137
theoretical constructions, which were unlikely would be noticeable in the
fragmentary acquaintance with them.
The arguments that have arisen concern a single general scientific topic, which I
have been working on for quite some time during my studies at the university, to
which my thesis has been devoted, and which now, many years later, was able,
apparently, to find a very productive field of applications in the form of
neoconomics, demonstrating a breakthrough character of the research program
of Grigoriev's group not only for the field of economic knowledge, but also the
fundamental importance of this program for the formation of alternatives still
dominant in general scientific discourse paradigms, which, as it turns out,
constitute the meta-scientific basis of economic concepts criticized by Grigoriev.
And since, neither much nor little, the model of scientific and technical progress
itself is the cornerstone of his criticism, the reflection of his own methodological
foundations of neoconomics is an important task within the framework of this
research program. Of course, the concept of the model, including practical
modeling, is a separate subject in the history of science, and here I will only touch
on what, in my opinion, has a direct relationship to neoconomics.
The
theme of my diploma, in which I in 1999, at least tried to connect some vague
insights into a single whole, was called "Dialogue model in the methodology of
science", and was associated with an attempt to abstract the concept of the
model as one of the key concepts of European rationality, concerning potential
opportunities and principles of logical modeling of the situation of dialogue.
Between this, already far enough, the time when the diploma was written, and
the recent acquaintance with neoconomics, there was one more case when I
happened to touch on the topic of dialogue modeling: at the suggestion of a large
expert in neuroinformatics, Dr. A.A. Kharlamov, with whom and whose applied
solutions were very inspiring, I made a presentation at the youth international
conference "Information Systems and Technologies", held on 05-06.09.2012 in
the congress center of the Moscow Technical University of Communications and
Informatics.
The report was called "Methodological requirements for the development of
computer systems working in the logic of dialogue," and was located in the
outline of a research project by Kharlamov, related to the development of
138
algorithms for the spatial orientation of an intelligent robot. In these
short theses,
a hypothesis is presented about the need for a shift in understanding the
structure of the logical model, as it is set today in the classical semantic
formalisms of the foundation of mathematics. However, what does the private
digging of an undergraduate student in the history of science about the features
of the origin of the general scientific idea of the model, and also his assumptions
about the possibilities of logical and semantic structuring of dialogue-
communication-performatives, have to neoconomics? I will try to designate it
consistently.
First of all, if O. Grigoriev is an economic cybernetics, leading the conversation
about economic and state governance, then the talk about the applicability of
logic to neoconomics is not only possible, but, in a sense, necessary. In addition,
one of the key moments neokonomiki is the statement about the crisis of the
economic model of scientific and technical progress (NTP), which began to
neokonomiki coincides with the opinion of the majority of professional historians,
and refers to the "long XVI century" and the New Time. As part of this review
neokonomikoy it recognizes that modern science that gave rise to NTP, there was
partly in denial, in part – on the creative development of the tasks prior to her
size science – scholastic learning, in most developing metaphysics and necessary
for her conceptual apparatus of universals and forged predominantly Aristotle
logic as a rigorous general scientific instrument of rational comprehension. On the
other hand, neoconomics considers applied mechanics as another factor of
scientific and technological progress, initially occupying a "technical position", and
subsequently firmly entrenched in both "scientific" and "technical" components.
However, in the current discussion on the relationship of neoconomics to the
scientific and technological revolution, it will not be considered.
From the "scholastic" aspect of science follows the recognition of the
fact that the
economy itself, in its original, political-economic version, which began to appear
many decades after the "long 16th century" in the person of the physiocrats, and
look back at the very management of man, during this period, as a separate
subject, invariably, among other sciences and disciplines of the New Time, in the
process of its development had to absorb in itself the paradigmatic differences
and criteria of scientificity that accompanied this transition from one f The scope
of science for the other, many of which survived until the beginning of the XXI