The article focuses on the structure of pseudoscience as deviant interpretation of the data that has specific cognitive symptoms: undefined scope, the limited evidence base, selfcontradictory, unreliable assumptions, etc. Discusses the differences and similarities of pseudoscience and hypotheses as forms of knowledge (rationality, consistency, the possibility of a critical revision, etc.). Proposes criteria for delineation of pseudoscience and falsescience, antiscience, parascience, quasiscience, folk science. The property of systematic of scientific knowledge analyzes in article, where theories and hypotheses support each other, the isolation of a recognized theory is seen as a sign of pseudoscience. Argued the possibility of determining the validity of the hypothesis of «here and now» in a mature science and incorrect analysis of pseudoscience as developing «research programs» (I. Lakatos) using complex analysis not only of the hypothesis itself, but also its subsidiary assumptions consequences. Ambiguous examples, such as the cosmological and psychological theories, “dark matter”, theory of «torsion fields» are analyzed in the context of the proposed approach to the definition of pseudoscience as a transitional form of knowledge as deviant interpretation necessarily false.

The article presents the results of the studies based on the application of the concept of the structure and dynamics of scientific knowledge developed by V.S. Stepin to the analysis of the history of the XVII century medicine. The scientific revolution in the XVIIIcentury medicine was of a locallydisciplinary nature and involved changing the picture of reality. Its mechanism was the negotiation of the intradisciplinary crisis which prevailed in the medicine of the 90s of the XVIIth century and associated with the realization of the impossibility to explain all life processes of a healthy and diseased human body solely on the basis of Cartesian notions of «collisions» of particles devoid of any specific property.The recovery was found by supplementing the Cartesian picture of reality with the ideas of the existence of «internal living forces» specific to the human organism. With regard to natural bodies in general these ideas were introduced in the European science of modern times by Leibniz and Newton. The introduction of the ideas of dynamism in medicine is associated mainly with the activity of A. Pitcairne, F. Hoffmann, E. Stahl, G. Baglivi, H. Boerhaave and A. Haller who presented experimental evidence of the existence of powers inherent only in living organisms.In the second half of the 18th century there appeared and became widespread new medical teachings (Th. Bordeu, P. Barthez, Ch. Hufeland, F. Medicus, J. Brown, J. Blumenbach, A. Mesmer) that determined the vital functions of a human body in its healthy and sick condition as a result of the cumulative effects of various forces. The recognition of the ideas of dynamism by the majority of the medical community led to a fundamental revision of ideas about the disease, the emergence of new approaches to the study, the diagnosis, the treatment and prevention of human diseases and marked in medicine the final approval of a new picture of reality, which cannot be reduced to a mechanical one.

The two conceptions of style of scientific thinking are compared in the article. According to the socalled epochal conception, the style of scientific thinking reflects phases in the development of science, this style is based on the general scientific methodology of the epoch. Such styles replace one another with time. According to the socalled disciplinary conception, the style of scientific thinking is associated with a specific scientific discipline, it depends on the subject and methodology the concrete discipline. Thus, under this conceptions different styles can coexist. The relation of the style of thinking to the scientific picture of the world is discussed in the article. Two different models of the picture of the world are addressed. In one model all things are treated as derivatives of space. In the other model the world is presented as a set of hierarchically organized systems. The author argues that the two styles of scientific thinking can be combined with the two models.

The article analyzes how different methodological approaches (reductionism and holism) allow one to study one cognitive model – the cell of a living organism. It is shown how the study of this model by different scientists have led to modern concepts of molecular biology and genetics. These examples from the history of science clearly show that in the biological sciences the interpenetration of natural methodologies and heuristic hypotheses is. This is due to the complexity of the biological system, since different levels of the elementary structures and processes have a definite meaning only within the context of integral, which in itself is a multidimensional form.