Proceedings of the International scientific and practical conference ―Science, Technology and Art in Global Context‖ (December 12-14, 2025) / Publisher website: www.naukainfo.com. – Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2025. – 190 p.

144 The globalization of knowledge increases both the opportunities and the risks of pluralism. On the one hand, transcontinental consortia, open repositories and shared digital infrastructures make the interaction of disciplines an everyday practice. On the other hand, asymmetries of resources (funding, access to laboratories, computing power) generate an uneven voice in the global dialogue, and therefore a structural shift in favor of knowledge centers. The answer must be an ethical policy of collaboration: fair mechanisms of authorship, data sharing and crediting of contributions, as well as support for peripheral communities. In sum, theoretical pluralism and interdisciplinarity shape a new type of research sensibility, oriented towards openness, flexibility and procedural transparency. They do not abolish disciplinary expertise, but embed it in a broader regime of collective rationality, where the monologue of a paradigm is not what counts, but the dialogue of approaches, tools and communities. In this regard, it should be noted that the classical understanding of objectivity as a "view from nowhere" is significantly transformed under the influence of cultural diversity and technological mediation of modern science. In the global scientific space, objectivity is no longer considered an absolute and universal property of truth. Instead, it appears as the result of procedural transparency, institutional independence and collective verification. Knowledge becomes not so much a characteristic of an individual researcher, but a product of the interaction of communities, methods and technical tools. Intersubjectivity in this context is not a compromise, but a fundamental mechanism of scientific communication. It means the agreement of criteria of truth between participants in the scientific community, regardless of their cultural differences and national traditions. Instead of seeking "pure" objectivity, modern science produces standards that enable mutual understanding: replicability of experiments, agreed data formats, open verification protocols, independent reviews and FAIR standards. Technically, objectivity today increasingly depends on digital tools. Algorithms clean data, generate models, perform classification and prediction. This changes the