Search articles

Ivan P. Getmanov – Don state technical university. Rostov-on-Don, Russian Federation.
Aravan B. Tazayan – Don state technical university. Rostov-on-Don, Russian Federation.

The term “coevolution” is usedfor identification of mutually conditioned elements alterations, acting as an integral system. Development is the vector of these changes. Thus, the coevolutionary approach makes it possible to study the natural mechanisms of the living systems complication. The authors follow mainly this methodological orientation, exploring cultural interaction and environment, in other words–coevolution way. Coevolutionary approach, without denying deterministic character of living systems development, pays special attention to occasionalities, which are considered to be the irremovable factors. Since the mechanism of the origin and coordination of the elements interaction involves occasionality, the system development takes an emergent character.This approach concludes the fact that acceptation of uncertainty factor does not influence the result of the particles joint variability – the variability forms are more productive methods of the entire elements collaboration. Historically developing images of cultures are viewed as the result of coevolution – on the one hand, as the interaction of cultures leading to mutual enrichment, on the other, in the context of natural environmental conditions that form some of their unique features. Coevolutionary methodology demonstrates a theoretical resource that explains the unity and difference of cultures, their transformation. The historical context of the cultures dialogue is presented as a coevolutionary process, the modern mechanisms of which promote convergence and integration of cultures, which replace the process of their evolutionary differentiation – divergence.

Aravan B. Tazayan – Ph.D. of philosophy. Don state technical university. Rostov-on-Don, Russian Federation.

It is considered epistemological difficulties of the truth correspondent concept, solution of which determines the qualitative transformation of the scientific cognition goal.It has been carried out the analysis of the correspondence concept, which indicates that it does not have the necessary theoretical resources of justification as a criterion of truth. This circumstance refutes the view of the uniqueness and universality of the truth correspondent concept. It is not refuted, but its epistemological status is significantly altered. Truth corresponding conception appears to be as one of the possible epistemological hypotheses along with others. A new look at the correspondent theory of truth opens new prospects for scientific rationality, corrects its cognitive resource. The rational acceptability concept of knowledge comes to replace the truth knowledge as a correspondence of knowledge to the reality. It is emphasized that the given “truth” concept evolution is not a result of alternative points of view criticism, but is a consequence of self-correcting scientific practice, and its new philosophical concept is based on the achievements of non-classical science. This thesis is confirmed by the scientific standards that scientific community is guided by. For the first time this question was investigated by K. Popper in the philosophy of science. In the result of his research, he formulated two methodological positions that are explicitly or implicitly presented in science: the concepts of phallibilism and falsificationism. The article points out that Popper’s pioneering ideas have developed in modern American analytical philosophy. This conclusion is supported by the views review of H. Patnem. Summing up, it is given a positive assessment of these changes in the theory of knowledge. The truth concept as rational acceptability overcomes a number of epistemological difficulties, which appear to be in disparity of goals and results of scientific activity.