Abstract

In the philosophy of science nowadays there are some models of scientific explanation: syntactic (deductivenomologic),
semantic (functional-teleologic) and pragmatic model of explanation. The last one is related with the
concept of paradigm and is obviously shared by theoreticians when we accept the complexity of systems undergoing
observation, especially social systems. If the pedagogy is a science of complexity, than we can assume, as working
hypothesis, that certain segments of its aria like school culture, might be described and studied with the help of the
pragmatic model of explanation.

2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the University of Pitesti, Romania

Keywords: Education, school culture, philosophy of science, pragmatic explanation;

1.Introduction
The concept of explanation became very important for modern science outcomes and it is always
present in the processes of self-reflection of any particular science. The question how should be a good
explanation, proposed in that particular domain, still stands, maintaining its attractiveness. Answers to such
a question will vary, depending on the approach perspectives. Epistemologically speaking, discussions about
theory of explanation are made in logic paradigm and contextual paradigm and each paradigm promote
some models of explanation. Accepting the existence of different perspectives and a plethora of explicative
models, then, a pedagogical research, can also choose which one will offer more chances to achieve its goal:

to reflect with clarity the specificity of the educational domain or some part of it. Succinctly, proceeding
with different scientific models of explanation, settled during the time by philosophers, we assume as a
working hypothesis the utility of one explanatory model in pedagogic research: the pragmatic model. We
claim that it might be used for school culture design theory. We can emphasize also that, if educational
science is studying a very complex system, we must change the meaning of some concepts and accept
knowledge more than explicit declarative information, but also as a tacit, deeply embodied in a particular
culture.
2. Paradigms and models of explanation

The concept of theory was working in physic, but it wasnt worked at all for other sciences, especially
for social sciences. Sometime, for such anomalies we need strong reconsiderations or choose alternatives.
So, it becomes opportune to talk about models of explanation which can better work for them.
Epistemologically speaking, when we try to discuss here about theory of explanation, we will find two
paradigms and some models of explanation promoted by each paradigm in turn.
A paradigm means a very large conception about nature of theory and explanation, including its models
and all practical implications as Kuhn [11] emphasised before Regarding models of explanation, we can say
that there is the distinction between two paradigms in the history of sciences and it is made by the procedure
of making sciences and evaluate its products: internally, without external influences conducted only by
logic, or externally - contextualizing, accepting the influence of social environmental (values) in the body of
science. In the logic paradigm, philosophers of science accepted the schema that must be followed by all
enterprises which want to be taken seriously as a scientific activity. That model is known as covering model
law and is able to provide a strong explicit syntactic procedure. It use the following inference:
C1, C2................Cn

L1, L2........Ln

______________
E
Premises of this inference explicans (explicantia) are assembled by two types of sentences: the first are
observational sentences (C), standing for relevant situations as antecedent or connected with phenomenon
expressed in conclusive sentences (E) - explicandum (explicanda), and the second are universal sentences
(L) like laws. Hempel [6]. In this case, the entire epistemological commitment concerning explanation is
focused on analyse of logical structures of sentences (law-like) as the core of a theory. That is syntacticlogic model
and was called Deductive-Nomologil (D.N.) inference. It can capture the causal principle
expressed in closed systems like in physic and astronomy. Hempel [6]; Nagel [12]; Oppenheim and Putnam
[14]; Von Wright [19].

There is also a version of Logic model, the Functional-Teleologic or Teleologic-Comprehensive model,

because it is using motives/reasons instead causes and goals instead effects in turn. This is known as
semantic-logic model. The model is still logical, describing the human actions causality and putting in a
scheme in order to describe historical events, even the explanation is in the future not in the past.
The semantic model was enriched by Salmon [17].with a new one, called realist-semantic model. This
point of view is focused not only on inference as a syllogism but also on its relevancy. The information
captured by causal inference must be Statistical Relevant (S. R.) for us in order to be accepted. That means
to use the meaning of information for cognitive agents, especially when we try to explain unobservable
realities (in subatomic physic). So, the scheme of S. R. inferential explanation should be a list of relevant
information, not only a syntactic syllogism like in previous model.
If we take some events E, F, G and assume that between them there are some probabilistic physical
connections;
Between E and F is a priority causal temporal connection from past to future;

The Relevant Probability is mathematical expressed: x (E:F).

The connection x (E:F) means the degree of E, in order to cause F, or the contribution of E to cause F.
More than, we can talk only about the tendency of E to cause F, or the E type events are statistical relevant
for us and can produce F type, or any change of F produce also a change in F events. Salmon [17]
All this contributions to the theory of explanation are belonging in the logic paradigm.
For some time now, the most interesting conception about the dynamic of science was claimed by
Thomas Kuhn in whose point of view the theory and its related elements as minds products are conceived
evolving in a social historical environment, complex realm full by philosophical presuppositions (cognitive
values). This point of view, inspired by history of sciences studies, has been sustained by some other
historians and philosophers of sciences like Koyr [8] or Toulmin [18].
This conception was shared also by Bas van Fraassen [5], author interested in how we make scientific
explanation, other than syntactic-nomologic explanation or realist-semantic explanation. In his opinion,
scientific explanation is not only a syllogism or a list of relevant information used in an inference capable to
explain unobservable realities, but it is more then. It seems to be that kind of information with which we
understand the purpose of a cognitive agent and his interests in a historical moment or place. Science should
answer to questions like: Why? What for? In whose interest can we produce explanations? To answer we
have to understand and be aware of the existence of cognitive ideals, presuppositions which are playing a
role as responsible factors in designing and developing theories and scientific explanation. That means we
need, in order to be successful, new logics as Antonelli [1] showed, new tools like non-monotonic logic.
The term non-monotonic logic covers a family of formal frameworks devised to capture and represent
defeasible inference, i.e., that kind of inference of everyday life in which reasoners draw conclusions
tentatively, reserving the right to retract them in the light of further information. Such inferences are called
non-monotonic because the set of conclusions warranted on the basis of a given knowledge base does not
increase (in fact, it can shrink) with the size of the knowledge base itself. This is in contrast to classical
(first-order) logic, whose inferences, being deductively valid, can never be undone by new information.
Antonelli [1]
The structure of explanation in the pragmatic and contextual paradigm is quite different:
The topic of P (presupposition) - the problematic field of study;
The contrast class, X = {P1,Pi Pn}; The contrast class to P;
A relevant connection x between a question, Q and an answer, R.
Given any assumption A, it might be relevant for (Q question), if it helps couple P i (presupposition) to
X (class). The answer that P is, in contrast with all other possible answers from the class X, means that
is the only one which can occur because of A. Because of A hasnt any causal meaning, none statistical
or teleological one, it simply offers the support to believe in this relevance, truth, importance of relation
between Q and R, at the very beginning. The stress is now on the relation between question and answer,
supported by presupposition. [5] This new model assuming beliefs, intentions, interests and ideas regarding
knowledge open a new perspective for this type of special sciences and for all whom believe in alternative
methods for them. This type of explanation generated by social environment and psychology of scientist has
a pragmatic dimension including human beings interests and has nothing to do with logical standards,
correctness or fitness to the reality. The request is just make things to work properly.
3. The Paradigm and its tricks in Educational Sciences
Taking in consideration all discussions in epistemology, I can figure out that there are still blank fields
in our part of research, education, and sometimes it is impossible to be explained them correctly.
Researchers presumed that always we, human beings, teachers and students are mostly rational, conscious
agents. Inhelder and Piaget [7]; Oancea [13]. They like to believe and study schools and educational
activities as rational, that means at surface culture and less regarding their deep and covered culture. We are

wandering anytime when some unexpected results occur in our education. Sometimes we can be shocked by
the behaviour of people schooled, but acting in a totally different way that are not totally rational for us.
Why the implementation process of the same official curriculum could have sometimes so different results?
The rational, logic ideal of explanation as only a logic one, even having semantic interpretation was the
paradigms product of modern science. The consequence of assuming the only rational logic paradigm is
that pedagogy became a mimetic science. This kind of cognitive ideal (of explanation) continues to be
disastrous for psychology and not only for this science. Putnam [16] Educational sciences are still
considered weak sciences without any powerful explanation; students and teachers are lacking a good
explanatory image (scientific) regarding their lives and activities. If educational sciences are considered
natural sciences or social sciences, they failed to be considered real sciences. They cannot totally accept the
schema of nomologic-explanation or semantic explanation, as well. What can we do? Can we search again a
new alternative or not? Why after making a lot of efforts we couldnt explain what kind of sciences are
educational sciences? Are they social sciences? Are they natural science? In what sense can we adopt such
points of view? It seems we are cached in the tricks of paradigm and its standards.
The paradigm always trick us, and put us in a circular way giving the model and the tools and ask us to
make a chair or a box and after that push events to set on or enter in it. Can educational sciences follow this
path? If we will assume that, we should explain everything by accepting standards for conforming events
and meanwhile simplify the world. But we know nowadays, that this kind of knowledge ideal is not proper
for complexity. In the educational field of research, scientists agree that natural and social aspects are both
involved in theoretical explanation of the educational activities. Authors like J. A. Fodor [4], focused on
cognitive psychology called all sciences that are rebel special science, which need new schema for
explanation and he Romanian educationist, C. Brzea [2], emphasized that educational sciences are
complex sciences.
We should change the point of making science to accept the local, not de universal ideal as causal
explanation, accept the difference and multi-perspective. At this moment starting from these kind of
questions we try to propose some direction for future possible perspective of researches.
4. The re-definition of concepts and new explanation
We can also call educational sciences integrative sciences, using methods from anthropology or
cognitive sciences perspective. From cognitivists point of view we need concepts which could change the
meanings about educational realm: learning as a social process, the educational group as a cognitive system.
4.1. Learning as a social process
The goal of education is to develop the child physical states and also moral states required by the social
and private lives. Here the concept of cultural transmission assume that the information, whatever it is, is
embed in a cognitive scheme able to valorize itself, precisely trough the self-regulating content of the
provided information. Knowledge, experiences, values are also acquired using interests. The concept used
here is socialization but we think a more complex meaning is that of social group learning, if we accept the
logic of this issue. Learning in the school is always a social type of learning; it is an interaction between
people in groups. All this systems are conscious models and we can also add unconscious models. Nowhere
in this world, learning in schools and in real life is not an individual process (except mystical experiences),
but it is a social one.
4.1. Social educational system as a cognitive system
The efforts of cognitive psychology were focused, at first, on individual process and their cognitive
architecture. Some authors emphasised that computation is not realized just in an isolated persons mind, but
also like an emergence of the functioning social groups. Curseu [3]; Miclea[11]. This idea was developed by
in the book Grupurile n organizaii. The author Curseu [3] said that, this theoretical proposal issue is

more and more accepted, because there are some aggressive influences from the new paradigm of cognitive
science. There are three important reasons for those influences. He figures out that the first reason in the
group information processing that is more accurate for this kind of tasks; the second reason is that the more
important decisions with long time duration are made by the groups with greater priority; the third is that the
knowledge is engrammed in the networks connections not in the units of networks (neuroconexionism);
and the forth is that the group, as a relevant psychological entity, can operate because all members share the
same mental model of knowledge as scheme, stereotypes, attitude. To assume that social groups are
cognitive systems that mean that it allows us to study educational groups like a system generating
knowledge, a very different knowledge than individual acquisitions and processing. Nowadays knowledge is
accepted to be in different forms, not just declarative. They are also implicit or practical, tacit procedural.
Kuhn [10].
And that is the difference between semantic explanation and pragmatic explanation. The first are using
declarative values and the second are using tacit value, assumptions covered by surface culture. Lets
consider, for example, cognitive scheme and stereotypes. All this scheme are cognitive units with meanings
as groups of words, abstract, helping us as a tool for making selection or interpretations of social reality.
According to this new conception about cognitive units, even outcomes can be considered produced by the
members; actually effective outcomes have been processed by the groups working mind.
As we could see and already knew, the cognitive orientation for educational fields are not just an
analogical explanation using the computer metaphor for memory or individual learning, but also it is an
orientation that can opens new ways for a better understand and new way for educational researches and
also for practitioners. We can emphasized that sciences of education as a social science of learning is
studying a very complex system and has to use all contribution from related sciences.
This new contextual paradigm and its pragmatic model might be very fruitful for any process of
explanation. May be accepting knowledge more than explicit declarative information but also as a tacit,
deeply embodied in a particular culture and expressed only in a right moment, linguistic or not, using a
particular logic, and so on. It could be a better way to study or initiate some specific research in particular
part of education, but not in education as a wholly system, of course. A new analyse in sciences of education
for a segment like school culture ought be more advantageous, if we accept the meaning of a scientific
explanation as a pragmatic construct, in which the inference can capture the tacit knowledge, values or
presuppositions.
Cross-national comparisons may also point to possible directions that could be followed and about
which the researcher may not previously have been aware, or they may help to sharpen the focus of analysis
of the subject under study by suggesting new perspectives. Knipping[9]; Pepin [15] So far, that new
enterprise needed to study cultural products (believes, customs, rites, natural languages) that embodied tacit
knowledge and can make them manifest.
Conclusion
We can assume that cognitive perspective and contextual pragmatic paradigm can enrich our range of
explanations for educational practice and also for theoretical field. Some new directions could be pointed
out.
If the social educational groups are conceived as a cognitive system, then we can find out new
knowledge. Groups and their members are generating knowledge (explicit/tacit, declarative/procedural). We
can look, here, upon cognitive scheme as knowledge units which are specifically related or designed into
educational domain. More than, emergent knowledge of the group leads us to infer and have achievements
trough special inferences. If the pedagogy, educational sciences are sciences of complexity, at least, certain
segments can be studied with the help of cognitive-behavioural theory, anthropology, non-monotonic logic.
A possible research can be start with the introduction of a new taxonomy of cognitive units identified in
prescribed cultural scholar contexts. In the first stage, the priority might be the extraction and the conscious
acknowledgement of the collective mental schema cultural stereotypes, cognitive representations (found in
language, beliefs, customs and behaviours) that play a role in the mental structuring of the teachers and the

students as a cognitive subjects. Also, we can efficiently direct the process of teaching through training of
the personal that would incorporate the results of the research, transforming them in future cultural mind
sculptures. The new image as a theory is an outcome that could explain better the school culture and
learning style. It could be realized by the theories of educational science regarding it's domain of research
and would prove to be a very dynamic one. Furthermore, we can prove that the changes occurring in the
general scientific conception involving explanation (the assimilation of a contextual, cognitive perspective)
have implications on the way that pedagogy is producing its theoretical explanations governed by contextual
factors.
This cultural-contextual perspective and pragmatic explanation must be assumed with its value and
limitations. Also, we keep in mind the theoretical needs of conceptual extension, and as well as the local
dimension, its applicability determined by the nature and area of the research object, small groups with their
relatively reduced interactions. This is the reason why the analyses have to be done in a spirit of caution for
an extrapolation of the results in within the macro groups.
Abstract
The modern era is the era of highly developed technique and technology. In contemporary society, unfortunately, the problem
of spiritual and moral value attitude becomes actual problem among the youth. We know that material values (or wealth) take
a
priority (or important) place in the life of youth. It is a requirement of the market relations of the modernity. It is known that
philosophy is not an important component of modern man as material wealth.
The aim of this paper is to show the role of philosophy in life of students of a technical university. It is well-known that the
philosophy is the theory based on practice. A student who forms his spiritual principles can adapt and socialize in a society
without strong stresses.
2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Sakarya University.
Keywords: student; philosophy; sociocultural adaptation; value system; modern era.

1. Introduction
The main goal of every university is to prepare highly educated, enterprising and competitive specialists
in
accordance with existing and future needs of the individual, industry, society and the state. In any
university
(academies, institutes) the learner one can satisfy their needs, namely:
- Cognitive needs (to know, to be able, to understand, to investigate);
- The need for self-actualization (achieving its goals, abilities and development of the personality).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +8-707-8191293
E-mail address: kazindirak@mail.ru

This is the highest level in the hierarchical system of human needs, compiled by the American psychologist
Abraham Maslow, the so-called "the pyramid of needs". People receive higher education. Education provides a
solution to the most important government tasks:
- To improve the safety of the country,
- To train for all areas of the economy,
- To increase the intellectual level of the population.
The most important task of higher education is the formation of a highly educated person, general and
professional competencies, and the formation of creative thinking and the ability of the system to ensure
sustainable
human existence in terms of scientific and technological progress. Quality of an educated person and general
competence can be acquired only after mastering fundamental and deeply humanitarian basis of the chosen
specialty. Cultural and humanistic mission of the university is to create conditions for the development of free
and
responsible personality with creative and critical mind, intellectual and moral potential. The key principles of the
modern university are a freedom, creativity and a criticality. A freedom and creativity are impossible a critical
attitude towards life; the reality is manifestation of doubts about their authenticity and validity [1].
The pace of modern production processes and the current pace of technology updates are accelerating..
Generations
of automobiles are replaced quicker, than generation of people and it demands continuous updating of knowledge
of
the engineer, his/her continuous education and self-education. Ability to fill up and update the knowledge,
independently to study is connected with accurate orientation to the necessary information in the huge information
massif. It is possible only with vision of all field of scientific and technical progress, definition of its main
directions
and development tendencies. It requires a philosophical worldview orientation engineer corresponding logic of
his/her thinking and innovative its orientation.
Also note that in whatever incarnation not acted equipment, its operation aimed at realizing the goals set by
people. As a means for society to achieve certain goals, engineer equipment acts as a goal of its activities. Creating
a
particular artifact engineer implements the intended purpose is to provide a certain process.
2. A goal and a role of philosophy in the life of a society
Philosophy has always played a special role in the establishment and formation of the outlook of a person.
Philosophy is the main function of the orientation of a person in the world of nature and society. Everyone in
some
point in their life is facing the need to choose and thereby exercises his freedom. Philosophy designed to help him
make the right choice. Philosophy turned to the world of values, creates value theory to solve this problem. It
philosophy provides a scale for assessing phenomena establishes a hierarchy of values and promotes their
revaluation in a changing world.
The history of mankind is knowledge history it itself and world around, which is based on practical activities.
Now there are profound changes in the content of public practice in the conditions of search of the solution of
new
problems and therefore there is a need of development of the theory which has to not only reflect correctly, but
also
define an orientation of modern social development.
Philosophically minded person imagines the main trends of the development of the world, society and
knowledge. The person can also correlate his/her life with these trends and to understand his/her place in this
development. Philosophy forms the worldview of people, as it largely determines their behavior and approaches
to
decision-making in particular problem.
Philosophy plays a significant role in solving global problems. Its main function is to form a world view, also
have an indirect influence on the development of practical solutions. The philosophy forms outlook, sets valuable
installations which define an orientation of human activity:
- Its generalizing theories are essentially necessary since promote integration of scientific knowledge.
- It forms most the general laws of development of society and the nature.
- There is an opportunity to see the general tendency of development of global problems, dynamics of their
interaction and interdependence

The philosophy gives the chance to develop culture of theoretical thinking.

- Result of vision and interpretation of the historical process is the possibility of a clear orientation in the flow
of scientific information on global issues.
- The philosophy raises questions of meaning of the life of the person, death and immortality.
Philosophy identifies and develops the meaning of human actions and behavior, forms strategic goals. The
theoretical philosophy is constructed by the principles close to science. The philosophy as a whole in unity of all
its
genres unites science and culture, integrates all types of spiritual activity and promotes integrity of thinking of the
expert and integrity of his culture. We think that it is its main destination as a humanizing factor of the higher
education. Earlier training was connected with translation knowledge which were transferred orally or in writing.
Then knowledge was enshrined in practice and allowed to decipher a meaning of practical research actions. In the
modern world the independent person becomes the most responsible link of development. He/she and his/her
intelligence can hold and balance through practice contradictory tendencies of development. Modern practice, i.e.
everyday practice of life is associated with reduced risks of development. It is known that the acquisition of
knowledge has to be accompanied not only by their accumulation, but also the ability to quickly update and even
create new ones.
It isn't excluded that safety, i.e. fall of risks of development becomes one of the major principles and components
of development of educational technologies. This is not an element of fear or phobia; on the contrary it is a form
of
recognition that a person is open to external influences and for influences of the environment (i.e. culture) which
is
created by person. This influence is interaction of the person and the world, which was initially problematic and
only the person with a power of his/her intelligence (knowledge and practice) is capable to balance all
circumstances.
The philosophy generalizes achievements of science, relies on them. Ignoring of scientific achievements would
lead it to triviality. But development of science happens against cultural and social development. Therefore the
philosophy is urged to promote a science humanization, increase of a role of moral factors in it. It has to limit
unreasonable claims of science for a role of the only and universal way of development of the world. It correlates
the facts of scientific knowledge to ideals and values of humanitarian culture.
Studying of philosophy promotes increase of the general culture and formation of philosophical culture of the
personality. It expands consciousness: for communication the consciousness width, ability to understand other
person or as though from outside is necessary to people. The philosophy and skills of philosophical thinking helps
with it. The philosopher should consider the points of view of different people, critically to comprehend them.
Spiritual experience which promotes consciousness expansion is so saved up.
3. Engineering thinking as the main feature of engineering students
The development of technology is the main component of social development. Engineering activity acts as the
main source of technological progress. It is in the qualitative transformation of engineering and technology is the
main function of engineers, but perfecting the technique and technology, engineers influence change relationships
that develop between people in the direct production process and therefore affect the development of the main
productive force - on people. Thus, the engineering activity occupies a central place in the whole system of
technical
activities.
Modern technical activities in relation to the engineering bears the executive function. Engineering same
activities go beyond just technology. It involves the regular use of scientific knowledge, this is another difference
from technical activity that is more based on experience, practical skills, guessing.
The main task of the engineer is:
- The transformation of the natural into the artificial;
- Transformation of substance, energy and information.
His/her ultimate goal, he/she sees in the use of the properties of objects related to the practice of creating and
organizing techno-structure technologies.
Activity of the engineer is directed on creation, improvement and development of technical means, technologies
and engineering constructions. This activity has both productive, original, creative, and reproductive, not creative,

repetitive, stereotyped components.

In formation of engineering activity the important role was played by subject practice and its main type
production of goods, production of means and instruments of labor. Initial forms of engineering arose in a subsoil
of
technological activity, and longtime existed together, rendering favorable interference. Recognition of that fact
that
on the basis of technological activity are created equipment and different constructions are dictated by need of
carrying out differentiation, a peculiar line of demarcation between technical and engineering activity.
Identification
of specific distinctive signs of engineering work contacts the analysis of the main structural components of
activity.
Carrying out the activity, the engineer transforms the natural and social environment, satisfying various technical
requirements of society. This transformation is always defined by essential communications, laws of change and
development of objects, and activity can be successful only when it will be coordinated with these laws.
Feature of engineering activity is its creative character. Creativity is understood as the process of human activity
creating qualitatively new material and cultural wealth. Creativity represents arising ability of the person from a
material delivered by reality to create on basis knowledge of regularities of the objective world new reality:
satisfying to diverse public requirements. Types of creativity are defined by nature of creative activity.
Philosophy function in activity of the engineer is visible at achievement of concrete technological result in
consciousness of the engineer the displayed abstract model of subject structures of practice is fixed.
At detection of the main features of the engineering activity distinguishing it from other forms of subject
practical activities, first of all production and technical, it is necessary to define accurately its distinctive signs
among which main are: research on the basis of the systematized knowledge of properties and characteristics of
subject structures of practice for the purpose of transformation natural in artificial, transformation of substance,
energy and information for identification of optimum structural and functional interrelations of created
engineering
constructions, technical means and organizational forms of technologies.
Opening an originality of "engineering thinking", it should be noted some important features inherent in any
logical display of reality. The general for all types of thinking is that they reflect requirements of public system.
The thinking of the engineer, as well as other types cogitative acts of the person is, in detail, directed on mastering
of a subject of requirement and by all means includes knowledge of future technical object. The anticipation is
one
of the main components of any thinking. The engineer mentally anticipates not only achievement of the purpose,
but also a way and ways of use of all arsenals of cash.
In the content of engineering thinking includes signs of physical processes that characterize the properties,
functions, structural features of the hardware; thinking engineer determined by social factors such as anatomical
and
physiological parameters of human action and the area of social functioning of a technical object. Thinking
engineer
is largely determined by the subject area of the functioning of a technical object. Adopting and implementing
technical solutions engineer not to rely on their skills, abilities, production skills, intuition, but also on a wide
range
of socio-cultural knowledge, showing ingenuity and resourcefulness.
The engineering thinking is a specific form of active reflection of morphological and functional interrelations of
subject structures of the practice, directed on satisfaction of technical requirements for knowledge, ways,
receptions,
for the purpose of creation of technical constructs is inseparably linked with the main form of practice, i.e.
production of goods: design and design tasks have especially practical character, are directed on search of
structural
and functional interrelations of properties of objects of subject practice.
The engineering thinking is an ability to connect images, representations, concepts, to define possibilities of their
application, ability to solve arising problems, to prove conclusions and the decisions concerning creation and
operation of equipment. And the engineering thinking is not only a theoretical form of reflection of reality in the
form of concepts, hypotheses, and theories. The engineer constantly solves with his help also practical problems.
It
occurs when it should apply general provisions and concepts to the single, concrete phenomena that most often
and
is observed in everyday practical life.
If the thinking of the scientist is directed on an explanation of the phenomena which the person faces for the first
time, on development of new theoretical means of human activity, thinking of the engineer is directed on the
solution of practical problems of the same activity. The practical orientation of engineering thinking generates
mobility, functional mobility, and fast change of its contents that is caused by direct response to inquiries of
practice. All this is among features of engineering thinking. But its features are shown also in those principles on
which it is based.
As A.I. Rakitov [2] considers, the engineering thinking is based on three important principles: machine,,
serialism, and rationality. They should be understood so. The machine means that the developed engineering

thinking is formed in the conditions of mechanical production as thinking concerning development and operation
of
various cars, mechanisms and devices. Where the engineer worked at the industrial enterprise, on construction,
on
transport, in agriculture, it everywhere deals with cars and mechanisms. Serialism or reproduction is shown that
the engineer seldom deals with any unique, single or at least small-scale products of production. Most often the
products in which the engineer is involved, are intended for mass consumption. Even at construction of buildings
and other constructions according to individual projects after all serial materials are in many respects used. At
last,
the engineering thinking is entirely rational. Though the engineer also should use special terms, formulas,
calculations, but all the same they are clear and available to other workers with whom the engineer deals. His
thoughts are embodied in knowledge and various data which are deprived of any mystery (if, of course, aren't
connected with military or state secret) and standardization for convenience of their distribution and use is subject.
Very important line of engineering thinking is also systematic that is quite natural as almost any a little difficult
product consists of considerable number of interacting parts, details, and even units. New materials and
mechanisms
can't be created without system approach. In even bigger degree systematic is required at creation of huge
transport,
irrigational, communicative systems. Need to consider ecological, ergonomic, social, and psychological and other
consequences at their construction does engineering thinking by the main generator and the systematic
accumulator.
4. Philosophy in the life of engineering students
In fact, the philosophy should help the personal development of the student, his formation as a specialist. Who
also serves on the professional level required not only private production targets, but also non-alienated from the
universal problem and essential understanding of the world from the spiritual world, ethical and aesthetic values.
Personal development of the student has to be focused also on activation of reflexive thinking as most important
way of formation and preservation of individuality. Actualization of the individual origin allows a person to make
a
conscious choice and take responsibility for it in terms of progressive massovization, globalization and steadily
increasing social uncertainty.
Realities of the beginning of the XXI century, the prospects of civilizational development in the third
millennium, the problem of humanization of education, the formation of "advanced" education objectively bring
to
the fore training of the specialist his/her personal development. If until recently in the course of education the task
of
formation of the personality was set, whose professional, social and psychological, motivational shape was
determined by external conditions, whose interests were in many respects leveled by interests of society, now it
is
absolutely necessary to promote in the course of education to formation of the nonconformist personality capable
of
self-realization and self-updating up to not of confrontational, but tolerant opposition of to the social environment.
Engineering activity is usually associated with modified versions of basic sciences. The modification consists in
the fact that fragments of basic sciences, applied importance, converted in theory, allow you to perform
engineering
calculations and designs. Therefore, any engineering discipline contains fundamental core. The task of the student
-
is to identify the main, fundamental knowledge from various disciplines to be able to generalize them and apply
to
various practical and research activities. Cope with this task help specific training courses, as the natural sciences,
and, no less important, humanitarian and socio-economic. All disciplines of the curriculum courses form a single
system, internally consistent with each other so that together they allow for the preparation of highly qualified and
widely educated specialist.
Engineer, not realizing the social importance of their activities, acts not as a creator, but as a simple performer,
craftsman. Overcoming of this professional limitation assumes an exit out of limits of those concepts which are
connected only with creation of artifacts, technologies, overcoming of technocratic thinking, orientation to a social
scope, social and philosophical judgment of the technical practice.
The engineer carries out not only design-technology, but also social function, i.e. he is the head of a certain work
collective, has to operate it, be able to work with people, to communicate with them.
Thus it must be kept in mind that transformation of a modern civilization happens in the direction of increase of
the importance of opportunities of the individual, increase of value of activity of the certain person, growth of its
freedom and responsibility. Therefore the engineer as the head of collective has to "reach" each certain participant
of
production. It has to possess if it is so possible to be expressed, a cognition of person, high moral qualities, the
general culture, art of the head and administrative skills. The knowledge of philosophy helps the engineer with
formation of these lines of his personality.
Activity of the engineer is first of all intellectual and creative. From other types of intellectual work

(pedagogical, medical, art etc.) it differs that work of the engineer has at the same time both theoretical, and a
practical orientation, it is carried out most often directly in the sphere of production of goods, is aimed at
transformation natural in artificial, natural factors in socially significant phenomena and subjects. And the
engineer
always deals with real-life subjects and the phenomena.
The phenomenon of "engineering thinking" is the object of study of many sciences: philosophy, psychology,
pedagogy, humanities and technical sciences.
Analysis of the real experience of creative solutions of engineering problems suggests that the basis of
engineering thinking is a highly creative imagination and fantasy, multiscreen system creative understanding of
knowledge, ownership methodology and technical creativity, allowing consciously manage the process of
generating
new ideas.
The process of training as a specific social sphere of activity and acts as an objective and as a subjective
phenomenon. Developing in accordance with the laws of society and reflecting them as a natural historical
process,
training acts as an objective phenomenon. At the same time as the subject of the process of knowledge and
practical
transformation of the world people, developing their creativity, realizing their goal is the subjective factor, the
force
that changes the content and direction of the natural historical process.
5. Conclusion
The starting point in training is to define the essence of professional activities, which will lead the training and
personal qualities necessary for its implementation. Quality of activity depends on quality of training of the
personality, and in a context of a considered problem, on quality of the vocational training assuming changes
corresponding to its activity in structure of the personality.
The person, understanding external reality, reflects also reality itself. On the one hand, it possesses ability
randomly to enter into the consciousness sphere any representations, and, on the other hand, to realize the
phenomena occurring in his consciousness, to control processes occurring in it. Watching the changes resulting
in
the outside world, resulting people learns not only the outside world, but also itself. The consciousness is a
necessary condition of formation of independence and flexibility of thought, objectivity of judgments, gives the
chance to the person to treat acts of own understanding critically. The unity of consciousness and activity is
expressed that the consciousness acts as the regulator of behavior and all actions of the person.
Abstract
The article analyses the development of cognitive sociology of science, in the object field of which connection of cognitive
and
social structures of science is traced. The role of context in scientific knowledge formation is defined. It is stated that the basis
for
development of research program of cognitive sociology of science appeared to be reconsideration of the standard concept of
science as a complex of gnoseological, epistemological and methodological interpretations of nature and morphology of the
produced scientific knowledge, methods for its explanation and scientificity ideals. The difference between strong and
weak
varieties of scientific knowledge evolution, developed in western philosophy of science, is considered. Social studies of
science
are reviewed as a form of social constructivism and relativism, exhibiting their specific nature in macro-analytical and
microanalytical strategies of scientific knowledge evolution analysis. The thesis that multidimensionality of science cannot be
adequately interpreted focusing only on conceptual history of science is proved.
2014. The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Tomsk Polytechnic University
Keywords: Cognitive sociology of science, context, constructivism, deconstructivism, criteria of scientific content, sociality in science,
interpretation.
1. Introduction
At the turn of the 20-21st centuries one of the basic vectors of science study in the problem space of western
philosophy of science became a discipline, called in the English-American tradition Sociology of Scientific
Knowledge (SSK). Within its framework there emerged research programs of interpretative sociology of
science
(G.Low, D.French), relativistic researches (W.Collins), ethno-methodological analysis (H.Garfinkel, S.Woolgar),
ethnographic studies (Y.Elkan), thematic analysis (G.Holton), discourse analysis (.ulkay, G.Gilbert),
constructivist orientation program (.Knorr-Cetina). The obvious advantage of the outlined research programs is
a
view of science as an open object, as a culture subsystem. This research angle enabled to analyze the dependence
of
*Anna A. Kornienko
E-mail address: anna_kornienko@mail.ru

scientific knowledge content on the context space of academic community. Scientific knowledge in this case was
viewed as the result of social construction.
Significance of studies lies in the fact that, for the first time, cognitive and socio-cultural factors and foundation
for scientific evolution were presented as an integral and consistent research, thus encouraging the development
of
micro-sociological research. Furthermore, the scope of empiric data, obtained through these studies, will
encourage
discovering the nature of connection between cognitive and socio-cultural underpinnings of science development,
which, will also set a base for efficient science management.
2. Subject and research methods
The author assumes that multidimensionality of science cannot be adequately interpreted only in terms of
conceptual history of science. Synthesis of socio-cultural, sociological, methodological and gnoseological
problematic is necessary. Within this research trend the subject of the analysis can be outlined as follows:
to reveal evolution of cognitive sociology of science, tracing within its subject framework the relation of
cognitive
and socio-cultural factors;
to interpret Social Studies of Science as a form of social constructivism and relativism which manifested itself
in macro-analytical and micro-analytical strategies of scientific knowledge analysis;
to set conceptual core and potential of the contextual analysis of growing knowledge in strong and weak
programs of Social Studies of Science.
In the course of the designated research tasks potential of the historical method and comparative approach, as well
as epistemological capability of socio-cultural methodology, method of structural-genetical analysis and
structuralgenetical synthesis were used.
3. The results obtained
In the 1970-s a number of scientific schools emerged in western philosophy under the name of Social Studies of
Science. The program of the schools featured pronounced tendencies in western philosophy of science. Particular
interest was shown to the analysis of content of scientific knowledge in its different forms, to science as a
subsystem
of culture, to establishing relation between single elements of scientific knowledge and socio-cultural context
within
which scientific knowledge is manufactured.
The basis for developing this field, also known as cognitive sociology of science, as New Wave sociology of
science, turned to be sociology of knowledge. Hence, the term Sociology of Scientific Knowledge was coined
in
English-American tradition.
Preliminary to the analysis of issues concerning socio-cultural conditioning of science development was the
controversy over internalismexternalism. For a long time this controversy influenced the structure of research
foci
(alternative and competing) in western philosophy of science.
The conceptual ground constituting the subject of Social Studies of Science, was reconsideration of traditional
concept of science (in 1967 I. Scheffler, professor of Harvard University, tried to organize the ideas of science
sociologists, developed on the principles of traditional science, and introduced the term normative concept of
science). Notably, the normative concept of science was a complex of gnoseological, epistemological and
methodological interpretations of nature and morphology of the manufactured scientific knowledge, methods for
obtaining and explaining this knowledge, interpreting ideals of scientificity, and mechanisms regulating this
activity.
Some authors (e.g. B.G.Yudin) are, to our mind, rightly assert that the core of the normative concept of science is
trivial common sense of science, the very form of science self-cognition through which non-reflexive attitude to
the
foundation and prerequisites of scientific work manifests itself. Namely, positivists and neo-positivists were
guided
by the standard concept. Normative concept of science did not favor the potential of sociological analysis of
scientific
knowledge. Neo-positivists did not acknowledge socio-cultural conditioning of cognition. It was considered a
factor
baulking the formation of true knowledge. The normative concept produced a certain image of pure science,
independent of culture. Basically, it is Social Studies of Science that created an ideal, aimed at overcoming

positivistic ideas of science and its development, in favor of versatile, integrated analysis of science as a product
and
an essential factor of the society development.
Revision of the normative concept of science and emergence, at the turn of the 1980-s, of a range of conceptual
patterns aimed at social studies of science within a framework of social constructivism justify the need for
philosopho-methodological reflection of the holistic approach formed by this school.
The emerged sociological scientific programs focused on the synthesis of philosophy, history and sociology of
science in its conventional interpretation. Thus, an ideal-paradigm, integrating cognitive and social factors, was
created. It must be noted, that already by the middle of the 1970-s not only the general pattern of the Social
Studies
of Science paradigm was developed, but also a research team advocating the strong program made a statement
(D.Bloor, B.Barnes). Both strong and weak programs, having chosen problems of sociology of scientific
knowledge and nature of scientific knowledge as a subject of discussion, engaged in a hot argument (called
Science
wars) with realists opposing post-modernists. Social Studies of Science can be considered a branch of
social
constructivism and relativism: as a starting point of strong and weak programs, knowledge is viewed not as
a
reflection of reality, but as a result of some activity. Alternatively to this viewpoint, scientific realism, interpreted
as a
system of some fields within analytical philosophy, assumes that the only reliable way to attain knowledge about
the
world, alternatively to everyday experience and metaphysics, is scientific research where experimental and
observational data are interpreted with special tools, i.e. scientific theories. Claims by the authors of scientific
theories and definitions (without distinguishing language of theory and language of observation) have
ontological status, i.e. objects (things, processes, connections, properties and relations, regularities) denoted by
the
terms are considered to be entities, while judgments about the objects can be true, false or probable (Porus, 2009).
The latter viewpoint is supported by W. Sellars, . Musgrave, H. Putnam, R. Harre.
Evolution of cognitive sociology of science stimulated development of microsocial studies of particular situations
emerging during scholars cognitive activity (case-studies), which provide extensive empiric data on relation
between
cognitive and social structures of science. In the 1980-s a variety of methodologically alike conceptual schemes
of
social studies of science emerged. The subject of the analysis was generation of scientific knowledge in the context
space of academic community. As early as 1980-s there emerged interpretative sociology of science (J. Law,
D.
French), constructivist program (. Knorr-Cetina, 1975), relativist program (W. Collins), discourse analysis
(.
ulkay, G. Gilbert), ethno-methodological studies (. Garfinkel, S. Woolgar), ethnographic studies of science
(E.
Elkan), thematic analysis (G. Holton) the programs defined in analytical books as social-constructivists, because
scientific knowledge is viewed here as a result and consequence of social construction: causality in society
implies
self-reference, which explains the obligation of convention (Mulkay, 1983; Bloor, 1999).
From the first half of the 1970-s Starnberg group from Max Planck institute in FRG engaged their attention to the
issue of scientific knowledge dependence on socio-cultural context (V. Daele, V. Scheffer, G. Bohme, V. ron).
At
the same period the ideas of cognitive sociology sprung in Great Britain, where such prominent sociologists as G.
Collins, . ulkay, R. Whitley, D. Bloor, P. Weingart, . Mendelsohn were concerned with the study of the
system
social factors logical structures (Mulkay, 1981). American branch of the sociology of science preoccupied
with
this research program is presented by P.McHugh, E. Goldner, I. itroff, . Polanyi, G. Ravets.
At the turn of the 20-21st centuries Social Studies of Science was recognized as a research area with a strong
position in western philosophy of science. In the problem field of this area two varieties of socio-constructivist
approach to the analysis of science outlined their subject matter. Within the macro-approach the following
problems
are analyzed: relations between social structures and scientific knowledge, influence of social changes on shifts
in
scientific knowledge, relations between science as a social institution and other social institutions. A specific of
the
macro-analytical approach is study of processes and structures and neglect of subjective aspect of science.
Macroanalytical strategy, assuming that science is scholars domain, disregards this idea. Limitation and
insufficiency of the
macro-analytical strategy caused a turn to micro-analytical strategy, which rejected global sociological structures
and
concentrated on case-studies of scientific discoveries, disputes between scientists, hypothesizing, creating theories
in
a certain socio-cultural context.

It is to be noted that of special importance for interpreting modern epistemological issues of cognitive sociology
of science is E. Durkheims viewpoint, integrating such categories as time, matter, space, as well as some elements
of
causality with social context and identifying cognitive aspect of reason with social. It was V.Paretto and G.
Simmel
who came close to interpreting history of thought in sociological terms. They asserted parallelism between forms
of
cognition (definition coinage and ways of intellectual grip) and forms of social organizations, which proves, to
their mind, conditioning of concepts and intellectual orientations by socio-cultural changes. Although the nature
of
cognition forms dependence on social context is approached differently in the history of sociology of knowledge,
specifics of the subject field of sociology of science allowed later applying the methods and concepts of sociology
of
knowledge for the analysis of scientific knowledge stages, for the genesis of scientific discoveries, for the
formation
of scientific communities. Thus, R. Landsberg carried out a sociological analysis of Platos academy,
P.Honigsheim
described medieval scholasticism in terms of sociology of knowledge, . Dempf and . rnstein interpreted
transition from scholasticism to modern science and the role of scientific societies in the 17th century in the context
of
sociology of knowledge. In some other works terms and methods of sociology of knowledge were deployed for
historical and scientific descriptions. Transition from sociology of knowledge to sociology of science gave rise to
various historical and scientific investigations, executing programs of sociology of science, while formation of a
complex approach in the investigations of science became possible through the application of concepts and
methods
of sociology of knowledge and sociology of science to historical scientific research. So, for example, the founders
of
sociology of science R. Merton and D. Bernal were also the authors of historical and scientific investigations
written
from sociological perspective. Connection of sociology of scientific knowledge and history of science is
conditioned
by their unity, historical intentions of sociology itself: inner logic of its development demonstrates that both
classical
sociology, represented by E. Durkheim, and non-classical sociology, e.g. P. Bourdieus theory, inherently have
historic character. E. Durkheims sociology is historical because he sought to study institutions in progress, which
requires, to E. Durkheims idea, active and deliberate involvement of historiography. There is no sociology worthy
of
the name which does not possess a historical character, claimed E. Durkheim, being convinced that sociology and
history were to come together and that one day historical and sociological spirits would differ only in shades. P.
Bourdieu and other proponents of modern non-classical sociology adopt this and other E. Durkheims ideas,
extrapolating historical dimension to social ontology and epistemology, proposing to work on really universal
human
science, where history would be historical sociology of the past, and sociology social history of the present.
They
entrust sociology with a task of triple historicism firstly, historicism of the agent, secondly, historicism of
different
social worlds (fields), thirdly, historicism of the cognizer and cognition tools, with which he constructs the object.
Concerning the paradigm evolution of cognitive sociology of science, one cannot exaggerate the role of
philosophical factors, for example, . Kuhns works (Kuhn, 1975), positivist methodology. We consider that
evolution of the research programs of the positivist methodology is conditioned by inner logic of the development
of
sociology as a discipline. In our opinion, this is due to paradigm transformations in sociology. Guidelines for
interpreting the social changed. Especially it is typical for micro-sociological approach: the latter paradigm is
guided
by . Schutz and I.Hoffmans ideas. Social is interpreted here as a socially organized interaction, shared
world
(. Schutz), as collaborative activity of individuals who positively complement each other. It outlines the scope
of
problems of cognitive sociology of science, caused by insuperable contradictions between micro and macro
and
the inability of sociology to overcome them. Interest expressed by symbolic interactionism to microtranslation
strategies, explaining how social structures are repeated in interactants locations, as well as considerable
interest
of phenomenological sociology to the agents perspective resulted in changes in the social approach and science
and
called for such levels of analysis as everyday life and everyday contacts between scientists, i.e. anthropology and
ethnography of science, which sociology of knowledge and sociology of science conceptually alienated from in
the
1970-s. In the 1980-s the leading position was taken by ethnography of science (anthropological study of
science),
that is micro-analysis of local historical situations in socio-cultural context.
Today, when cognitive sociology of science is quite an autonomous discipline, thorough analysis of its social
methodology and research methods (interview, involved observation, anthropology and ethnography of science,

biographical method, case-studies method), allowing to trace the genesis of scientific beliefs under the influence
of
cultural context, is vitally important, as sociology contributes greatly to the deconstruction of methodologies
and
methods used to investigate science problematics. The importance of social methodology is in refocusing to
interpretative methods, emphasizing description strategies rather than explanation, i.e. the strategies which
disregard
causative or factorial explanation, stress narration of not only forms, methods and style of story, but also research
methods.
It is also necessary to note an attempt of research varieties of Social Studies of Science to consider not
causality, which is a traditional type of connection in determinism, but milder forms of interaction between mental
processes and social, or more exact, socio-cultural context. Among these forms is principle of generalized
interaction, principle of state relation, principle of dependence on conditions, consideration of connections
and
synchronization, which disregard time precedence and compulsory generation and are not casual or random
coincidences. In fact, understanding constructivist approach, centered on the analytical paradigm of cognitive
sociology of science, allows concluding that it rejects philosophical analysis. As . Knorr-Cetina aptly remarks,
traditional philosophical analysis of science is charged with inability to systematically consider the role of social
factors and include them in the normative pattern of scientific activity (Knorr et al., 1975). Actually, hardly can
such
phenomenon as modern science, internally connected with modern society as an institutional and collective
establishment, be deprived of inherent social characteristics, which are to be grasped by philosophy, if it intends
to be
aware of the world where it exists. Constructivism poses the problem concerning role of interests, flexibility of
rules
and standardization of criteria of contextual role of power in the theory of knowledge, incites to abandon universal
standards through local agreements, substitute social and other characteristics for situational characteristics. It
should
also be emphasized that, fundamentally, constructivism is by far not consistent, which is acknowledged by
analystsproponents of cognitive sociology of science. The very fact that the central and basic concept of
constructivism is the
concept of negotiations, suggests limitation of its analytical resources.
Apparently, recognizing the deadlock of the research theory of constructivism, analysts introduce the term
constructionism to define empiric constructivism. Within the latter framework the initial thesis is that to study
the
process of constructing reality is to study epistemic issues, to analyze laboratory life and localized, variable
standards of cognition. Constructionism is guided by the localized concepts, by the thesis that construction
means
construction of internally confined spaces, based on local resources and changes, and conditioned by local
practice.
Apart of the above mentioned issues, cognitive sociology of science branches out cognitive constructivism (as
well as
deconstructionism), investigating knowledge from the standpoint of cognition and perception biology, rather than
social communities. It is characterized by anti-interpretationism, opposed to most interpretative approaches of
social
constructivism. The research area referred to as deconstruction is also presented in Social Studies of Science.
In
this context the difference between weak and strong varieties of social constructivism is as follows. Theories
studying reality, emerged within the weak variety, are considered to be social constructions, while within the
strong variety reality is viewed as construction. For D.Bloor, a proponent of strong variety of social
constructivism, of special importance for social epistemology is under-determination thesis. It states that it is
impossible to explain the difference in perception of the object by different observers simply appealing to the
influence of the object. To explain one needs information about observers. Description of reality also includes
criteria
conditioned by social factors. For B.Latour and S.Woolgar, proponents of relativistic approach and D. Bloors
opponents, the emphasis are laid not on scientific evidence, but the process of its construction (Latour, 1983;
Latour,
1999). Examining potential of the strong variety of social constructivism, J.S.Morkina, to our mind, keenly
captures its relation to the weak variety of social constructivism and scientific realism, when she writes: On
the
one hand, strong variety of social constructivism is manifestation of ultra-relativism. On the other hand, being an
extreme it meets another extreme, i.e. scientific realism, rather than totally opposes it. The convergence lies in the
fact that in both varieties definitions and statements of scientific theories are assigned with ontological status. In
case
with social constructivism it is due to the fact that reality itself is considered to be constructed during the process
of
scientific research (Morkina, 2008).

Social Studies of Science, being a variety of social constructivism and relativism, proved that
multidimensionality of science (cognitive-linguistic, social-normative, cultural-axiological) cannot be
comprehended
and interpreted correctly, taking into consideration only conceptual history of science. Having shaped a new
research
ideal, which promotes unity of social and cognitive characteristics, Social Studies of Science changed the
concept
of scientificity criteria in the cognitive research program, and highlighted the fact that scientific knowledge is
directly
conditioned by interpretative resources, interpretative context. Introduction of such categorical structures, as
sociocultural context, interpretative resources, interpretative context, substantially changed the very idea
of
sociality in science.
To conclude, it must be emphasized that it is western sociology of science that shaped the challenging,
fundamental task to newly coordinate and re-orientate analytical approaches to such complex subject of research
as
social aspects of science operation, attempting to thematize the idea of complexity in social studies of science in
terms of explicating basic programs and approaches in philosophy, history, cultural studies and sociology of
science
and their further synthesis in some universal ideal research program, based on the integration of cognitive and
social
factors.
4. Conclusion
The conducted research allows modifying the current understanding of science within the context of the concept
sociality, complementing it with the concept of socio-cultural context, fundamental for socio-cultural
methodology. The author substantiates the difference between strong and weak varieties of social
constructivism,
and the thesis about heterogeneous nature of constructivism. It is proved by increasing interest to
constructionism
as a form and branch of empiric constructivism. Namely, constructionism, as is presented in the paper, studies
epistemic practice, practices of internally confined spaces (e.g., laboratory life). Heterogeneity of
constructivism
is proved by deconstructivism theory.
The author considers that developing a new research program aimed at thematization of the idea to synthesize the
cognitive and the socio-cultural in the development of science, Social Studies of Science changes views on
scientificity claims (knowledge is conditioned by interpretative resources, interpretative context), as well as
transforms the idea of sociality in science. Furthermore, reorienting analytical approaches to social aspects of
science functioning, developing the idea to synthesize cognitive and socio-cultural factors, western philosophy of
science attempts to develop a unified integrated theory of science, able to synthesize programs and approaches of
philosophy, history, cultural studies and sociology of science.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Tomsk Polytechnic University for the organization of such imposing conference
Abstract
The answer to the question formulated in the title has often polarized world specialists in moral issues, most inclining to regard
ethics as a field of philosophical reflection both by the tradition to which it relates, as early as Socrates and Aristotle, and
especially by the nature of its discourse, which displays plainly its synthesis spirit and vocation of universality.
There are thinkers and they are not few, especially in the horizon of post-moralism who emphasize the requirement that
ethical standards be applied, bringing extra knowledge about a distinct segment of reality the phenomenon of morality with
specific scientific means and methods.
The aim of this paper is to argue that ethics is a systematic theoretical reflection that covers the moral principles and values
with
a double status, philosophical and scientific, without being able to accurately distinguish which side is more important, even
though, at some point, in relation to a particular issue, either the philosophical interpretation or the scientific has the power to
prevail.
2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of LUMEN 2014.
Keywords: ethics; metaphysics; moral principles; transparent communication; otherness; tolerance.
1. Introduction
Is it appropriate and timely to answer the invitation to reflect upon the distinction between philosophy and
science so as to set more exactly the role and significance of ethics in the contemporary world? We think it is.
First,
because it is likely to draw attention to the fact that there are issues in the sphere of morality that do not appear to
possess any meaning on the horizon of scientific investigation, imposing a clearly philosophical view, while there

are problems that can be solved more appropriately by means and rigorously systematic methods of science.
Secondly, the question in the title is open to a discourse about ethics pertaining to moral philosophy, as
metaethics rather than to an ethical one. This specification is important in terms of our interpretation of the
current
theory of moral discourse.
2. Ethics, philosophy and science
In our point of view, ethics is a systematic reflection on the principles and moral values as well as on real life and
the spiritual practice of individuals and the community, in relation to Good and Evil. As a theory about morals,
ethics has a double status, both philosophical and scientific, with no possibility to clearly distinguish which side
is
more important even though, at a given time, the philosophical or scientific interpretation could prevail in relation
to
a particular issue. Furthermore, this dual status was supported with consistent arguments by Romanian ethicist
Tudor Ctineanu (1982) too, who stated that the social tasks that represent a social command allow us to locate
the
place and role that ethics plays among the social sciences, on the one hand, but also as philosophy, on the other
hand
(p. 24 and following).
Resuming some of the arguments that have become classic, which add to our own analysis, we aim to emphasize
where and how philosophical speculation decisively meets the scientific spirit in investigating morality.
2. 1. Ethics is a philosophical discipline inaugurated in European culture through Socratic meditation. Great
moral theoretical constructions are so closely related to philosophical developments that we can estimate that the
true history of philosophy is the history of moral doctrines as well.
On the one hand, ethics is a philosophical discipline in that the genuine thinker on moral issues cannot be an
ethicist, as if ethics was something different from philosophy, but only a metaphysicist. One of the greatest
moralists of the past century, Emmanuel Levinas (1982), noted in a famous work, Ethics and Infinity, that
metaphysics plays a part in ethical relations, estimating that in the absence of ethical significance, even
philosophical concepts remain empty formal frameworks. Consequently, ethics is prime philosophy, the one by
which the other branches of metaphysics acquire meaning (p. 7, translation mine). On the other hand, any genuine
philosophy is also ethics. Great thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, and Kant left us works of exclusively
ethical literature. Moreover, if we have in mind the Stagirite's thinking, the ethic conception influences the entire
philosophical construction; Spinoza entitles his fundamental work nothing less than Ethics; one of the three parts
of
Kant's criticism, Critique of Practical Reason is an ethics, to call to mind only its most significantly explicit moral
concerns.
Thinkers no less remarkable left us important contributions on morals without being able to distinguish between
the timing of the actual philosophical and the ethic moment: Discourse on the Method, in which Descartes
enunciates the rules of clear and concrete thinking, is also a moral; equally and similarly, Hegel's Phenomenology
of
Spirit, which describes the path of consciousness becoming, is not only a philosophy but an ethics too.
2. 2. Ethic meditation displays as its central concern the theme of Good, but this analysis of Good can only be
made by investigating the practical moral life, without recourse to philosophical speculation. Analyses on the
moral
conscience, on the complex relations between ideal and reality, immanent and transcendent, norm and
responsibility,
freedom and responsibility, I and Other, moral autonomy and heteronomy, or on the nature of principles governing
morality, all possess a clear philosophical significance.
Ethics belongs to the philosophical perspective in that it specifically bears in its approach the spirit of synthesis
characteristic of philosophical thinking. In fact, no matter how close ethical meditation may link to various
particular social sciences (psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology), the ethical approach aims at the world
as a
whole, being a synthetic conceptualized theoretical discourse.
2. 3. We have to accept that the clarification of the nature and essence of Good, as the central category of ethics,
can not be made in a purely speculative manner without prior investigation on the real moral life of individuals
and
communities in all its richness and complexity. Although the ethical approach is philosophical, it has a marked
scientific dimension.
For a theoretical expression of the human spirit to be able to be characterized as a science, it must meet several
essential requirements. First it needs to have its own object of study, i.e. a particular reality field on which to
reflect.
For ethics, regarded as moral theory, this stands for the moral spiritual practice of individuals and communities
and

the moral fact. Since this moral fact is just a hypostasis of the social fact in general, it is understandable that
ethics
finds itself in a necessary interdisciplinary relation with various social sciences, with which it shares direct
connections also in terms of commonly used research methodology, a second requirement of a scientific approach.
Thirdly, for a science to justify this claim it must operate with its own concepts that express the essence of the
phenomena under investigation. Good and Evil, moral duty, moral responsibility, honesty, virtue etc. are such
concepts, specific to ethics, even if they are used by other social sciences as well.
Finally, a science cannot support its status as such if it does not highlight laws, i.e. essential links, which are
necessary, objective, relatively stable and repeatable with regard to the phenomena investigated.
These laws, in the field of social sciences, are often understood as principles. Or, it is precisely in their
formulation and theorizing of the moral principles that should govern and substantiate humanity's life and spiritual
practice that philosophy and science meet decisively and unavoidably in the ethical discourse. This is because, on
the one hand, a principle with no claim of universality is not justified morally (since the vocation for universality
is
exclusively philosophical) and, on the other hand, if these principles are not derived from the analysis of the
realities
of moral life, then they are unlikely to impose themselves, as foundation and constitutive basis with universality
character for the ethical conduct.
From such a philosophical and scientific perspective, contemporary ethic research can and must aim at
identifying new moral principles, in accordance with the requirements and necessities of the world we live in.
3. Three moral principles for a global world
The starting point that should guide ethics in a global world is the concern to formulate new principles in keeping
with the realities that humanity as a whole faces and people's chance to assert themselves in the future.
3. 1. The principle of communicative rationality can be considered first and foremost, not because it was more
important but because it expresses the minimal understanding condition among the subjects. Habermas (1986)
associates ethics with the principle of transparent communication as transparent communication furnishes a model
of morality careful to come first through reciprocity and in the absence of violence. This emphasis is particularly
relevant in establishing the importance of ethics in a world that, despite the positive effects of globalization, risks
globalizing the phenomenon of violence as well.
It is intersubjectivity that, through communication, invites closeness, mutual knowledge and responsibility. This
view of intersubjectivity, which allows direct contact between individuals and communities and generates
empathy,
in-depth understanding for different interests and lifestyles, starts from communicative activity, proposing a
nonprescriptive morality whose principles are not related to any imposition of rules and regulations but only to
the
guarantee of inter-understanding.
A new interpretation of practical reason is thus offered, starting from the accountability of human action
through communicative activity. In the very process of its establishment, responsibility is a response to the Other,
at the same time with self-assertion; and, as Levinas emphasized, this intersubjectivity is already found in a sphere
that exceeds the threshold of dialogic and reflexive registers, finding its roots in the infra-verbal communication,
such is the look, for example (Genard, 1992, p. 83, translation mine). This remark is essential: responsibility is
not
solely the result of reason; feelings, gestures are also specific manifestations of responsibility, carrying a
communicational dimension, but not exclusively related to any logic of reason.
Consequently, Habermas (2000) developed a concept of moral consciousness, starting from the communicative
activity in contemporary society, a theory that does not deny anything in its philosophical character, while
renewing
an effective and heuristic dialogue with science, in his case, with Kohlberg's social psychology.
3. 2. The principle of privileged otherness is absolutely new in the field of ethical meditation; whereas the term
of
otherness can create ambiguity, perhaps it would be preferable to use the formula: the Other's privilege in relation
to
One's self. Starting from Plato, otherness has been used as a synonym for diversity in opposition to identity or for
multiplicity in opposition to unity. With modernity, the category of otherness has grown significantly and even
changed direction. In its new understanding, otherness is called the Other, when it is maintained as a pure neutral
find, or the other one, when it is recognized as a core of intentional life, irreducible to self-determination.

The moral philosophy of otherness was developed by E. Levinas, who emphasizes the ethic as a break with what
he calls ontological egoism. Elements of this concept, truly revolutionary in contemporary ethics, can be
summarized as follows: assuming one's own destiny is a fact of life and as such, the theorizing of this issue belongs
to the ontological; assuming the Other's destiny belongs to ethics; however, for this to happen, moral theory must
investigate the depth of the inter-subjective relationship, discovering that in this way, it outlines the milestones
that
indicate the privileging of the Other in relation to the self.1
Exceeding the Christian moral principle of neighborly love, which requires to consider the other "as yourself",
the principle of privileged otherness is based on ascertaining, obviously valid only within ethical horizon, the
asymmetry of the relationship I-Other: the Other is not equal to me but has all the privileges in relation to myself.
In
fact, to be deeply human means being-for-another. This is the essence of human nature Man understood as a
moral
being the primeval origin and foundation: once I discovered the other as more important than myself, I am no
longer responsible for my acts only; to a great extent I am responsible for the Other's own responsibility.
To put it differently, at least ethically, we can never claim that the Other does not concern us. Moral
responsibility is always a responsibility-for-another. In a globalized world, it is what must be taken into account
in
humanity as a whole, in order to give our common future a chance.
3. 3. As we have seen, the contemporary era is facing problems whose solution can be hardly found appealing to
the wisdom of the classics. It's time to think a new ethics based on the principle of tolerance as a solution that
resonates with a social reality less willing to take moral support in the idea of absolute duty and pure obligation.
Moreover, an ethics based on the principle of tolerance, whose supreme requirement is the obligation to the
common future of humanity, may be the solution to smooth the asperities of the globalization process and,
consequently, the solution to survive together in a global world, united in diversity.
Until recently, man's moral problems aimed his immediate relations with peers. Today, the danger of extinction
facing humanity as a species, because of global risk of conflict, human irresponsibility to the natural environment,
the excesses of technology, supports the idea that not only today's humanity, but especially the future one, near or
far, is entrusted to our moral attitude.
The call for tolerance as the only way to avoid conflicts between peoples, cultures and civilizations, that may
endanger the existence of mankind, and as booster for the possibility of building the world of together becomes
thus the premise of building a new moral paradigm that current reality requires.
Our age an era otherwise dominated by relativism almost entirely subservient to the logic of economic
efficiency, often ignores the human dimension in favor of efficacy criteria. It also ignores the fact that the process
of
solving the numerous and serious problems it faces never has one solution, but solutions. Tolerance is able to
harmonize contradictory tendencies of thought and action, granting unconditional respect for others the rank of
principle, thus finding its universality substance2, seemingly diluted by accepting the plurality of opinions,
attitudes
and assumed lifestyles.
Heralded today as a moral principle, tolerance has nothing to do with ethical relativism, it does not signify the
dissolution of moral values as it has its own character of universality itself; it only restructures moral values in a
new
way, systematizes and orders them around some eternal virtues, which become central: measure and balance,
empathy, personal positive initiative3, and the favoring of otherness without harming the Ego's dignity.
One of the most outstanding Italian politicians in the first half of the twentieth century, Luigi Sturzo, lucidly
summarized the moral value of tolerance: ... even in the most heated battles, opponents maintain themselves in
a
sphere of balance, serenity and justice that makes the struggle more humane and contrasts more serious; it restrains
excessive passions; it better highlights ones own mistakes. Tolerance does not mean approval of Evil (underlining
mine) (Sturzo, 2001, p. 133).

4. Conclusions
Representing the minimal condition of human coexistence, tolerance is based on the assumption that no one is
infallible. It ceases to exist where the respect for any person is no longer guaranteed. In politics, tolerance is the
expression of that spirit which refrains from verdicts and does not seek ideological justification, but tries to explain
and accept the reasons and motives of all participants in social life. It is obvious that such an attitude is possible
only
in democratic societies. On the contrary, totalitarian societies always reveal themselves as intolerant.
One fact remains: at least politically, to say about a society that it is tolerant is equal to recognize it as superior to
the intolerant others. And in a globalized world, to accept the escalation and generalization of intolerance is the
same as to enable the globalization of totalitarianism.
References

Abstract
The author analyzes the correlation between the development of society and philosophy of education. The goal of this article
is to demonstrate that social development is more clearly shaped when the process of education is given an appropriate
philosophy, which means the presence of a sense-making and goal-setting strategy (paradigm, religion) of the evolution of
society. The example of a number of the world's leading countries confirms the value of such correlation. Even when in a
crisis, these countries adapt to the modern world's dynamics (globalization, informatization, etc.) with higher speed if they
possess an adequate education philosophy. These leading countries' philosophy of education is underlain by the thesis: the
quality of education defines the quality of life. This outcome can be achieved by drawing on such values as freedom,
creativity, partnership, and trust. World university rankings show that the most successful universities aim at achieving this
outcome and rely on these basic values regardless of all the modern transformations. The author comes to the conclusion that
Russia, represented by its leaders and its government, should, given its desire to join the ranks of the world's leading
countries, should instate substantial indicators of quality of life for its citizens, as well as strive to generate an education
philosophy of similar nature and actively introduce it in the process of education in the first place.
2014. The Authors.Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Tomsk Polytechnic University
Keywords: philosophy of education, social development strategy, globalization, quality of education, quality of life, freedom, creativity,
partnership, trust.
________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Hardly anyone will deny that today Russian society is in the state of transition. It has successfully renounced the
Soviet (communist) organization, but is still searching for its own new Russian incorporation. The fact that this
search is yet to succeed demonstrates the constant restructuring of the society's various spheres (political, military,
pensions, public utilities, etc., including education). It is natural that constant changes do not facilitate stability
(which the Russian authorities claim to be the result already achieved), which adds to certain difficulties in
economic
development and the recent problems in foreign policy. All of these are the factors that make one think one more
time
about the direction of our social development.

2. Scope and methods of research

According to the author, education is a core system of any society (the Russian one being no exception)
and a
conduit for all social intentions. Education cannot exist apart from the society, which makes this system
reflect all the
society's problems. Moreover, education often preserves these problems as it prepares the society's
prospective
members for their future lives in the framework of certain conditions, while supposing that they will act
in under
other conditions that are yet unknown. But his may leave the learners unprepared for the new
circumstances, as they
have not been trained for these (they have not been known). The stability pronounced today is very much
alike the
case of problem preservation, where education plays one of the main stabilizing roles.
At the same time, the world is developing dynamically and the processes of globalization are very active:
in this
situation the absense of timely response (no response to a challenge) makes our society a more and more
backward
formation. There is no saying that Russian society does not react to these challenges. A lot is being said
about the
need for a breakthrough and the priority of innovative development, but there is no sight of practical
implementation
of these appeals. To be more accurate, there are projects and efforts initiated by the president and other
executive
authority that are well-supported, but they lack what can be called a philosophy, a conceptual aspect.
More
importantly, these efforts come from above and do not provoke the necessary reaction from the
population. On the
one hand it understands the necessity of change, on the other it absolutely distrusts the government as a
whole, which
in practice leads to mere mimicking of actual changes.
Addressing the issue of transforming the philosophy of education in Russia as a social development
factor
presents an attempt to analyze the sources of the current situation, and identify the foremost steps towards
solving it
with due account for world trends in social development in general and education in particular.
In order to prove the specified thesis the author pans to use the method of explication that will allow to
clarify a
number of key concepts and processes that take place in the system of education in the context of
formation of an
information society. The method of comparative analysis will be employed to demonstrate the
peculiarities of
philosophy of education as a social development factor in Russia and abroad. Furthermore, the author
will resort to
the potential of etymological analysis to identify additional conceptual meanings of the notions already
known to us.
3. Findings.
First, a few words about the notion of philosophy of education. Works of Russian researchers display a
 developed
tradition of defining what the philosophy of education is. First of all, as a separate philosophical
discipline, and also
as a special area of knowledge that includes theory of education, pedagogy, and psychology of education.
A large
number of approaches have been identified that both deny the status of education philosophy as a separate
discipline,
and assert the opposite (Gershunskii, B.S. (1998)). This paper puts emphasis on understanding of
philosophy of
education not as a specific discipline, but as a certain trend, which represents general understanding and
strategy of
the expected learning outcome related both to the future of every individual member of the society, and
the society in
general. The authors interpretation of philosophy of education is close to T. Kuhns concept of paradigm
(from
Greek example, model, pattern) and is concerned with identifying the main attitudes,
perceptions, and
values that we may not yet reflect well, but have already shaped their image. Such understanding of
philosophy of
education correlates well with the explanation offered in the final report of the international symposium
in Prague
(1990) Philosophy of Education for the Twenty-first Century, where it was defined as determination
of the image
of the world and the place of the human in it (Philosophy of Education for the Twenty-first Century,
1992). I.e.
philosophy of education is a sense-making and goal-setting landmark.
It is important to state that at this moment our society lacks any clear philosophy of education. It cannot
be said
that it does not exist at all, it is present and is rather varied (here are some of such philosophemes: make
a person
successful; train competitive specialists; develop fundamental and applied branches of science in tight
connection
with the process of education, etc.). But the connection of education philosophy with the development
of society and
the aspiration to shape the general principles and values of interaction that would be clear to everybody
(or to the
majority) is clearly absent.
It should be specified that the issue of philosophy of education (its paradigm) is also highly topical in the
rest of
the world today (Nalivaiko N.V., 2012). Formation of the modern society drastically changes the role of
education

and knowledge. Thus, its various characterizations that demonstrate the whole array of its colors are not surprising:
information society, knowledge society, network society, post-industrial society, electronic society, consumer
society, risk society, etc.. Such variety was not known to traditional and industrial societies, as it wasnt to the
systems of education of these types of social constructs. They featured, with a varied degree of intensity, a kind
of
order, according to which it was approximately clear which specialization or profession required which amount
of
knowledge. At the same time it was completely acceptable that having an education (at least secondary or higher)
is
not a required prerequisite. Life was not over without an education, which made it an important, but not an
essential component of societys life (Ardashkin, I.B. 2013). In todays world, knowledge (which also means
education) plays a different role, a defining one. Knowledge becomes a structural unit, a pattern of human
creative
efforts. For a person, to have knowledge is not so much to know how to cognitively image the world, but rather
to
create new images, new structural dimensions of its demonstration (Ardashkin, I.B. 2013). But the modern
system
of education yet fails to handle the worlds new trends. This, among the rest, is an indication of imperfection of
the
existing education philosophy model. As Z. Bauman aptly remarked, the current crisis in education is, first of
all, a
crisis of inherited institutions and philosophy (Bauman Z. 2001).
The essence of the worlds education system crisis lies in that it has not yet readjusted itself (there is no clear
vision of how to do it yet) with regard to the highly dynamic development that the world society is currently in.
People face a large number of problems because they cannot timely adapt to the changes that are happening, since
the
system of education does not prepare them for it. As A. Toffler writes: What passes for education today, even in
our
best schools and colleges, is a hopeless anachronism. Parents look to education to fit their children for life in
the
future. Teachers warn that lack of an education will cripple a child's chances in the world of tomorrow.
Government
ministries, churches, the mass media all exhort young people to stay in school, insisting that now, as never
before,
one's future is almost wholly dependent upon education.
Yet for all this rhetoric about the future, our schools face backward toward a dying system, rather than forward to
the emerging new society (Toffler A., 2002).
This often leads to many traditionally organized education institutions losing the competition to the ones that a
priori could not compete with them by definition. In particular, Z. Bauman notes that under such circumstances,
the
ad hoc, short-term professional training administered by employers and oriented directly to prospective jobs, or
flexible courses and (quickly updated) teach-yourself kits offered through the market by the extra-university media
become more attractive (and, indeed, more reasonable a choice) than a fully-fledged university education which
is no
longer capable of promising, let alone guaranteeing, a lifelong career (Bauman Z. 2001).
Modern worlds dynamism, constant movement, and development become the main feature of the societys life.
Nothing is stable in its various areas, everything changes. A person is in the state of being unrooted, unaware of
the
situation, not able to determine it for oneself once and forever. This is why it happens so that it is practically
impossible in ones life to find something certain that would allow a person to find stability for the rest of life.
This
forces a person (and in future this force will become even more intensive) to constantly retrain, change jobs,
change
ones place of residence, change interests, etc. Even such seemingly crucial social institution as family will,
according to the futurologists, stop playing a significant role in the society. The human itself can be altered with
the
development of biomedical technologies: ones birth, life, need for communication, values, etc.
All familiar boundaries (standards) that used to allow a person to take bearings in the world are being erased.
Today and in future social boundaries will stop being clear landmarks, as everything is getting mixed up. People
depend on each other less and less. A.Toffler and H.Toffler write: Academic boundaries are eroding, too. Against
enormous resistance, more and more work on the campus is becoming transdisciplinary. In pop music, borderlines
between grime, garage, rock, Eastern, hip-hop, techno, retro, disco, big band, Tejano and a variety of other genres
disappear in fusion and hybridization. Consumers turn into producers by remixing or sampling sounds from
different bands, different instruments and different vocals into mash-ups the musical equivalent of collages...
Even sexual boundaries are no longer fixed, as homosexuality and bisexuality blast out of the closet and the small
population of transsexuals grows (Toffler A., Toffler H., 2012).
Such background makes the system of education look like some island of stability. Children go to school, in
school they are, as a rule, in the same classroom (or building), divided into separate classes, and everything is
rather
strictly regulated. In universities the system of education is undergoing substantial changes (academic mobility,

flexible learning pathways, elective courses, etc.), but most of the education is still connected to one location, one
team of teachers, etc.. Its flexibility and dynamism are still falling behind the pace of life.
This way, a person does not receive the training that would allow him to better adapt to the dynamically changing
world. The system of education does not prepare for being unrooted. Hence come the metamorphoses that Z.
Bauman
wrote about, when a system of short-term professional training courses becomes more demanded than a complete
university education (Bauman Z., 2001). Such courses can swiftly and efficiently provide a person with the
competencies necessary at the moment, while university training inherently cannot adjust so quickly and flexibly.
However, it can be stated that even in serious crises the leading economically developed countries (notably the
Western ones) do possess a philosophy of education. And it substantially simplifies their search for optimal
solutions
in education.
This named philosophy of education is simple and clear: the quality of education defines the quality of life.
Important is that it is not just a philosopheme, but an operational system (a sort of religion). This is why by
receiving
a high-quality education, a person thus ensures the high quality of one's life. Hence is the careful attention to the
quality of education in the context of globalization. The Bologna Process itself is a movement for preserving the
education quality standards in the conditions of globalization.
The world, after getting a stronger sense of its own interdependence, felt the need for correlating different
educational systems between each other and forming a common system of criteria for assessing their qualities.
Such
integration started to be implemented through the Bologna Process. This led to the need to intensify the processes
of
mobility, openness, tolerance, and comparison. So it is not coincidental that the European Commission (K.
Gauch)
identifies five main directions that it would like to promote: mobility, acquisition of comparable statistical data,
its
analysis and publication; extending the accessibility of higher education; advancement of transparency tools;
global
measurement of the Bologna Process (Major trends in higher education: global and Bologna measurement, 2010).
Another line in the campaign for the quality of education and preserving its high level is the emergence of world
university rankings. They specifically act as education quality assessment tools. Especially interesting and
essential
are the criteria for developing these rankings. These criteria display the connection between the quality of life and
the
quality of education.
In order to analyze the world university rankings' academic criteria it makes sense to address the three most
renowned of them: 1) Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), active since 2003; 2) QS World
University
Rankings (QS), active since 2000; 3) Times Higher Education World University Ranking Thomson Reuters
(THE)
active since 2010. These rankings evaluate the quality of training in different universities according to the results
of
their activity and rank these universities depending on the values of their achievements.
The reliable indicator of that these rankings provide a more or less plausible assessment of the quality of
university education is the fact that the leading positions are occupied by the same institutions. For example,
Harvard
University takes the first place in ARWU (the Shanghai rankings) ratings for 2013, while taking the second one
in
those of QS and the Times for the same period. The first forty-fifty universities in all of the mentioned rankings
are
generally the same (with some insignificant inconsistencies of their ranks). This vouches for the high quality of
the
education in the universities that hold their positions in the top fifty, while the difference of their positions in
different
rankings only indicates the nuances of their criteria.
The most significant values of these criteria are quite close (related). In a certain sense this asserts the author's
idea of the importance of the philosophy of education (as a paradigm or religion) as a leading factor of social
development, which sounds for the leading countries as the quality of education determines the quality of life.
The
most substantial values of these rankings' criteria scale are related to the factor of reputation. In the Times rating
the
total value of reputation is 34,5% (15% is comprised of a university's academic reputation including its research
activity and the quality of education; the 19,5% being the scientific reputation in certain areas of research).
In the QS ranking the academic reputation makes up for 50%. The ARWU ranking does not have a clear criterion
like this, but has the indirect ones (scientific publications, teaching staff expertise, quality of education) that
comprise
the total of 60% of rating values.
If similar values are included in the reputation structure of the two other rankings, reputation values will also
increase to 70% in the QS ranking and to 67% in the Times ranking. All the other indicators are significant, but
are

second in quantitative assessment values (Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2014; Quacquarelli Symonds
World University Ranking, 2014; Times Higher Education, 2014).
Reputation (academic, scientific, other) acts as an indicator of the compliance of the world's leading universities'
activities to the high quality of training, which, in turn, becomes a guarantee of the high quality of life. The priority
of
reputation reflects that measuring the quality of education was chosen for a reason. Reputation is a complex notion
that supposes the presence of a high-quality product and services, while also including consumer feedback that
involves renown, good name, responsibility, and trust in the provider of a product or a service. Reputation is not
formed at once, it represents reliability that has been tested for a long period of time. In the author's opinion, it is
for
this reason that reputation has the most significant values in world rankings. Thus, by obtaining education in the
world's leading universities, graduates receive the opportunity to find employment with the leading companies,
hold
key positions, receive a big salary, etc. (everything that signalizes a high quality of life), becoming a living
example
that confirms that these particular universities train the most qualified specialists.
Other parameters in the world rankings indirectly imply reputation. In particular, the Shanghai ranking (ARWU)
10% of a university's activity evaluation is formed by the number of the university's graduates who have been
awarded the Nobel Prize, and 20% by the number of its teachers who have earned the Nobel Prize or the Fields
Medal (Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2014).
In the QS ranking the parameters that indicate reputation are the relation of the citation index of research papers
written by the academic staff to the total number of the academic staff 20%; the proportion of foreign teachers
to
the total number of the academic staff 5%; the proportion of foreign students to the overall number of students

5% (these are linked to the reputation that allows to pick and invite foreign teachers and students) (Quacquarelli
Symonds World University Ranking, 2014).
The Times ranking (it is important to note that it has the most parameters for university assessment 13, as
compared to 6 in the other rankings) also has parameters that indirectly indicate reputation, although their values
are
smaller due to their total number. This way, the amount of funding of a university's research activities by third
parties
in relation to the total number of the academic staff 5,5%, the proportion of the number of foreign academic
staff to
that of the local ones 3%; the proportion of the number of foreign students to the number of local ones 2%,
etc.
The criterion of reputation demonstrates that leadership in education has many important aspects. It is impossible
to achieve significant results by focusing only on some specific aspects of the activity. Even having substantial
financial resources, it is impossible to achieve high values by trying to purchase the necessary products and
resources, hire appropriately qualified staff, etc.. Reputation as a criterion means that a good name, reliability, and
trust act as the most crucial sources of social capital than a big, but still one-time income. This exactly is the
measurement with no direct and tangible carrier that comprises what this paper names the philosophy of education,
when social development and the institution of education become living and interacting systems that react keenly
to
the changes that occur inside them (Times Higher Education, 2014).
In this context it is impossible to take no notice of how the university education reacts to the changes in social
reality that were described above (globalization, dynamism, unrootedness, etc.) and viewed as a challenge to
education. The reliability and fundamentality of the university education very poorly relate to the swiftness of the
changes that take place in the world. But this is at the first glance. If one considers the system of education as a
whole, it becomes clear that within its framework the universities are the quickest to react to change. Most
specialists
that deal with the issues of education state that a modern university is a research university, a place where scientific
research and the process of education are integrated the most. Scientific research allows to quickly and reliably
gain
new knowledge, while the process of education gives the opportunity to instantly get it across to future specialists
(a
kind of knowledge fresh off the research conveyor belt). An additional crucial factor for modern-day universities
is
the practice of introducing their findings into production. This is what they call innovation today.
Innovativeness becomes an essential condition for the development of the universities, as they must rapidly react
to the quick changes in society. This is another indication of the significant role of the philosophy of education as
a
factor that binds the development of society to that of the education system. Suh Nam-pyo, President of Korea
Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, to whose leadership the steady progress of this university in the
QS
rating is attributed (2008 95th place, 2011 90th place, 2012 63rd place, 2013 60th place), once wrote:
Social
needs frequently stimulate innovation. Today creation of jobs, economic growth, and solving the immediate
problems

related to energy, environment, water, and sustainability (EEWS) demand innovative solutions (Nam P. Suh,
2010).
This is why universities are trying to develop as research universities that build upon the unity of scientific
research,
educational process, social trust, and partnership.
When forming the demand for innovative development, society must also fully support the universities' efforts in
this direction. Without sufficient support they will not be able to fully succeed in this direction, because they will
fail
to evaluate their findings in research and education. In 2009, on the VII Glion Colloquium (Switzerland), devoted
to
discussion of the future of the world's research universities, this idea was acknowledged as one of the main
conclusion of the final summary A Call to the Universities: The creative thinking behind such innovation will
require the contributions and cooperation of every segment of society, including not only those in government,
but
also those in business, industry, the professions, public life, foundations, civic bodies, learned academies and
NGOs.
But, most of all, it will require the active participation of the universities, for it is in these institutions that the
leaders
of each new generation are nurtured; it is there that boundaries to our existing knowledge are explored and crossed;
it
is there that unfettered thinking can thrive and unconstrained intellectual partnerships can be created. It is there,
within each new class, within each new generation, that the future is forged (University Research for Innovation,
2010).
In fact, this is the idea that represents the philosophy of education that conforms to the world's best examples and
acts as a landmark for education. But the most important is what lies in the foundation of such education
philosophy
that allows to observe the relation between the quality of education and the quality of life.
The following values can be distinguished on the basis of this philosophy of education (University Research for
Innovation, 2010).
1. Social contract (universities still follow an unwritten social contract, generating new knowledge,
training new leaders, informing the public, forming expert practices, etc. In exchange for that the society
supports education, supports it, respects the opinion of university experts, and offers the greatest possible
autonomy and academic freedoms).
2. Integration of discoveries and education (universities must demonstrate the implicitly existing link
between discoveries and education and also train their students to be capable of independently integrating
training and findings in their lives).
3. Leader training (the decisions that are made and will be made by leaders of today's generation and
the following ones will have a decisive impact on the future, that is why the system of education must
raise critically thinking, professionally competent, moral, and responsible leaders).
4. The power of partnership (the interdisciplinary approach and team-based projects are the priority
for the university education in particular, and education in general).
5. Systematic problem solving (any social issue intersects with other issues a lot, thus its solution
must be approached systematically).
6. Creative coalitions (all problems require new approaches, and their development requires creative
coalitions).
7. The need for innovation (innovation is necessary not only in industry, business, and state affairs;
each area of public life must consider the consequences of the implemented innovations).
8. Reduction of privileges (improvement of access to education (including higher education) for the
less privileged groups of population).
9. Freedom as a basis for activity (it is impossible to engage in any kind of activity without feeling
the freedom and respect to oneself and the outcomes of one's activity).
10. Priority of hope (confidence and optimism in overcoming the threats at hand).
In the author's opinion, the most significant values that define the other priorities altogether are freedom,
creativity, partnership, and priority of hope. All the other values are successive in their nature, i.e. are derived
from
the basic ones. The public contract, integration of discoveries and education, leader training, systematic problem
solving, the need for innovation, reduction of privileges all of these are consequences of the deeper attitudes
mentioned above. Freedom, creativity, partnership, and the priority of hope are the main values of the philosophy
of
education in today's world that are indispensable for overcoming the crisis in social development and education

If we address the situation in our country, it is clear that we have to take this path. But there is an issue much
more serious than the difficulties connected with innovative development. Unfortunately, in our case it is very
difficult to identify the availability of such an education philosophy that can be adopted to develop further (as was
described above). Such need is voiced as an idea in Russia. But it is absent among the society's value priorities as
the
regulatory models of behaviour.
This is confirmed by opinion polls. According to the VCIOM (Russian Public Opinion Research Center) poll
Starting in 2014: troubled background in Russia, the problem of education ranks ninth (worries 21% of
Russians)
and is in no way related to the issue of quality of life (which ranks third and 46% of Russians are worried about
it)
(Starting in 2014: troubled background in Russia. Opinion polls).
These values are not generated from above (by the government). And providing that the population does not
have them running in their blood, following the path of innovative development without proper understanding
of
the need for it will be equal to mimicking it, when we display the indicators outwardly similar to the world's
cuttingedge results, but lack the filling, the essence. Like when only the shell of a product is created, but it lacks
the
appropriate content. There is no understanding why does everyone in general and an individual person in particular
need it.
Consider the value of freedom (academic freedoms for education), for example. Throughout Russia's history rich
in events, including those in education, there was hardly a time when academic freedoms were somehow
formalized
in the law for a rather long period of time. After all, introduction of academic freedoms does not mean that they
become actual values. Academic freedoms became widespread neither in the Russian Empire, nor in the Soviet
Union. The university codes of 1804 and 1863 allowed for university autonomy, rector elections, but were never
completely free of the influence of the Ministry of National Education. Furthermore, these codes were soon
replaced
by other codes (1835 and 1884). In the USSR the philosophy of education was built around its class ideology, in
the
context of which academic freedoms were a profanation.
Today in the Russian Federation academic freedoms are codified in the Constitution and warranted by the law
on
Higher and Postgraduate Professional Education of 1996, the law on Education in the Russian Federation of
2012.
However, arguments about the presence of academic freedoms in our system of university education never cease.
On
the one hand, some researchers frequently narrow academic freedoms down to and educational institution's
autonomy
(distinguishing between the academic and the financial and operating freedoms), and on the other hand the others
write that there is a need to control over academic institutions, as most of them are funded by the state. According
to
A. Zapesotsky, a Russian researcher, introduction of university autonomy, as it is understood by certain leaders,
in
Russian context may lead to anything at all: sectionalism, voluntarism, significant deterioration of education
quality
(due to lack of supervision), or simply selling diplomas and even academic degrees. Obviously, in our case such
norm is unacceptable until the introduction of a system of checks and balances (Zapesotsky A., 2005).
One can't but agree with A. Zapesotsky in that in our case not everything is smooth in terms of corruption in
education, as well as its quality. All the negative developments he mentioned truly exist. But will control and
strong
government involvement in this issue facilitate the development of our education? After all, it is obvious that
increase
of control does not contribute to the resolution of the overall situation, but only aggravates it. This also harms the
academic freedoms that have been rather modestly present, at least in the classical universities. And without
academic freedoms there is no chance for innovative development.
Control, incessant reporting, orders from above and from the outside all of these are the factors in education that
impede the development of independence, initiative, creative approach, and partner relations. Academic freedom
suggests the presence of these aggregated qualities as a factor that determines the professional activity in
education.
C.L. Glenn, professor at Boston University, writes: Academic freedom is ... the right of university faculty to
follow
their research wherever it leads them, and to teach their students based upon their own best understanding of the
truth (Glenn C.L., 2000).
It should probably be acknowledged that academic freedom may carry risks, because not overindulging in it takes
a professional in a true sense of the word. Besides everything else it takes readiness of society, which consists not
only in the ability to give freedom, but also to accept the results it brings. According to V.O. Nicholsky, in the
meantime the right for the freedom of speech by no means always promotes the disclosure of actual truth. For this
reason the academic community preserves the right to suppress palpable lie or deliberate fabrication, fight
plagiarism

and pseudoscience (Nicholsky V., 2013). But the mechanism of influence should operate on the principle of
selfregulation, when the academic community itself decides what is truth and what is not, what is fabricated and
what is
not.
Generation of the basic values of education (freedom, creativity, partnership) is impossible without trust as a key
factor of social relations. No kind of control will help to achieve professional stringency and responsibility if there
is
no atmosphere of trust between the principal participants of the collaboration. But trust, as well as reputation,
takes a
long time to build. It requires laying down common, clear, effective rules of interaction. It is possible to build an
atmosphere of trust within the limits of an organization, group of people, or a region, but when it comes to the
development of a country, a nation, trust must become a nationwide idea.
Clear communication in the cooperation of educational institutions and society, as well as building the
dependence between quality of education and quality of life are only possible through trust. Incidentally, it was
the
system of world rankings that demonstrated it. The top tens in all three rankings include universities from the
USA
and Great Britain (the top hundreds in these rankings are also clearly dominated by universities from these
countries)
whose activities and outcomes rely exclusively on the mentioned values of the education philosophy. Trust acts
as a
key indicator of these universities' academic communities and, as a matter of fact, of their societies.
There is another kind of example when the government tries to regulate this process with some success. The
examples of Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and other countries show this possibility, but in their case the state
attempts to generate the aforementioned values from above. And it is only through developing an atmosphere of
trust,
creativity, freedom, and partnership (internal, external, and international) that they manage to catch up, but not to
achieve the leading universities' results. In his evaluation of the prospects for Asia's economic development, Suh
Nam-Pyo, who has already been quoted in this paper, believes that Asian countries should adopt a policy that
would
provide the conditions for innovative ideas and persons in their own nations and encourage immigration of creative
people from other countries. At the same time they should develop policies that would prevent innovators from
leaving their own countries. The country must ensure the conditions of life to their highest quality, including a
strong
education infrastructure and healthcare (Nam P. Suh, 2010).
Yet, Russia is implementing our another interpretation of development. It is declared that Russia's higher
education institutions (at least five of them) must enter the world's top 100 university rankings. On the one hand,
achieving a result that would make your country's universities join the ranks of the world's leading educational
institutions is very prestigious, but, on the other hand, reaching the top 100 should indicate the qualitative changes
in
the development of the society and the system of education. But the way of achieving these qualitative changes
doesn't get much attention. In particular, the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation On measures for
implementation of the state policy in the field of education and science, which, in particular, codifies the task of
entering the top 100, expresses it as follows: c) ensure the achievement of the following values in education:
reaching the 100 percent availability of school education to children up to seven years old by 2016;
at least five Russian universities must enter the top hundred of the world's leading universities according to the
world university rankings by 2020, etc. (Presidential Decree On measures for implementation of the state policy
in
the field of education and science, 2012).
The Decree further continues to list the quantitative numbers that have to be achieved by certain term and
indicator. What catches the attention is the absence of any mention of philosophy of education, the point of
achieving
these values, or the values that might be generated to facilitate the achievement of this result. This document only
states the outcomes that need to be obtained. Perhaps, such documents need not to speak about the meaning of the
components described, but they should have a goal-setting value and should be expressed as a goal. Or they should
be
discussed after a relevant regulatory act comes into effect.
This topic is rather trite, so there is no meaning in going deeper. However, it is worth to note that without an
adequate attitude of the people, without the realization of the essence of such decisions, without a philosophy of
education it is impossible to develop to the full extent (namely without the realization of the personal and the
individual aspects of the need to develop). The development itself should display the result and the quality it will
lead
to, not a predetermined place in the rankings that one has to follow.
Russia (and the system of education) faces a choice: either to take the path already tried abroad, or to seek one's
own way of development. In the first case we will have to change and endeavour to understand the meaning of
these

changes while realizing that our results will be assessed independently of us (as it is done in today's world
rankings).
In the second case we will actually have to find something of our own, something one of a kind (a national idea),
that
might in fact turn out to be an imitation of development because we will be setting the outcome assessment criteria
for ourselves (which very much tempts to give ourselves an undeservedly high grade). This is why the author sees
the
first way as the only possible, as it presupposes the development of the values of trust, freedom, creativity, and
partnership. And this path must be started with the system of education, with building the spirit of creativity, trust,
partnership, and liberty within it, even if at first this will lead to excesses. This is a risk, but slowing down the
development in this direction will lead to even greater risks.
4. Conclusions
It should be thus noted that the social transformations that are taking place in the world actually signalize a crisis
in social development in general and in education in particular. The system of education, which acts as a core
structure in social organization, is currently in a crisis, as it is not yet capable of preparing people for the conditions
of the world's rapid dynamical development. The most adequately reacting component of the education system is
the
higher education (universities). This is the framework where a possible recovery from the current social crisis is
visible. The emergence of research (innovative) universities appears to be the best way of development. This
becomes possible because in the world (at least in the Western world) the society has developed an appropriate
philosophy of education: quality of education defines quality of life. Changes in society and in the system of
education are closely interdependent. For this reason the dynamism of social reality is best overcome by means
of the
values already shaped within classical universities: freedom, creativity, partnership. A condition for successful
application of these values in the society's activities is the atmosphere of trust. Innovative development as a clear
vector of social dynamics is only possible on the basis of trust, freedom, creativity, and partnership.
It should be acknowledged that today's Russian society and the Russian system of education have yet to shape an
appropriate philosophy of education as a conceptual component of their functioning. In Russia, quality of
education
and quality of life do not possess the degree of interdependence that could allow a person to clearly realize how
the
choice of a learning pathway will affect one's future life, what quality of life will it provide. This is why the author
believes that forming an appropriate philosophy of education will be the first step in the way of overcoming the
crisis
in Russian society and Russian education in particular. And the development of such education philosophy should
start by generating the values (first within the framework of higher education, then in vocational, school,
preschool,
and additional education) of freedom, creativity, partnership, and creating an atmosphere of trust. This process
should
be started by the state, because such initiative will hardly find sufficient initial support among the lower levels of
management (which is corroborated by Russia's historical experience). But the state effort should be built around
the
leaders' example and introduced voluntarily, not enforced from above. Otherwise Russia's prospects of achieving
a
stable future appear rather uncertain.
Acknowledgements
The author expresses his sincere gratitude to Tomsk Polytechnic University for the opportunity to take part in
such a valuable scientific research forum.
References