Living science. V. I. Vernadsky’s sphere approach

Abstract

This article elaborates on the change of rationality types in science as proposed by the academician V. S. Stepin: classics -> non-classics -> postnon-classics. It shows that the classical -> non-classical transition involves a rethinking of scientific foundations, which is absent from the non-classical -> post-non-classical transition. From the point of view of the synergetics of the changing types of rationality, there are bifurcation points in which there must be a choice between several alternatives. However, when describing these transitions, historians of science tend to neglect the mention of alternatives. We propose considering the teachings of V. I. Vernadsky on biological spacetime and living matter as an alternative to the relative space-time of A. Einstein in the classical -> non-classical transition. We show that neither of the two transitions corresponds to T. Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions, in which an important sign of a revolution is the resistance it meets from the normal majority of the scientific community. These transitions have virtually lacked such resistance, while the novelty of many of Vernadsky’s ideas is so strong that they are still rebutted by the scientific community.

We place an emphasis on some aspects of this novelty, in particular on the inapplicability of modern analytical mathematics to a description of the behavior of living matter and on the need to build a scientific worldview based on two poles: matter-energy and life. Science rooted in this basis is consistent with life or living science.

This paper takes a look at the changes of the rationality types from the point of view of a linear schematization of cognition elements (subject, method and object), also showing that this scheme lacks a predictive potential. It proposes another type of schematization — a triangular balance, in which the predictive potential can be expressed. We present four (3+1) types of synthetic worldview under the common name of the sphere approach, providing examples for each type of synthesis, taken beyond the boundaries of modern science. The modes ‘more than oneself’ and ‘less than oneself’ are introduced for the process of cognition. The living science of the sphere approach is characterized by a symmetry of these principles, whereas the entire previous scientific rationality forbids the mode of ‘more than oneself’. We show that the sphere approach, which replaces the systems one, does not continue the old logic of development, offering a new one instead.