|
Abstract This paper represents the first time that the double identities of Vernadsky as a great natural scientist and a bright thinker have been showcased in Chinese academic circles from the perspective of his thinking patterns discussed in previous studies. One finding is that Vernadsky’s humanistic literacy played an imperceptible role in the formation of his scientific worldview. In addition, two great Russian masters, chemist Dmitri Mendeleev and mineralogist Vasily Vasilyevich Dokuchayev had a direct impact on his interdisciplinary thinking. The philosophical tradition of “Russian cosmism” was reflected in Vernadsky’s thinking paradigm. From his academic studies and thinking, it is discovered that Vernadsky’s philosophical thinking gave birth to his worldview and methodology and guided his scientific practice; his engagement in cross-border interdisciplinary research was not only related to his broad interests, but driven by his holistic thinking. An innovative part of this study is to introduce the notion that the achievements of Chinese scholars in biogeochemical research echo Vernadsky’s interdisciplinary thinking. Vernadsky’s studies on the history of science were not only a part of his academic studies, but played a methodological function In this paper. By dividing his studies on the history of science into three areas, natural science, the history of scientific celebrities, and the history of ideas and knowledge, we aim to reveal the methodological significance of each part and the integration of three parts as a holistic model of Vernadsky’s scientific studies and his innovative contributions to the Science of Science, reflecting the innovations of this study. Out of his concern for the destiny of humanity, Vernadsky put forward some prescient scientific claims or theories. The initiative of establishing a worldwide academic community was precisely the development of Vernadsky’s ideas on the shifting of the center of science and the concrete representation of “scientific thought as a planetary phenomenon”, a core idea in noosphere theory. The progress from his affirmation of individual subjectivity to the scientific thinking on cultivating communal subjectivity is what he contributed to the Science of Science. In analysing the impact of Vernadsky’s noosphere theory on the future, we are aimed at conducting and establishing dialogues between the views of Chinese scholars and those of Vernadsky’s, and interact with the literature on Vernadsky’s thinking patterns to advance or discard elements of his academic legacy. This is another part of our innovation. Vernadsky’s impact on Russian scholars of humanities was another dimension reflecting his thinking patterns. Terms such as the semiosphere, logosphere, conceptosphere and homosphere are spatial semiotic phenomena influenced by biosphere or noosphere theories. They are significant as they are not only methodologically instructive but also interdisciplinary. An innovative analysis of the connection between Bakhtin’s logosphere, Likhachev’s homosphere and Vernadsky’s theories is attempted. In addition, this is the first study in the academic circles of China and Russia to make a systematic analysis of the intrinsic relationship between Bakhtin’s “Great Time” theory, Lotman’s cultural spatial structure, Prishvin’s idea of “the unity of all things”, Gumilyov’s passionarity and Vernadsky’s historicist methodology, time and space theory, biosphere theory and biogeochemistry principles. It should be indicated that the findings of the inner connection between Bakhtin’s “Great Time” theory and Vernadsky’s academic thoughts have brought us great surprise. The study of Vernadsky in China in the new century is not only inspiring for scientists to engage in interdisciplinary research, but also has far-reaching significance for young students to cultivate scientific thinking, scientific spirit and seek innovation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
