ecsocmenusИзвестия Юго-Западного государственного университета. Серия: Экономика. Социология. МенеджментProceedings of the Southwest State University. Series: Economics. Sociology. Management2223-1552Юго-Западный государственный университет10.21869/2223-1552-2022-12-6-231-245ecsocmenus-128Research ArticleФИЛОСОФСКИЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ ПРИРОДЫ, ОБЩЕСТВА, ЧЕЛОВЕКАPHILOSOPHICAL STUDY OF NATURE, SOCIETY AND HUMANКиберсемиотический подход к теории научных открытийCybersemiotic Approach to the Theory of Scientific Discoverieshttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-0588-0003КарелинаЕ. В.KarelinaE. V.

Карелина Екатерина Викторовна, независимый консультант, преподаватель,  соискатель 

пр-т Вернадского 84, г. Москва 119606;

ул. Гончарная 12/1, г. Москва 109240 

Ekaterina V. Karelina, Independent Consultant, Lecturer,  Applicant 

84 Vernadsky Ave., Moscow 119606;

12/1 Goncharnaya Str., Moscow 109240 

kalipcios@hotmail.comИнститут государственной службы Российской академии народного хозяйства и государственной службы при Президенте Российской Федерации; Институт философии Российской академии наукInstitute of Public Administration of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation; Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences202213052023126231245Copyright © Карелина Е.В., 20232023Карелина Е.В.Karelina E.V.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://ecsocmenus.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/128

   Актуальность. С 20-х годов XXI века началась культурная эпоха неомодерна, связанная с расширением влияния технологий искусственного интеллекта на общество, экономику и научно-технический прогресс. Актуальным является разработка теории научных открытий, которая предложит новые модели управления научными открытиями и цивилизационными рисками с учётом цифровизации и изменений в мышлении человека.   Цель. В рамках данного исследования ставится две цели ‒ предложить новую «полезную» теорию научных открытий, которая учтет факторы изменения в психологии мышления людей и потенциал автоматизации научных открытий, и провести философско-методологический анализ предложенной теории и ее влияния на управление научными открытиями и научно-технический прогресс.   Задачи: подготовить обзор подходов к теории научных открытий; предложить типологию подходов, основанную на анализе артефактов мышления; сформулировать новый подход и «полезную» теорию научных открытий; провести философско-методологический анализ.   Методология. Контент-анализ, компаративистский подход, структурно-функциональный анализ, историко-философский подход.   Результаты: гипотеза о метазадаче научных открытий в виде развития квантового гиперграфа; теория синтетических научных открытий на основе киберсемиотического подхода.   Выводы. Необходим пересмотр попыток объяснить научные открытия без учета изменений в мышлении людей и автоматизации. Киберсемиотический подход к теории научных открытий открывает новые модели управления научными открытиями, основанными на данных, а не бюрократии, моде или социальном капитале. Цифровизация научных открытий открывает возможность освоить новый тип ментального оператора – квантовый гиперграф, который является предпосылкой для появления технологий синтетической ноосферы и триггером смены типа цивилизационной модели, основанной на преодолении поляризации мышления людей.

   Relevance

   Relevance. Since the 20s of the XXI century, the cultural era of neo-modernity began, associated with the expansion of the influence of artificial intelligence technologies on society, the economy and scientific and technological progress. It is relevant to develop a theory of scientific discoveries, which will offer new models for managing scientific discoveries and civilizational risks, taking into account digitalization and changes in human thinking.   Purpose. Within the framework of this research, two goals are set ‒ to propose a new "useful" theory of scientific discoveries, which will take into account the factors of changes in the psychology of people's thinking and the potential for automation of scientific discoveries, and to conduct a philosophical and methodological analysis of the proposed theory and its impact on the management of scientific discoveries and scientific and technological progress.   Objectives: to prepare an overview of approaches to the theory of scientific discoveries; to propose a typology of approaches based on the analysis of thinking artifacts; to formulate a new approach and a "useful" theory of scientific discoveries; to conduct a philosophical and methodological analysis.   Methodology. Content analysis, comparative approach, structural and functional analysis, historical and philosophical approach.

    Results

    Results: hypothesis about the meta-task of scientific discoveries in the form of the development of a quantum hypergraph; theory of synthetic scientific discoveries based on a cybersemiotic approach.   Conclusions. It is necessary to reconsider attempts to explain scientific discoveries without taking into account changes in people's thinking and automation. The cybersemiotic approach to the theory of scientific discoveries opens up new models for managing scientific discoveries based on data, rather than bureaucracy, fashion or social capital. Digitalization of scientific discoveries opens up the opportunity to master a new type of mental operator – a quantum hypergraph, which is a prerequisite for the emergence of synthetic noosphere technologies and a trigger for changing the type of civilizational model based on overcoming the polarization of people's thinking.

искусственный интеллекткиберсемиотический подходквантовый гиперграфтеория синтетических научных открытийсинтетическая ноосфераartificial intelligencecybersemiotic approachquantum hypergraphtheory of synthetic scientific discoveriesthe synthetic noosphereReferencesLakatos I. Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes // Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge / I. Lakatos, A. Musgrave [et. al]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.Lakatos I. Musgrave A., Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Lakatos I., eds.Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1970.Scientific Change ‒ Philosophical Models and Historical Research / L. Laudan, A. Donovan, R. Laudan, P. Barker, H. Brown, J. Leplin // Synthese. 1986. Vol. 69(2). P. 141-223.Laudan L., Donovan A., Laudan R., Barker P., Brown H., Leplin J. Scientific Change ‒ Philosophical Models and Historical Research. Synthese, 1986, vol. 69(2), pp. 141-223.Fuchs S. A Sociological Theory of Scientific Change. University of North Carolina Press, 1993.Fuchs S. A Sociological Theory of Scientific Change. University of North Carolina Press, 1993.Radder H. Philosophy and history of science: Beyond the Kuhnian paradigm // Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 1997. Vol. 28(4). P. 633-655.Radder H. Philosophy and history of science: Beyond the Kuhnian paradigm. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 1997, vol. 28(4), pp. 633-655.Simon H. A., Langley P. W., Bradshaw G. L. Scientific discovery as problem-solving // Synthese. 1981. Vol. 47. P. 1–27.Simon H. A., Langley P. W., Bradshaw G. L. Scientific discovery as problem-solving. Synthese, 1981, vol. 47, pp. 1–27.Pearson K. The Problem of the Random Walk // Nature. 1905. Vol. 72. P. 294.Pearson K. The Problem of the Random Walk. Nature, 1905, vol. 72, p. 294.Sandstrom P. E. Scholars as subsistence foragers // Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 1999. Vol. 25(3). P. 17‒20.Sandstrom P. E. Scholars as subsistence foragers. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 1999, vol. 25(3), pp. 17‒20.Pirolli P. Information Foraging Theory: Adaptive Interaction with Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. 226 p.Pirolli P. Information Foraging Theory: Adaptive Interaction with Information. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007. 226 p.Goffman W., Harmon G. Mathematical approach to the prediction of scientific discovery // Nature. 1971. Vol. 229. P.103-104.Goffman W., Harmon G. Mathematical approach to the prediction of scientific discovery. Nature, 1971, vol. 229, pp. 103-104.Goffman W., Newill V. A. Generalisation of epidemic theory: an application to the transmission of ideas // Nature. 1964. Vol. 204. P. 225-228.Goffman W., Newill V. A. Generalisation of epidemic theory: an application to the transmission of ideas. Nature, 1964, vol. 204, pp. 225-228.Степин В. С. К проблеме структуры и генезиса научной теории // Философия, методология, наука. М.: Наука, 1972. С. 158–185.Stepin V. S. K probleme struktury i genezisa nauchnoi teorii [To the Problem of the Structure and Genesis of Scientific Theory]. Filosofiya, metodologiya, nauka [Philosophy, Methodology and Science]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1972, pp. 158-185.The group structure of co-citation clusters: A comparative study / N. C. Mullins, L. L. Hargens, P. K. Hecht, E. L. Kick // American Sociological Review. 1977. Vol. 42(4). P. 552-562.Mullins N. C., Hargens L. L., Hecht P. K., Kick E. L. The group structure of co-citation clusters: A comparative study. American Sociological Review, 1977, vol. 42(4), pp. 552-562.Dorigo M., Gambardella L. M. Ant colony system: A cooperative learning approach to the traveling salesman problem // IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 1997. Vol.1(1). P. 53-66. 14. Burt R. S. Structural holes and good ideas // American Journal of Sociology. 2004. Vol.110(2). P. 349-399.Dorigo M., Gambardella L. M. Ant colony system: A cooperative learning approach to the traveling salesman problem. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 1997, vol. 1(1), pp. 53-66.Börner K., Maru J. T., Goldstone R. L. The simultaneous evolution of author and paper networks // PNAS. 2004. Vol. 101. P. 5266-5273.Burt R. S. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 2004, vol. 110(2), pp. 349-399.Ausloos M., Lambiotte R. Drastic events make evolving networks // The European Physical Journal B ‒ Condensed Matter and Complex Systems. 2007. Vol. 57(1). P. 89-94.Börner K., Maru J. T., Goldstone R. L. The simultaneous evolution of author and paper networks. PNAS, 2004, vol. 101, pp. 5266-5273.Kuhn T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, 1970. 209 p.Ausloos M., Lambiotte R. Drastic events make evolving networks. The European Physical Journal B ‒ Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, 2007, vol. 57(1), pp. 89-94.Davis M. S. That's Interesting! Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology // Phil. Soc. Sci. 1971. Vol. 1. P. 309-344.Kuhn T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, 1970. 209 p.Brush S. G. Dynamics of theory change: The role of predictions // The Proceedings of the Biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Cambridge: Published online by Cambridge Umiversity Press, 2022.Davis M. S. That's Interesting! Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology. Phil. Soc. Sci., 1971, vol. 1, pp. 309-344.Mayer R. E. The search for insight: Grappling with Gestalt Psychology's unanswered questions // The Nature of Insight / R. J. Sternberg, J. E. Davidson [et al.]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1995. P. 3-32.Brush S. G. Dynamics of theory change: The role of predictions. The Proceedings of the Biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Cambridge, Published online by Cambridge Umiversity Press, 2022.Perkins D. N. Insight in minds and genes // The Nature of Insight / R. J. Sternberg, J. E. Davidson [et al.]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995. P. 495-534.Mayer R. E., Davidson J. E. The search for insight: Grappling with Gestalt Psychology's unanswered questions. Sternberg R. J., eds. The Nature of Insight. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press Publ., 1995, pp. 3-32.Heinze T., Bauer G. Characterizing creative scientists in nano-S&T: Productivity, multidisciplinarity, and network brokerage in a longitudinal perspective // Scientometrics. 2007. Vol. 70(3). P. 811-830.Perkins D. N. Insight in minds and genes. Sternberg R. J., eds. The Nature of Insight. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press Publ., 1995, pp. 495-534.Kostoff R. N. Where is the Discovery in Literature-Based Discovery? // Information Science and Knowledge Management. 2008. Vol. 15.Heinze T., Bauer G. Characterizing creative scientists in nano-S&T: Productivity, multidisciplinarity, and network brokerage in a longitudinal perspective. Scientometrics, 2007, vol. 70(3), pp. 811-830.Shneiderman B. Creating creativity: user interfaces for supporting innovation // ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. 2000. Vol. 7. P. 114-138.Kostoff R. N. Where is the Discovery in Literature-Based Discovery? Information Science and Knowledge Management, 2008, vol. 15.Human-Computer Interaction in the New Millennium / ed. by J. M. Carroll. New York: ACM Press, 2002. P. 235-258.Shneiderman B. Creating creativity: user interfaces for supporting innovation. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 2000, vol. 7, pp. 114-138.Буданов В. Г. Постнеклассика: философия, наука, культура. СПб.: Миръ, 2009. C. 361–396.Human-Computer Interaction in the New Millennium; ed. by J. M. Carroll. New York, ACM Press Publ., 2002, pp. 235-258.Аршинов В. И., Свирский Я. И. Сложностный мир и его наблюдатель // Философия науки и техники. 2016. Т. 21, № 1. С. 78–91.Budanov V. G. Postneklassika: filosofiya, nauka, kul'tura [Postnonclassics: philosophy, science, culture]. St. Petersburg, Mir Publ., 2009, pp. 361-396.The Turing al scientist grand challenge. URL: https://www.turing.ac.uk/research/research-projects/turing-ai-scientist-grand-challenge (дата обращения: 14.08.2022).Arshinov V. I., Svirsky Ya. I. Slozhnostnyi mir i ego nablyudatel' [The complex world and its observer]. Filosofiya nauki i tekhniki = Philosophy of Science and Technology, 2016, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 78-91.The Turing al scientist grand challenge. Available at: https://www.turing.ac.uk/research/research-projects/turing-ai-scientist-grand-challenge. (accessed 14.08.2022)The Turing al scientist grand challenge. Available at: https://www.turing.ac.uk/research/research-projects/turing-ai-scientist-grand-challenge. (accessed 14.08.2022)

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.