Since the 1980-s the number of immune system's depictions has increased dramatically. Often in classroom or in hospital immunologists or doctors could show you how our immune system works. Most popular hand-drawn schema is a model of self-other distinction with clear and rigid border between body and environment. But there is a tension between different models of immune system and their visualizations. For example, it's difficult to explain autoimmune diseases in terms and pictures of classical model self-other distinction because immunity means a war of self against self. Niels Jerne's network model of immune system does not react on other or non-self. It deals only with its own components and prepares immune response before any possible invasion. In another model that's called “symbiotic model" we cant tell about self and non-self, because some nonself entities are friends of organism. Besides some of bacteria in our body are responsible for our immune response. So there is no unity and consensus in immunity system's visualization. But how do we know that immune systems exist? What if schemata are just a product of immunological imagination? Microphotographs made by electronic microscope are evidence of truth. They stabilize all arguments and controversies in visualization of immune systems. First Donna Haraway and later Emily Martin demonstrated microphotographs and asked people about their feeling and impression. Lay people couldn't associate biological of microphotographs and their limited body. Microphotographs are out of context of human bodily experience and in this sense there is no stabilization of arguments. Immune system's microphotographs depend on hand-drawn pictures. Micrographs as fragments of immune system are not linked with immunological patterns. In this sense schematic images are “golden standard" for electron micrographs. There is no self and other in this picture but we define self and other in microphotographs by schemata.

The article investigates the problem of the correlation between sense and communicative situation which characterizes philosophical and scientific texts. The analysis of ancient genre of “table-talk", which goes back to Plato's dialogue “Banquet", shows that the dialogue as a text construction form defines the philosophical sense of the text in coordination with communication features of a real table-talk (symposion). This communicative mechanism coordinates text (dialogue) and reality (symposion), and its action can be clarified by “format of text" concept. It is determined by three essential characteristics of the text: the circumstances of his generation, communicative situation between the author and the reader, and the form of the text. The variety of formats in every cultural and historical situation is determined, in its turn, by the actual text culture.dentification and analysis of symposion format allows to trace the transformation of its textual expression of “Table Talk" through “aphorisms" of modern times to modern “abstract" and “round table materials". It is noted that the process of cultural transformation of the text reflects the changes in the social reality of the transition from the ancient symposion to the French salon in the seventeenth century and further to modern symposium. It is revealed the basic feature of the modern version of symposion format that is convergence, and sometimes interference of communicative and public dimensions of the text.

The author considers that the basic principles and concepts of natural history that distinguish it from biology, namely, the law of continuity, interpretation of a living being as a natural body, focus on the description of the surface of the living body, recognition of equivalence of properties, use of procedures of 'identy and differences' for the designation of place of living being in the universe, the denial of naturalness of classification hierarchy, the interpretation of the taxon as a place in the universe, the dependence of taxon name from its location. He claims that the law of continuity of natural history should be considered as the basis of modern concepts in the taxonomy and theory of evolution. He notes that the geometric approach that was typical for natural history is now widely used to describe the living beings. The author argues that in the context of modern phylogenetics biodiversity is interpreted as only spacely structured.

The author considers the evolutionary approach to the development of the scientific knowledge in framework of the Niklas Luhmann's system-communicative theory and presents a thesis that in respect to the final evolutional state (state of stabilization of new form of knowledge) the organization of the Russian science has not yet achieved the world-level of sufficient autonomy because there was not yet been established the self-substitutive order of the knowledge accumulation which is inherent to the autopoiesis of the contemporary science i.e. the process of continued change of some ones truths by some others. The factors impeding to establish such a self-substitutive order are to be connected by the author with the impact on the scientific discourse from some external communicative forms (the theological, financial, economical, political ones) and with the continuous change of some selective criterions that have to define what has to be accumulated as a memory of the science as a communicative system.

The paper reconstructs the evolution process of scientific knowledge. The evolution theory has been applied hitherto exclusively to the famous reference problem. It the eye would be incapable seeing something really available it could not establish itself it the reality as such evolutional achievement. Contrary to this view the author states that the cognitive apparatus could survive not due to their achievements in the representations of the external world but rather due to their selfreproductive capabilities. By extrapolation of this view on the level of the epistemology it means that the knowledge itself selects that it can know on the base of that it already knows. The author suggests the principles of such cognitive evolution - the mechanisms of variety, selection and restabilization. The mechanism of variety concerns exclusively some particular operations (i.e. the communicative occurrences). Something innovative (unexpected, out of the ordinary) which has been recently created would occasionally be uttered, suggested, described, and probably printed under sole condition that it is apprehensible and writable. The selection is always based on some structures i.e. on the expectations of some reproductive use of some meaning affitudes. Only the structures can be marked out symbolically: applied to the science it means that they are marked as the true or the false ones. Finely, the stabilization level consists in the continuality of the autopoesis of the scientific communication.

The author claims that recent publications on the theory of music and literature show some new trends in constructivist philosophy of culture. One of them is the idea of subconscious roots of cultural artifacts that has been applied in music studies. It was at this point it becomes clear that in order to identify variants of constructivism as indicators you can use some very simple assumptions, for example, the assumption of the possibility of the ontological significance of the “artistry" of the text. Such an assumption implicitly contains epistemological realism. So it becomes clear that realism is not something completely dead, including those for constructivism. Where constructivism allows the existence of good (“classic") texts, that is, of “high culture", he is tolerant to realism. On the other side, rejection of the classics is a sign of the radical versions of constructivism. There is possibility of fixing the difference between ontologies, which differ among themselves as a state of loss and forgetting the reality.

The author analyses the problem of the communication from the epistemological point of view, noting that the interest to the theme is obviously determined by the enormous ambiguity and by the disciplinary vagueness of the communication's notion itself. It is argued that it is the philosophical conceptualization of the communication that allows in a certain sense to «save» philosophy itself. The author notes that the philosophical studies of communication as if return the relevance to the classical philosophical problems: to the (communicative) sphere, (communicative) time, (social) causality, (collective) subject and object, filling them with the meaningful characteristics and testing their concepts by the experience of the functioning of real society and communication. He concludes that the epistemological content of the concept of communication is comes together with several aspects of human cognition. The first aspect has to do with the dimensions for defining the adequacy for determination of the statement made by the Other (i.e. the other participant), given that the content of the Other's consciousness is unavailable. The second aspect is related to the principle of a double purpose of any communication: on the one hand, integration and mutual understanding and, on the other, informational description of the subject of the message. The third aspect is that communication is based on the most important epistemological distinction between knowledge and ignorance, i.e. on the predominance of any information to one participant of the communication and of its uncertainty to the other participant, and that such a situation actually conditions the formation of communication systems, as well as of a wide variety of forms of sociality. The author also addresses the problem of whether contemporary media make communication at all possible since they decrease the impact that the secrecy of the Other's consciousness has on communication by triggering a communicative act.

Philosophy of history is analyzed here from the point of its epistemological and ontological meaning. The author considers that the ontological point of view makes it possible to conceptualize the history as the unity of its all times - Past, Present and Future. The connection between these three times based on their relation to the concept of Eternity which has been symbolically formed within the mythological, religious and utopian Weltanschauung. The necessity of these relations transforms philosophy of history into a special kind of ontological historical knowledge. The study of history from the prospect of unity is only possible within the historical interpretation of Future as an epoch of bridging the gap between Time and Eternity. Author calls this philosophical concept the Time of Freedom.

The article analyzes the philosophical solutions to the problem of relationships between philosophy of history and historical science. The author recognizes the existence of the long-term methodological crisis. He also considers that any attempt of establishing the special subject area for the philosophy of history is totally irrelevant and inconsistent with the contemporary methodological foundations of socialsciences. The following elaboration of this problem should be based on the principle of the diversified unity of philosophy, sociology and historical science.

The author analyses some problems discussed in the article of Vadim Mezhuev. He discusses the ways in which historians deal with their own scientific problems in the light of philosophical problems of sciences. According to Yu. Nikiforov, a philosopher can always talk about the future which is yet to come; a historian sees the future through the present of the processes which she describes. The author argues that a reconstruction of the past is always based on the knowledge of the present.

In this article author considers the problem of epistemology of historical knowledge. Author doesn't accept the neo-kantianism theory. He makes an attempt to differ the two forms of unitarization of scientific knowledge — theoretization and the principle of holism and, hence, the two forms of the theoretical consideration of history. The author insists that the Marxists approach seems to be the most relevant from this point of view. Thus, he defends the thesis that the idealistic concepts are much vulnerable comparing with the materialistic approaches.

All speculations on «the meaning of history» are argued to exceed the epistemological capacities of historical science. Nevertheless, the author argues, such speculations are significant for a philosophy which treats historical development as a real phenomenon. For many philosophies of this sort, freedom of a human-being is the main goal of the historical process. The author notes that such «historical optimism» is in conflict historical practice. And he argues that it can be dangerous if transformed into a slogan.

A distinction should be drawn between natural sciences and cultural studies such as psychology and history. A social philosophy of science must be based on bringing them into a fruitful relationship. What relations are possible? There is the role of natural science concepts and methods in cultural studies and the role of concepts and methods of cultural studies in natural science, determining standards of good work and particularly the choice oif domains of research with respect to human welfare. Cultural studies of natural science as an institution emphasises the importance of standards of excellence and of the role of rights and dutiesin the life of scientific institutions.

The article discusses the concept of milieu in its connection with a problem of embodiment as it is today posed in the cultural studies of science. It is pointed out that if we take the embodied milieu as a precondition and result of our theoretical and practical activities, then it challenges the traditional sense of the word «social and, accordingly, the basic purposes of a social philosophy of science.

Discussions related to the detection of objective reality, the truth and lie are still a heated topic in the domain of philosophical epistemology. While certain philosophical contexts and theories suggest that the notion "reality as an independent category" should not be engaged, instead, interpretations, including reciprocal, should be used, others hold it that philosophical discussion cannot continue without reference to the said notion. Different philosophers and scolars approach this problem from different angles. When discussing these topics, philosophers often resort to certain thought experiments, engaging an important concept, which can broadly be identified as "the global observer." This concept has something in common with such concepts as the God's Eye, Omniscient Interpreter, Ultimate Observer (quantum physics), Agent of Logical omniscience (game theories), Ideal Observer (ethics and meta-ethics), God (analytic theology). Despite the abundance of works on the topic and scrupulosity of arguments, there still remain many uncertainties in such discussions, mostly related to a great number of logical paradoxes, associated with the problem. Therefore, in view of the current situation, the focus of the research paper is on the deliberation of consistency of the notion "global observer" from the standpoint of logic and philosophy. The results of the analysis of the issue at stake are expected to clarify the notion and to enrich current discussions on the topic. I examine certain difficulties in the philosophical assumptions concerning one of the philosophical concepts, which could be collectively named as the "global observer." The article below explores the notion of the global observer as the guarantor of the determinability and configuration of events in the world. There is explained the meaning of this concept and attempt to show that, despite variations in the wording, it is used in many philosophical contexts related to epistemology. The core issue of the present research paper is the analysis of the consistency of the notion "global observer" from the standpoint of logic and philosophy. The paper discusses why application of this notion in some contexts poses challenges and appears to be paradoxical.

The author investigates the content of the notion of subject from the evolutionary-epistemological point of view. She claims that evolutionary epistemology does not clarify this problem by itself and argues that this state of affairs raises a number of problems such as absolutization of adaptationism, biologism in knowledge, lack of a clear demarcation between animal cognition and human cognitive activity. It is argued that a man is the only subject of cognition in evolutionary epistemology. Inasmuch as person constructs and enriches the environment he becomes a pressure factor by himself. This claim is argued to counter the thesis of adaptation. So adaptationist interpretation of the evolution of human cognitive activity is insufficient. The phenomenon of environmental change through the development of cognitive abilities by the person is represented in society, communication and culture. Cognition is determined by anticipating the result of purpose. In this connection, the constructive activity of the cognitive person confronted with the limitations of her own cognitive capabilities and environmental restricting factors. Thus, the evolution of man is considered as self-development, which is carried out through the creative overcoming external and internal constraints through the constructive activity of the agent of cognition.

The paper discusses one of the central problems of contemporary formal semantics — counterexamples to the predictions of the theory of binding (due to N. Chomsky). In particular, the author addresses cases of the so-called coreferential readings of reflexive pronouns which are standardly predicted to receive only the bound reading. The author examines theories of T. Reinhart and I. Heim and suggests an extension ofthe latter theory in order to enable it to account for the aforementioned readings of reflexive pronouns.

In the quest for a new social turn in philosophy of science, exploring the prospects of a Vygotskian perspective could be of significant interest, especially due to Vugotsky ’s emphasis on the role of culture and socialisation in the development of cognitive functions. However, a philosophical reassessment of Vygotsky's ideas in general has yet to be done.As a step towards this direction, I attempt to elaborate an approach on scientific representations by drawing inspirations from Vygotsky. Specifically, I work upon Vygotsky's understanding on the nature and function of concepts, mediation and zone of proximal development.I maintain that scientific representations mediate scientific cognition in a tool-like fashion (Like Vygotsky's signs). Scientific representations are consciously acquired through deliberate inquiry in a specific context, where it turns to be part of a whole system, reflecting the social practices related to scientific inquiry, just scientific concepts do in Vygotsky's understanding. They surrogate the real processes or effects understudy, by conveying some of the features of the represented systems. Vygotsky's solution to the problem of the ontological status of concepts points to an analogous understanding for abstract models, which should be regarded neither as fictions nor as abstract objects.I elucidate these views by using the examples of the double-helix model of DNA structure and of the development of our understanding of the photoelectric effect.