Тематический план

  • Общее

    Science, Research and Academic Texts

  • Course Materials

    • Course Sections

      Section 1. What is to do science

      Science and research in the modern world

      Research and communication

      Academic texts: style

      Academic text: structure

      Section products: discussion and case study

      Section 2. Science through history

      Nature-knowledge in traditional society

      Revolutionary transformations of science

      The structure of scientific revolutions

      Section products: essay and report

      Section 3. Practicum in academic writing

      Academic texts construction

      Synopsis writing

      Section products: Synopsis in English 'My future research'

  • Section 1.1

  • Section 1.2

  • Section 1.3

  • Section 1.4

  • Section 1: Test

  • Section 2

    • Seminar Questions on Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions​​

      ​I. Foundations: Paradigms and Normal Science​

      1. How does Kuhn define a "paradigm," and why is this concept central to his theory of scientific development? In what ways does a paradigm function as more than just a theory?
      2. What is "normal science," and how does it differ from pre-paradigmatic science? Why does Kuhn describe normal science as "puzzle-solving"?
      3. Kuhn argues that paradigms are "prior to rules." What does he mean by this, and how does this challenge traditional views of scientific methodology?

      ​II. Anomalies, Crises, and Revolutions​

      1. How do anomalies emerge within normal science, and what role do they play in triggering scientific crises? Can you think of historical or contemporary examples?
      2. What characterizes a "crisis" in science? Why is crisis necessary for a scientific revolution to occur?
      3. Kuhn states that during a crisis, scientists often engage in "extraordinary science" and philosophical debate. How does this period differ from normal science, and why is it significant?

      ​III. Incommensurability and World Changes​

      1. Explain Kuhn’s concept of "incommensurability" between paradigms. Why does he argue that proponents of different paradigms "live in different worlds"?
      2. How does Kuhn use examples like the duck-rabbit illusion or the discovery of oxygen to support his claim that paradigm shifts involve changes in perception? Is this convincing?
      3. If paradigms are incommensurable, how is communication possible between scientists holding different paradigms? What does this imply about scientific progress?

      ​IV. The Nature of Scientific Progress​

      1. Kuhn rejects the cumulative, linear view of scientific progress. Instead, he describes progress as occurring through revolutions. What are the strengths and weaknesses of this model?
      2. How does Kuhn’s view of progress compare with Popper’s falsificationism or with logical empiricist accounts? Where do they fundamentally disagree?
      3. Does Kuhn’s model imply that science is irrational or subjective? Why or why not?

      ​V. Implications for Scientific Practice and Education​

      1. How does Kuhn’s analysis challenge the role of textbooks in science education? Why does he claim they "disguise" revolutions?
      2. What does Kuhn’s theory suggest about the training and socialization of scientists? How does this affect their ability to innovate or resist change?
      3. How might Kuhn’s ideas apply to contemporary scientific controversies (e.g., climate change, string theory, or AI)? Do we see paradigm-like structures in these fields?

      ​VI. Critiques and Extensions of Kuhn’s Work​

      1. Kuhn has been criticized for being too relativistic. Is this criticism justified? How does he attempt to address it?
      2. How does the concept of a "scientific community" function in Kuhn’s theory? Why is the sociology of science important to his argument?
      3. Can Kuhn’s model be applied to fields outside the natural sciences, such as the social sciences, humanities, or even art? What might be gained or lost in doing so?

      ​VII. Philosophical and Historical Implications​

      1. Kuhn blurs the line between discovery and invention, fact and theory. What are the implications of this for the philosophy of science?
      2. How does Kuhn’s account of scientific change compare with other historical models (e.g., Hegelian dialectics or evolutionary theories)?
      3. Why does Kuhn compare scientific revolutions to political revolutions? Is this analogy helpful or misleading?

      ​VIII. Legacy and Contemporary Relevance​

      1. How has Kuhn’s work influenced later fields like science studies, sociology of science, or postmodern philosophy?
      2. In what ways does Kuhn’s theory remain relevant today, especially in light of interdisciplinary research and technoscientific developments?
      3. If Kuhn is right, how should we understand the authority of science in society? Does it undermine or reconfigure that authority?

    • Seminar questions on the book 'The short history of science'

      Part 1: Historical Analysis & The Evolution of Ideas​

      1. ​The Long Pause:​​ The author identifies a ~1500-year cessation in scientific progress between antiquity and the Copernican revolution. Do you agree with this characterization? What factors (social, religious, technological) might explain this hiatus, and were there any significant developments during this period that the book might have overlooked?
      2. ​The Role of Philosophy vs. Empiricism:​​ The book argues that antique science was strong on philosophical principles but weak on empiricism, and that modern science achieved its power by combining both. Using examples from the text (e.g., Aristotle's potentiality/actuality vs. Newton's Principia), discuss the strengths and pitfalls of each approach. Has modern physics, in the author's view, lost its philosophical footing?
      3. ​The "Unseen" Contributors:​​ The book highlights many figures often given less attention in standard histories (e.g., Philoponus, Buridan, Ibn Bajjah). How does incorporating their ideas change our understanding of the timeline of key concepts like "impetus" and the critique of Aristotle?
      4. ​The Energy Principle's Pedigree:​​ Trace the concept of energy from its implicit forms (Heraclitus's "harmony of opposites," Leibniz's vis viva) to its explicit formulation by Helmholtz. How does this history support the author's central argument that energy is the fundamental, unifying quantity in physics?Part 4: Synthesis, Philosophy, and Future Directions​

      Part 4: Synthesis, Philosophy, and Future Directions​

      1. Occam's Razor:​​ The author explicitly invokes the principle of economy (Occam's Razor). Conduct a comparative analysis: Does the DU model, by eliminating dark energy, relativistic spacetime, and the wavefunction, truly offer a simpler and more parsimonious description of reality than the Standard Model? Where might it introduce new complexities?2. 
      2. Holism vs. Reductionism:​​ A major theme is the shift from a reductionist view of reality (building up from particles) to a holistic one (where local properties are defined by the whole universe, as in Mach's Principle). How deeply is this holism embedded in the DU model? Is this a philosophical strength or a practical weakness for making testable predictions?
      3. The Future of Physics:​​ If the DU model, or a model like it, were to be accepted, what would be the most profound implications for physics? Consider implications for particle physics, the search for a theory of quantum gravity, and our understanding of cosmology.
      4. Final Evaluation:​​ After discussing the book, what is your assessment? Do you believe the author has successfully made a case for a serious reconsideration of the foundations of modern physics? What do you see as the most compelling argument and the greatest weakness in the overall thesis?

    • Seminar Questions on the book 'Short history of linguistics'

      General Overarching Questions​

      1. The author, Robins, presents a history of ideas rather than a chronicle of facts. How does this approach shape our understanding of the development of linguistics? What are the strengths and potential weaknesses of this methodological choice?
      2. A central theme is the tension between viewing language as a ​natural, logical system​ (physis/analogia) versus a ​conventional, arbitrary system​ (nomos/anomalia). Trace this debate from the Pre-Socratics through to the 20th century. Which side do you find more persuasive, and why?
      3. How has the purpose of studying language shifted over time? Discuss the evolution from ​philosophical inquiry​ (Plato, Aristotle), to ​literary preservation and pedagogy​ (Alexandrians, Romans), to ​theological service​ (Middle Ages), to ​historical science​ (19th century). What does this tell us about the drivers of intellectual progress?
      4. The text highlights how linguistic theory has often been shaped by contact with, and the study of, ​other languages​ (Greek influencing Latin grammar, Arabic/Hebrew/Sanskrit challenging European frameworks). How does this history inform modern debates about linguistic universals and the potential biases of a Eurocentric linguistic tradition?

      ​Chapter 2: Greece​

      1. The Sophists, Socrates, and Plato debated whether the connection between a word and its meaning was natural (physis) or conventional (nomos). How did this abstract philosophical debate serve as a crucial catalyst for the development of concrete linguistic analysis?
      2. Aristotle is credited with a more formal, "conventionalist" view of language. How did his logical framework (e.g., the definition of a word, the concept of the syndesmoi) provide a more structured foundation for grammatical analysis than his predecessors?
      3. The Stoics made significant advances, distinguishing between form and meaning and developing a sophisticated aspectual analysis of the Greek verb. Why do you think their more "anomalist" perspective was ultimately overshadowed by the Alexandrian "analogist" tradition in the subsequent grammatical mainstream?
      4. Dionysius Thrax's Techne Grammatike is a foundational text. Analyze its structure and stated purpose. In what ways does it reflect a shift from philosophical speculation to a pedagogical, descriptive science focused on a specific language (Literary Greek)?

      ​Chapter 3: Rome​

      1. Roman linguists, most notably Priscian, largely adapted Greek models to Latin. What were the major challenges in this process (e.g., the ablative case, the article)? What does this tell us about the strengths and limitations of applying a grammatical framework from one language to another?
      2. Varro is presented as a more original thinker than his successors. Discuss his distinction between declinatio naturalis (inflection) and declinatio voluntaria(derivation). Why is this a profoundly important linguistic insight that was unfortunately lost for centuries?
      3. The text describes the late Roman grammarians as working in an era of "commentaries, epitomes, and dictionaries." How did the social and political context of the declining Empire influence the type of linguistic work that was produced?

      ​Chapter 4: The Middle Ages​

      1. The Modistae (Speculative Grammarians) sought to integrate grammar into a universal philosophical system based on Aristotelian logic. Explain their theory of the modi significandi. In what way was this an attempt to create a "Theory of Everything" for language?
      2. The Modistae argued for a universal grammar underlying the apparent differences between languages. Compare and contrast their rationale for this belief with that of 20th-century theorists like Chomsky. What are the fundamental differences in their underlying philosophies?
      3. The chapter describes the "Battle of the Seven Arts" between the auctores(classical authors) and the artes (philosophical theory). How does this allegory represent a timeless conflict in academia between data-oriented, descriptive scholarship and theory-oriented, explanatory scholarship?

      ​Chapter 5: The Renaissance and After​

      1. The Renaissance is described as a "backward-looking movement" that also ushered in the modern world. How did the "rediscovery" of classical texts and the rise of humanism simultaneously preserve ancient grammatical models andcreate the conditions for challenging them?
      2. The discovery of non-European languages (Chinese, Native American languages) and writing systems profoundly challenged European linguists. Discuss the impact of these discoveries. How did misconceptions (e.g., about Chinese characters being "ideograms") nevertheless fuel important new ideas about language and communication?
      3. The 17th century saw projects for "Universal" or "Philosophical" languages (e.g., by Wilkins). What were the motivations behind these projects? How did they reflect the rationalist and empiricist philosophies of the time, and how do they prefigure modern concerns in computational linguistics and semantic theory?
      4. The Port-Royal Grammarians developed a "general grammar" based on logic. How did their analysis of a sentence like "Invisible God created the visible world" prefigure modern concepts of deep structure, syntactic embedding, and the relationship between logic and syntax?

      ​Chapter 6: The Eve of Modern Times​

      1. Sir William Jones's famous 1786 statement is presented as a watershed moment. Why was this declaration so powerful? Was it the idea itself or the context in which it was delivered that made it the catalyst for 19th-century historical linguistics?
      2. The encounter with Sanskrit and the indigenous Indian grammatical tradition (especially Pāṇini) was a shock to European scholars. Discuss the specific advancements of the Indian tradition (e.g., phonetics, morphemic analysis, zero representation, ordered rules) and why they were so revolutionary from a European perspective.
      3. 18th-century thinkers like Condillac, Rousseau, and Herder speculated on the origin of language. While their specific theories are now seen as naive, what valuable insights about the nature of language (e.g., the interdependence of language and thought, the expressive power of language) did they contribute that remain relevant today?

      ​Chapter 7: The 19th Century​

      1. The 19th century is the era of historical and comparative linguistics. Contrast the ​Stammbaumtheorie​ (family tree model) with the ​Wellentheorie​ (wave model). What different assumptions about how languages change and interact do these models represent? Are they necessarily contradictory?
      2. The Neogrammarian doctrine of "sound laws without exception" is presented as both a methodological principle and a scientific claim. Why was this such a controversial and productive slogan? How did the criticisms from dialectology (e.g., every word has its own history) and the Idealist school help to refine, rather than refute, the Neogrammarian position?
      3. Humboldt's concept of innere Sprachform (inner language form) proposes that each language embodies a unique "worldview." How did this Romantic idea influence later linguistic relativism (e.g., Sapir-Whorf) and how does it challenge the universalist goals of general grammar or generative syntax?
      4. The chapter argues that by the end of the 19th century, we are all "neogrammarians now." What is the enduring legacy of the 19th century's methodological advances? In what ways is modern linguistics, even in its synchronic and theoretical forms, built upon the foundation of rigorous historical-comparative work?

  • Section 3