INTERACTION OF SCIENCE PARADIGM, MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH METHODS

Science paradigms determine the way scientists view concepts, phenomena and events and the way they solve problems. Scientific research methods are naturally the result of scientific paradigms. It is inevitable that developments in science will affect scientific research methods and tools. In this study, fundamental paradigm changes in science and their reflections on management sciences and research methods are discussed. The developments in disciplines such as complexity, big data analytics and neuroscience, and the developments in management fields and the reflections of the emerging theories on research methods form the framework of the research. The areas subject to these developments can be characterized by "revolutionary science" within the framework defined by Kuhn. In the framework of new science, complexity, unpredictability, nonlinear systems, uncertain cause and effect relationships have been identified as prominent concepts from analytics to theory. As a result, it has been observed that control and planning functions in the management and organizational field lost their importance and autonomous organizations with uncertain vision were born. As a result of the research, it has been observed that in this age where information is instantly produced and consumed, research methods must also keep up with changes. The new dynamics require an explanation of the process rather than the estimation of outputs. The new science is in a holistic structure formed by the information produced by different disciplines such as physics and biology. The application areas of the new science show rapid development in the field of management as in every field. It is considered that the study will contribute to the researchers on subjects that do not have sufficient knowledge in the national literature.

Machine learning for rediscovering revolutionary ideas of the past

The explosion of online knowledge has made knowledge, paradoxically, difficult to find. A web or journal search might retrieve thousands of articles, ranked in a manner that is biased by, for example, popularity or eigenvalue centrality rather than by informed relevance to the complex query. With hundreds of thousands of articles published each year, the dense, tangled thicket of knowledge grows even more entwined. Although natural language processing and new methods of generating knowledge graphs can extract increasingly high-level interpretations from research articles, the results are inevitably biased toward recent, popular, and/or prestigious sources. This is a result of the inherent nature of human social-learning processes. To preserve and even rediscover lost scientific ideas, we employ the theory that scientific progress is punctuated by means of inspired, revolutionary ideas at the origin of new paradigms. Using a brief case example, we suggest how phylogenetic inference might be used to rediscover potentially useful lost discoveries, as a way in which machines could help drive revolutionary science.

History of civil and political rights in France

The article discusses the evolution of civil and political rights in the French Republic in historical retrospective and the key events, that influenced their formation in a modern way. The problems of freedom and equality in France in the late 18th - early 19th centuries. The article studied the views of representatives of pre-revolutionary science of law on the understanding of freedom and equality in France. The authors pay special attention to the French Revolution of 1789, the fall of absolutism, the process of establishing the constitutional order and new democratic principles of the organization of state power.

Turning Back to Kuhn

The article examines the problem of interpreting normal and revolutionary science in the concept of Thomas Kuhn. It is shown that the “normal science” is the central concept of the Kuhn’s history of science, designed in accordance with the normative definition of science adopted by him. Such a story serves an internal purpose – to justify the special epistemical status of expert knowledge. But there is also an external goal – to establish professional science as an institution with special epistemological status and social function, which is situated in a center of intellectual power and property. Historians are those who are forced to constantly rewrite history – either following the methodology of “rational reconstruction” or responding to the challenges of their time. To be a “conservative” or a “revolutionary” in the history of science is a choice made not only for philosophical reasons, but also under the influence of the general socio-cultural situation of the epoch.

From Normal Science to Revolutionary One and Vice Versa

The article poses the question of which science, revolutionary or normal, is more in line with the concept of modernity. We consider the claims to the modernity of both types of sciences and substantiate the conclusion that revolutionary science can be understood as a situational response of scientists to the state of crisis of normal science. The author argues that revolutionary (at some given point in time) science again brings us back to the forgotten question of truth and refer­ence. At first glance, it looks like a turn from technique and calculations, formal­ization and simplification to the world in itself, ontologically unified and inde­pendent of its presentations in certain paradigms. However, revolutionary science in its claim to turn from language to referent turns out to be a reminis­cence of the archaic “Pythagorean attitude” (to “the discovery of true truth, the true being, and design of God” in the sense of M. Weber) and, in turn, does not relieve us of excessive abstractness, loss of connection with reality, and in this sense does not correspond to the concept of modernity. Science is technicized, formalized, quantified, digitalized, and receives an increasingly complex concep­tual description, almost unrelated to natural “life-world” ontologies and realities.

Cognitive Humility and Scientific Progress

What is cognitive (scientific) humility? Is it a virtue or vice? We consider the manifestations of cognitive humility highlighted by I.T. Kasavin, placing them in two contexts – normal science and revolutionary science. Such cognitive virtues as the search for justification, knowledge as confidence (knowledge through testimony), recognition of the limitations of knowledge, and selflessness can work to the benefit of both normal and revolutionary science. The victorious scientific paradigm retroactively justifies its creators, turning them into knights without fear and reproach. Accordingly, the losing scientific paradigm in many respects devalues the virtues of those who advocated it. We come to the conclu­sion that a positive or negative assessment of the facts of cognitive humility de­pends on our attitude to the “norm” and “revolution”, on our interpretation of progress. We also raise the question of whether the virtues of cognitive humility described by I.T. Kasavin can be attributed to T. Kuhn. From an outside histori­cal observer, Kun cannot be denied the cognitive virtues that Kasavin associates with normal science. Despite this, Kuhn made a revolution in socio-humanitarian thought and jointed the ranks of “revolutionary” scientists. This means that man­ifestations of cognitive humility fit as easily into the context of the “revolution” as into the context of the “norm” and are retrospectively evaluated both posi­tively and negatively depending on our preferences.

Integrasi Sains dan Agama dalam Perspektif Epistemologi Keilmuan Islam Kontemporer

Artikel ini membahas tentang bagaimana pandangan epistemologi keilmuan Islam kontemporer memandang integrasi sains dan agama, dimana wacana ini saat ini menjadi topik yang banyak diperbincangkan para peneliti dan para ahli, bahkan perguruan tinggi keagamaan Islam di Indonesia juga berusaha membuat model integrasi sains dan agama sebagai visi dan misi, dan jargonnya. Dalam kerangka pengembangan epistemologi Keilmuan di dunia Muslim, review ulang epistemologi sains di Barat juga penting untuk terus dicermati sebagaimana yang telah dikemukakan oleh Thomas Kuhn (teori normal science dan revolutionary science) yang mengkritisi logical positivism. Demikian pula telaah sintesis terhadap rasionalisme dan empirisisme dari mazhab Kantian; model deconstruction Derrida; telaah tentang episteme dari Foucoult; wacana tentang adanya hegemoni kekuasaan (model Gramsci) terhadap perjalanan ilmu; maupun aspek kritisisme dari Habermas. Kesemuanya itu dapat memperkaya wacana dialektis antara agama dan sains di masa depan. Suatu hal yang tidak kalah pentingnya dalam mengembangkan epistemologi keilmuan dalam dunia muslim, analisis Ian G. Barbour tentang upaya pengembangan dialog maupun integrasi antara agama dan sains dapat kita lakukan. Hal ini digunakan sebagai studi perbandingan terhadap teori Islamization of knowledge ala Faruqian dan Naquibian, maupun teori scientification of Islam model Fazlur Rahman (Rahmanian). Demikian pula dimensi spirituality of science sebagaimana yang ditawarkan Seyyed Hossein Nasr.