Technoscience: Conceptual Framework
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15407/sofs2025.02.087Keywords:
technoscience, conceptual system, ontology, cognitology, praxeology, logic of technoscience, the language of technoscienceAbstract
The article analyzes the conceptual system of technoscience as an interdisciplinary field that is still forming and requires defining its place within modern scientific culture, the activities of scientists, and its impact on the social sphere and consumers of its products. The author examines the peculiarities of the subject and object of technoscience, its ontocognitive and praxeological concepts, and the concepts of logic and language in technoscience. The author posits that analyzing the conceptual foundations of thinking provides an outline of the cognitive process in its general categorical forms, enabling an understanding of the essence and authentic meaning of the phenomenon under study, encompassing both existing and contextual knowledge, and clarifying the function of knowledge objects within the culture of thinking. The study employs methods of categorical analysis, explication, conceptualization of notions, and comparison. The source base includes works that consider technoscience as knowledge oriented toward practical use, address the sociocultural consequences of its spread, and highlight issues of conceptualization, logical, and substantive analysis of technoscience. The scientific novelty of the study lies in its conceptualization as an expression of the general picture of cognition of a new, controversial phenomenon like technoscience, complementing the phenomenological descriptions prevalent in modern literature. Understanding the conceptual system of technoscience involves representing the essence of processes, phenomena, and events at the level of theoretical constructions rather than empirical generalizations. It is established that the conceptual system of technoscience is characterized by the hybridity of ontological, cognitive, and praxeological concepts, network interaction, and the integrity of the categorical universe of scientific knowledge. The praxeological orientation of technoscience necessitates engaging with the ideas of eupraxophy, which integrate existential values, moral principles, rational methods, logic, and science.
References
Hottois, G. (1979). L’infl ation du langage dans la philosophie contemporaine: causes, formes et limites. Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
Badiou, A. (2009). The Concept of Model: An Introduction to the Materialist Epistemology of Mathematics. Kyiv: Nika-Center [in Ukrainian].
Vincent, B.B., Loeve, S., Nordmann, A., & Schwarz, A. (Eds.) (2017). Research Ob jects in their Technological Setting. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781781448397
Channell, D.F. (2017). A History of Technoscience: Erasing the Boundaries between Science and Technology. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315268897
Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Harvard University Press.
Rommetveit, K. (Ed.). (2021). Post-Truth Imaginations: New Starting Points for Critique of Politics and Technoscience. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429053061
Schmidt, J.C. (2021). Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity: Studies in Science, Society and Sustainability. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315387109
Raimbault, B., & Joly, P.-B. (2021). The Emergence of Technoscientific Fields and the New Political Sociology of Science. In: Kastenhofer, K., & Molyneux-Hodgson, S. (Eds.) Community and Identity in Contemporary Technosciences. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, 31, 85—106. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61728-8_4
Zwart, H. (2022). Practicing Dialectics of Technoscience during the Anthropocene. Foundations of Science, 27, 205—224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-020-09738-1
Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (2009). Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47, 119—146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4
Mager, A., & Katzenbach, C. (2020). Future imaginaries in the making and governing of digital technology: Multiple, contested, commodified. New Media & Society, 23 (2), 223—236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820929321
Vartofsky, M. (1988). Models. Representation and scientific understanding. Moscow: Progress [in Russian].
Mulud, N. (1979). Analysis and meaning. Moscow: Progress [in Russian].
Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. The Reinvention of Nature. Routledge.
Heisenberg, V. (1987). Steps beyond the horizon. Moscow: Progress [in Russian]
Kurtz, P. (2005). New skepticism: Research and reliable knowledge. Moscow: Nauka [in Russian].
Pickering, A. (2000). The Objects of Sociology: A Response to Breslau’s “Sociology after Humanism”. Sociological Theory, 18 (2), 308—316. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00100
Konverskyi, A.E. Logic. Kyiv: Center for Educational Literature, 2004 [in Ukrainian].
Ryzhko, L. (2009). Topology of science. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Savchuk, V. (2012). Topological reflection. Moscow: “Canon+” ROII “Reabilitatsiya” [in Russian].
Deleuze, J., & Guattari, F. (2009). What is Philosophy? Moscow: Academic Project [in Russian].
Onoprienko, V.I., & Onoprienko, M.V. (2009). Technoscience in a knowledge society. Bulletin of the National Aviation University. Philosophy. Culturology, 1 (9), 33—36. https://doi.org/10.18372/2412-2157.9.2253 [in Russian].
Latour, B. (2000). When things strike back: A possible contribution of “science studies” to the social sciences. British Journal of Sociology, 51 (1), 107—123. https://doi.org/10.1080/000713100358453
Cowen, T. (2015). Average is Over: Powering America Beyond the Age of the Great Stagnation. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publishing House [in Russian].
Stokel-Walker, C. (2023). ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove. Nature, 613, 620—621. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z
Sloman, S., & Fernbach, P. (2018). The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone. Kyiv: Yakaboo Publishing [in Ukrainian].
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Akademperiodyka of the NAS of Ukraine

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.



