehend the strategy of our survival in the technogenic world and offer its answers to these problems. The framework of this session suggests considering these issues in the context of anthropology, ontology, and social philosophy.

Session 3. Education under the Sign of POST: A Navigator in the Space of a New Culture
Svetlana A. Maximova (Institute of the Education Development)

This session focuses on the analysis of development trends and the possibilities of the education system in the formation of the adaptive potential of today’s humanity in the space of a new culture. The participants’ presentations and the panel discussion that concludes the work of the session will encourage to form a request for the content and technologies of modern education and suggest relevant tools for its improvement. The session is anticipated to become a platform for an open dialogue between scholars from philosophical studies, cultural, social and linguistic sciences, and other disciplines, who, from various viewpoints, describe the embodiment of the modern cultural code in various forms of thought and life of modern humanity.

Session 4. Splitting in Media Reality: The Features of (Post) Communication in the Digital Age
Chair: Anton N. Fortunatov (Lobachevsky State University), Konstantin A. Ocheretyany (Saint Petersburg State University)

The contemporary communicative situation possesses quite pronounced centrifugal properties: “spreading” through the endless labyrinths of information, it does not seem to notice the person for whom it once arose. The tendency to dehumanize communication processes has reached its peak during the period of total digitalization, and the subject starts to communicate not with another member of society, but rather virtual technical systems that have replaced almost all the diversity of previous social ties. In turn, a person that has “dissolved” in information streams feels loneliness and emptiness. The communication revolution at the end of the last century was focused on the emancipation of technology from humans. Today there is a chance for a postcommunicative Renaissance, in which transformed (reborn) subjects have a chance to regain their right to exist and be an actor, to consciously and meaningfully transform themselves and the society. Is the existing communication system able to meet this challenge? We will attempt to answer this question within this session.

Session 6. Episteme in science and religion
Andrey N. Tkachev, Dmitry V. Vorobiev (Lobachevsky State University)

This session focuses on discussions of revolutionary and evolutionary processes in science and religion, which have changed the idea of knowledge. We invite the participants to also consider the cultural and social prerequisites and concepts of “knowledge” in science and religion, the “eternal” problem of knowledge and faith, as well as to discuss the mythological nature of knowledge. This session aims to investigate the interaction between science and religion in relation to cognition not only as opposed and confrontational, but also as determining the evolution of each other.

Round Table “Poetry and Orders of Discourse: History in the Present”
Evgeniya V. Samostienko, Evgeniy E. Proschin (Lobachevsky State University)

Poetics in its variations has always carried some implications of the original autonomy of poetry. It proceeded either from the idea of the specificity of poetic language, or from the idea of the possibility of its convergence with other discursive systems, recognizing its openness to “external” influences, which only emphasized autonomy. However, for the study of poetry, it may be methodologically interesting to look through the archeology of knowledge and the theory of discourses. Foucaultian perspective presents the possibilities of considering poetry as a discourse not through a figure of influence, but rather as a realization of the features of a particular episteme. This approach opens up opportunities, on the one hand, to revise history, and on the other hand, to place poetry in an open field of discursiveness, trying to find its specificity at the junction of strategies of semiosis as a concentration of force fields and cultural practices.

Round table “Aleksandr A. Andronov and the Evolution of Nizhny Novgorod Science”
A.A. Pechenkin, E.V. Maslanov

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Andronov, student of L.I. Mandelstam, an outstanding physicist, mechanic and mathematician. He significantly contributed to the emergence of physical science in Nizhny Novgorod. In 1931 A.A. Andronov went to work at the Nizhny Novgorod Research Institute of Physics and Technology, which then became part of the newly formed Gorky State University. A.A. Andronov’s ideas in oscillation theory were adapted within the implementation of the radar project in the USSR, a leader and key participant of which was Academician Axel Ivanovich Berg. A.A. Andronov significantly contributed to the organization of the radiophysics faculty at the Gorky State University and the organization of research in cybernetics at the GSU. His ideas were continued by the staff of the faculties and institutes of the GSU, the Institute of Applied Physics of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.

This round table suggests a discussion of these questions:

  • A.A. Andronov’s role in the evolution of physical and radiophysical research in Nizhny Novgorod;
  • A.A. Andronov and Nizhny Novgorod State University;
  • theoretical views of A.A. Andronov;
  • the role of Nizhny Novgorod physics in the evolution of physical science in the USSR;
  • development of research in the field of radar and Nizhny Novgorod physics;
  • the relationship between fundamental and applied research in Soviet physics;
  • the introduction of the scientific results of Soviet physics into industry.

Round table “Kantian Transcendental ‘Copernican Coup’: Revolution or Evolution in the Development of Metaphysics (Epistemology)?”
Sergey L. Katrechko, Igor D. Nevvazhay, Anna A. Shiyan, Vadim M. Maslov

Defining his transcendental philosophy, Kant writes that, in contrast to classical metaphysics, it examines not the things themselves, but “our [a priori] way of [their] cognition”. At the same time, the thinker positions his approach as “a changed method of thinking [in metaphysics]” and a “Copernican revolution”, since he aimed to “change the old way of investigation in metaphysics, namely, to make a complete revolution in it, following the example of geometers [Euclid] and natural scientists [Galileo, Newton]”.

The issues suggested for discussion at this round table refer to the Kantian Copernican revolution in metaphysics (epistemology). What is the Kantian coup? Is it a revolutionary “upheaval” or is it an “evolutionary” more developed form of metaphysics? Can we say that the neo-Kantian and/or phenomenological philosophy of science “inherits” (evolutionary or revolutionary) the Kantian transcendental approach? Can we talk about the contemporary adaptation (forms and modes) of Kant’s transcendentalism and re-transcendentalization (O. Höffe) in modern philosophy? Are T. Kuhn’s paradigmatic approach, M. Foucault’s concept of historical a priori, H. Putnam’s concept of “inner realism” and contemporary epistemological constructivism an extension of Kant’s transcendental approach? Can Kantian transcendentalism be the basis (foundation) for modern theory / metaphysics of experience (philosophy of science)?

Round table “Science in a Social Context – Historical and Epistemological Studies”
Lada V. Shipovalova, Viktor A. Kupriyanov

The position of science in society, the relationship between science, government and the public are topics unfolding in history in many senses and forming various challenges in our time. These themes are encountered in the history of science, research of public science communication, critical theory of the Frankfurt School, STS theory and practice, and engage the thinkers of modern and more recent times. Today’s discussions focus on the problems of science policy and the politicization of science, on the ambiguous status of an expert and the importance of civil science practices, on the contradiction between the public involvement in dialogue with scientists and the autonomy of scientific knowledge. The round table will involve some aspects of contemporary problems related to the social status of science along with the historical context of their formation. We will attempt to build the possibility of historical and epistemological answers to questions provoked by the main controversies of today’s scientific research.

This round table welcomes a discussion of the intersection between epistemological, social and historical research of science. An emphasis will be placed on the methodology of historical analysis, as well as the specifics of the ontological turn in the contemporary historical research of science.

Round table “Revolutions in the Social Sciences and Humanities: Typology, Specificity, Chronology”
A.M. Orekhov, G.S. Pack

The concept of “scientific revolution”, along with the concepts of “paradigm”, “normal science” and others, goes back to the classic work of T. Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. By “scientific revolutions” T. Kuhn meant a radical breakdown of scientific paradigms, a qualitative leap from one paradigm to another. To illustrate these, T. Kuhn mentioned the “Copernican revolution” of the 16th-17th centuries in astronomy, the “Newtonian revolution” in physics in the 17th-18th centuries, etc. All these revolutions, like many others in the natural sciences, became the object of scientists’ keen interest in the 20th – first third of the 21st centuries.

In this regard, what can be said about revolutions in social sciences and humanities? Can their presence be encountered in some particular knowledge (in particular area of the social sciences and humanities) or in general, universal social and humanitarian knowledge? Or, perhaps, we have to assume that there are no revolutions there, and the concept of constantly competing research programs of I. Lakatos should be extended to this area? Still, if revolutions can be found in these fields, what are they? Is it possible, for example, to adopt here the idea of the “non-classical” and “post-non-classical” revolutions, based on V.S. Stepin’s concept of “three stages” of the evolution of science popular in Russian scholarship?

Round table “Museum in the Space of the History of Science and Technology”
T.I. Yusupov, N.B. Kuznetsova

The purpose of the round table is to actualize the problem of creating museums of the history of science and technology in Russia, consider their history (from the 18th century proto-museum collections to the 1980s perestroika projects), emphasize the role of the academic community and the institutionalization of the history of science in this process, and determine the place in contemporary museum space.

Considering that museums are currently going through profound transformations associated with digital technologies and new communication opportunities, the organizers also aim to analyze the impact of these processes on methodological approaches to exhibiting and interpreting museum objects and collections.

The museum, as a keeper of the memory of both things and scientific ideas, their evolution and material embodiment, plays an important role in popularizing science, promoting its social and cultural significance. An important point in the discourse will be the question “why there is still no museum of the history of science in the Russian museum space” and what professional groups should participate in the development of its concept.

Round table “Expert Knowledge in the Post-truth Era: between Defense and Denial” (online)
Sergey Yu. Shevchenko, Liana A. Tukhvatulina (RAS Institute of Philosophy, Moscow)

In the contemporary world, solving social problems is largely related to the level of trust in scientific knowledge. Overcoming these challenges presupposes the readiness of scientists and the public for dialogue and cooperation. The successful adaptation of scientific knowledge and the effective expert policy in the present times can hardly proceed in a directive form, but require the active participation of all parties concerned. In this regard, the status of expert knowledge is substantially challenged by the phenomenon of denialism – practices of denying scientific consensus outside the normative framework of scientific discussion. The most striking examples include the movements of anti-vaccinators, HIV/ AIDS dissidents, Covid dissidents, etc. At the same time, the scarce model of knowledge dissemination, used to fill the supposed “gaps in the picture of the world of ordinary people,” may not take into account the problematic agenda that is important for society as a whole or for individual groups. Accordingly, such a defense of science can become a form of its isolation. Today, both directive imposition and indiscriminate denial of scientific consensus do not always seem a private matter of experts or individual social groups, but become a large-scale public problem. We invite philosophers and researchers in other fields interested in the topic of the round table to participate.

Round Table “Political Agency of Contemporary Science”
Vladimir N. Porus (Higher School of Economics, Moscow)

Today, science is becoming an increasingly important public institution acquiring a certain political status associated with an enhancing ability to influence political and social decisions. This round table suggests a discussion of these questions:

  • what changes in society have led to an increase in the political agency of science;
  • what new scientific results allow us to take a renewed look at the specifics of the functioning of science in society;
  • what are the mechanisms of interaction between science and other social actors;
  • what are the specific characteristics of science as a political agent;
  • analysis of the political and economic component of science and technology and the role of science in making economic and political decisions;
  • definitions of technoscience and decision-making mechanisms in this area;
  • the role of popularizing scientific knowledge in terms of epistemic and political measurements of science, and science as a public good;
  • the features of science policy related to the need to support applied or basic research, focus on breakthrough research, ad-hoc research, problem-oriented research, strategic research, and responsible research and innovation, etc.

We invite philosophers and researchers in other areas interested in the topic of the round table to participate.

The conference will also include the Second Youth symposium “Convergence of Knowledge”.

The symposium is a scientific platform – an interdisciplinary exchange zone for young scientists (undergraduate and graduate students) engaged in various branches of science. It aims to discuss general scientific and specialized issues of our time.

The head of the symposium is Nadezhda D. Astashova.

Comments are closed.