CC BY
11PHILOSOPHICAL SCIENCES | ФИЛОСОФСКИЕ НАУКИ
EPISTEMOLOGY OF RELIGION IN THE LIGHT OF ACADEMIC RELIGIOUS
STUDIES MODERN APPROACHES
Tregub G.A.
H. Skovoroda Philosophy Institute, Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences, Kyiv
ABSTRACT
In the light of contemporary academic discussions about methods and theories in the studies of religion this paper argues that the contemporary academic study of religion should create a kind of sub-discipline (epistemology of religion, for instance) in a form more closely resembles contemporary philosophy of science, or philosophy of mind. It's shown by example of Poznan historical methodological school how particular sphere of socio-humanitarian science might use practical part of philosophy as a source for its new methods and approaches in more relevant, practical, far-ranging, and productive way. New heuristic project for academic studies of religion thus might expand the horizon of mentioned discipline as well as many still abandoned spheres in it.
Keywords: philosophy, epistemology of religion, contemporary academic religion studies, scientific paradigms, noesis strategy.
Present scientific noesis at the beginning of the XXI century facing complex systems' classic and non-classic methodological measures and approaches limitation in natural, social sciences and humanities. Simple systems which are possible to study via single discipline, are replaced by questions of complex, big, self-regulated and self-evolved systems, and its solution needs resources of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches and methodologies. This is also true in the case of religious studies.
Sciences about religion lose a lot in contemporary world of post non-classical way of thinking, when it still trying to stay in traditional, canonic frames of topics and objects to analyze or to operate. To be alive and actual, science should find contemporary answers for set of questions, or, in Thomas Khun's terms, dominant scientific paradigms should continuously change each other. There is a strong doubt that it's still possible to open and describe, as Mirchea Eliade did, huge massive of new facts about religions as complete phenomenon in the world. The fact is that adequate general theory of religion does not exist since 1970th, after the crisis of classical phenomenology of religion, as well as theoretic religious studies staying in stagnation now. Without adequate theories religious studies, especially its practical division, are doomed to become a type of essayistic, fact fixation. Last but not least, this issue is related to the autonomous functioning of religious disciplines (for example, the history of religions, sociology and psychology of religion haven't any common theoretical base), with opposition of phenomenology of religion and philosophy of religion, to the lack after Paul Tillich and Mircea Eliade of systematic theology and religious studies synthesis attempts. Till now attempts of phenomenology of religion and comparative theology to create a common concept of religion are repeating, but it should be admit: they did not have a scientific success and in the last decades of the XX century came to naught. All this problems corresponds straightly to contemporary philosophy of socio-humanitarian knowledge as well as epistemology of it.
According to Ukrainian researcher of religion Volodymyr Voloshyn "interpretation of religion starts from the metaphysics, from the very genesis basic and preconditions of religion,
its sense, structure and terminal purport (if any is)" [1, p. 9]. But action only with religious noumenons and phenomenons conceptual design of is very narrow for researchers. So here arising two blocks of problems that can be solved in the borders of interdisciplinary synthesis. First part of it includes questions about nature, sources, adequacy, and value of religious knowledge. Second part, which is more actually for this article, is question of "decipherment", objectification of knowledge mentioned before in the boundaries of religious sciences, as well as question about noesis strategy, if we're going to research religion. The truth is so that theoretical religious sciences are impossible and incomplete without epistemology, because every research attempt needs logic-methodological reasoning and justification. Amongst many discussions on the pages of "Method and theory in the study of religion" scientific journal Bryan Rennie from Westminster College wrote: "The simple fact is that there is a damaging and unjustifiable divide between philosophers of religion and critical theorists of religion and there is a great deal of potential in encouraging them to work together much more closely—to reintegrate philosophy into the study of religion and to restore the philosophy of religion to a more significant position in the academy of religion in a form that more closely resembles contemporary philosophy of science, or philosophy of mind" [2, p.116].
Searching for methods and epistemology upgrading isn't distinctive feature only for contemporary religious studies, but for all nowadays humanities as a complex part of mankind's knowledge. As contemporary Polish methodologist of history and arts Eva Domanska claims, arts needs find new paradigm by themselves, and religious studies also do. One of the core principals of contemporary religion studies is to be neutral in scientist's opinions and thoughts about object belonged to religion field. Such objectivity involves complex of different components, such as recognition plurality in opinions and analyses tools (methods). Ruther often it's forgotten that there are lot of social practices or intrinsic processes in religion that still aren't to say about. For example, it might be different types of divergent process in religion and comprehension what belong to such processes or not. In this paper we would like to stop on
some of methodologies which might help in scientific processing of different data, which might give new directions to creation operative theoretical narration about religion and processes in it.
It should be stressed that there are only a few more or less complex works on the current issues namely epistemology and different cognitive strategies in contemporary religious studies. Here should be mentioned work of Ukrainian researcher of religion Volodymyr Voloshyn "Epistemology of religion: Ontological assumptions, key concepts, cognitive strategies" (2012) and Belorussian academician Andriy Danilov "Unity and diversity of religion. Analytical religious sciences and theology of dialog" (2004). More or less complete picture of contemporary world discussions lead in the field of methodology and theories in the study of religions might be find on the pages of such academic journals as"Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion", "Method and Theory in the Study of Religion" and so on. Among Western improvements represent contemporary situation of new cognitive ways in religious studies such compendium as "Religious studies. A global view" (2010) edited by Gregory D. Allies, and "Contemporary theories of religion. A critical companion" edited by Michael Stausberg (2009). There're more of them in different fields of arts, for instance, in history studies. To achieve the aim and to solve various tasks during the research it was used philosophical and general scientific methods (historical, socio-cultural, dialectical, method of system and structural-functional analysis, comparative and many others). The methodological basis of the research is made of the principles of objectivity, consistency, integrity, unity of historical and logic, determinism etc. The method of historical reconstruction made possible to determine the logic of incipience, functioning and prospects of further development new approaches and methods in religious studies and possible sources for that, for example philosophy. Systematic method promoted the disclosure of pluralism integrity in scientific knowledge, revealing the relationship between all its components, identification of the main, essential in its functioning.
Approximately last 20 years for humanities was a time to gather the forces to ask the question about their current situation, and what should they do to go on, to exist in future. It's also true for religious studies as essential part of human sciences. As we take a look on the history of philosophy or sciences, we can find without problems situation of current crisis. It wouldn't be untrue or absolutely incorrect to say that the main reason why such stupors happened is obsolescence and discrepancy to current time of those things we call nowadays as paradigm and neglecting of methods and approaches. Such finding a way out of such deadlocks leads to paradigm reset and to new turns in sciences or humanities.
The topic of future of humanities today has passed from the abstract reflection into rather concrete proposals field. Humanities always correspond in many ways with its simultaneous perpetual object and subject - human being's way through the time. New and obsolescent trends, research options, approaches, categories and perspectives are arising from changes in the world and reflecting them.
One of the most distinct outlines of the contemporary humanities is proposed by Polish methodologist of history and arts Eva Domanska, one of the most famous contemporary representatives of Poznan historical methodological school. For at least last 40 years scientist from this research center deals with not only specific historical questions, but also with problems of history and humanities methodology. Such "average
temperature in the chamber" tests became possible for historians only because their cooperation with philosophers, who gave them wider options and tools for vision and action not only in the narrow and the straight field of historical studies.
"The weak link in humanitarian researches I believe to be the theory, which is often not just detached from reality that is changing, and discussions sustained in the humanities, but also on the research practices of different humanities", - Eva Domanska is claiming in her last book "History and contemporary humanities: a study of theory of knowledge on the past" [3, p.203]. Also she noticed that during her university studying as historian despite lot of courses dedicated to historical noesis and its special instruments nobody taught her as a student how to build theories. That's why today such methodology is needed, which might be called practical, appearing on the data analysis basis and is made by this purposes. This isn't particular problem of contemporary historical disciplines, but social sciences and humanities in general. This is such kind of circumstances, in which religious studies have particular place. Problems start from its object clear definition, concepts of «religion» (singular) and «religions» (plural), that requires adequate general the-ory of religion, which does not exist since 1970th after the crisis of classical phenomenology of religion. Last but not least, this issue is related to the autonomous functioning of religious disciplines (for example, the history of religions, sociology and psychology of religion, that haven't any common theoretical base), plus antithesis of phenomenology of religion and philosophy of religion, and factual absence after Paul Tillich (and Mircea Eliade) of attempts dedicated to systematic theology and religious studies synthesis. Thus one from multitude of possible visions about religious studies is that this part of humanities from the very beginning of its existence as independent science has particular feature of producing fragmented knowledge about uncertain object. The fact is that plurality or singularity, "religion" or "religions" terms matter a lot when we trying to choose adequate cognitive strategy for them. Besides two types of artificial limitation still are above all religious sciences: desire of scientific work only in the field of practical manifestation of religion/religions and narrow "corridor vision" of conventional topics, without analyzes of different kinds of margins. It might be suspected that second of the named limitation is a kind of theology legacy, when lot of unconventional top-ics and phenomenon of particular religion tradition left behind the attention of possible investigator, making our knowledge poorer. All this remarks have sense if we want not only descriptive level, but such thing as level of prognostic, and studying of more complex things.
The most problematic question is where and how it's possible to find tools, methods and approaches for aim described above? In our opinion it's possible to offer cognitive strategy "borrow and test", namely interdisciplinary approach. Here amendment should be done only to the process of concrete research and practice as a measure of truth.
Also here is a question what is a "paradigm" means in contemporary situation of humanities? So, professor Domanska is convinced that the term "paradigm' is still a working concept given here for a bunch of reasons. In formulation of 1960s theory of scientific revolutions, Tomas Kuhn expressed fairly stereotypical understanding of science and the relationship between the natural and the human sciences. Because of this use of the term "paradigm" should be historicised and probletimised now as well as the whole theory of scientific revolutions. It is
important to note that under the influence of critic Kuhn was inclined to replace the concept of "paradigm" by concept of "disciplinary matrix". Therefore, it's correctly to describe paradigm for research as a model or disciplinary matrix, a set of specific theories and concepts that outline interpretative framework for research conducted at a particular place and time by scientists. The mentioned academicians have to "share the ontological, epistemological, ethical and aesthetic premise studies are the result of using such a matrix" [4, p.175].
Modern humanities and social sciences are not dealing with homogeneous paradigms, but rather with different directions, trends and scientific approaches, that some of them have in common. Today we have a situation where the development of theories heralds the emergence of new facts. Theory lacks imagination and intuition, it is in a state of stagnation following the facts and trying to explain the facts through founding competing theories. Increasingly the object of interest in humanities is recalcitrant phenomena and problems that often require complementary research approaches that combine the humanities, social and natural sciences. Theories of modern humanities face the problem of incommensurability towards change of reality, as well as research results with public expectations, and also re-ligious studies as part of humanities do.
All questions and problems mentioned above corresponds and turn us back to philosophical concepts of rationality as it seemed by Rene Descartes and overcoming of suspicion between humanities and philosophy as such, as this problem is described by contemporary French philosopher Olivier Mongin. British philosopher Ernest Gellner while analyzing Descartes thoughts, pointed on "curse of custom and example": all things that "are true via opinion of example and custom" [5 ], should be under doubt. Gellner points that elaboration from mistakes claims elaboration from culture, from "example and custom" [6, p.9]. This positions corresponds with second artificial limitation above religious studies we have mentioned before, namely narrow "corridor vision" of conventional topics, without analyzes of different kinds of margins because of tradition and convention. French philosopher Olivier Mongin concentrates his attention at relationships gap between humanities and philosophy: first realized itself in opposition to second named. But besides this gap we should noticed process of rapprochement of human sciences and philosophy, overcoming of suspicion tradition, new configurations of questioning and new recognition between humanities and philosophy and vice versa [7, p.237]. It should be recognized that without cognitive and investigative schemes, epistemology and theory of knowledge developments, created in the field where philosophy operates, humanities, particularly religious studies are disabled, as well without methods and approaches from other humanities and social science, plus natural sciences as well.
The way out of the situation of methodological and theoretical weakness for religious studies might be copied from examples realized in studies of history. Thus German theorist of historical science Reinhardt Kozellek, who conceptualized theory of temporal lairs, was a pupil of German philosopher Hans Georg Gadamer, as well as adapter of Michel Fucout's ideas. It's also true in situation of Wojciech Vzhosek, well-known contemporary researcher of historical approaches and historiography, a colleague of Eva Domanska. Their scientific supervisors were three Polish professors: Jerzy Topolski, a famous historian, professor of Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan in Poland, who specialized in history of historiography
and theory and methodology of history, as well as Leszek Nowak, a Polish philosopher (author of three philosophical concepts: the concept of idealization of science, non-Marxian historical materialism and negativistic unitary metaphysics) and Jerzy Kmita - philosopher and cultural theorist. These three academicians belonged to the Poznan methodology school, and were trying to recover the logical and methodological heritage of the famous Lwow-Warsaw Philosophic School, represented by Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz, logician and methodologist Adam Wiegner, Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz. This lineage been continued by Jerzy Giedymin, a pupil of Ajdukiewicz, and then by Jerzy Kmita, who was the first Director of the newly founded in 1969 Polish Institute of Philosophy. First common work by Jerzy Kmita and Leszek Nowak, dedicated to the problems of creation and development of theories, methods and approaches in humanities, was "Studies on the Theoretical Fundaments of Human Sciences" ("Studia nad teoretycznymi podstawami humanistyki" Poznan, 1968). In this work, which was greatly influenced by the philosophy of Karl Popper as interpreted by Jerzy Giedymin, the authors tried to reconstruct logically the explanatory structure of humanities in order to organize the theory of rational action. So, all further researches conducted by Eva Domanska, Wojciech Vzhosek or their colleagues from third generation of Poznan methodological school academicians in the field of researcher of common approaches of humanities (or historical approaches as more specified field of analysis) or current situation in humanities would be impossible without two previous generations of philosophers, who were working a lot in the sphere of methodology making. This wide and long historical overview placed here to show a picture of real cooperation between philosophy and history, which lead both to consequence such as methodological resurrection of history. Nowadays it's quite correct to talk about contemporary historical studies as a mirror and critic of those processes in humanities we have right now, and we religious studies as well.
Among first attempts of turning back to creation adequate general theory of religion, which does not exist since 1970th after the crisis of classical phenomenology of religion, as it was mentioned above in this article we should marked short, but, as it seems, program article "The dreams of theology and the realities of Christianity" by Wouter Hanegraaff, professor of History of Hermetic Philosophy and related currents at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. It should be stressed that he's trying to lead on the systematic studies of religion. Do we really know what exactly one or another religious tradition, organization or trend is? If we're talking about Christianity, and ask about this phenomenon one from theologian, more percentage that he or she will talk about theology, or complex of faith norms and prescriptions. So, we have situation that the theology point of view occupied mostly the whole field of information about Christianity how it is. Are researchers of religion really so independent from faith dogmas, options of analyses and topics how it should be? More or less not. "The difference between the theological and religious studies perspectives is not only whether the researcher is methodologically agnostic, whether he uses a critical approach to the sources and so on. This difference also deals with how the researcher approaches the contrast between religious doctrine and practice. Tendency to regard the doctrine as a largely autonomous in relation to practice and see the religious history primarily as a history of its official beliefs, paying little attention to those social norms that it establishes, is the absolute opposition to the religion of the research position",
- Hanegraaff claims on the very beginning of his writing [8, p.709].
Second important point which should be noticed here is such research position about Christianity as object of study: always, when we're talking about this religion, we're talking about religion which is alive. "Christianity will continue to evolve, just as it did within its history, in new ways, including various syncretism of outside of Christianity origin. It will happen regardless of the attitude of theologians". Here we have new option for researchers' point of view: religion which one is lived in, as part of individual and collective experience that is created as result of life as continuing process. Such idea isn't new for social sciences, and refers to Husserl tradition of Lebenswelt concept, adapted by Bjorn Kraus, German philosopher who unfolds epistemological theories for social work [9].
Ruther often it's forgotten that there are lot of social practices or intrinsic processes in religion that still aren't to say about. For example, it might be different types of divergent process in religion and comprehension what belong to such processes or not. Wouter Hanegraaff in his narration defines some problems, but doesn't give any clear guidelines about methodology and approaches. According our point of view, if we recognize that religion/religions as object of investigation of religious studies is/are living system, results of philosophy and epistemology as key source for means of understanding of such complex concept should be taken first of all into consideration. Here theory of autopoesis developed by two Chilean epistemologists and cognitive biologists, the founders of the philosophical direction of radical constructivism Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela in 1960-1970 might be helpful as landmark. The main researches questions that they set in "Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living" (1991) and "The tree of knowledge. Biological basis of human understanding" (1992) were about what form philosophical point of view, is life, and about the principal features that distinguish the living from the dead. This question has been given a response that life in nature is organized into a system that can reproduce itself. Both scholars have adopted the term and defined autopoetic system as «system which recursively reproduce their own items by its own». Central for this concept is an idea that originated from biological studies: various elements of the system interact with each by means of their system elements reproduces itself.
The theory of autopoesis, which they place on the basis of biological re-search, Chilean epistemologists derive a generalization which is valid not only for biological living systems. In fact, stating that Maturana and Varela offer new philosophical non-idealistic interpretation of what the consciousness and the human cognitive capacity are. They put forward the thesis that the world itself is the objective, while offering a hypothesis, which states that people with other like-minded are producing this world through the process of his life in a world created by people, who face language and through the coordination of social interactions. Note that culture, politics, religion is also part of the man-made world, and they are deployed, change in quality over time, are viable because they are somehow transmitted through language and somehow related to the sphere of social interactions or interactions.
In our opinion, generalizations and conclusions obtained by Maturana and Varela in the course of their studies are important for such reasons. The findings of their research, trans- disciplinary nature of the autopoetic concept is a unique
synthesis of philosophy, neuroscience and cognitive science, which is one possible explanation for the fundamental principles and mechanisms, which functioning not only as alive from a biological point of view of the, but also as socio-cultural systems, including religion.
Also the notion of living is directly related to the concept of cognitive. By Maturana and Varela living systems are cognitive systems, and living as a process is a cognitive process. From this perspective, any actions that take place in mentioned systems are defined as cognitive, and thus, life and cognitive ability are one and the same. Knowledge, different cognitive abilities, in this light serves as self-referent, autopoetic process. Therefore, all that can be said about life also applies to cognitive processes as such.
In order to live, a system has always to continue creation of their internal structural elements. If the process stops reproduction system persists, particularly in the case of biological systems refers to the death. More important is the fact that as long as it is able to generate new elements, it remains alive. The fact that the structure of the system in this case is caused by the same, called to be a process of self-organization. Thus, as German sociologist and philosopher Niklas Luhmann shows, avtopoesis is in the same relation to the play elements such as self-organization to identify structures.
One of the central concepts that Niklas Luhmann develops in his later works, in which position he tries to explain the evolution of the philosophy and processes that characterize the society and its subsystems, namely their religion as a living system is the concept of autopoesis. For Luhmann autopoesis, is a term to describe the procedure of self producing and reproduction. Autotopoetic systems thus is a one reproducing itself through its internal resources, not involving in this process any structural components originating from outside of the system, or belong to a different set of possible system or systems. Luhmann develops this concept further by showing that it can be applied not only to the purely biological systems, but also to a large number of social and cultural systems which he analyzes in his writings, such as "Concept of purpose and system rationality: The function of the purpose in social systems" (1968) or "Social Systems" (1984). Like, for example, the plants developing, living and reproducing itself by the fact that they displaces its own cells which resources exhausted, and produced independently, socio-cultural system, including religion, can reproduce the elements of their own on the basis of it already has, by variations, restabilizations, selections and when necessary to ensure the conditions for the maintenance of said system in a viable form.
Cases mentioned above aren't extraordinary. As Bryan Rennie claims, philosophers, such as Daniel Dennett, Owen Flanagan, and the Churchlands, have played an important role in the rise of cognitive science, by helping to think through concepts and helping experimentalists to refine their research. It is worthy of comment that book "Rethinking Religion: Connecting Cognition and Culture", which has been said to have launched the cognitive science of religion, was the "fruit of the exemplary collaboration between philosopher Robert N. McCauley and scholar of religion E. Thomas Lawson" [10, p.28]. So there is also a way to bring philosophy back to the global study of religion, but not as the form of abstract thinking, but which might broadening its bases to cover the application of a respectable philosophical method to all of the areas to which it can profitably be applied.
References
1. Волошин В.В. Ешстемолопя peiirii: онтолопчш при-пущення, KiKHOBi концепти, пiзнавальнi стратеги: [моно-грaфiя]. - Донецьк: Вид-во ДонНУ, 2012. - 447с.
2. Rennie B. After This Strange Starting: Method, Theory and the Philosophy of Religion(s) // Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, 22 (2010), p. 116 -135.
3. Domanska, E. History and the Contemporary Humanities: Studies in Theory of Historical Knowledge, - Nika-Tsentr, Kyiv, 2012. - 264 p.
4. Kuhn T. S. The structure of scientific revolutions. -Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. - 206 p.
5. Descartes R. Discourse on the method of rightly conducting the reason, and seeking truth in the sciences. - Classic Books America, 2009. - 120 p.
6. Gellner E. Reason and Culture: the historic role of rationality and rationalism. - Blackwell, 1992 - 193 p.
7. Mongin O. Face au scepticisme. Les mutations du paysage intellectuel. - Paris, Hachette-Litteratures, 1998 - 406 p.
8. Hanegraaff W. The dreams of theology and the realities of Christianity // Haers J., De May P. (eds.) Theory and conversation: Towards a Rational Theology - Leuven: Peeters, 2004. - p. 709 - 733.
9. Kraus B. The life we live and the life we experience: Introducing the epistemological difference between "Lifeworld" (Lebenswelt) and "Life Conditions" (Lebenslage)// Social Work and Society. International Online Journal. Vol. 13, No. 2, 2015. Accessed at: http://www.socwork.net/sws/article/view/438/816
10. Engler S., Gardiner M.Q. Religion as superhuman agency// Contemporary Theories of Religion: A Critical Companion. -London and New York: Routledge, 2009. - p. 22-38.
ГНОСЕОЛОГИЧЕСКИМ СТАТУС ПРОЦЕССА МЕТАФОРИЗАЦИИ
Береснева Н.И.
Пермский государственный национальный исследовательский университет,
профессор
EPISTEMOLOGICAL STATUS OF THE PROCESS OFMETAPHORIZATION Beresneva N.I., Рerm State National Research University, Prof., Ph.D., Рerm АННОТАЦИЯ
Автор анализирует процесс укрепления гносеологического статуса метафоризации в связи со сменой научной парадиг-ABSTRACT
The author analyzes the process of strengthening the epistemological status of metaphorization in connection with the change of scientific paradigm
Ключевые слова: метафора, научный дискурс, методология науки, научная парадигма Keywords: metaphor, scientific discourse and methodology of science, scientific paradigm
Постановка проблемы. Гносеологический статус процесса метафоризации к и метафоры как таковой сегодня становится предметом особого внимания философии науки и теории познания. Это может быть связано как с лингвистическим переворотом, произошедшим в философии ХХ в., так и с необыкновенным ростом исследовательского интереса к проблеме устройства и функционирования языка, с осознанием особой роли метафорических образований в разных типах дискурса и в разных сферах культуры. Кроме того пересмотр значения метафорических переносов в контексте гносеологического процесса обусловлен сменой традиционной гносеологической проблематики и изменением целостного образа науки в постнеклассический период.
Вопрос о том, «как возможна метафора» в научном дискурсе, оказался в центре современных дискуссий о проблемах научной рациональности, о критериях научности и месте науки в современной культуре. Является ли метафора вспомогательным инструментом или она лежит в основе научной онтологии, какова мера метафоричности науки, преодолев которую, наука перестает быть таковой - это вопросы, вокруг которых концентрируется обсуждение роли метафоры в гносеологическом процессе.
Цель: Обоснование положения о том, что смена представлений о науке как таковой, отказ от классического на-укоцентризма, размывание границ между наукой и другими познавательными практиками влечет пересмотр норм методологии, концептуальных средств, к которым относится и метафора. Метафора из маргинального эффекта речевых
конструкций научного дискурса переосмысливается в базовый элемент в научном творчестве.
Основная часть. Обсуждение гносеологического статуса метафоры ведется в контексте сосуществования ряда различных моделей науки, каждая их которых основана н принципиально разных исходных философских установках и методологических основаниях. Это и концепция науки, базирующаяся на аналитическом подходе, и когнитивист-ская программа, и герменевтическая парадигма, и постмодернистский проект, и др. Указанное многообразие концепций соответственно соотносится с многообразием научных дискурсов, «языков». Таким образом метафора получает возможность трактовки в широком диапазоне: от «гносеологического девианта» (в рамках классического идеала научности) до единственно возможного способа представления знания (в постмодернистской программе), от кропотливого вычеркивания метафоры из научного языка с помощью различных редуцирующих логических процедур до ее полной легитимации и, наконец, до представления ее в качестве базового элемента познавательной деятельности.
Современная философия и методология науки стоит перед вызовами, которые обусловлены размыванием устоявшихся прежних норм и идеалов. Произошедший переход от науки классической к современной — это не просто сдвиг в проблемных и предметных областях, а формирование новой исследовательской культуры. Современный научный дискурс характеризуется поистине фундаментальными смещениями, преодолеваются ранее выработанные и устоявшиеся концептуальные рамки классики. Прежде всего
