The epistemological mechanisms of historical study and history as a science form the subject of long discussions and disputes. The evolution of historical knowledge often derive from the cultures of primeval societies, from myth, not emphasizing its differences with other forms, in particular, with the scientific historiography. The analysis presented in the article distinguishes between competences of memorial practice, oriented towards historical memory, and historical knowledge, which is the history of science per se. It is demonstrated to which confusions the lack of the understanding of the given circumstances is leading.

Article deals the problem of correlation the noosphere’s formation and human being evolution in V.I. Vernadsky’s approach. In this concept origin of Noosphere is determined not only by technics, human ecological duties, democracy etc. but new evolutional leap of Homo sapiens as well. Man’s evolution means human intuitive creativity development and morality. The intuitive abilities of person seems be continued within noosphere itself.There is correlation of epistemological aspects with evolutional one at Vernadsky’s doctrine (“onto-epistemology” by N.O. Lossky, S.L. Frank and A. Bergson). Russian cosmist supposed scientific knowledge be influenced by “artistic experience”, common sense, intuition etc. He admitted fundamental meaning the logical and rational points of knowledge (and being?) but expanded understanding the rationality as well, including in it a number of intuitive and irrational points. Alive reality is wider all points to be conceptualized. That’s why saying on correlation and inter-transition of the Rational and the Irrational (Irrational means here all variety of nonlogic cognitive forms) is relevant.Such interpretation based on the personalistic approach, i.e. considering Vernadsky’s person and his internal experience. The intuitive feeling of the Alive was very important for Russian scientist and thinker. That’s why he consider physical picture of the world itself just as one of ways to explain reality to be insufficient without its connection the point of the live.A lot of Vernadsky’s thoughts might be assessed as post-unclassical methodology’s forerunners – especially in idea of selforganization, synergetic paradigm with its idea of coevolution of organisms end ecosystems farther turned to sociocultural evolution.

In the article problems of boundaries of disciplinary approach in organization, accumulation and generation of scientific knowledge are comprehended. Today, limitations of disciplinary science view justified under of transdisciplinary, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches in science. Main features of each from this approaches are shortly described in the article. Also series of problems that may arise during departure from paradigm and appropriate standards of scientific discourse are indicated. In addition transdisciplinary approach directives connection with main ideas of Paul Feyerabend’s philosophical conception is revealed. Opportunity of Deleuze/Guattari’s «rhizome» concept application for description of scientific knowledge and definition of its interaction with trivial knowledge is analysed in closing part of article. At the same time mentioned concept is described in detail. In particular, its fundamental opposition of treetype structure is made out; plateau – the one of main rhizome element – is defined; features of lines that constitute the rhizome and pseudopoints on this lines are clarified. As a whole, rhizome is a very flexible, changeable and opened transstructure. Thanks to the stated properties rhizome may completely used for description any types of cognition. As applied to only science rhizome of cognition fits both representation of scientific knowledge within the framework of its disciplinary division and description of multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary researches.

There are non-existential hypotheses in theoretical system defended by parapsychologists and by skeptics. Skeptics argue that there is no extrasensory perception. Parapsychologists maintain that the experimental procedures eliminate the sensory channels of information transmission (i.e., there are no sensory channels). These nonexistential hypotheses are impossible to substantiate other than by means of inductive inference, which doesn’t have the force of logical necessity. Therefore, both the proof of extrasensory perception existence and extrasensory perception non-existence are not final.In order to prove extrasensory perception existence parapsychologists need at least one experiment with a positive result. To get the parity, skeptics have to prove the existence of sensory channels in all the experiments, where unexplained statistical anomalies had been discovered.While processing the empirical data to which parapsychologists and skeptics appeal, we find out that the parapsychologists get statistically significant empirical data that confirm the extrasensory perception existence. Whereas the skeptics are enable to provide the empirical evidence of sensory channels existence.

This article considers the problem of analysis of Ernst Mally’s theory. The problem mainly lies in the fact that this theory is usually considered in connection with other theories. For example, it can be considered as the development of Alexius Meinong’s theory of objects. Meinong was Mally’s teacher and his ideas have formed the basis of the contemporary study of nonexistent objects, the basis of the theories of Terens Parsons, Richard Routley etc. But he was often criticized for the fact that he claimed as they said that from his point of view all things exist in one form or another, that the golden mountain or round square exist just like the real mountains, but in some weak or lowgrade way. Mally understood problems of Meinong’s theory and tried to suggest possible solutions to these problems. So that in fact we can say that he has created an alternative theory of objects.Mally’s theory in turn has also influenced the development of Edward Zalta’s theory of abstract objects. In this regard, we can also consider Mally’s theory as a first version of Zalta’s theory. But at the same we want to understand the relations between the theories of Meinong and Mally, Mally and Zalta. Was Mally really so close to introduce a distinction of two types of predication – exemplification and encoding (which was introduced later Zalta), or not? To answer this question, we should consider the Mally’s theory itself.

The article discusses approaches to the problem of “methodological pluralism” in psychology. Instead of hierarchy of “explanation levels”, essentially reduced to a certain fundamental level, the idea of a “topological system” of explanations interconnected in such a way that an experimental refutation of a hypothesis affects not only this hypothesis alone but more generally: the whole system of scientific psychological explanations which could not remain indifferent to such a refutation. Psychology while retaining its methodological pluralism would become a disciplinary organism with uniform “nervous system” reacting on results of empirical research.

The paper examines modern sociology the experience of which enriches social epistemology and philosophy of science. The problem of a universal, general theory is very hard do deal with, though it had emerged as early as in the epoch of Enlightenment. The paper discusses whether a general theory is possible and a methodological role played in its creation by “middle range theories”, that is the approach proposed by American sociologist R. Merton. The methodological structure of Marxist theory, traditionally seen as “the general theory”, is under critical scrutiny. Another aspect of sociological methodology development is G. Ritzer’s ideas of “an integrated sociological paradigm” and also of “a multiply paradigm science”. This approach is used to analyze “a degree of generality” of sociological theories. J.R. Searle’s interpretation of the nature of facts in social sciences, where facts may get an objective status because of an agreement between members of society, is also discussed. On the whole, the paper comes to the conclusion that philosophical and methodological problems in the cognitive experience of modern sociology are diverse and important.