PARADIGMS OF COUNTERFACTUAL MODELLING OF THE PAST IN SOCIAL COGNITION: RESULTS AND DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTS

Abstract

Introduction. The article is focused on identifying and studying the paradigms that arose in the framework of counterfactual modelling of the past by the end of the twentieth century. The author highlights basic concepts, strengths and weaknesses of various paradigms. Some particular prospects of forming these paradigms in historical knowledge and beyond it are fixed. The aim of the paper is to identify stable positions (paradigms) existing in counterfactual modelling of the past, and to compare them with each other. Methods. The author uses the following general scientific methods in the study: modelling, structuralfunctional, systemic and comparative analysis. Scientific novelty of the study. The author introduces the concept “paradigm of counterfactual modelling of the past” and outlines three paradigms: possibillistic (possibility-reality); bifurcation; retro-prognostic, pointing out the basic ideas of these paradigms and determining the sources generating each of them. Results. In the work, the author proves that the concept “paradigm” can be applied to counterfactual modelling of the past. It is found that the possibillistic paradigm is generated by philosophy, the bifurcation paradigm is generated by synergetics, and the retro-prognostic paradigm is generated by social forecasting. There is an extrapolation of these areas of knowledge, their methodology to counterfactual modelling of the past. The author shows that the basic principles of the possibillistic and bifurcation paradigms are largely similar, while those of the retro-prognostic paradigm are significantly different from them. Conclusions. The author identifies, considers and reconstructs the content of the three paradigms of counterfactual modelling of the past, but a larger number of paradigms can be identified. It is shown that when studying a specific alternative situation of the past, these paradigms can be used in its entirety. It is stated that each paradigm is not completed. It needs constant theoretical and methodological development and improvement. The author specifies high heuristic potential of each paradigm in the studied area. The author is of the opinion that it is necessary to move away from the dominant possibillistic, bifurcation, retro-prognostic paradigms towards developing a methodologically independent counterfactual modeling of the past, making use of those paradigms advantages for the purposes of the latter.