On the complementarity of communicative and realist approaches to scientific taxonomy

This is a reply to the article “Taxonomies and scientific communication: a sociocul­tural approach to scientific classifications” by Anna Sakharova. The author argues that the strict dichotomy between realistic and communicative approaches to justifying scien­tific taxonomies is not entirely convincing, as in some cases, such as the taxonomy of legal innovations, these approaches can be complementary. The author claims that at the initial stage of taxonomy, the main goal is to ensure “epistemic accessibility” of a new concept within the existing knowledge system. However, once this initial taxo­nomy has been established, further discussions about the accuracy of this classification may focus on clarifying the real-world implications of the concept under discussion. In re­search carried out on the external contours of science (in expert cases), in contrast to fun­damental research, discussion about accuracy takes place within the context of the social demand that initiated the research. However, in this instance, the social demand is interna­lized and takes on an epistemic dimension within the research. The examples presented in the article by A.V. Sakharova, in my opinion, illustrate this phenomenon. At the same time, a more realistic approach to justifying taxonomy in such cases may be possible if the naive realism underlying it is replaced with the criterion of operational conformity.