An analysis of the phenomenon of interdisciplinarity from the point of view of Universal Logic – a general theory of logics considered as the kind of mathematical structures by analogy with the universal algebra treatment of algebras – discloses some basic combinations of scientific theories (other patterns of combinations are not forbidden but the scope of their applicability turns out to be essentially restricted). Such an approach is based on strongly idealized understanding of the scientific theory (theory as such) and in fact deals with the logical conception of a theory as the system of correlated statements. Early it was shown that there are just four basic combinations of theories which scope of applicability coincides with the universe of theories in the framework of Universal Logic. Here their constructions are explained by giving examples of the transfer of social doctrines into biology or so called sociobiologism.

This article looks to consider the principles of generation of the conceptual and semantic relations in the conscious experience and in the computational process of modern artificial intellectual systems. We attempt to give proof of the unformalizability of qualitative states and we mean to clarify the semantic differences between information and meaning. It’s important to describe the role of the language system in the cognitive and semantic procedures of consciousness including the computational aspect of problem. The consistent intellectual activity (in engineering approach) requires the particular material organization of processing and the rules of logicalsemantic inference. The semantics of mental states demands uncertain, undefined conclusions and the agent capable of free will. Computational Theory of Mind and computerbased information system models can clearly present the cognitive process but without any explanation of substantial nature of linguistic components of consciousness. In this paper the following points are: in the human cognitive process there are some elements which are not accessible for formalization and computer modeling. One of these components is natural language fuzzy semantics. This feature of natural language is related to the private mental states and to the uniqueness of associative activity of consciousness. The stable meanings of language system are representable in the data machine forms but the pragmatic functions require the experience of conscious existence. Artificial intelligence is connected with neither world of things nor mental representations but only with information and inference rules. The natural language semantics establishes the symbolic relations between the consciousness and the entire being.

Man finds himself in the world not as pure mind or consciousness, but as embodied being. This embodiment is not a simple natural fact, man is not the product of his or her own body, on the contrary, people in history always have bodies as their own objects and representations. French anthropologist M. Moss believed that for construction unified concept of human being we must base on different sciences – sociology, psychology and physiology. In this article concept « techniques of the body » analyses through the theory of motions developed classic psychophysiology N.A. Bernstein. It is hypothesized that different types of movements can be generalized by notion «gesture”. Gesture – is a movement that is able to experiment with space and time, it is the way by which a person can transcend his own boundaries. In a gesture of material and intentional sides fused together. Gesture suggests The Another Man. The human body takes on the role of media. Understanding of environment can carried out through the body and senses, not only through logic and language. The body is the mode by which nature becomes a human being, at the heart of this process we find the development of techniques and movements. Desire to reveal »the nature of the human body" – is part of more wider problem – to understand the «body of human nature.»

There are two problem areas associated with modern studies of philosophy of mind focusing on identification and convergence of human and machine intelligence. One problem is machine simulation of meaning and the other – machine simulation of sense. In the present study the analysis of the stated problems is carried out based on the concepts of structural and poststructural linguistics almost entirely ignored by philosophy of mind. If we refer to the basic definitions of “sign” and “meaning” found in structuralism and poststructuralism, we will see a fundamental difference between the capabilities of a machine and the human brain engaged in processing of a sign. The present study will exemplify and provide more and probably stronger evidence to support distinction between syntactic and semantic aspects of intelligence, the issue widely discussed by adepts of contemporary philosophy of mind.

The article is devoted to the philosophical analysis of the phenomenon of the coexistence of the empirically equivalent theories in physical knowledge. These theories are equally well describe the empirical data in the same subject area, but differ from each other by the mathematical apparatus and/or postulated ontology of the fundamental objects. The choice between them is one of the most difficult challenges in achieving the objectively true knowledge about the studied region of reality. The article considers three types equivalent theories. The first type are temporarily equivalent theories – the emergence of new experimental data allows to choose one of them as the true and reject a false theory. Equivalent theories of the second type in the course of development of science find that one theory is applicable only in a limited area of reality, while the other can be extended to a new, more wide area of physical reality. Equivalent theories of the third type can not be evaluated in the foreseeable future by means of experiment on the validity/falsity. The empirical equivalence of the first and second types is temporary, and the equivalence of the third type is constant. We analyze the characteristics of solving of the problem of choosing between competing descriptions for all three types of empirically equivalent theories. Solutions can be found by: 1) the search of non-empirical criteria of the truth of the theory, 2) revision ability of the scientific theories give us the real picture of the nonobserved physical reality, 3) revise the structure of physical reality in nonobserved field of phenomena.

On the basis of the fragments of the course on the methodology of Russian history are considered the philosophical views of Academician Alexander Sergeyevich Lappo-Danilevsky (1863–1919). Under the methodology of history scholar imply, above all, the theory of historical knowledge, which should reveal the epistemological foundations of the science of history, and to show how the historian, perceiving reality inaccessible to direct observation, is able to come to the truth. An important place in his teaching Lappo-Danilevsky assigns historical phenomenology, forms the historical givens, historical phenomena, and not facts. More details a scientist stayed on the method of analysis, showing how its scientific significance, and its use in historical research. Lappo-Danilevsky believed that the study questions the methodology of history should serve the development and clarification of more general principles of socio-humanities or «theories of social science». In the «theory of social science» special place given to the problem of «another I» or recognizing the existence of a stranger psychic life. For Lappo-Danilevsky formulate a «theory of social science» meant to answer the question of how the givens of our individual «I» we can go to a real recognition of the existence of other individual consciousnesses. The main purpose of his lectures Lappo-Danilevsky seen not dogmatic exposition of his teaching, and independent thinking in the awakening of his listeners. Publication fragments the workers lecture notes of Lappo-Danilevsky complements the published version of his “Methodology of history”, also grew out of a course of lectures at St. Petersburg University.

In the conditions of “ambiguity” of postindustrial society, social traumas and global social transformations of our time the narcissistic “part” of contemporary Russian identity is charged with ambitions, perfectionism, grandiosity, rejects continuance of traditions, limits, generally accepted rules and many moral taboos. It is egocentric, not burdened with the feelings of duty and responsibility, prefers “the positive” and values selfexpression, takes changes exclusively as entertainment. The diffuse “parts” of its selfidentity are motivationally exhausted, passive, hostile and unkind, depressive, they lack the resourceful potential for development and are “bound” with superficial understandings of traditional patriarchal attitudes and paternalism: they are afraid of changes and try to avoid them, are dependent upon strong power and “idolize” it, prefer to “cling” to the existing situation despite common discontent with the conditions and quality of life. It is obvious that the content of Russian mentality “falls behind” the dynamic social changes and constantly “regresses”: the aim of retention of permanence (or even the return to the previous socialcultural identity) and the defense from negatively appraised, unfriendly and aggressively intruding Western civilization is still important to it. The issue of the development of the “mobile” aspects of identifications that answer the rapidly changing conditions of Russian society in global world shifts to periphery. We offer the clinical interpretation of today’s condition of Russian social consciousness, the integrity of which is “deficient”, “split”, with its “fragments” involved in mutual antagonism as the cooperation and solidarity seize to exist. We underline the necessity of multidisciplinary research of the process of social evolvement and disintegration of selfidentity as the unity of relationships “I – the Other” with the apparatuses of the allied sciences – social epistemology, clinical and social psychology.

The social nature of modern science is observable, measurable phenomenon and is manifested in the ability of science and society to provide a powerful impact on each other. This phenomenon cannot be reduced to the close relationship of science and technology, but one should seek its essence in the changing functions of scientific laboratory. The latter becomes a social spacetime machine, in which the ontological and epistemological transitions between the natural and the artificial, the living and the nonliving, the external and the internal, theory and fact, discovery and justification, proof and persuasion, fundamental research and its practical application are analyzed and modeled. Modern science appears as holistic natural process that requires new methodological approaches for its analysis. On this way, the shortcomings of the standard model of science should be overcome. However, this image of science and philosophical quest for a new view of science remains in contrast to the economic dimension of the scientific and technical system, which depreciate fundamental research and absolutizes the role of instrumental product of science. This raises the question of the possibility and need for a new «social philosophy of science», which has to respond to topical challenges: of the time, firstly, by restructuring Russian tradition in the philosophy of science of the 20-21 centuries combining the ideas of Gustav Shpet, Boris Hessen, Vladimir Vernadsky, Mikhail Bakhtin, Mikhail Petrov, with the achievements of Western philosophy of science within the framework of interdisciplinary synthesis of the philosophy of science and the broadly taken cognitive sciences; and secondly, by justifying the strategy for the development of science and technology in the framework of the sixth economictechnological trend («uklad»), developing a balanced interaction of social-engineering technology and global philosophical vision for long-term planning and forecasting according to the socio-cultural and civilizational prospects.

There are two possible contexts of discussions of personal identity: philosophical and psychological. Philosophical context implies ontology. What a philosopher thinks about the criteria of personal identity depends on what she thinks about the ontological status of consciousness. I analyze Derek Parfit’s famous thought experiment concerning brain division and subsequent transplantation of two hemispheres in two different bodies. This experiment is intended to show that a category ‘person’ doesn’t refer to anything ontologically real. However, I present a different interpretation of this thought experiment and argue that the experiment can not be considered as a proof that criteria of diachronical identity of persons differ from the criteria of diachronical identity of other objects.

The overview of publications and discussions of the journal “Sociology of science and technologies” undertaken in the article shows how the scientific community considers the role and position of science in the contemporary society as well as its problems, specific features and the prospects for its development in Russia. Along with the acknowledgement of the sphere of science as important factor and as the priority of the development for the contemporary society, the state of science and formation at Russian society is evaluated as crisis. An public appeal to innovative development in Russia is regarded by many authors as a purely formal stance. With the existing portion of science in Russian GDP (Gross Domestic Product) the passage of the country to the innovation way is viewed as possible. As the indices of the crisis of science, the number of the organizations, which carry out scientific research and its applications, ceases dramatically as well as their staff. The number of domestically created advanced production technologies in Russia increases poorly, the significant exceeding of the export of technologies over the export takes place, while leading world countries obtain essential profit from the export of technologies. A quantity of the developed and mastered competitive technologies is low and continues to cease, that contradicts world-wide economic tendencies. As the basic reasons for this degradation, one notes the following reasons: the insufficiency of financing, the loss of a large quantity of qualified technical cadres and the absence of necessary interaction of science and production. The progress in the technological effectiveness of science and its influence on modernization of Russian economy requires a new scientific and technical policy in the context of formation and realization of general strategy of the social and economic development of the country.

This paper is a review of articles published in the journal “Science, technology and human values” for 2010-2014. This journal publishes the results of interdisciplinary research on the development of science and technology and the influence of social, cultural and political factors on this development.The author discusses four major aspects of the relationship between science and the context in STS: the role of non-scientific values in science, the influence of funding on the process and the results of scientific research, new trends in contemporary science and criticism of STS.

The article presents an overview of publications devoted to biotechnology and society which appeared in the journal “Science, Technology and Human Values” during the last three years.