The problem of the relation of science and humanitarian and scientific knowledge is regarded as one of central problems of modern epistemology and philosophy of science. This article describes three most common approaches (positions) in relation to the resolution of the problem. The first one, a traditional position, gives priority to the methodology of natural sciences. The second position is based on the neo-Kantian tradition and claims priority to the humanities. The third one, “moderate” position, rejects two first absolute positions.
The problem of interrelation of natural scientific and humanitarian scientific knowledge is discussed in the context
Of the truth category. We consider three basic concepts of truth: correspondent, coherent, and pragmatist. In the article, pragmatist and coherent concepts are analyzed in the framework of non-classical epistemology as an alternative to the correspondent concept. It is stated that a source of the coherent concept is the difficulty of establishing compliance with knowledge of reality and criteria of conformity. This created some difficulties for the classical theory. The research criticizes a classical idea of representation, which is the basis of the correspondent concept of truth. The author draws attention to the fact that in the discussion of epistemological problems of humanitarian scientific knowledge, the adequate conception of truth is a coherent concept.
In this context, we discussed in detail the position of a well-known contemporary American philosopher Richard
Rorty on this issue. It is shown that one of the main cognitive motives is a study of social, psychological and cultural patterns of language-related activities in the context of the universalistic thesis of the postmodern that “the world is a text”. The article states that coherence of truth by Rorty arises from the idea of its conceptuality.
Apevalov, A. (2013). Osobennosti istoricheskoy istiny. [In Russian]. In Gumanitarnye, sotsialno-ekonomicheskie i obshchestvennye nauki, 2, 27–30.
Afanasev, A. (2013). Gumanitarnoe znanie i gumanitarnye nauki. [In Russian]. Odessa: Bakhva.
Borsyakov, Yu. (2001). Yestestvennye i gumanitarnye nauki kak tipy nauchnoy ratsionalnosti: Avtoref. d.-r filos. nauk. [In Russian]. Moskwa: no publisher.
Dzhokhadze, I. (2006). Neopragmatizm Richarda Rorty. [In Russian]. Moskwa: Editorial URSS.
Ivin, A. (2008). Tri kontseptsii istiny. [In Russian]. In A. Gorelov, M. Novoselov (Eds.), Mnogomernost istiny (pp.123-139). Moskwa: IFRAN.
Kasavin, I. (2005). Kontekstualizm kak metodologicheskaya programma. [In Russian]. In Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki, 4, 3-12.
Kasavin, I. (2009). Istina: vechnaya tema i sovremennye vyzovy. [In Russian]. In Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki, 2, 5–12.
Kovalchuk, V. (2011). Metodolohichne obgruntuvannia zblyzhennia pryrodnychykh i humanitarnykh nauk. [In Ukrainian]. In Chornomorskyi derzh. un-t im. Petra Mohyly (Mykolaiv), Naukovi pratsi, Pedahohika, 146, vol. 158.
Lazarev, F. (2005). Problema istiny v sotsialno-gumanitarnykh naukakh: intervalnyy podkhod. [In Russian]. In Voprosy filosofii, 10, 95–116.
Lebed, A. (2015). Paradyma realizmu ta teorii istyny. [In Ukrainian]. In Drohobytskyi derzh. ped. u.-t im. Ivana Franka. Liudynoznavchi studii. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats DDPU. Seriia Filosofiia, 30, 129–143.
Mamchur, Ye. (2004). O relyativnosti, relyativizme i istine. [In Russian]. In Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki,1, 76–81.
Marchuk, M. (2001). Tsinnisni potentsii znannia. [In Ukrainian]. Chernivtsi: Ruta.
Mikeshina, L. (2005). Filosofiya nauki. [In Russian]. Moskwa: Progress- Traditsiya.
Petrushenko, V. (2013). Humanitarne piznannia: suchasnyi status ta paradyhmalni zmishchennia. [In Ukrainian]. In Naukovyi visnyk Chernivetskoho universytetu: Zbirnyk nauk. prats, 663–664, 3–9.
Rozov, M. (2000). O sootnoshenii estestvennonauchnogo i gumanitarnogo poznaniya (problema metodologicheskogo izomorfizma). [In Russian]. In Naukovedenie, 4, 141–161.
Rorti, R. (1997). Filosofiya i zerkalo prirody. [In Russian]. Novosibirsk: NGU.
Fuler, S. (n/d). Komu nuzhny gumanitarnye nauki? [In Russian]. Retrieved from https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/who-needs-the-humanities?version=Russian&barrier= true
Geuras, D. (n/d). Richard Rorty and the Postmodern Rejection of Absolute Truth. Retrieved from http://www.leaderu.com/aip/docs/geuras.htm
Glanzberg, M. (2013). Truth. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/.
Putnam, H. (1982). Three kinds of scientific realism. In Philos. Quart., Vol. 32, 128, 195–200. https://doi.org/10.2307/2219323
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature.New York: Princeton.
Thagard, P. (2007). Coherence, Truth and the Development of Scientific Knowledge. Retrieved from http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/coherence.truth.pos.2007.pdf https://doi.org/10.1086/520941
Pedersen, N., Wright, C. (Eds). (2013). Truth and Pluralism: Current Debates. New York: Oxford University Press.