Open Rationality: A Quarter of a Century Later (To the 90th Anniversary of Vladimir Schvyrev)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article analyses the contribution of professor V.S. Shvyrev (1934–2008) in the development of the theory of rationality. In the 1970s–80s, he introduced the concept of “open rationality” into the thesaurus of domestic epistemological research, critically starting from the idea of rationality as a compliance with a fixed set of unchanging criteria (“closed rationality”). The “closedness” of rationality is associated with the theological and metaphysical origins of classical rationalism, the crisis of which in the modern world has become obvious. Absolutization of “closedness” leads to dogmatism, which inhibits development. This applies not only to scientific knowledge, but also to all forms of social life, mental and practical activity. Openness of rationality is the result of critical reflection in relation to these criteria, creating the possibility of changing their system. Critical reflection is the cause and, at the same time, a necessary consequence of rationality, the driving force for the development of knowledge and social systems. “Closed” and “open” rationality are related in meaning and are mutually definable concepts that make up “complementarity” (in the spirit of N. Bohr’s methodological principle). Rationality is not only a methodological principle but also a cultural value. Тherefore, its “openness” problematizes the development of culture. In this regard, critical reflection plays the role of a filter that protects against replacing the criteria of rationality with value judgments expressing various private interests. Such an approach to the problem of rationality, outlined in the works of V.S. Shvyrev, opens up the prospect of cultural-historical epistemology, which connects logic and methodology, history and philosophy of culture, philosophy of knowledge. This connection allows for a multilevel epistemological interpretation of special scientific (historical, sociological, and psychological) data on developing knowledge and social systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".