The Cognitive Closure of Science case study: the Discourse ahout the Etiology of

Three Aspects of Science (Logical - Empirical, Metaphysical and Sociological)

Ours among Strangers, Strangers among Ours: Why Does Economics Need Critical Thinking?

The article analyzes the role of critical thinking in the organization of intra-disciplinary discourse in economics under conditions of fundamental conceptual diversity and radical uncertainty, as well as the organization of dialogue between academic economists and regulators. As a theoretical framework, the article offers an interpretation of economic science as a multitude of coexisting research programs (RPs) in the sense of I. Lakatos. Particular attention is paid to the role of economists' critical thinking as a possible mechanism for ensuring constructive dialogue between different RPs. The article demonstrates the ontological, epistemological, and axiological limitations of critical thinking in academic, expert, and educational spheres. Ontological limitations include the dominance of demand for "one-armed" economists who provide simple answers, as well as the logic of deep specialization within academia, which narrows the space for inter-program reflection. Epistemological limitations are associated with the phenomenon of "doublethink" - the extreme difficulty of fluently mastering several economic languages in the absence of synthetic models. Axiological limitations reflect the risks of criticizing the "hard core" of the RP within which a researcher operates. The article separately analyzes the connection between critical thinking and radical uncertainty and regulatory fundamentalism. Using the example of J. Kay and M. King, it demonstrates how the overestimation of probabilistic calculations in regulation leads to the substitution of radical uncertainty with situations of risk, generating erroneous regulatory requirements. A typology of bearers of economic knowledge is proposed, ranging from a specialist who recognizes the boundaries of their own competence to a non-specialist with decision-making authority who is unaware of the extent of their own incompetence. The thesis of the subject-specificity of universal cognitive skills is substantiated: critical thinking developed within one RP is not automatically transferable to the analysis of alternative approaches. It is concluded that positive intra-disciplinary discourse is impossible through the elimination of conceptual diversity; on the contrary, it requires the institutionalization of such diversity as a resource for more responsible and reflexive scientific and expert analysis, capable of reducing the likelihood of socially unacceptable consequences arising from erroneous decisions.

Scientific knowledge as a form of representation of intersubjectivity

Scientific knowledge is often perceived as a set of objective and constant facts, but the author of the article notes that science is a dynamic process shaped by subjective worldviews and sociocultural context. The study of scientific knowledge as a form of representation of intersubjectivity brings to the fore the study of its nature, mechanisms of construction, and its participation in social processes. Scientific knowledge is considered as localized between individual cognitive intentions and social institutions, integrating individual scientific initiatives and influencing the achievement of consensus in the scientific community. This forms a communicative environment conducive to the socialization and development of scientific experience; normative structures delineate the boundaries of acceptability and determine which innovations gain institutional recognition. Recognizing scientific knowledge as intersubjective emphasizes its provisional character, plural methodological landscapes, and dependence on institutionalized validation procedures. The commonness of meaningful collaborative human activity, the communicative environment that ensures the socialization of knowledge through the conceptualization of scientific approaches and the recognition of research discoveries, creates a flexible and innovative approach to science that opens up new perspectives while ensuring the preservation and continuity of scientific experience. Reconceiving science as intersubjective representation, we obtain a more realistic view of how knowledge is produced and integrated within society.

Towards Conceptual Precision in the Core Terminology of Soft Power Theory

In the realm of international relations, soft power stands out as one of the most frequently referenced yet conceptually vague terms. Subsequent to Nye's original formulation, its signification has been disseminated across a plethora of disciplines and policy debates, giving rise to analytical confusion. This article aims to improve conceptual accuracy by clarifying the core terminologies of soft power and presenting a framework that categorizes its main constituents. This study is methodologically based on a conceptual literature review and comparative textual analysis of key scholarly debates across international relations and political science are utilized in this research. Thus, contested terms can be systematically classified and mapped through this approach. The findings indicate a refined typology that distinguishes between sources, mechanisms, currencies, assets, tools, and outcomes. They also demonstrate the relational and process-based nature of soft power, showing that it relies on factors such as narratives, networks, emotional connections, and attractive qualities to generate influence. The conclusion suggests that soft power is best conceived as operating along a continuous spectrum where persuasion, coercion, and attraction intersect. It further emphasizes that conceptual precision is necessary not only for theoretical coherence but also for effective statecraft in a competitive global setting. The study enhances the explanatory usefulness of soft power by refining terminology and clarifying analytical boundaries. It also provides practical guidance for policymakers and scholars to assess and apply soft power systematically.

Methodological foundations for the study of judicial discretion in legal theory

The author of the article clearly demonstrates, using specific examples, the value and practical necessity for every scholar of a cognitive mechanism such as the methodology of law. Attention is devoted to the process of researching a wide range of specific classifications of scientific research methods, drawing on the extensive methodological pluralism offered by the theory of law. The article analyses current trends in legal methodology from the perspective of ‘hierarchy’ and the ‘nesting doll’ principle of systematisation, as well as the specific choice of methods or a single, system-forming method for studying a clearly defined object of scientific knowledge. Furthermore, these are not merely methodological classifications presented in a haphazard order without any clear meaning or functional significance; rather, and this is one of the key aspects, they are accompanied by a direct, authorial description outlining why they are important for the researcher’s scholarly attention in the field of law. This article substantively formulates a number of law enforcement objectives for the methodology of the institution of judicial discretion, which, if successfully implemented, are intended to facilitate a comprehensive study of this subject of scholarly research. The main objective of the article is to consolidate, within a single framework, precisely those research methods that most closely correspond to the intrinsic nature of legal discretion, as one of the contemporary, significant, and progressive mechanisms for regulating public relations in the field of human rights protection and safeguarding. It is necessary to specifically highlight that the formulated scientific objective of this study prompted the development of ideas, relevant considerations, and approaches regarding the need to seek optimal paths, ideological frameworks, and meaningful causal links in terms of adaptation, integrative borrowings, as well as the adaptive interaction of various forms, levels, types, and classifications of methods derived from general legal methodology within the field of law, with a focus on the institution of judicial discretion and its fundamental, integral components. The author of the article, based on the results of the conducted methodological research with a vector on the discretionary object of scientific research, proposed his own typology of scientific methods in accordance with the generalized criterion of the methodological orientation of the knowledge of the institute of legal discretion in the theory of law.

From conceptual plurality to School consensus: circulation and stabilization of the concept of “Life” in light of Fleck’s epistemology

ABSTRACT: This paper examines the definition of life as a plural problem in biology and as stabilized content in biology teaching. In light of Fleck's epistemology, we understand definitions as scientific facts situated in collectives and styles of thinking, and describe the traffic between esoteric and exoteric circles. We reconstruct five styles that underpin canonical characterizations of life: evolutionary-historical, physical-chemical, systemic-organizational, thermodynamic self-organization and complexity, and metatheoretical-operational. We argue that plurality is operational in the esoteric, but tends to be erased in circulation through simplification, selection, and reordering, producing didactic consensus and apodictic statements. Finally, we indicate implications for teaching and teacher training: making the limits of lists explicit, reintroducing history and controlled controversies, and using borderline cases to teach life as a controversial and fertile concept for socio-scientific questions. The study is theoretical-epistemological, based on the systematization of canonical and educational literature, without claiming empirical exhaustiveness in this analytical section