Re: Act & Punishment: The Pussy Riot Trials
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:14 pm
Methodology of Geography: Contribution of Russian Philosophers of Science
Theoretical and Methodological Framework of Social Geography
by V. A. Shuper, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences email: vshuper@yandex.ru
Received February 25, 2011
ISSN 20799705, Regional Research of Russia, 2012, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 263–267. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2012. Original Russian Text © V.A. Shuper, 2011, published in Izvestiya RAN. Seriya Geograficheskaya, 2011, No. 4, pp. 118–123.
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
Abstract: A unique alliance of geographers and philosophers of science in dealing with methodological problems of geography emerged in the Soviet Union as early as 1983. This led to the enrichment of geographic science in advanced philosophical concepts, such as the notion of polymorphism of theoretical knowledge, the understanding of structure as an invariant aspect of a system developed by N.F. Ovchinnikov, and the theory of social relays created by M.A. Rozov and the program–object symmetry arising from it. The topocentric view regarding social objects that do not have attributive properties within this approach is very in tune with the ideas of social and geographical space.
Keywords: methodology of geography, invariants, polymorphism of theoretical knowledge, the theory of social relays, program–object symmetry, inversion objects.
DOI: 10.1134/S2079970512030094
In late 2010 and early 2011, we suffered heavy losses: two of our great philosophers of science— N.F. Ovchinnikov (from November 14, 1915, to November 25, 2010) and M.A. Rozov (from May 13, 1930, to January 29, 2011)—who had done a lot for the development of the methodology of geography, died. These remarkable scholars played a major role in the establishment of a Committee on the Methodology of Geography at the Presidium of the USSR Geographical Society in 1983; Ovchinnikov was the deputy chairman of the committee, and Rozov was a member. The newly created committee brought together 20 geographers and 9 philosophers, who were interested in research of the methodology of geography. It functioned very intensively, usually holding two sessions per year in different cities of the Soviet Union and ended its existence along with it: the last session was held in October 1991 in Alushta, the Crimea.
The establishment of the Methodological Committee in a very difficult period of our history was made possible through support from B.M. Kedrov (1903–1985), Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences who agreed to be its honorary chairman. For the help from this outstanding Marxist philosopher and a very noble person, we are obliged to Ovchinnikov, whom Kedrov highly valued as a philosopher and simply as a good man.
Ovchinnikov was held in great esteem by everyone; he was a very humble, gentle, and even shy person, deeply immersed in scientific problems, who lived in a perfect world in which only true scientists are endowed to live. Kedrov, being a person of quite a different temperament and a very active and good organizer, believed that science was the most worthy goal in life and everything else was just a means. He could not but love such a Diogenes, who used to take material life only as a condition for research work, and the results of this work were great. At the same time, Ovchinnikov (this quiet and unassuming person) showed remarkable determination and firmness in matters of principle; this was also very much inherent to Kedrov. Not surprisingly, at the first meeting, a deep mutual sympathy arose between the three remarkable pundits: Kedrov and Ovchinnikov, on the one hand, and S.B. Lavrov (1928–2000), who became chairman of the Methodological Committee, on the other hand.
It is natural that Ovchinnikov, a physicist by education, wanted to understand the beauty and harmony of nature by means of a science that is the most theoretical of all natural sciences. His doctoral dissertation “Principles of Conservation” defended and first published in 1966 [9] was an important step in the development of the philosophy of science in our country. One of the most fundamental ideas of this work is the concept of structure as an invariant aspect of a system [5]. This crucial concept is much more difficult for geographers to understand than the idea of emergency (that is, the presence of properties in a system that are absent in its parts) and that of structural isomorphism (a structure’s identity without the identity of elements).
Geographers are inclined to understand spatial structures as a generalized concept of the carcass of a territory, i.e., something allowing for a graphic presentation. This concept is in line with our domestic tradition in science and has worked very well over a long period of time. Nevertheless, the further development of geography will certainly be connected with search for invariants, i.e., for those basic relationships which are retained in the course of changes, and some steps towards this are already being made both in physical presence of invariants can provide a researcher with a reliable basis for predictions. Concerning structures as they are treated traditionally, in most cases, they are inertial and, thus, less reliable. The understanding of the structure as an invariant aspect of a system is also highly fruitful in the study of spatial self-organization [10].
The “principles of conservation” have become a source for at least three most interesting lines in philosophy and methodology of science. In 1975 the monograph “Methodological Principles of Physics” [3], edited by Kedrov and Ovchinnikov, was published and turned into an influential and fruitful research program of a general scientific value. In this book, a new life was given to the ideas of I.V. Kuznetsov (1911–1970), an outstanding philosopher and a close friend and coworker of Ovchinnikov, who defended a candidate dissertation Correspondence Principle in Modern Physics and Its Value in Philosophy” as early as 1948. Many chapters of the brilliant book devoted to particular methodological principles were later unfolded into special monographs [1, 12]. An important contribution to the preparation of the “Methodological Principles of Physics” and the subsequent development of a new direction was made by glittering Russian philosophers of science I.S. Alekseev (1935– 1988) and I.A. Akchurin (1930–2005): both were active members of the Committee on the Methodology of Geography. We have learned a lot from these wonderful people, but failed to make full use of their ideas. The book Methodological Principles of Geography, which would be devoted to general methodological principles in application to our science and would also include those foreign to physics has not yet been created. At the same time, such a book is not only desirable, but it is quite necessary in order to form the modern self-consciousness of our science and to train young researchers.
Finally, the third direction of Ovchinnikov’s research that had a great influence on geographers was the quasitheoretical concept of epistemology. In 1978 the Priroda magazine (Nature) published two papers by Ovchinnikov (or, more likely, one paper in two parts) [6, 7], which did more than simply developed a thesis that theory decides what can be observed in an experiment because its results are always presented in the theoretical language. What was new and unexpected (at least for geographers) were notions about the polymorphism of theoretical knowledge: when we address the structure of science, we come to a conclusion that the area of theory in science is polymorphic. Theoretical knowledge is something more than simply a given theoretical system or even a totality of theories… Looking into the depths of scientific knowledge, more often we can see a large field of theory with its different types of domains. It is possible to observe at least three of such domains of theoretical knowledge in science. It is the area of hypotheses; the area of models and analogies; and, finally, the area of logically organized theories [6, p. 117].
So, it is no surprise that geographers were greatly inspired when they read: ‘It was supposed and is now accepted as a matter of course that among the many theoretical systems available only one can lay claim to hold the rank of being true. The coexperience of modern science compels us to reconsider this methodological setup. The existence of many theories is a normal phenomenon in scientific development. The most important theoretical problem advanced by modern theoretical science is not the problem of choice, but the problem of synthesis of theoretical systems, developed both in the framework of a special science and in the field of the methodology of scientific knowledge (ibid).’ Quite naturally there sprang a desire to meet with the creator of such an interesting concept.
This meeting did really take place soon in the Moscow branch of the USSR Geographic Society, near Red Square (currently, Nikolskaya Street), because Ovchinnikov kindly responded to the request of geographers. The participants in this meeting were Yuri Medvedkov, Yuli Lipets (1931–2006), and the author. The muddled discussion that took place regarding methodological problems of our science did not lead to any tangible results, but the meeting with the great philosopher of science and wonderful person allowed the starting of personal connections that contributed to the further development of the methodological problems of geography. Ovchinnikov’s book The Principles of Knowledge Theorization (a relatively small volume) [8], written in a very accessible language and largely summarizing the fruitful life lived in science, is given to us as a legacy, and our challenge is to success fully use it and hand it on to young scientists.
The lives of Ovchinnikov and Rozov were closely intertwined, and they were always tied by a close friendship. Unlike many great methodologists of science of his generation, Rozov was not a physicist by background. He studied one year at the Smolensk Medical Institute and then joined the philosophy faculty of the Leningrad State University, but the exceptional scientific curiosity of the future philosopher prompted him to attend for three years lectures at the Department of Mechanics and Mathematics. Perhaps that is why he relied not so much on the achievements ....
_______________
References:
1. Alekseev, I.S., Kontseptsiya dopolnitel’nosti. Istorikometodologicheskii analiz (Conception of Complimentarity. Historical and Methodological Analysis), Moscow: Nauka, 1978.
2. Gol’ts, G.A., Transport i rasselenie (Transport and Settlement), Moscow: Nauka, 1981.
3. Metodologicheskie printsipy fiziki. Istoriya i sovremennost’ (Methodological Principles of Physics. The Past and Present), Moscow: Nauka, 1975.
4. Nefedova, T.G., Intellectual and Other Input of the Summer Residents into Transformation of Rural Area, in Puti Rossii. Tom XVI: Sovremennoe intellektual’noe prostranstvo: shkoly, napravleniya, pokoleniya (The Ways of Russia. Vol. XVI: The Present Intellectual Space: Schools, Directions and Generations), Moscow: Universitetskaya Kniga, 2009, pp. 452–466.
5. Ovchinnikov, N.F., Structure and Symmetry, in Sistemnye issledovaniya. Ezhegodnik 1964 g. (Systemic Studies. Yearbook 1964), Moscow: Nauka, 1969, pp. 111–121.
6. Ovchinnikov, N.F., Methodology of Science: Problems of Knowledge Theorization, Priroda, 1978, no. 3, pp. 109–117.
7. Ovchinnikov, N.F., Methodology of Science: Historical Facts and Levels of Development, Priroda, 1978, no. 4, pp. 66–73.
8. Ovchinnikov, N.F., Printsipy teoretizatsii znaniya (The Principles of Knowledge Theorization), Moscow: IF RAN, 1996.
9. Ovchinnikov, N.F., Printsipy sokhraneniya. 2-e izdanie (Principles of Conservation. 2nd Edition), Moscow: Knizh. Dom Librokom, 2009.
10. Ovchinnikov, N.F. and Shuper, V.A., Symmetry of Social-Geographic Space and Self-Organization of Settlement Systems, in Metody izucheniya rasseleniya (The Methods of Study of Settlement), Moscow: IG AN SSSR, 1987, pp. 18–34.
11. Polanyi, M., Lichnostnoe znanie. Na puti k postkriticheskoi filosofii (Personal Knowledge. Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy), Moscow: Progress, 1985.
12. Printsip sootvetstviya. Istoriko-metodologicheskii analiz (Correspondence Principle. Historical-Methodological Assessment), Moscow: Nauka, 1979.
13. Puzachenko, Yu.G., Invariants of Dynamic Geosystem, Izv. RAN, Ser. Geogr., 2010, no. 5, pp. 6–16.
14. Rozov, M.A., Problemy empiricheskogo analiza nauchnykh znanii (Issues of Empirical Analysis of Scientific Knowledge), Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1977.
15. Rozov, M.A., The Ways of Scientific Discoveries (to a Critics of T. Kuns’ Historical-Scientific Concept), Voprosy Filosofii, 1981, no. 8, pp. 138–147.
16. Rozov, M.A., Geography and Phenomenon of Symmetry of Knowledge, in Metody izucheniya rasseleniya (The Study Methods of Settling), Moscow: IG AN SSSR, 1987, pp. 6–17.
17. Rozov, M.A., A Concept of Research Program, in Issledovatel’skie programmy v sovremennoi nauke (Investigation Programs in the Modern Science), Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1987, pp. 7–26.
18. Rozov, M.A., About G.P. Shchedrovitsky, “Nauchnyi fond im. G.P. Shchedrovitskii”. http://www.fondgp.ru/gp/personalia/1960/16
19. Rozov, M.A., Teoriya sotsial’nykh estafet i problemy epistemologii (Theory of Social Relay and Problems of Epistemology), Moscow: Novyi Khronograf, 2008.
Theoretical and Methodological Framework of Social Geography
by V. A. Shuper, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences email: vshuper@yandex.ru
Received February 25, 2011
ISSN 20799705, Regional Research of Russia, 2012, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 263–267. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2012. Original Russian Text © V.A. Shuper, 2011, published in Izvestiya RAN. Seriya Geograficheskaya, 2011, No. 4, pp. 118–123.
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
Abstract: A unique alliance of geographers and philosophers of science in dealing with methodological problems of geography emerged in the Soviet Union as early as 1983. This led to the enrichment of geographic science in advanced philosophical concepts, such as the notion of polymorphism of theoretical knowledge, the understanding of structure as an invariant aspect of a system developed by N.F. Ovchinnikov, and the theory of social relays created by M.A. Rozov and the program–object symmetry arising from it. The topocentric view regarding social objects that do not have attributive properties within this approach is very in tune with the ideas of social and geographical space.
Keywords: methodology of geography, invariants, polymorphism of theoretical knowledge, the theory of social relays, program–object symmetry, inversion objects.
DOI: 10.1134/S2079970512030094
In late 2010 and early 2011, we suffered heavy losses: two of our great philosophers of science— N.F. Ovchinnikov (from November 14, 1915, to November 25, 2010) and M.A. Rozov (from May 13, 1930, to January 29, 2011)—who had done a lot for the development of the methodology of geography, died. These remarkable scholars played a major role in the establishment of a Committee on the Methodology of Geography at the Presidium of the USSR Geographical Society in 1983; Ovchinnikov was the deputy chairman of the committee, and Rozov was a member. The newly created committee brought together 20 geographers and 9 philosophers, who were interested in research of the methodology of geography. It functioned very intensively, usually holding two sessions per year in different cities of the Soviet Union and ended its existence along with it: the last session was held in October 1991 in Alushta, the Crimea.
The establishment of the Methodological Committee in a very difficult period of our history was made possible through support from B.M. Kedrov (1903–1985), Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences who agreed to be its honorary chairman. For the help from this outstanding Marxist philosopher and a very noble person, we are obliged to Ovchinnikov, whom Kedrov highly valued as a philosopher and simply as a good man.
Ovchinnikov was held in great esteem by everyone; he was a very humble, gentle, and even shy person, deeply immersed in scientific problems, who lived in a perfect world in which only true scientists are endowed to live. Kedrov, being a person of quite a different temperament and a very active and good organizer, believed that science was the most worthy goal in life and everything else was just a means. He could not but love such a Diogenes, who used to take material life only as a condition for research work, and the results of this work were great. At the same time, Ovchinnikov (this quiet and unassuming person) showed remarkable determination and firmness in matters of principle; this was also very much inherent to Kedrov. Not surprisingly, at the first meeting, a deep mutual sympathy arose between the three remarkable pundits: Kedrov and Ovchinnikov, on the one hand, and S.B. Lavrov (1928–2000), who became chairman of the Methodological Committee, on the other hand.
It is natural that Ovchinnikov, a physicist by education, wanted to understand the beauty and harmony of nature by means of a science that is the most theoretical of all natural sciences. His doctoral dissertation “Principles of Conservation” defended and first published in 1966 [9] was an important step in the development of the philosophy of science in our country. One of the most fundamental ideas of this work is the concept of structure as an invariant aspect of a system [5]. This crucial concept is much more difficult for geographers to understand than the idea of emergency (that is, the presence of properties in a system that are absent in its parts) and that of structural isomorphism (a structure’s identity without the identity of elements).
Geographers are inclined to understand spatial structures as a generalized concept of the carcass of a territory, i.e., something allowing for a graphic presentation. This concept is in line with our domestic tradition in science and has worked very well over a long period of time. Nevertheless, the further development of geography will certainly be connected with search for invariants, i.e., for those basic relationships which are retained in the course of changes, and some steps towards this are already being made both in physical presence of invariants can provide a researcher with a reliable basis for predictions. Concerning structures as they are treated traditionally, in most cases, they are inertial and, thus, less reliable. The understanding of the structure as an invariant aspect of a system is also highly fruitful in the study of spatial self-organization [10].
The “principles of conservation” have become a source for at least three most interesting lines in philosophy and methodology of science. In 1975 the monograph “Methodological Principles of Physics” [3], edited by Kedrov and Ovchinnikov, was published and turned into an influential and fruitful research program of a general scientific value. In this book, a new life was given to the ideas of I.V. Kuznetsov (1911–1970), an outstanding philosopher and a close friend and coworker of Ovchinnikov, who defended a candidate dissertation Correspondence Principle in Modern Physics and Its Value in Philosophy” as early as 1948. Many chapters of the brilliant book devoted to particular methodological principles were later unfolded into special monographs [1, 12]. An important contribution to the preparation of the “Methodological Principles of Physics” and the subsequent development of a new direction was made by glittering Russian philosophers of science I.S. Alekseev (1935– 1988) and I.A. Akchurin (1930–2005): both were active members of the Committee on the Methodology of Geography. We have learned a lot from these wonderful people, but failed to make full use of their ideas. The book Methodological Principles of Geography, which would be devoted to general methodological principles in application to our science and would also include those foreign to physics has not yet been created. At the same time, such a book is not only desirable, but it is quite necessary in order to form the modern self-consciousness of our science and to train young researchers.
Finally, the third direction of Ovchinnikov’s research that had a great influence on geographers was the quasitheoretical concept of epistemology. In 1978 the Priroda magazine (Nature) published two papers by Ovchinnikov (or, more likely, one paper in two parts) [6, 7], which did more than simply developed a thesis that theory decides what can be observed in an experiment because its results are always presented in the theoretical language. What was new and unexpected (at least for geographers) were notions about the polymorphism of theoretical knowledge: when we address the structure of science, we come to a conclusion that the area of theory in science is polymorphic. Theoretical knowledge is something more than simply a given theoretical system or even a totality of theories… Looking into the depths of scientific knowledge, more often we can see a large field of theory with its different types of domains. It is possible to observe at least three of such domains of theoretical knowledge in science. It is the area of hypotheses; the area of models and analogies; and, finally, the area of logically organized theories [6, p. 117].
So, it is no surprise that geographers were greatly inspired when they read: ‘It was supposed and is now accepted as a matter of course that among the many theoretical systems available only one can lay claim to hold the rank of being true. The coexperience of modern science compels us to reconsider this methodological setup. The existence of many theories is a normal phenomenon in scientific development. The most important theoretical problem advanced by modern theoretical science is not the problem of choice, but the problem of synthesis of theoretical systems, developed both in the framework of a special science and in the field of the methodology of scientific knowledge (ibid).’ Quite naturally there sprang a desire to meet with the creator of such an interesting concept.
This meeting did really take place soon in the Moscow branch of the USSR Geographic Society, near Red Square (currently, Nikolskaya Street), because Ovchinnikov kindly responded to the request of geographers. The participants in this meeting were Yuri Medvedkov, Yuli Lipets (1931–2006), and the author. The muddled discussion that took place regarding methodological problems of our science did not lead to any tangible results, but the meeting with the great philosopher of science and wonderful person allowed the starting of personal connections that contributed to the further development of the methodological problems of geography. Ovchinnikov’s book The Principles of Knowledge Theorization (a relatively small volume) [8], written in a very accessible language and largely summarizing the fruitful life lived in science, is given to us as a legacy, and our challenge is to success fully use it and hand it on to young scientists.
The lives of Ovchinnikov and Rozov were closely intertwined, and they were always tied by a close friendship. Unlike many great methodologists of science of his generation, Rozov was not a physicist by background. He studied one year at the Smolensk Medical Institute and then joined the philosophy faculty of the Leningrad State University, but the exceptional scientific curiosity of the future philosopher prompted him to attend for three years lectures at the Department of Mechanics and Mathematics. Perhaps that is why he relied not so much on the achievements ....
_______________
References:
1. Alekseev, I.S., Kontseptsiya dopolnitel’nosti. Istorikometodologicheskii analiz (Conception of Complimentarity. Historical and Methodological Analysis), Moscow: Nauka, 1978.
2. Gol’ts, G.A., Transport i rasselenie (Transport and Settlement), Moscow: Nauka, 1981.
3. Metodologicheskie printsipy fiziki. Istoriya i sovremennost’ (Methodological Principles of Physics. The Past and Present), Moscow: Nauka, 1975.
4. Nefedova, T.G., Intellectual and Other Input of the Summer Residents into Transformation of Rural Area, in Puti Rossii. Tom XVI: Sovremennoe intellektual’noe prostranstvo: shkoly, napravleniya, pokoleniya (The Ways of Russia. Vol. XVI: The Present Intellectual Space: Schools, Directions and Generations), Moscow: Universitetskaya Kniga, 2009, pp. 452–466.
5. Ovchinnikov, N.F., Structure and Symmetry, in Sistemnye issledovaniya. Ezhegodnik 1964 g. (Systemic Studies. Yearbook 1964), Moscow: Nauka, 1969, pp. 111–121.
6. Ovchinnikov, N.F., Methodology of Science: Problems of Knowledge Theorization, Priroda, 1978, no. 3, pp. 109–117.
7. Ovchinnikov, N.F., Methodology of Science: Historical Facts and Levels of Development, Priroda, 1978, no. 4, pp. 66–73.
8. Ovchinnikov, N.F., Printsipy teoretizatsii znaniya (The Principles of Knowledge Theorization), Moscow: IF RAN, 1996.
9. Ovchinnikov, N.F., Printsipy sokhraneniya. 2-e izdanie (Principles of Conservation. 2nd Edition), Moscow: Knizh. Dom Librokom, 2009.
10. Ovchinnikov, N.F. and Shuper, V.A., Symmetry of Social-Geographic Space and Self-Organization of Settlement Systems, in Metody izucheniya rasseleniya (The Methods of Study of Settlement), Moscow: IG AN SSSR, 1987, pp. 18–34.
11. Polanyi, M., Lichnostnoe znanie. Na puti k postkriticheskoi filosofii (Personal Knowledge. Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy), Moscow: Progress, 1985.
12. Printsip sootvetstviya. Istoriko-metodologicheskii analiz (Correspondence Principle. Historical-Methodological Assessment), Moscow: Nauka, 1979.
13. Puzachenko, Yu.G., Invariants of Dynamic Geosystem, Izv. RAN, Ser. Geogr., 2010, no. 5, pp. 6–16.
14. Rozov, M.A., Problemy empiricheskogo analiza nauchnykh znanii (Issues of Empirical Analysis of Scientific Knowledge), Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1977.
15. Rozov, M.A., The Ways of Scientific Discoveries (to a Critics of T. Kuns’ Historical-Scientific Concept), Voprosy Filosofii, 1981, no. 8, pp. 138–147.
16. Rozov, M.A., Geography and Phenomenon of Symmetry of Knowledge, in Metody izucheniya rasseleniya (The Study Methods of Settling), Moscow: IG AN SSSR, 1987, pp. 6–17.
17. Rozov, M.A., A Concept of Research Program, in Issledovatel’skie programmy v sovremennoi nauke (Investigation Programs in the Modern Science), Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1987, pp. 7–26.
18. Rozov, M.A., About G.P. Shchedrovitsky, “Nauchnyi fond im. G.P. Shchedrovitskii”. http://www.fondgp.ru/gp/personalia/1960/16
19. Rozov, M.A., Teoriya sotsial’nykh estafet i problemy epistemologii (Theory of Social Relay and Problems of Epistemology), Moscow: Novyi Khronograf, 2008.