Science Or Pseudoscience - Alternative View

Table of contents:

Science Or Pseudoscience - Alternative View
Science Or Pseudoscience - Alternative View

Video: Science Or Pseudoscience - Alternative View

Video: Science Or Pseudoscience - Alternative View
Video: Karl Popper, Science, & Pseudoscience: Crash Course Philosophy #8 2024, June
Anonim

Reflections on freedom in the scientific sphere, and in general about the freedom to do what you want and not be subject to public censure. In connection with the efforts of the president and the government to raise the national science, the topic is gaining more and more relevance, but it has a lot of nuances and pitfalls that few people think about

Just want to make a reservation. By freedom "to do what you want" I do not mean permissiveness and engaging in criminal matters. It is about the freedom of professional and scientific activity within the framework of the Law and only about this.

To begin with, let's recall cybernetics - the science of the general laws governing and transmitting information in various systems, be it machines, living organisms or society. At the time of its inception in our country, it was not taken seriously either by many scientists, much less by politicians. It was declared a pseudoscience and the attitude towards it was appropriate. Only thanks to the work of scientists who did not abandon their "suspicious" occupations, cybernetics turned from Pseudoscience into a useful society and therefore a respected Science. But what were the headlines in magazines, newspapers, and articles in dictionaries worth: "Cybernetics is the science of obscurantists", "Who does cybernetics serve?" form of modern mechanism ". Does anyone think the same today?

And the thing is that cybernetics was a little ahead of its time. Based on computer calculations (electronic computers, which would later be called computers), it was incomprehensible in form and even more mysterious in nature. Even today, reading its definition, I do not fully understand what these "general patterns of control processes and information transfer in various systems, be they machines, living organisms or society" mean. And to read more detailed descriptions - thank you. But does this mean that everything incomprehensible is harmful and should be called obscurantism?

The question is almost rhetorical and apart from any context, so to speak theoretically, any person will answer it negatively - of course not! However, life shows that theory and practice are two big differences.

Today there are many non-traditional sciences working at the intersection of science and something that is not fully understood and explainable. This can be called mysticism or the philosophy of the unknown - as you please. Already no one doubts the existence of matter, energies or physical laws that have not yet been discovered and studied by traditional science, nevertheless, exist and work. But for some reason science and society stubbornly refuse to recognize their existence. This is a niche of psychics, fortune tellers and magicians. I do not want to call them scientists in any way - God forbid! Most of them are commonplace charlatans. But there are people who study this subject from a scientific point of view. And what? They are automatically declared charlatans and ranked among the class of outcasts by science and society.

In general, this is such a slippery topic, which is rarely touched upon in their media publications, but it exists! Show business stars and politicians go to magic sessions, use the services of psychics, but on the quiet so that no one knows - this is considered a shameful and unworthy occupation of a serious person. Public opinion is a great thing!

Or Kabbalah. A religious and philosophical doctrine, which more than two thousand years ago expounded on the pages of the mysterious and until now completely undeciphered book of the Zohar (in other words - Zohar) such things that modern people considered to be inventions of the ancients. Until these things began to be confirmed by modern science!

Promotional video:

Such confirmations include the Superstring and Quantum Light theories. "Just think: the data of modern physics and the theory of a unified field are present in Kabbalah!" (by Dr. Michio Kaku "Hyperspace").

And what can you say to the fact that the Zohar already twenty centuries ago described the danger of clogged arteries, atherosclerotic plaques and cholesterol, which cause heart disease? This is despite the fact that modern medicine such things became known only 60-70 years ago!

Image
Image

So this is fiction, or is everything not so simple in the history of our civilization, as they say in school textbooks?

And here is another riddle - Rhythmology. The creators say that this is science and it serves to harmonize man and the world around him - that is, it is extremely useful. The content is incomprehensible - some rhythms, its own bizarre, I would even say, confused terminology. So what? Any organization - scientific, religious or commercial - has the right to have its own terminology, to popularize its ideas and charge money for its services. Is there anything else in our society?

And the distinction is always conditional. In modern society, any association of people, no matter what goals it pursues, is forced to engage in popularizing activities, both commercial and research (if the latter is part of its tasks). So any accusations that the organization is trying to make money or "recruit" new followers into its ranks sounds silly to say the least. Well, the fact that very few people understand the doctrine … Have you, for example, read The Zohar? And the Old Testament? If not for the thousands of commentators and interpreters who have chewed every phrase for millennia (and that is not always clear), what would you take from this reading? And what about books on cybernetics? A mere mortal is unlikely to be able to master them. What is the difference between the respected science of cybernetics, no less respected psychology,tolerantly suspicious Kabbalah and Rhythmology rejected by some?

There can be a lot of answers. How many people - so many answers you will have. And each in his own way is right - this is his life and his vision. The question is: why do some people consider their vision more correct? And one more thing: why is a mass vision considered more correct than a vision of a small group of people or even one person? After all, human history (by the way - a science recognized by society and all governments of the world!) Stores many examples when the vision of one person turned out to be correct, and the vision of the crowd was wrong. The crowd then repented for the "accidentally" crucified or burned at the stake genius, but too late - justice was done!

It seems to us that we have become so smart lately, we know and understand everything. And although we are still very far from real Reason and real Justice, let us not burn anyone at the stake (even if these fires are symbolic) and reject everything that seems incomprehensible to us. Time will put everything in its place, and the Law will judge.

PS Another question came to mind, seemingly unrelated to the topic of the article, but, if you think about it, very much even one. Why is popular music not considered more correct in the public mind than classical music? After all, "pop" has immeasurably more fans. Morality? Dogma? Propaganda? How do you think?