History of Science

Due to newspaper requirements references were deleted from the printed version
https://dt.ua/SCIENCE/chi-ye-naukoyu-filosofiya-nauki-309070_.html (In Ukrainian)
https://zn.ua/SCIENCE/yavlyaetsya-li-naukoy-filosofiya-nauki-315326_.html (in Russian)
Initially, the paper was sent to the general scientific journal “Visnyk of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine” (http://www.visnyk-nanu.org.ua/en) and rejected without any written explanation.

Contents
Basic question was formulated but has not discussed
Is the philosophy of science a philosophy?
What is a science?
New knowledge is the main scientific product
The philosophy of science as one of metasciences about science
Features of the philosophy of science as science

Abstract
The philosophy of science is understood as a meta-science about science. Its domain includes components, subsystems, structures, functions, and interconnections of systems of scientific knowledge as rational means of generating new knowledge. Some scientific criteria, which are satisfied by the philosophy of science: demarcating and modeling its domain, verifying its statements, identifying and solving original problems, describing dynamics of knowledge systems in terms of their components and subsystems, are formulated.
The structure-nominative direction in the philosophy of science has included into systems of scientific knowledge more forms of its differentiation than informal-conceptual, propositional/standard, logical, instrumentalist/operationalist, erothetic/interrogative, semantic, and structuralist directions. Scientists construct a balanced system of scientific knowledge as the device of producing new knowledge by systemically ordering ties between these forms.
The modification of the structure-nominative direction proposes more detailed («microscopic») consideration of compositions, transformations, interdependencies, and dynamics of subsystems of systems of scientific knowledge.
In any particular system of scientific knowledge, the following agreed subsystems are singled out: ontic (initial ideas about the indisputable attributes of realities from the domain of the knowledge system in question); denominative (names of realities both from the domain and names of components of the system itself); language (system of languages of the knowledge system); logistic (means of ordering subsystems); nomic (laws, axioms, postulates that represent the regularities and regularities of the domain, as well as the principles of the system itself); model (abstract models); representative (models whose prototypes are realities from the domain); problem / interrogative or erothetic (problems, issues, tasks that are being formulated and solved); operational (actions with components and structures of knowledge system in question); procedural (rules for performing actions); evaluative or axiological (assessments of components, structures, subsystems and the system as a whole); hypothetical (assumptions); heuristic (useful, but not rigorous means of reasoning); approximative (approximations) and binding (connections of subsystems and their components) subsystems.
The results of the article are useful in the philosophy of science, sociology of science and history of science, as well as in the teaching of corresponding university courses.
Key words: science as a social institution, philosophy of science, meta-science, production of knowledge, system of scientific knowledge, polysystem, components, subsystems, modified structural-nominative reconstruction, scientific criteria.

Due to newspaper requirements references were deleted from the printed version
https://dt.ua/SCIENCE/chi-ye-naukoyu-filosofiya-nauki-309070_.html (In Ukrainian)
https://zn.ua/SCIENCE/yavlyaetsya-li-naukoy-filosofiya-nauki-315326_.html (in Russian)
Initially, the paper was sent to the general scientific journal “Visnyk of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine” (http://www.visnyk-nanu.org.ua/en) and rejected without any written explanation.
Contents
Basic question was formulated but has not discussed
Is the philosophy of science a philosophy?
What is a science?
New knowledge is the main scientific product
The philosophy of science as one of metasciences about science
Features of the philosophy of science as science

Abstract
The philosophy of science is understood as a meta-science about science. Its domain includes components, subsystems, structures, functions, and interconnections of systems of scientific knowledge as rational means of generating new knowledge. Some scientific criteria, which are satisfied by the philosophy of science: demarcating and modeling its domain, verifying its statements, identifying and solving original problems, describing dynamics of knowledge systems in terms of their components and subsystems, are formulated.
The structure-nominative direction in the philosophy of science has included into systems of scientific knowledge more forms of its differentiation than informal-conceptual, propositional/standard, logical, instrumentalist/operationalist, erothetic/interrogative, semantic, and structuralist directions. Scientists construct a balanced system of scientific knowledge as the device of producing new knowledge by systemically ordering ties between these forms.
The modification of the structure-nominative direction proposes more detailed («microscopic») consideration of compositions, transformations, interdependencies, and dynamics of subsystems of systems of scientific knowledge.
In any particular system of scientific knowledge, the following agreed subsystems are singled out: ontic (initial ideas about the indisputable attributes of realities from the domain of the knowledge system in question); denominative (names of realities both from the domain and names of components of the system itself); language (system of languages of the knowledge system); logistic (means of ordering subsystems); nomic (laws, axioms, postulates that represent the regularities and regularities of the domain, as well as the principles of the system itself); model (abstract models); representative (models whose prototypes are realities from the domain); problem / interrogative or erothetic (problems, issues, tasks that are being formulated and solved); operational (actions with components and structures of knowledge system in question); procedural (rules for performing actions); evaluative or axiological (assessments of components, structures, subsystems and the system as a whole); hypothetical (assumptions); heuristic (useful, but not rigorous means of reasoning); approximative (approximations) and binding (connections of subsystems and their components) subsystems.
The results of the article are useful in the philosophy of science, sociology of science and history of science, as well as in the teaching of corresponding university courses.
Key words: science as a social institution, philosophy of science, meta-science, production of knowledge, system of scientific knowledge, polysystem, components, subsystems, modified structural-nominative reconstruction, scientific criteria.

Сорокина Мария Александровна
PhD, научный сотрудник Центра Де Вульфа и Мансьона, Лёвенский Католический Университет (Бельгия)
maria1sorokina@gmail.com
Дыхательная система праведников и акустика в раю. Комментарии на «Сентенции» как источники по истории средневековой науки
В XIII в. комментирование «Сентенций» Петра Ломбардского становится обязательным этапом в обучении богословию. Однако интересы комментаторов не ограничиваются сугубо богословскими темами; по мере эволюции жанра комментария авторов все чаще занимают натурфилософские проблемы. Этим объясняется значение комментариев на «Сентенции» для исследований по истории средневековой науки. В частности, такие источники позволяют судить о взаимодействии научного знания и христианского учения. В данной статье это утверждение рассматривается на конкретном примере дискуссий об эмпирее.
Согласно средневековым богословам эта неподвижная, невидимая и неизвестная астрономам небесная сфера — обитель ангелов и блаженных после Страшного суда. Несмотря на его «теологическую» природу, комментаторы «Сентенций» пытаются вписать эмпирей в существующую научную картину мира. В соответствии с фундаментальной для средневековой натурфилософии теорией зависимости земного мира от небесного комментаторы приписывают данной сфере власть над земными телами. Рассуждая об обитателях эмпирея, они рассматривают пение пребывающих в нем блаженных как физический процесс распространения звука. Как показывает анализ комментариев, теология и физика влияют друг на друга. Эмпирей оказывается подчиненным законам природы, но некоторые научные концепции (необходимость движения для воздействия одного тела на другое; распространение звука в силу увеличения и уменьшения плотности среды) претерпевают заметные изменения.
Ключевые слова: богословие; история науки; комментарии на «Сентенции»; космология; эмпирей.

Maria Sorokina
PhD, Research Fellow at De Wulf-Mansion Centre for Ancient, Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy, Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium)
maria1sorokina@gmail.com
The Respiratory System of the Blessed and the Acoustics in Paradise: Commentaries on the Sentences as Sources for the History of Medieval Science
In the thirteenth century, the writing of commentaries on the Sentences of Peter Lombard became a mandatory part of theological training. Nevertheless, the interests of commentators were not limited to purely theological topics. As the genre of commentary evolved, problems of natural philosophy increasingly attracted the attention of these authors. This explains the importance of commentaries on the Sentences for research in the history of medieval science. In particular, these sources enable us to explore the interactions between scientific knowledge and Christian doctrine. This paper aims to demonstrate the relevance of this statement through a particular case-study: the discussions about the Empyrean Heaven.
According to medieval theologians, this celestial sphere, which is immobile, invisible and unknown to astronomers, will become the dwelling place of the angels and of the blessed after the Last Judgment. Despite of the “theological” nature of the Empyrean Heaven, commentators tried to integrate it into a scientific picture of the world. In keeping with the theory that the terrestrial world depends on the influence of celestial bodies — a fundamental theory for medieval natural philosophy — the commentators attributed to the Empyrean Heaven the power over inferior bodies. Discussing the inhabitants of the Empyrean Heaven, they considered the praises of the blessed as a physical phenomenon of the transmission of sound. As the analysis of these commentaries demonstrates, theology and physics influenced each other. The Empyrean Heaven obeyed the laws of nature, but the discussions about this sphere considerably modified some scientific theories: for example, the necessity of motion for the action of one body on another or the diffusion of sound due to the increasing and decreasing density of the medium.
Key words: Commentaries on the Sentences; Cosmology; Еmpyrean Heaven; History of Science; Theology.

What can science do for us? Can it tell us how we should act? How do material conditions shape scientific work and scholars' lives? One hundred years after Max Weber raised these questions, they are still compelling ones. The four articles in this special issue offer four completely distinct, and new, perspectives on Weber's Science as a Vocation lecture, which they connect to current debates in the history, sociology, and anthropology of science. Inspired by Weber, the authors raise new questions such as does a "scientific vocation" mean the same nowadays as it did a hundred years ago, despite the transformation of universities? What should we do when fact and value cannot be clearly separated, but it is necessary to make decisions? Do modern science and religious faith oppose each other? Is it possible to describe what is without prescribing what ought to be done? The answers to these questions offered here possess a strong interdisciplinary character: this special issue is a conscious attempt to bring sociological theorists into contact with what the humanities and the sociology of science have to say on a key text by an author who is considered mainly as a sociologist.

The aim of the study is to analyse the demands presented by representatives of the Slovak Academy of Sciences (Slovenská akadémia vied, SAV) during the period of liberalization at the end of the 1960s. The scientific elites of this period did not endeavour only to achieve particular aims concerning the functioning of Czechoslovak or Slovak science and research. They also formulated demands concerning the whole of society. They realized that the problems in the functioning of the academy had their roots in the way the socialist dictatorship functioned in Czechoslovakia and so their solution was conditional on fundamental changes to the existing regime or system.

Sull'Uomo Vitruviano. Resoconto divulgativo di un saggio pubblicato nel catalogo della mostra leonardiana di Venezia, Gallerie dell'Accademia, inauguratasi il 16 aprile 2019 («F.P. Di Teodoro, “Vetruvio architecto mecte nella sua op(er)a d'architectura che lle misure dell'omo”: filologia del testo e inciampi vitruviani nel foglio 228 di Venezia).

Статья посвящена изучению положения женщин в науке раннесоветского периода, когда – после принятия ряда мер, нацеленных на обеспечение гендерного равенства в этой сфере, – они впервые получили законодательно закрепленную возможность профессионально заниматься научной деятельностью и преподавать в высших учебных заведениях. Эмпирически статья основана на архивных данных – перечне
женщин-научных работников, проживавших в Москве и Ленинграде в конце 1920-х гг.,
и документальной информации об их социально-демографических характеристиках и статусе в науке и высшем образовании. На основе статистического анализа этих сведений авторы не только впервые описывают состав женского научного (под)сообщества в
критически важный для его становления период, но и пытаются выяснить, обеспечили ли принятые меры реальное вхождение женщин в науку или лишь привели к трансформации «каменных стен» в «стеклянный потолок».

CYPRUS AND THE TURKISH CYPRIOTS FROM ARMISTICE OF MUDROS TO LAUSANNE PEACE TREATY
Due to its strategic importance, Ottoman Empire made plans to conquer Cyprus in 1571. Cyprus has remained under Ottoman rule for 307 years from this date. During this time, different ethnic and religious communities living in Cyprus lived together in peace. It's up to the 19th century. Ottoman Empire entered the decline process from the XIX. century. The non-muslim communities in Ottoman Empire were particularly influenced by the French Revolution, and they began their struggle for independence. In addition, the imperialist states have begun to imagine their plans on the Ottoman territories in order to protect the interests of the raw-material needs and the exploits that have emerged as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Cyprus island was directly affected by developments in the XIX. century. Great Britain has implemented plans to seize Cyprus when it realizes that its interests in the Eastern Mediterranean, especially in the Middle East, have fallen into danger after the war between Ottoman Empire and the Russian Tsarist. In this context, the treaty signed with the Ottoman Empire in 1878, Cyprus administration was temporarily abandoned to Great Britain. British sovereignty in Cyprus continued as a custodian until the World War I. Great Britain cited Ottoman Empire's participation in the war in Germany, and annexed the island on 5 November 1914, and the custodian turned it into a permanent. The Turkish Cypriot community, either after the temporary transfer of the island to the British management, or after the annexation, has faced the Enosis attempts of the Greek Cypriots. The Turkish Cypriots did not react much from the very beginning against the Enosis activities of the Greek Cypriots. The underlying reason for the unresponsiveness of the Turkish Cypriot community has been the assessment of Ottoman Empire that sooner or later Cyprus will be back. However, this idea first turned into an annexation of the British in 1914, and then the end of the Armistice of Mudros signed at the end of the World War I. In response to these developments, the Turkish Cypriot community decided to intervene in the process to determine their own future and they have made important initiatives in this direction. The Turkish Cypriots has decided to determine their own future in the face of these developments. They had made important attemps during the period from the Armistice of Mudros to the Lausanne Peace Treaty, which ended the World War I, and they wanted to be decisive in decisions about their own future.