Systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms (Part One)

Ufimtsev Aleksandr Evgenevich ORCID: 0009-0004-9788-5550 independent researcher 660122, Russia, Krasnoyarsk Territory, Krasnoyarsk, Transit str., 48, sq. 32 ufimtzev@inbox.ru Other publications by this author

Smirnova Marina Mikhailovna independent researcher 668312, Russia, Republic of Tyva, Mezhegey village, Lenin str., 69, sq. 1 knyam2020@mail.ru Other publications by this author

dedicated to our dear and close friend Nadezhda Nikolaevna Bebrish

Dry, my friend, theory is everywhere,

And the tree of life is luxuriantly green.

(I.V. von Goethe's Faust,

N.A. Kholodkovsky Lane)

Introduction

In this paper, using examples from various fields of scientific knowledge, the universality of the nature of paradigm shift is shown – which allows us to talk about meta-paradigms that manifest themselves in any branches of knowledge in the form of paradigms or individual concepts. A meta-paradigm is a conceptually generalized set of representation systems (paradigms) in various sciences. The change of meta-paradigms is systemic.

Systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms: linguistics

The systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms originate in linguistics: These are the system-structural and anthropocentric paradigms, respectively. The system-structural paradigm considers language as a system in which each element takes its place in accordance with certain formal requirements. The anthropocentric paradigm considers language from the perspective of a native speaker.

Analyzing the history of the issue, V. M. Alpatov writes about two different and incompatible views on language: abstract objectivism and individualistic subjectivism, highlighted by V. N. Voloshinov; system-centered and anthropocentric approaches to language learning, described by E. V. Rakhilina ^{[1, pp. 202-205]}. V. M. Alpatov notes: the dispute between these two trends The language has been used for more than two millennia ^{[1, p. 208]}. Currently, these trends are considered as systemic-structural and anthropocentric paradigms.

V. N. Voloshinov names the main features of abstract objectivism:

1) Language is a stable, unchangeable system of normatively identical linguistic forms, predestined by individual consciousness and indisputable for it.

2) The laws of language are specific linguistic laws of communication between linguistic signs within a given closed language system. These laws are objective in relation to any subjective consciousness.

3) Specific linguistic connections have nothing to do with ideological values (artistic, cognitive and other). No ideological motives justify the phenomenon of language. There is no natural or artistic connection between the word and its meaning.

4) Individual acts of speaking are, from the point of view of language, only accidental refractions and variations or simply distortions of normatively identical forms; but it is these acts of individual speaking that explain the historical variability of linguistic forms, which, as such from the point of view of the language system, is irrational and meaningless. There is no connection or commonality of motives between the language system and its history. They need each other (italics by the author) ^{[2, pp. 63-64]}.

V. N. Voloshinov lists the main features of individualistic subjectivism:

1) language is an activity, a continuous creative process of creation (energeia), carried out by individual and speech acts;

2) the laws of linguistic creativity are individual psychological laws;

3) creativity of language — meaningful creativity, similar to artistic;

4) language as a finished product (ergon), as a stable language system (dictionary, grammar, phonetics), is like a dead deposit, a frozen lava of linguistic creativity, abstractly constructed by linguistics for the purpose of practical teaching of language as a ready-made tool (italics author's) ^{[2, pp. 53-54]}.

V. N. Voloshinov notes: the main features of abstract objectivism are the antitheses of the corresponding main features of individualistic subjectivism ^{[2, p. 64]}. Thus, the systemic-structural paradigm (abstract objectivism in the understanding of V. N. Voloshinov) and the anthropocentric (individualistic subjectivism in the understanding of V. N. Voloshinov) are mirror opposites.

There are different understandings of anthropocentrism. Thus, N. V. Bugorskaya notes: the terms anthropocentrism, anthropologism and the anthropic principle, having a common idea of reflecting the human factor in language, are not identical ^{[3, p. 19]}. In addition, N. V. Bugorskaya gives three options for understanding anthropocentrism, emphasizing that these understandings are not reducible to each other within the framework of one definition:

· anthropomorphism (i.e. anthropocentrism as a property of language);

· intuitionism (i.e. anthropocentrism as a method of analyzing linguistic phenomena);

· humanitarization of the language of linguistic description (i.e. anthropocentrism as a model) ^{[3, p. 24]}.

D. I. Ivanov and D. L. Lakerbai emphasize: "Anthropologism in linguistics is based on those principles in language (collective and individual) that bear the stamp of the subject of speech activity, and not only an impersonal language system" (italics by the author) ^{[4, p. 82]}.

We believe that by differentiating different understandings of anthropocentrism, it is possible at the same time to understand anthropocentrism in an extremely integrated way: as taking into account the sum of various manifestations of bioessentially deterministic restrictions on the way of embodying a sign system in the linguistic and speech activity of the subject – and the sum of various manifestations of bioessentially deterministic restrictions on the way of realization of the subject in the sign system and speech activity.

Thus, we can talk about certain general patterns in the form of system-structural and anthropocentric paradigms.

In linguistics, within the framework of the theory of the sign, the plan of expression of the sign and the plan of the content of the sign are distinguished – that is, the form and content. If the form is understood as a rigidly defined framework for the content, and the content is understood as a certain essential fullness, in line with which the form is realized, then the following logically follows: determinism by formal principles is a special case of the implementation of a systemic-structural paradigm, and the manifestation of the inner essence of the content is the result of the embodiment of an anthropocentric paradigm.

Thus, it can be said that the content plan is an essential characteristic of the sign, and the expression plan is a formal one. In this case, if the plan of expression of the sign carries a meaning–distinguishing function, then the formal side of the sign becomes an essential element - that is, the plan of expression becomes the plan of content. This allows you to build a certain system of signs based on formal signs that have essential characteristics. Consequently, system structuralism implements a matrix approach (i.e., the matrix of the system is filled with certain content according to certain formal criteria). In fact, systemic structuralism is an empty matrix – a set of certain prescriptions that one or another element must comply with in order to get into one or another section; the very name systemic structuralism speaks about this.

The opposite of systemic structuralism can be called a paradigm that assumes consideration of the inner essence of content in order to give it one form or another; we propose such a name: bioessential determinism. The essential conditionality of the content determines what the form will be.

If in the systemic-structural paradigm the tonality is set by the form, then in the bioessential-deterministic paradigm the tonality is determined by the content – that is, it is conditioned by the content that consciousness is able to assimilate, which has certain limitations in the form of the body in which it is enclosed. Bioessential determinism literally means the essence conditioned by life, or the conditionality of the essence of life, and asserts the biocompatibility of scientific knowledge – and as a special case, the human dimension of scientific knowledge.

Consequently, a formal approach is implemented within the framework of the system-structural paradigm, and an essential one is implemented in line with the bioessential-deterministic one. The formal approach is always a certain framework, and the essential approach assumes free development in a certain direction. It is possible to liken the system-structural paradigm to the plan of sign expression: formal compliance with certain criteria is the key, and the anthropocentric paradigm to the plan of sign content: the essential characteristics of the sign are the key. Then we can say that any sign, any phenomenon is a concretely expressed result of the interaction of extremely abstract formally oriented and essence-oriented meta-paradigms, manifested as tendencies in the form of oppositions - binary oppositions: statics and dynamics, system and process, framework and channel, matrix and matrix filling, rational and irrational, respectively.

Therefore, a special case of the bioessential deterministic meta-paradigm in linguistics is the anthropocentric paradigm. The paradigm shift from systemic structuralism to anthropocentrism (or, more broadly, to bioessential determinism) can be called an anthropocentric turn.

Discussing epistemology in the context of a paradigm shift in linguistics, R. M. Frumkina notes that the choice of one of two positions is relevant:

• the desire to present language as it "really is", regardless of the subject that the language describes;
• focusing on the quality of the description itself, wanting to make it as transparent and convincing as possible.

R. M. Frumkina emphasizes: "Of course, in principle, any linguist would like to combine (1) and (2) — to describe what "is" and make it "beautiful". It must be remembered, however, that these are different criteria" ^{[5, p. 65]}. To follow the desire to present the language as objectively as possible means to describe the language systemically and structurally, and to focus on transparency and persuasiveness of the description means to describe the language taking into account the bioessential determinism of its native speaker. However, at the same time, the system-structural description of the language is based on formal positions, and the description of the language, taking into account the bioessential determinism of its native speaker, is based on essential criteria. Thus, we see how binary oppositions form and content, bizarrely intertwined in the theory of sign in the form of a plan of expression and a plan of content and finding each other in themselves: form acquires content, becoming an essential characteristic, and content acquires form, becoming a formally significant criterion, are dialectically interrelated within linguistics in particular and scientific knowledge in general, defining trends in the development of scientific knowledge.

It can be formulated as follows: language is a certain system, speech is a living process determined by the characteristics of a living being. Note that, unlike language, speech is the highest mental function. It can be assumed that language is the property of a formally oriented systemic-structural meta-paradigm, and speech is the property of an essentially oriented bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigm.

If systemic structuralism studies language, and anthropocentrism studies man in language and language in man, then bioessential determinism studies language taking into account the presence of a bioessentially deterministic human subject in it. Then it is possible to study the language of other living beings – dolphins, ants, bees, rats – and their linguistic abilities will be limited by their bodily capabilities – any language is bioessentially deterministic; whereas anthropocentrism assumes the study of human language only. Language is determined by the type of thinking inherent in the subjects using it: for example, an example of language at the level of concretely effective thinking is the dance of bees; an example of language at the level of the rudiments of visual-imaginative thinking is individual vocalizations, or better to use a term from the theory of the phonopedic method of voice development (FMRG) ^{[6, p. 53]} – pre-speech vocal signals communication, in animals; an example of language at the level of verbal thinking – language as a tool of verbal communication in humans; an example of language at the level of abstract thinking – language as a tool of thinking in humans. It should be noted that recognizing the determinacy of language as a type of thinking allows us to answer the question of what the purpose of language is: communicative or cognitive. However, perhaps the answer to this question belongs not to linguistics, but to psycholinguistics.

Comprehending I. P. Pavlov's concept of two signaling systems ^{[7, pp. 336-337]}, following I. I. Bulychev ^{[8, pp. 26-31]}, as well as E. I. Slavutin and V. I. Pimonov ^{[9, pp. 46-55]}, we can conclude that the first signaling system can be understood as the realization of an evolutionarily older concretely effective and visually imaginative types of thinking associated with the appearance of mirror neurons, and the second signal system is the implementation of verbal (verbal-logical and verbal–figurative) and abstract (abstract-logical and abstract-artistic) types of thinking. It should be noted that I. I. Bulychev recognizes as an ontological structure of consciousness, including sensory, semiotic and semantic types of consciousness ^{[8, p. 31]} (which we correlate with concretely effective, verbal and abstract types of thinking, respectively) - therefore, the linguistic ability of any living being is bioessentially determined by its level of consciousness (or type of thinking), and potentially every living being has it. Perhaps this sounds like the realm of fiction, but if you "transfer" the consciousness of a living being to another, more perfect body from the point of view of thinking, then this will have a better effect on his innate language abilities.

We really live in a language. However, defining the realization of linguistic ability by the type of thinking, we move into the plane of psycholinguistics.

Human language is inherently bioessentially determined – thus, bioessentialism is broader than anthropocentrism; anthropocentrism can be considered as a step towards bioessentialism. Thus, the anthropocentric paradigm is a special case of bioessential determinism implemented on the basis of human language.

Systemic structuralism and bioessential determinism, being dialectically related to each other, relate to each other as a plan of expression and a plan of content in the theory of sign, which was developed precisely within the framework of the systemic-structural paradigm in linguistics. The parallels are obvious, and this explains that the example from linguistics is given first as setting the tone of the work. Figuratively speaking, systemic structuralism and bioessential determinism are two sides of the same coin, they are two trends, meta-paradigms that simultaneously exist in language and manifest themselves in different ways. Language is not an abstract sign system, because living people speak it – as there is no doubt that language was originally bioessentially determined – it was just that this conditionality was implicit and began to manifest itself as the anthropocentric turn increased.

V. M. Alpatov notes: "We can say that in the history of the science of language, there is a constant struggle between the desire to strictly study one's object on the model of natural sciences, based on observed facts, and the desire to consider language together with the person speaking it, taking into account intuition, introspection and creative abilities of people ^{[10, p. 18]}. V.M. Alpatov continues: the approach that has reached its maximum in structuralism considers language as a closed system, a thing in itself, and gives clear but limited results, although it strives for ordering, whereas the anthropocentric approach strives for interdisciplinary research, expanding boundaries and setting global tasks, while having the disadvantage of arbitrariness and the absence of a strict method. It would be possible to stop at highlighting and describing the differences between these two opposite and dialectically related trends in the development of linguistic science, but further V.M. Alpatov concludes: "To some extent, it can be considered that he (the anthropocentric approach; approx. ours) increases the chaos. Our time is rather an era of movement in this direction. <...> Both approaches cannot be eliminated from the development of science, although in different epochs one or the other of them may come to the fore" ^{[10, p. 18]}. It can be concluded that the role of the bioessential deterministic meta-paradigm in science in general and in linguistics in particular is currently increasing - and this is systemic in nature, which will be shown in the course of the work further using examples from other scientific disciplines.

D. I. Ivanov and D. L. Lakerbai emphasize: "A meta–disciplinary theory should not introduce from the outside, but open up the potential of universalization in the heterogeneous objects themselves - as their own inalienable plan, their own essential characteristic." <...> For the phenomena of culture and language, this essentiality is associated with an anthropological factor" (italics by the author) ^{[4, p. 85]}. The revealed patterns in the form of descriptions of two opposite and dialectically related meta-paradigms, understood as conceptually generalized sets of scientific ideas at the meta-scientific level, as well as the process of changing meta-paradigms, are universal. In linguistics, the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms manifest themselves as systemic-structural and anthropocentric paradigms, respectively.

The systemic-structural meta-paradigm on the example of linguistics is a narrow specialization; statics; logic; reliance on the conscious; rigor and orderliness according to V. M. Alpatov; abstract objectivism according to V. N. Voloshinov: a stable unchangeable system, the laws of language have a specifically linguistic causality and do not have axiological meaning, acts of speech are accidental refraction of norms language as a frozen system; a system-centered approach according to E. V. Rakhilina; considers language as a closed system; a formally oriented approach.

The bioessential deterministic meta-paradigm on the example of linguistics is a broad interdisciplinarity; dynamics; intuitionism, intuition; reliance on the unconscious; chaos and arbitrariness according to V. M. Alpatov; individualistic subjectivism according to V. N. Voloshinov: continuous creative activity, the laws of linguistic creativity are psychologically conditioned and make sense, live speech uses language as a finished product; an anthropocentric approach according to E. V. Rakhilina; considers language as an open system; an essence-oriented approach.

The change of meta-paradigms as trends in the development of science is systemic. As it was shown earlier, the dispute between the two trends in linguistics has been going on for a long time. Currently, the systemic-structural meta-paradigm is being changed to a bioessential-deterministic one.

Systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic

meta-paradigms in other branches of scientific knowledge: literary studies

In a sense, the forerunner of the bioessential deterministic meta-paradigm, using the example of works of Western European literature, can be considered the novel "Faust" by I. V. von Goethe: Faust, who has learned all the sciences, makes a bet with Mephistopheles, according to which he fulfills all Faust's desires in exchange for his soul - until Faust expresses the joy of life (i.e., in a certain situation, he will say certain words – admiring life, he will exclaim: "A moment, you are wonderful, last, wait!") ^{[11, pp. 72-74]}. In fact, now Faust will either have to live forever just not to say these damned words, or Faust's soul will sooner or later belong to Mephistopheles. For Faust, it is possible to express the joy of life and at the same time entrust his soul to God, and not lose it to Mephistopheles, only when moving into the mainstream of a bioessential deterministic meta-paradigm - when Faust decides to devote his life to serving people and embodies the decision into reality. When a person becomes the measure of Faust's actions, and the meaning of life is serving people, taking into account their needs and their capabilities, and not some kind of system in the form of an agreement.

In some simplified approximation, classicism can be recognized as a manifestation of the systemic-structural meta-paradigm in literary studies, and romanticism as a bioessential deterministic one. We recognize classicism primarily by its form: classicism presupposes strict adherence to a certain canon, – in the substantive part, classicism makes a choice between feeling and duty in favor of the latter; whereas Romanticism we define mainly by content, and romanticism presupposes a choice between feeling and duty in favor of feeling.

What is duty and what is feeling? Duty is a prescription for what should be done, quite clear and definite; duty can be of a rational nature. Duty is the realization of the mental scheme of "must." Duty is a demand to act directed from the outside world to a person, it is a vector from the outside inwards. A feeling is an urge to act, and not necessarily a definite one; feelings can be irrational in nature. Feeling is the realization of the mental scheme "I want". A feeling is an urge to act directed from a person, it is a vector from the inside out. So what should be done, what should be followed – an external "need" or an internal "want"? The following solution seems reasonable: when the external "need" corresponds to the internal "want". The mental scheme of "I want" is realized as if from the inside, and the stronger the feeling, the deeper its beginning lies inside. The mental scheme of "must" is implemented from the outside, and the stronger the demands made from the outside to the inside, the more significant aspects of the outside world it affects. However, we note that the answer to the question of the ratio of duty and feeling goes beyond literary criticism and belongs to psychology, and will be discussed in the appropriate section. Therefore, let's focus on what we designate duty and feeling, "need" and "want", rational and irrational as abstract tendencies that can be defined as systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms, respectively. It can be noted that the extreme degrees of manifestation of the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms are realized in the currents of classicism and romanticism, respectively, and bizarrely mixing in different proportions, give other currents: modern, postmodern, meta-modern, etc. – but it is always possible to distinguish these two trends as binary oppositions in any of them currents in one proportion or another.

However, at the same time, it can be noted that in literary studies, unlike linguistics, these meta-paradigms exist rather in a hidden form and manifest themselves in the form of separate concepts – i.e. currents.

Systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic

meta-paradigms in other branches of scientific knowledge:

exact sciences

Speaking about paradigms in the exact sciences, let us explain that in this work we are not talking about reality, and not about our ideas about reality, but about our ideas about our ideas about reality – and as philosophers, we have every right to do so.

Indeed, our ideas about reality are changing, moving from one paradigm to another, but reality itself remains the same – although, on the other hand, we are changing reality in accordance with our ideas about it: we are building rockets, launching the hadron collider, coping with previously considered incurable diseases, helping people with disabilities to rehabilitate health, etc. – and all this is carried out thanks to changing ideas about reality. There was a time when humanity burned heretics at the stake, led the conquest of lands with the seizure of people as slaves, and child labor was used in heavy industries, etc.; this was done in accordance with humanity's then ideas about reality. It should be noted that now such ideas about reality seem wild to us, and this is fine – however, it is not known what descendants will say about us.

Thus, a person's ideas about the world determine his behavior in the world. What is considered ideal for this is transformed into reality; what is ideal for this takes on a real appearance. Ideals serve as a guiding star for humanity – and ideals realize themselves through the actions of humanity. Ideas rule the world. From abstraction to concreteness, from theory to practice. Extremely abstract ideas are very concretely embodied. What is it if not mathematics?..

Let's repeat: Speaking in this paper about the development of scientific knowledge in various fields, we are primarily talking about our understanding of our knowledge about reality. The systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms reflect in a systematic way not so much our knowledge of the world around us as our knowledge of our knowledge of the world around us.

At the same time, it is worth noting that mathematical laws deductively reflect reality – that is, mathematics actually determines reality. Mathematics is pure ideas that are somehow refracted and embodied in the material world, and are the property of other sciences – which means that mathematics is implicitly present in everything. Pythagoras says: numbers and symbols rule the world – we can understand by this the presence of hidden patterns governing the world.

This work is devoted to the conceptual understanding of the trends of scientific knowledge, and we can find the revealed patterns on the material of any science, including mathematics.

Thus, on the basis of the axioms set out in Euclid's "Principles" – statements intuitively understandable to a person, taken on faith and the truth of which is unprovable – a building of science has been built, the comprehension of which requires thinking of the highest kind – abstract-logical. V. A. Erovenko and N. V. Mikhailova note: "in fact, abstract mathematics is partly an empirical study some aspects of the natural world, or rather that part of it, which is reflected in certain communicative activities of the community of mathematicians to create new forms that allow them to operate with the help of created ideal objects ^{[12, p. 37]}. This may seem absurd, but in the case of mathematics, Knowledge begins with Faith: rational discourse has an irrational basis, Rationality is based on Irrationality. N. N. Yarygin points out: "objective scientific knowledge eventually has hypothetical grounds that are subject to constant revision and change. Axioms, postulates, and definitions are thus accepted on faith as working hypotheses. <...> Faith as an active state of human consciousness contributes to his knowledge of reality. <...> Thus, faith in scientific knowledge contributes to the search for new knowledge, acceptance and consolidation of it in the field of objective knowledge" ^{[13, p. 29]}, and further the researcher concludes that faith in scientific knowledge is bioessentially determined ^{[13, p. 29]}.

At the same time, an attempt to prove a position taken on faith can lead to the construction of fundamentally new theories – for example, V. M. Rozin notes that Lobachevsky's geometry was built by a scientist when he "only wanted to prove the fifth postulate of Euclidean geometry from the opposite" ^{[14, p. 384]}.

Let's give an example from physics: it is known that the so-called classical Newtonian physics is a special case of Einstein's theory of relativity. This means that in specific conditions, for specific purposes, specific phenomena can be described with a sufficient degree of approximation using a simpler and more intuitive theory, and the accuracy of a more general theory in such cases can be neglected. At the same time, a simpler and more intuitive theory (the so–called classical physics) is actually a simplified version of a more general theory - that is, the theory of relativity.

Perhaps both theories of relativity (general relativity – General relativity – and special relativity – SRT), in turn, are also a simplified version of some extremely abstract Theory of Everything that still excites the minds of theorists.

However, we will give mathematicians and physicists the opportunity to clarify the meta-paradigm understanding within these sciences themselves. In this article, the examples from mathematics and physics are rather illustrative.

Systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms in other branches of scientific knowledge: religious studies

For a modern person raised in line with Christian ethics, the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms are most vividly represented by the example of the Bible: the books of the Old Testament embody the heritage of the systemic-structural meta-paradigm, and the books of the New Testament – bioessential-deterministic. The Old Testament presents a set of rules that a person should follow (The Old Testament, book. Deuteronomy, chapters 4-30) – whereas in the New Testament, the idea that man is the measure of all things runs through the red thread.

Moreover, Jesus Christ, who, according to the New Testament, proclaimed: not man for the law, but the law for man, can be considered the forerunner of the bioessential deterministic meta-paradigm in Western European civilization. When delivering the Sermon on the Mount, Christ refers to the Pentateuch of Moses, which is part of the Torah and contains a set of rules and regulations for a righteous Jew for all occasions: 248 permissive rules and 365 prohibitive ones ^{[15, pp. 77-78]}. We can conclude that the whole life of a righteous Jew was subject to strict regulation by rules – as if a person lived for rules, and not rules existed for a person.

That's what Jesus Christ says in the Sermon on the Mount: "Did you hear what was said: an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. And I tell you: do not resist the evil one. But whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other to him; and whoever wants to sue you and take your shirt from you, give him your outer clothing; and whoever forces you to go one field with him, go with him two (New Testament, Book of the Gospel of Matthew, ch. 5 v. 38-41). Almost two thousand years later, I. A. Brodsky in the "Assembly speech" metaphysically comprehends these words of Jesus Christ: the meaning of opposing Evil is to bring Evil to its absurdity, and gives examples when ethics built on a wrong interpretation – non–resistance to Evil up to connivance – leads its followers to a dead end or even leads them to death ^{[16, pp. 275-280]}; the breakdown of paradigms described in the New Testament turned out to be so powerful that it took millennia to realize it.

Thus, according to the New Testament, Jesus Christ gave the Jews a conceptually reinterpreted teaching in which the rules were for man, not man for the rules. However, the Jews did not accept Christ, and therefore crucified him. The rejection of Jesus Christ by Jews can be explained by a paradigm crisis in the minds of Jews of that time – the breakdown of the paradigm turned out to be too painful.

Systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic

meta-paradigms in the works of individual researchers:

T. S. Kuhn "The structure of scientific revolutions"

According to T. S. Kuhn, a paradigm is a set of ideas that is shared by scientists. Scientists accumulate facts, combine them and systematize them, and pass them on to other scientists – this is how a paradigm arises, a kind of matrix; this is the stage of normal science. Under certain conditions, this matrix explodes – the old paradigm collapses, and a new coordinate system appears – this is how the scientific revolution takes place. Over time, scientific revolutions smooth out, and science continues to develop at the stage of normal science.

T. S. Kuhn describes the sequence of development of scientific knowledge: normal science is a scientific revolution. Normal science refers to the quantitative growth of scientific knowledge, and the scientific revolution refers to the qualitative rethinking of scientific knowledge. The development of scientific knowledge is of a stepwise nature. In fact, T. S. Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions is the law of the transition of quantitative and qualitative changes: the number of facts about reality accumulates, and when it reaches a critical value, there is a qualitative increase in knowledge about reality. T. S. Kuhn notes: "to the extent that the book outlines the development of science as a sequence of interconnected bonds the traditions of periods interrupted by non-cumulative jumps, my theses are undoubtedly widely applicable" ^{[17, p. 208]}. It can be concluded that the language of one paradigm cannot be translated into the language of another without loss.

The nature of normal science: establishing significant facts, comparing facts and theory, developing theory ^{[17, p. 34]}; solving puzzles; the existence of a rigidly defined network of prescriptions ^{[17, p. 42]}; normal science is a cumulative enterprise aimed at expanding the limits of scientific knowledge and clarifying it ^{[17, p. 52]}; normal science does not aim to find a new fact or theory ^{[17, p. 52]}; "if it turns out that to achieve a solution (puzzles – approx. if ours is impossible, then this discredits only the scientist, but not the theory" ^{[17, p. 80]}; "normal science in the end leads only to the awareness of anomalies and crises" ^{[17, p. 122]}; In addition, the following becomes clear from the context: the static development of scientific knowledge; the quantitative growth of scientific knowledge; science develops cumulatively – which together makes up the paradigm of normal science.

The nature of the scientific revolution: a new theory arose only after pronounced failures in the normal solution of problems ^{[17, p. 75]}; the resolution of the crisis in each of the crisis periods was at least partially anticipated during the period when there was no crisis in the relevant science, but in the absence of a crisis, these anticipations were ignored ^{[17, p. 75]}; as a result of the crisis, the rules of normal puzzle solving are weakened, which leads to the emergence of a new paradigm ^{[17, p. 80]}; "any crisis begins with doubt in the paradigm and the subsequent loosening of the rules of normal research" ^{[17, p. 84]}; "often a new paradigm arises, at least in the bud, before the crisis went too far or was clearly realized" ^{[17, p. 86]}; "a scientist in a crisis period will constantly try to create speculative theories that, if successful, can open the way to a new paradigm, and in case of failure can be discarded without deep regret" ^{[17, p. 87]}; "a new paradigm or a suitable variant for it, providing further development, always arises immediately, sometimes in the middle of the night, in the head of a person deeply involved in the whirlpool of crisis" ^{[17, pp. 89-90]}; "almost always, people who successfully carry out the fundamental development of a new paradigm were either very young, or they are new to the field whose paradigm they have transformed. And perhaps this point does not need to be clarified, since, obviously, they, being little connected by previous practice with the traditional rules of normal science, may most likely see that the rules are no longer suitable, and begin to select another system of rules that can replace the previous one" ^{[17, p. 90]}; anomalies and crises are resolved not by means of normal science, but "thanks to a somewhat unexpected and non-structural event", a glimmer of insight, an intuitive guess ^{[17, p. 122]}. In addition, the following becomes clear from the context: the dynamic development of scientific knowledge; the collapse of established rules and regulations; the qualitative growth of scientific knowledge; science develops non–cumulatively - which together constitutes the paradigm of the scientific revolution.

The patterns described by T. S. Kuhn are universal in nature. In fact, T. S. Kuhn's work presents a systemic-structural meta-paradigm under normal science, and a bioessential–deterministic meta-paradigm under scientific revolution. In addition, it should be noted that the development of scientific knowledge in the scientific community is initially bioessentially determined.