The article offers a criticism of the historical-epistemological approach of Olga Stoliarova. Some arguments are proposed that can break the circle of self-justification, into which epistemology eventually falls: every philosophical ontology is justified epistemologically, and the language of epistemological concepts is already prefaced with some ontology (otherwise concepts would be introduced as meaningless). It is claimed that Stoliarova argues with the constructivist approach, according to which everything that is postulated as existing is a consequence of observation (= application of an apparatus of distinctions). Thus, the assertion that something exists is a consequence of the distinction between being and non-being, and hence this ontological judgment is secondary to the epistemological statement about how and by what observational distinctions this observation is made. And in this case should a philosophizing historian of science declare the limitation of his scientific interest to the area of epistemology, and should any claim to ontological assertion be regarded as unjustified? Not at all. On the contrary, such a historian of science now sees a whole network of realisms created by scientists. It is claimed that ontological judgments are the fate of scientific observers, who (each from their observational perspectives) formulate their regional ontology.
