Liberal Arts in Russia EN-rus logo
russian flagRussian
ISSN 2305-8420 (Print)
ISSN 2312-6442 (Online)
Current Issue

The phenomenon of transdisciplinary cognitive revolution

Liberal Arts in Russia. 2016. Vol. 5. No. 2. Pp. 91-107.
Get the full text (Russian)
Bazhanov V. A.
Ulyanovsk State University
42 Tolstoy St., 432700 Ulyanovsk, Russia
Kraeva A. G.
Ulyanovsk State University
42 Tolstoy St., 432700 Ulyanovsk, Russia


Phenomenon of transdisciplinarity was put into the fore of analysis rather recently. In the article an attempt is made to find out whether it is possible to attribute this phenomenon not only to a science (or even non-classical post-non-classical) of the 21st century, or we have here the case where some scientific realities come to the attention of researchers with certain delay and has its value for the culture in general? It is possible to judge even the emergence of a kind of cognitive revolution affecting both science culture. We need to find out what is meant by a transdisciplinarity, and how it differs from the inter- or multiransdisciplinarity. In the study the method of historical reconstruction, combining elements of presentism and antiqurism, was implemented. This method allows us to interpret historical events in the context of a specific level of knowledge, and at the same time to evaluate them in terms of modern ideas related to transdisciplinarity, inter- and multidisciplinarity. System-structural method , focused on an integrated analysis of the dynamics of development of cognitive processes in culture was implied as well, and the method of comparative analysis, which is aimed at comparing different but conceptually similar processes in various areas of conceptual art practice. It is in the framework of (disciplinary based) paradigm adopted a tacit agreement among scientists about the validity and effectiveness of research methods and techniques of inquiry. Within the (disciplinary based) paradigm, which presupposes certain fundamental principles, goals, and certain values shared by the scientific community, the novel sprouts of radical ideas once emerge. The scientific revolution here means a radical revision of the admissibility of accepted and proven methods, goals and values that are common to the members of the scientific community. Typically, new theories and concepts proposed and already mastered new scientific community, which is gradually replacing its representatives on the key command (administrative) altitudes. The kernel of scientific community in fact is a style of thinking that is emerged in the context of a particular discipline, and then experience expansion in the form of discursive practices at a wide space of science and culture due to the novel cognitive schemes open the way to synthesize various research domains into a certain integrity. There is no question of the scientific revolution in the sense of Kuhn, since any significant goals and values of the scientific communities are not affected. Nevertheless, in some sense cognitive revolution taking place, the revolution of transdisciplinary type. The adoption of a new style of scientific thinking often gives rise to new types of objects and directions of cognitive activity, a new type of explanation that require new types of research proposals and cultural activities. Thus, the main idea of this article is that along with the Kuhn type scientific revolutions, transdisciplinary type scientific revolutions are conceivable, and even transdisciplinary cognitive types. This revolutions manifests in a change in style of reasoning, and it results in the expansion of this style to wide space of science and culture through the cognitive schemes and techniques, which enables to synthesize research and art activity in some integrity. Adoption of a new way of reasoning and the transition to new discursive practices generates new types of research facilities, new mechanisms of explanation, new cultural blueprints and instruments. Cognitive activity, based on a new style of thinking, involves multidisciplinarity, formation of new scientific and cultural institutions, and, therefore, causes a noticeable social change. Based on an analysis of interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary processes in modern science and culture the authors claim that it is namely transdisciplinarity would determine the face of science and culture in the medium term, and will form the basis for the convergence of science, technology, art, and consciousness studies in general.


  • • scientific revolution
  • • T. Kuhn
  • • cognitive schemes
  • • cognitive revolution
  • • style of reasoning
  • • transdisciplinarity
  • • socials shifts


  1. Quinn F. Notices of AMS. 2012. Vol. 59. No. 1. Pp. 31–37.
  2. Gillies D. Revolutions in mathematics. Oxford University Press, 1992. Pp. 265–305.
  3. Kun T. Struktura nauchnykh revolyutsii [Structure of scientific revolutions]. Moscow: Progress, 1977.
  4. Knyazeva E. N. Vestnik TGPU. 2011. No. 10. Pp. 193–201.
  5. Novoselov M. M. Abstraktsiya v labirintakh poznaniya. Logicheskii analiz [Abstraction in the labyrinths of cognition. Logical analysis]. Moscow: Ideya-Press, 2005.
  6. Kiyashchenko L. P. Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie. 2012. No. 2. Pp. 29–32.
  7. Transdistsiplinarnost' v filosofii i nauke: podkhody, problemy, perspektivy [Transdisciplinarity in the philosophy of science: approaches, problems, prospects]. Moscow: Navigator, 2015.
  8. Crombie A. Styles of scientific thinking in the European tradition: the history of argument and explanation especially in mathematical and biometrical sciences and arts. Vol. 1–3. London: Duckworth, 1994.
  9. Novik I. B. Voprosy stilya myshleniya v estestvoznanii [Questions of style of thinking in natural science]. Moscow: Politizdat, 1975.
  10. Hacking I. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 1992. Vol. 23. No. 1. Pp. 1–20.
  11. Bueno O. Studies in history and philosophy of science. 2012. Vol. 43. Pp. 661–663.
  12. Schweber S., Wachter M. Studies in history of modern physics. 2000. Vol. 31. No. 4. Pp. 573–590.
  13. Falikman M. V., Koul M. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya. 2014. Vol. 10. No. 3. Pp. 4–18.
  14. Ben'yamin V. Proizvedenie iskusstva v epokhu ego tekhnicheskoi vosproizvodimosti [The work of art in the age of its technical reproducibility]. Moscow: Medium, 1996.
  15. Zenkin K. V. Mif. Muzyka. Obryad. Moscow: Kompozitor, 2007. Pp. 42–52.
  16. Petrov V. O. Materialy KhIII Mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii studentov, aspirantov i molodykh uchenykh «Lomonosov». Tom III. Moscow: Izd-vo MGU, 2006. Pp. 25–32.
  17. Evin I. A., Koblyakov A. A., Savrikov D. V., Shuvalov N. D. Kognitivnye seti. Komp'yuternye issledovaniya i modelirovanie. 2011. Vol. 3. No. 3. Pp. 231–239.
  18. Bak P. How Nature works. New York: Copernicus, 1997.
  19. Evin I. A. Iskusstvo i sinergetika [Art and synergetics]. Moscow: Librokom, 2008.
  20. Sporns O. Networks of the Brain. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2011.
  21. Dadaizm v Tsyurikhe, Berline, Gannovere i Kel'ne: Teksty, illyustratsii, dokumenty [Dada in Zurich, Berlin, Hannover and Cologne: Texts, illustrations, documents] / Ed. K. Shuman. Moscow: Respublika, 2002.
  22. Bazhanov V. A. V. I. Shestakov i K. +Voprosy istorii estestvoznaniya i tekhniki. 2005. No. 2. Pp. 112–121.
  23. Harrison J. Notices of AMS. 2008. No. 12. Pr. 1395–1406.
  24. Belfer I. Turing – 100. EPIC series. Vol. 10. Manchester. 2012. Pr. 24–25.
  25. Galeev B. Iskusstvo kosmicheskogo veka [The art of the space age]. Kazan': Fen, 2002.
  26. Krauss R. Podlinnost' avangarda i drugie modernist-skie mify [The authenticity of the avant-garde and other modernist myths]. Moscow: Khudozhestvennyi zhurnal, 2003.
  27. Kandinskii V. Tochka i liniya na ploskosti [Point and line to plane]. Saint Petersburg: Azbuka-klassika, 2005.
  28. Tsaregradskaya T. V. Vremya i ritm v tvorchestve Oliv'e Messiana [Time and rhythm in the works of Olivier Messiaen]. Moscow: Klassika XXI, 2002.
  29. Schoenberg A. Style and Idea. 2nd ed. London: Faber & Faber, 1975.
  30. Beskova I. A., Knyazeva E. N. Priroda i obrazy telesnosti [Nature and images of corporeality]. Moscow: Progress-traditsiya, 2011.
  31. KorneviShchE O. A. Kniga neklassicheskoi estetiki [The book of non-classical aesthetics]. M. Moskovskaya shkola politicheskikh issledovanii, 2000.
  32. Stockhausen on Music. Comp. R. Maconie. London, 1989.
  33. Zenkin K. V. Dzhon Keidzh. K 90-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya: materialy nauchnoi konferentsii. Nauchnye trudy Moskovskoi gosudarstvennoi konservatorii im. P. I. Chaikovskogo. No. 46. 2004. Pp. 67–78.
  34. Matskyavichus G. Preodolenie [The overcoming]. Moscow: RipolKlassik, 2010.
  35. Drozdetskaya N. Dzhon Keidzh. Tvorcheskii protsess kak ekologiya zhizni [John Cage. The creative process as the ecology of life]. Moscow: RAM im. Gnesinykh, 1993.
  36. Asaf'ev B. V. Muzykal'naya forma kak protsess [Musical form as a process]. Leningrad: Muzyka, 1971.
  37. Kiseleva E. V. European Social Science Journal (Evropeiskii zhurnal sotsial'nykh nauk). 2013. No. 8. Vol. 1. Pp. 99–107.
  38. Schoenberg A. Style and Idea. New York, 1950.
  39. Boulez P. Boulez on Music Today. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 1971.
  40. Xenakis I. Musiques formelles: nouveaux principes formels de composition musicale. Special issue of La Revue musicale. Paris: Editions Richard-Masse., 1963. Nos. 253–254.
  41. Kiyashchenko L. P. Voprosy filosofii. 2015. No. 11. Pp. 76–86.