Introduction. Communication may contain gaps, i.e. misunderstanding or conflict. However, over the gaps there may arise "bridges" connecting them, making communication probable. Scientific communication also presupposes gaps, connected, for example, with the disunity of scientific disciplines. The problem of gaps is especially acute in the context of public science communication - in the interaction between scientists and non-scientists. The communication gap is relevant for philosophical understanding, since the attitude to gaps may be different. The article sets the task of revealing a constructive attitude to gaps in public communication of science. Content. The article firstly proposes a typology of gaps in public communication of science. There are linguistic, normative, gaps in socio-political and expert positions, epistemic gap and meta-gap related to media. Identifying the types of gaps clarifies the positions of communication participants. Inattention to gaps can lead to a failure of interaction. Secondly, models of public communication of science are described in their connection with communicative gaps. The models of deficit, dialogue and involvement are revealed. In the first model, communication is unidirectional, which makes the listed gaps relevant. In the dialogue model, the problems of the deficit model are solved, but their solutions encounter skepticism. The involvement model takes into account skeptical arguments and works with gaps, not overcoming them, but including them. Thirdly, some philosophical approaches to the possibility of scientific and cognitive interaction that does not overcome gaps, but includes them are revealed. In this case, the gaps create a field for communication, making it probable. Conclusions. As a result of the joint analysis of the types of gaps and models of public communication of science, the significance of communication gaps is demonstrated. Attention to gaps allows us to identify differences in the positions of communication participants. It turns out to be probable if the positions are not radically separated, but also not mixed. Such a probability is ensured in the involvement model, in which the communication gap is revealed as a space for discussions and various interpretations while maintaining the autonomy of the actors. There are philosophical approaches that substantiate this kind of model.
M.A. Sorokina (Wed,) studied this question.