home / Our children/ Types of scientific communication and their specificity. Scientific communication and its main forms

Types of scientific communication and their specificity. Scientific communication and its main forms

Scientific communication is a collection of types professional communication in the scientific community.

Subject of research in science (what they began to study in science, from the point of view of communication):

1) scientific publications, how scientific publication occurs

2) Functioning of the scientific and technical information system.

3) Information meeting at which scientists share their achievements: conferences, symposiums, congresses, etc.

4) Personal contacts of scientists (meeting scientists).

Science community

In the broad sense of the word:

A group of people professionally engaged in science.

In a narrow sense:

A subgroup of specialists studying a specific scientific problem.

Historical types in scientific communities:

1. Schools and academies ancient world. The first scientific communities are formed (academies of Plato, Aristotle).

2. University communities (in the Middle Ages, when universities were formed). Already a structured community, divided into areas.

3. Disciplinary scientific schools, communities. A community within some discipline (psychologists, philosophers, etc.).

4. Interdisciplinary communities - unite specialists of various profiles.

5. Hybrid communities: incl. practice specialists, various laboratories in production.

How scientific communities (NS) are created - scientific schools

1) a formal method in which NS are created by authoritative means, administrative measures to solve certain problems.

2) Informal organization of the National Assembly. - natural consolidation of scientists according to their interests.

Scientific schools take a very long time to be created, about 40 years, but it is fashionable to destroy them very quickly, stop funding or fire them.

Problems of the world NS:

1. Declining interest in science

2. Aging of scientific personnel (28-43 is the most fruitful for science)

3. Brain drain (World vacuum cleaner USA now).

Specifics of scientific communication:

1. Every scientific work is dialogical. It is related to other studies.

2. The national character of the argumentation of the point of view. We appeal to reason, not faith. Logic, consistency of text, diet are now arguments.

3. Empirical nature of the justification. The scientist confirms his arguments with empirical data.

4. Consensus-oriented

5. Willingness to change one’s position based on presented arguments and justifications.

6. Information openness and transparency. Without which it is impossible for science to move forward and normal scientific communication.

From the point of view of Thomas Kuhn ("structure scientific evolutions") - scientific communication is an intense competition for the right to be first.

Types of scientific communication:

By participant status:

Teacher-student

Colleague - colleague

Democratic

For disciplinary reasons:

Disciplinary internally

Interdisciplinary

By form:

Direct (personal, congresses, symposia, etc.)

Virtual

By degree of personal involvement:

Formal

Informal (part of a problem scientific group and everything is discussed there.

By nationality:

Inside national

International

By purpose:

Opponent

Conciliatory

There is an increase in electronic publications, which greatly speeds up the communication process.

Canons and status roles are blurring (it doesn’t matter whether the author is an academician or a graduate student).

Polygamy of reference groups is expanding.

Science communication- processes and mechanisms for promoting scientific ideas within the scientific community and beyond, that is, in society, in other words, this is the dissemination of scientific knowledge about the surrounding reality through various channels, means, forms and institutions of communication.

There are two stages of scientific communication: internal and external. At the initial, or internal, stage of scientific communication, the subjects of communication are scientists within the scientific community. The second stage, external, is characterized by the interaction of the scientific community with a wide audience, this is broadcast scientific knowledge into mass consciousness, that is, the popularization of science.

Target audiences of scientific communication

Scientific communication is aimed at the following main target audiences:

Scientists (“face to face”)

Facilities mass media, new media that are both an audience and a communication channel

Government authorities (determine funding priorities)

Representatives of business structures (those who will use the discoveries and inventions of science)

New young “brains” (young scientists, graduate students, students, schoolchildren)

Public (widest audience)

Communication within the scientific community

Professional scientific societies have the necessary information and organizational resources that allow them to attract specialists to work on the most significant problem and promote scientific ideas and developments within the scientific community. At this stage of internal scientific communication, information is exchanged between members of the scientific community, as well as the formulation of a scientific idea in accordance with scientific method and scientific criteria in scientific literature. At this stage, scientific communication uses the scientific style of language, special attention is paid to the empirical part of the work. The format of scientific communication within the scientific community is: a) direct connections - personal conversations, face-to-face scientific discussions, oral reports, seminars; b) connections mediated by technical means of reproducing information - publications of scientific journals, abstract journals, monographs; V) scientific conferences, congresses, scientific and technical exhibitions.

Popularization of science

After the stage of approval of a scientific idea in the scientific community, scientific communication enters a new stage - the stage of popularization. Within the framework of scientific communication science community acts as a transmitter of science to the general public. Possessing the necessary special knowledge, the scientific community stores and broadcasts it to the masses using the media, which mediate communication between scientists and society as a whole. The means of popularization are popular science magazines, popular science blogs, scientific digital libraries, educational programs, exhibitions, scientific museology, science festivals. For successful external scientific communication, it is important to adapt the language of conveying information; moreover, the emphasis is not on the empirical part of the research, but on the results of activities, practical usefulness and forecasts.

Falsification in the scientific community

Ethics of scientific publications

Failure to comply with the requirements for citing and citing sources of information used in the work is called plagiarism. Today, special computer programs have been created around the world and in Russia to check for plagiarism in publications, for example Antiplagiarism. In Russia, a Commission to combat pseudoscience and falsification of scientific research has been created at the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Due to the fact that the quality and significance scientific work assessed by the quantitative indicator of citation index scientific articles, there are cases of falsification of scientometric indicators (Hirsch index, impact factor). For example, in Russia in 2016, a group of scientists from the Institute of Experimental and Theoretical Biophysics (ITEB RAS) increased scientometric indicators by inserting links into other people’s articles. Such violations are not regulated by law, only by ethical codes and norms of scientific ethics.

In November 2009, a scandal called Climategate caused the collapse of the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen. It was revealed that Professor Michael Mann put pressure on journal editors and prevented the publication of his opponents, which is contrary to scientific ethics.

The main, and in many ways the only way to organize the interaction of scientists is to provide each participant in the scientific process with highly prompt and high-quality information about the state of affairs in science in general and at its cutting edge in particular. This is precisely the function that the scientific communication system performs.

“Scientific communication” is a set of types and forms of professional communication between scientists, carried out using both standardized regular publications and a wide range of oral, written, printed and electronic means.

Objects of sociological study of scientific communications: 1) the place of communication processes in scientific activity; 2) characteristics of participants in scientific communication, 3) its institutions, types, forms and dynamics of communication contacts; 4) communication networks and associations of scientists.

The central role of communication for the existence of the scientific profession is determined both by the internal specifics of science and by the peculiarities of its interaction with the social environment. S.A. Kugel compares the production of knowledge in science to the process of forming a mosaic panel, where each participant must make his own piece of smalt and find a place for it in the overall, constantly filling picture. If this cannot be done on time, the work on the entire picture is practically wasted. The efficiency and intensity of the entire process, especially when millions of people are involved, depend on the level of organization of the interaction of the participants.

The main methods of communication used by science researchers are divided into 5 types: A) “formal” and “informal”, B) “interpersonal” and “impersonal”, C) “direct” and “mediated”, D) “oral” and “written”, D) “primary” and “secondary”. I hope everything is clear with the oral and written ones, but let’s figure out the rest.

A) Grounds for separation “formal” and “informal” means is their relationship to documented species scientific information. Formal communication refers to a set of documents, such as articles and monographs ( primary), reviews, abstract, review ( secondary). Informal communication usually includes various kinds of conversations between scientists - in scientific institutions, on the sidelines of scientific meetings, during non-working hours, as well as a set of types of pre-publication materials - manuscripts, preprints, oral reports at seminars that do not require mandatory publication, etc.

B) Interpersonal forms - when the message is addressed to a very specific individual, and impersonal- this is a message of some scientific content to a group of colleagues, the personal composition of which is not determined, or even more broadly - to all interested parties (such as an article in a scientific journal or a monograph).

B) Discrimination direct and indirect communication not so much characterizes the means of communication themselves, but rather refers to the description of communication structures and the distribution of roles of their participants. Direct communication involves direct information contact, while indirect communication requires one or more intermediary links. This distinction has special meaning in the study of communication groups. What it is?

Traditionally established information exchange structures usually have a two-level structure.

The first level consists of the so-called “key figures” - representatives of the scientific elite, directly connected with each other throughout the entire community of a given subject area. They are members of the editorial boards of leading journals, are members of the governing bodies of professional associations, and maintain constant personal contacts. In other words, they have a significant information advantage over other members of the community. Employees and graduate students are grouped around each key figure, who, through the leader, are indirectly connected with all other participants in communication.

In the course of informatization of society, traditional forms of communication are complemented by electronic information means and telecommunication systems. For now, however, these means, significantly increasing the capacity of communication channels, increasing the efficiency of contacts, etc., as a rule, don't bring to significant systemic changes in scientific communication, which is quite stable in its deep foundations and very conservative.

The results of systematic studies of scientific communication have made it possible to significantly clarify, and in some ways, revise ideas about the structure and dynamics of local scientific communities. These clarifications affected, first of all, sociologists’ ideas about the relationship between the intensity, targeted distribution and structure of contacts in a particular community, and the state of research on the issues on which community members are working, and the speed of progress in research. I'll tell you a little about this.

Observation of the communication activity of individual scientists showed that the behavior of an individual researcher and his interest in contacts with colleagues are different in different periods of his work on a particular problem.

Yes, that's enough active search contacts are noted at the stage of choosing a topic for the next study and formulating a research hypothesis. This is explained by the fact that a scientist needs the most up-to-date information about the state of affairs in a selected area of the research front. The choice of the topic of work, determining its prospects and assessing the possibility of obtaining a result acceptable to the community in a timely manner (before colleagues) depends on this.

This is followed by a sharp decrease in communication activity - the choice is made, intensive research, and unnecessary contacts only distract from the goal, and sometimes lead to the leakage of important information about intermediate results that has not yet been comprehended by the author.

The peak of activity occurs after the result is received, and the author must interpret it as quickly as possible in order to get ahead of competitors; select a publication, publication form, etc.

Significant information about the structure and dynamics of communications was obtained from the study of local research communities, which are commonly called “invisible colleges.” These works showed that in this case we are dealing with a certain fixed set of forms of communication behavior of participants and the corresponding distribution of their roles in the communication process. The full range of these forms and structures is observed in areas of research breakthrough, when success in the development of any group of problems leads to the formation of a new scientific specialty.

The main methods of communication used by science researchers are divided into 5 types: A) “formal” and “informal”, B) “interpersonal” and “impersonal”, C) “direct” and “mediated”, D) “oral” and “written”, D) “primary” and “secondary”. C) verbal and written, I hope everything is clear, but let’s figure out the rest.

A) Grounds for separation “formal” and “informal” means is their attitude to documented types of scientific information. Formal communication refers to a set of documents, such as articles and monographs ( primary), reviews, abstract, review ( secondary). Informal communication usually includes various kinds of conversations between scientists - in scientific institutions, on the sidelines of scientific meetings, during non-working hours, as well as a set of types of pre-publication materials - manuscripts, preprints, oral reports at seminars that do not require mandatory publication, etc.

B) Discrimination direct and indirect communication not so much characterizes the means of communication themselves, but rather refers to the description of communication structures and the distribution of roles of their participants. Direct communication involves direct information contact, while indirect communication requires one or more intermediary links. This distinction is of particular importance in the study of communication groups.

Concept ethos of science(from Greek - habit, custom) denotes a set of moral imperatives, norms accepted in the scientific community and determining the behavior of a scientist.

The ethos of science is developed in the process of communication between scientists; its norms are the result of the historical selection of those rules of behavior that are necessary for science and society. They express, in particular, universal moral requirements, for example, “don’t steal,” “don’t lie.” An analogue of theft in science is, for example, plagiarism. Lies can manifest themselves in the form of deliberate distortion of experimental data.

Norms of scientific ethos American sociologist Robert Merton formulated four “institutional imperatives” of science:

1) Universalism is a norm that requires that any knowledge be open to criticism and evaluation. The truth of scientific statements must be assessed regardless of the age, gender, race, authority, titles and titles of those who formulate them.

2) Generality is a norm that requires that research results be made available to other scientists so that scientific knowledge becomes common property.

3) Unselfishness is a norm that requires that the main incentive for a scientist’s activity be the search for truth, independent of considerations of personal gain. Recognition and reward should be considered as a possible consequence scientific achievements, rather than as the purpose for which research is conducted.

4) Organized skepticism is a norm that requires every scientist to conscientiously evaluate the works of colleagues, not rely on the authority of predecessors, and be critical of others’ and their own results.

IN modern science Particularly relevant are questions relating not so much to the norms of interaction within the scientific community, but to the relationship between science and scientists with society. These are the questions social responsibility of scientists.

During the period of the emergence of experimental mathematical natural science, scientists had to defend the freedom of scientific research from scholastic and church dogmas, from traditional prejudices and superstitions. The doctrine of the “two books” helped them in this:

Scientists were aware of their responsibility to ensure that truth triumphed over ignorance. The forces of nature that science had mastered at that time were not yet so great that they could cause global and irreparable harm to humanity. Therefore, the question of the responsibility of scientists for the fate of humanity has not yet arisen. In modern times - in the era of the final establishment of science - the ideal of “neutral or pure” science was gradually formed, which remained until the mid-twentieth century.

XX century showed the flawed principle of the neutrality of science. In the 20th century, science and industry mastered forces that could cause catastrophic consequences for humanity. And then, especially from the middle of the 20th century, after the use of nuclear weapons, the question of the responsibility of scientists and designers for their discoveries and inventions became topical. There is a widespread opinion in the public consciousness that it is scientists who are responsible for the emergence of weapons of mass destruction, genetically modified products, environmental disasters, etc. This opinion is based on the requirement for scientists to stop their research when danger or unpredictability of their consequences is discovered .

Institutions such as the World Charter of Scientists are being formed, the purpose of which is to recognize and implement in concrete actions the responsibility of scientists to society.

A manifestation of the responsibility of scientists is the fact of education in the 70s. 20th century Club of Rome (a non-governmental association of scientists, politicians, businessmen), within the framework of which scientists were the first to sound alarms about the impending global environmental, energy, demographic, etc. crisis.

The responsibility of science to society grows immeasurably with the development of such modern areas of scientific and technological progress as the design and implementation of human body hybrid DNA molecules, cloning, transplantation of artificial organs, creation of new drugs and neurosurgical experiments that modify behavioral motivation.

Scientific knowledge is a system, so the most harmless research indirectly, being part of the system, contributes to the emergence of potentially dangerous results. We can say that Galileo, who discovered the principle of relativity, is to blame for the appearance of the atomic bomb, Bacon and Descartes, who began the development of scientific methodology, are to blame, and Mendel, who conducted experiments on crossing pea varieties, is to blame for the dangerous consequences of genetic experiments. In this case, all science in general should be banned, since it is all potentially dangerous. If we take this idea to the point of absurdity, then it would be necessary to ban all discoveries and inventions, starting with the invention of the club, the stone knife and the wheel.

The real cause of danger lies not in science and invention, but in the unreason, ignorance and moral immaturity of consumers of the fruits of knowledge. The moral maturation of humanity lags behind the growth of knowledge and technical power. First, people have some kind of power at their disposal, and only then, through the experience of mistakes and suffering, people develop rules for dealing with each other and with this power. The unreasonable desires and ambitions of the immature part of humanity, and not science as such, are the main cause of misfortune.

Rudi Amina Shamilyevna

The article presents a vision of the functioning of science as a communicative process in nature. The specifics of scientific communications are analyzed. The comparative freedom of interaction between subjects of the scientific sphere from the usual communicative circumstances is recorded. The level of greatest freedom of scientific communications is indicated at the level of “invisible colleges”. The dialectical, discursive nature of science is emphasized.

Article address: From№^.agato1a.ne1/ta1epa18/3/2016/4-2/34.11^1

Source

Historical, philosophical, political and legal sciences, cultural studies and art history. Questions of theory and practice

Tambov: Gramota, 2016. No. 4(66): in 2 parts. Part 2. P. 136-138. ISSN 1997-292X.

Journal address: www.gramota.net/editions/3.html

Information about the possibility of publishing articles in the journal is posted on the publisher’s website: www.aramota.net The editors ask questions related to the publication of scientific materials to be sent to: [email protected]

EDUCATIONAL, CHARITABLE AND PUBLIC ACTIVITY OF THE MEDICAL INTELLECTUALS IN OSSETIA (THE SECOND HALF OF THE XIX - THE BEGINNING OF THE XX CENTURY)

Rubaeva El "ma Muratovna, Ph. D. in History North Ossetian State University named after Kosta Levanovich Khetagurov rubaevaemmdo@i-dist. ru

The article deals with the problem of the moral civil responsibility of the intellectuals. The author refers to the history of the formation of the medical intellectuals in North Ossetia. Civil and social responsibility, unselfishness, compassion for the fate of the people contributed to their active participation in various educational, charitable and public organizations, which favored progressive social development. The sanitary and educational activity of the medical intellectuals was aimed at the prophylaxis and prevention of "mass" epidemics.

Key words and phrases: literacy diffusion; the medical intellectuals; civil responsibility of the intellectuals; sanitary-educational activity; moral obligation; mountain youth; discriminatory policy of authorities; charity; Vladikavkaz City Council.

Philosophical Sciences

Keywords and phrases: scientific communications; science community; "invisible college" formal and informal interactions.

Rudi Amina Shamilyevna, Doctor of Philosophy. Sc., Associate Professor

Omsk State University message directions amina_rudi@mail. T

FORMS AND FEATURES OF SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATIONS

One of the most promising areas in the field of scientific communication research today is the study of forms of communication in science at the level of formal and informal interaction between scientists. The distinction between formal and informal interaction between scientists is relative. Formal interaction is more successful the shorter the information transmission channel, the more close, frequent, and contextual the communication. Informal connections can be formed on the basis of formal ones, just as the reverse chain is possible. Designing situations of direct communication, for example conferences, is the most common means of stimulating and revitalizing communication processes in science. With the help of this organizational technique, stable communication networks can be created (for example, conferences held at strict intervals), and certain discursive fields can be formed. The socialization of a scientist in the professional community determines the area of his professional interests, the style and methodology of his research, and the level of his mastery of working skills. In the communicative space of his personal contacts with colleagues, he will learn about the intermediate and final results of their research long before the publication of the latter. In an informal scientific network -social education in science, known as the "invisible college" - information about innovations in the relevant field spreads faster due to the immediacy of contacts. One of the characteristics of scientific communication is the degree of freedom of scientific research. Freedom, being the main attribute of thinking, determines the success of science as a sphere of human intellectual activity. Potentially limiting scientific research can be state power (external factor) and the dominant paradigm (internal factor). If “official” science can appropriately reflect the pressure on it from power and public ideology, then informal communication networks in the process of their functioning are less controlled. If the paradigm holds back research process, then the age of the paradigm itself is finished. In science, as in any other communicative environment, the factor of proximity to the source of correct thought is impossible, since the non-absoluteness of truths is known. Scientific communications reveal important condition equality of subjects - recognition of the right of everyone (regardless of age, status, financial wealth, often - from political, ideological, economic factors, other stereotypes and standards that habitually complicate various communications) to achieve the truth. To demonstrate the freedom of scientific communications, it is useful to appeal to the theory of J. Habermas about communicative rationality, which does not dominate the thinking subject with the rigidity of requirements, but is born in the interaction of subjects. Scientific rationality arises, accordingly, in scientific communication, and does not precede it, being a product

No. 4 (66) 2016, part 2

conscious but involuntary choice of communicants. Spontaneity is determined by the normativity of scientific communications, which regulates in the smallest detail all the structural components of the process of communicative interaction. This freedom exists in the name of one value - knowledge, protected from distortion and errors by a special system of regulation of the communicative process of obtaining it. The procedural design of the process of scientific communication took place already in the Middle Ages, when the works of scholastics were copied in European universities and distributed among colleagues interested in the topic. In this way, prompt communication between research centers was ensured. Scientific communication is one of the most formalized, regulated types of communication. This feature is determined by the importance of the decisions made, the coverage of those interested in them and the high degree of their social orientation.

In scientific interaction, the degree of weight of scientific and communicative-organizational authority determines communicative roles, communication style, communicative intentions, and the nature of the text. The communicator, as a rule, is focused on the implementation of three main communicative tasks: communicating information about the object under study, arguing and proving the truth of what is being communicated, and determining one’s own contribution to the formation of the presented message. The actions of the communicator are subject to a special system of requirements designed to a) verify the concept provided to him, b) ensure that the actions of the subjects are understandable to each other, c) provide communicants with a sense of freedom in a given communicative space. Another specificity of scientific communication is determined by the dominance of the written channel for transmitting information, which does not imply simultaneous transmission and reception (encoding and decoding), but postponed, including for an indefinite period. Moreover, the use of this channel as a predominant one tunes the author of the message to a certain invariant image of the addressee, with potentially characteristic characteristics (picture of the world, categorical apparatus, value system, mechanism of perception, logic of thinking). The reader, in turn, is encouraged by the mastered texts to form his own attitude to the problems posed and to his own creativity. In the process of communication mediated by written texts, the stable character of the communicant in the scientific field and, of course, a unified complex of linguistic means (categorical apparatus) are formed. At the same time, leveling the specific subjective qualities of communicants allows one to focus entirely on comprehension, analysis, verification, and interpretation of the text. If the identity of the addressee (sender) is well known to the communicator, as is the case in established “invisible colleges”, then due to the high contextuality of communication, knowledge of the paradigmatic setting, understanding of the essence of the author’s position, it is possible to save time and communicative means intended to introduce the essence of the matter or to argumentation, unnecessary in the case of the axiomatic nature of some premises, known to both sides. The communicative field of science - a continuously developing system of knowledge about developing world- dialectical. In its primary meaning, being the art of conversation, the art of argument, dialectics corresponds to the content of scientific and communication processes, the most interesting and fruitful in the event of a meeting of opposing theoretical constructs. Science, despite its many disciplinary incarnations, studies a single object - the world, and accordingly, must strive for its own substantive and formal integrity. The analysis procedure is of little note without the implementation of synthesis after all analytical steps. The intensification of scientific communications is facilitated by the behavioral characteristics of a scientist who does not transform the world, but understands it. A scientist first of all needs to master the culture of searching, receiving, perceiving, interpreting, and comprehending information. In communications, he acts as both a sender and a recipient of information about the world. He needs the targeted development of skills in preparing information for transmission to other participants in communication (including those “extended” in time and space) and readiness to perceive information transmitted by someone. In this case, magazines exist not only to be published in them, but also (primarily - chronologically) to be read. Failure to know published information means professional incompetence. The article format is a relevant way of presenting research results that are quickly and conveniently communicated to the target audience in an oversaturated information field. The presence of various departments in a periodical printed publication allows you to cover the largest possible range of topics related to each other in a certain object space. In fact, communication theory serves as a means of scientific reflection and self-correction. The question of inspiration, the creative impulse, which worries every scientist, actually sends the questioner to the sphere of scientific communication, formal and informal, direct and indirect, mediated and immediate, on a special topic, related or completely unrelated: a biologist can be inspired in his work by the reasoning of a mathematician, even if researchers are not united by a single object, but they are carriers of a scientific worldview, subjects of a single scientific communicative space, adherents of one principle of research - the principle of scientific rationality. A natural phenomenon in the development of science as a communicative system is the emergence of new disciplinary areas in it. Cognition of the infinite diversity of reality is a single, inextricable process of changing theories and concepts scientific research. Any subsequent stage of scientific development is possible only on the basis of the previous stage, with the preservation of all previously accumulated valuable things that serve the unity of the body of scientific knowledge. Thus, it is noted that for the existence of science, the emergence of new ideas is obligatory, denying in certain moments old concepts, but necessarily preserving, supplementing and developing them. Such a movement in the history of science can be explained insofar as the reality comprehended by science itself is changeable.

In the 20th century philosophy of science it becomes quite obvious that not a single scientific theory cannot explain everything with absolute certainty and evidence, otherwise it becomes a dead end for the development of new scientific constructs. A theory must be heuristic; the opportunity to be refuted, challenged, and refined is its best fate. The validity of the theory is determined by the framework of a specific coordinate system. In the course of the development of scientific knowledge, it is possible for the subject of knowledge to turn from a subsequent theory back to the previous one, a coincidence of theories. Thus, the theory of relativity did not abolish Newtonian mechanics, but only indicated the limits of its applicability. Moreover, the definition of the limits of applicability of mechanics by planetary conditions was not reflected in such cases of astronomical practice, such as, for example, calculating the trajectory of motion artificial satellites Earth. It is in scientific communication that a combination of continuity and innovation, integration and differentiation is ensured - the key mechanisms for the development of science. We can conclude that all procedures of scientific activity are communication, characterized, first of all, by a two-level structure, dialecticity, freedom and regulation, transparency, use special language and predominantly the written speech channel.

Bibliography

1. Denisov S.F. History and philosophy of science: in 2 parts. Omsk: Omsk State Pedagogical University Publishing House, 2007. Part 1. Science and its institutional specificity. 292 pp.

2. Kuhn T. Structure of scientific revolutions / trans. from English; comp. V. Yu. Kuznetsov. M.: AST, 2003. 605 p.

3. Price D. D. de Solla. Small science, big science // Science about science. M., 1966. S. 281-385.

4. Soboleva M. E. On the concept of the philosophy of language by Jurgen Habermas // Logos. 2002. No. 2 (33). pp. 97-119.

FORMS AND PECULIARITIES OF SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATIONS

Rudi Amina Shamil"evna, Doctor in Philosophy, Associate Professor Omsk State Transport University [email protected]

The article considers science functioning as a communicative process in its nature. The author analyzes scientific communication specifics and concludes on the relative freedom of the scientific sphere" interaction from habitual communicative circumstances. The "invisible colleges" level is considered as a level of the maximum freedom of scientific communications. The paper emphasizes the dialectic, discursive nature of science.

Key words and phrases: scientific communications; scientific community; "invisible college"; formal and informal interactions.

Philosophical Sciences

The article reveals individual factors and forms of manifestation of the inconsistency of historical consciousness in the context of modernization processes in Russian society. The author shows that the inconsistency of historical consciousness manifests itself in the form of opposition between Westernism and Slavophilism, in the form of opposing assessments of the Soviet past and modern reforms in Russia. The conclusion is made about the need for dialogue between nationally and liberally oriented history as a condition for identifying and realizing the cultural potential of historical consciousness.

Key words and phrases: history; historical consciousness; inconsistency; modernization; culture; Westernism; Slavophilism; crisis of historical consciousness; split; dialogue.

Svirida Nadezhda Nikolaevna, Ph.D. Sc., Associate Professor

Surgut State Pedagogical University nadSvirida@yandex. gee

CONTRADICTION OF HISTORICAL CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERNIZATION OF RUSSIAN SOCIETY

I noticed that almost everyone has their own Russia in their head, and that’s why the disputes are endless.

N.V. Gogol

During critical periods, when the crisis and the revival of Russia are simultaneously talked about, when opposing and mutually exclusive assessments of the past and current state society, "historical consciousness and historical memory become a powerful factor influencing people’s behavior and their lifestyle.” Being a link between the past, present and future, historical consciousness performs in society “the functions of integration, consolidation of different generations, social groups and individuals”, but can also be destructive in a polarized society. Therefore, the question of the role of historical consciousness becomes especially relevant in the era

Types of scientific communication and their specificity. Scientific communication and its main forms

Password recovery