Science or not science?
On - essences, understanding that immensity I will not embrace, nevertheless decided to write.
What for? Recently it is too often heard about a set suddenly of the appeared sciences and “ sciences “. And it is fine with them, lie - porridges do not ask. But in volume and trouble that ask.
Everywhere there were whole hordes of healers, black magicians and astrologers.
In the Ministry of Emergency Situations were hired several tens psychics who were necessary to search for the helicopters which were gone in a taiga, to predict earthquakes and acts of terrorism.
In the Soviet years searches of beams of death, research of people with paranormal abilities, tracking UFO and “ work “ with “ contactors “ able “ to open a channel of communication “ with extraterrestrial reason were engaged in many research organizations entering into various security agencies.
The academician Alexandrov who decided to start talking in 1991 publicly about works which are performed on the closed subject showed to public only an iceberg top. In later times when was spent for science of budget money less, less them it was spent also for a pseudo science. But more them began to flow from certain “ non-budgetary sources “. And all - is not absolutely clear who financed the order of the deputy CEO of PKK “ Energy “ in kilograms to deliver to space station “ World “ the stones loaded in notorious pyramids of Hunger and to dig in the same stones on perimeter of Moscow to protect the city from the approaching flu epidemic.
In a doubtful justification, one may say, that were engaged in it not only in Russia. “ Death Beam “ it was almost financed by the English military, after demonstration of death of a guinea pig under such beam. All spoke simply: the person bringing a rabbit was bribed and on a ring had a needle with new self-destroyed, poison of the delayed action.
It would seem, to me has to be all the same, well and let to themselves employ personal goroskoposostavitel, magicians and sorcerers - me what business? Having thought, decided what is. They are financed from those taxes that I pay. But also they have not enough of it - they climb in a pocket of my family and friends. Therefore, several simple criteria of scientific character and just thoughts.
So how to distinguish science from “ sciences “? Or there is a little philosophy.
To Yum`s scepticism itself somehow - as itself was considered that the inductive method conducts to truth. Well, for example, if chicken notices that every morning with sunrise the owner brings her grain, then and emergence of grain with need follows (according to a birdbrain) from the sunrise fact by the principle the reason - action. Until the owner did not come with the axe.
of the Pseudo science will provide you a set false prichinno - investigative communications. Then will come with the axe.
The edging showed in “ To Criticism of pure reason “ that Yum is in a sense right and the inductive method allows to come for generalization which is not capable to be proved at all only. Kant formulated a problem so: “ how true synthetic statements are possible? “ Kant believed that the solution consists that the truth is sewn up in us like revelation of the world of feelings (a trantsedentalny appertseption) what followed, for example, from that for the person there is only one geometry (Euclidean) more any.
of the Pseudo science like to lean on “ evidence “ as on the most available line.
So did church, pursuing geleotsentrist and the majority agreed. Because was “ obviously “ that the Sun goes around Earth, and not vice versa.
After Kant when the scientific thought - the fact overcame illusion “ the truth which is hardware sewn up in us “ having generated the theories incompatible with the same Euclidean geometry, dispute on criteria of the scientific validity ran high again.
Unfortunately the minds equal on honesty and scale to Kant, appear seldom and therefore there were many currents, in particular positivism which tried to disguise rather a problem, than to solve it. Began a good form to speak about “ verifications “ about “ criteria of truth “ etc.
is final, in my opinion, this problem was solved by Karl Popper in the book “ Logic of the scientific research “. It showed that any criteria and any “ verifications by experience “ do not allow to prove the validity of natural-science theories, but we have an opportunity to refute false theories by means of experience. The trailer of falsifiability of scientific theories was so invented.
The most remarkable in Popper`s opening even not it, but the fact that he entered the demarcation criterion allowing to separate natural science from metaphysics.
If there is an experiment able to refute some theory, only then this theory can apply for that it was carried to the field of science.
Thus there is one more important requirement that the theory has to be internally consistent. In the inconsistent theory two mutually exclusive statements become true. It speaks, as a rule, “ imperfection “ knowledge and all possible exceptions. At the same time, even the chance is not given at all will doubt the theory.
Only if the theory can be refuted in experience, then it can apply for a role of scientific.
Until it is coordinated with experience, we have the right to consider it true. If there is a certain experience refuting this theory we look for the new theory, more perfect, gradually approaching truth more and more, but most likely we so never also will find the basis allowing to claim that any scientific theory is final.
Decisions do not follow directly from the facts, scientific decisions an essence result of collective verdicts. Even if there will be a certain scientist - the genius who will invent the theory which is coordinated with his personal experience, it will not become science until other people are not devoted in this theory and will not confirm / will refute this theory on the basis of the experience
Total: It to us can serve
kind service for exposure of pseudoscientific or intelligently dishonest theories, allowing to distinguish them with definiteness from the honest natural-science hypotheses which appeared in actual fact false.
That is popperovsky criterion takes away an opportunity at pseudo sciences to appeal that, say, “ the theory of air was refuted " too; or “ the genetics was forbidden " too;. Matter not only in validity / falsehood. There are much more powerful ways to expose intelligently dishonest construction.
Science is called the knowledge able to report us laws, but not just true statements about the facts.
Examples: So far we do not know
that genes define structure of future protein (law), that they are descended (one more law), that there are prepotent and recessive genes that defines what of them works and what is silent (the law again) while we do not know all this, and we know only that a gene it only “ scientific name “ for DNA site, we know nothing scientific in fact.
Statement “ genes exist “ absolutely not scientifically. Though it is true.
A here statement “ genes define a structure of future organism “ scientifically, as it can be forged.
It not just definition of genes as words which we called something.
is a message on that state of affairs in the world that there are no factors which could define structure of protein contrary to genes, for example, suggestion or aristocratic education. If such facts are shown, then our theory needs correction, but not change of the relation to the validity of the statement “ genes exist “. Genes will continue to exist even if we completely will disprove all genetics, having shown to wonderful creatures which by effort of mind are capable to change the DNA.
Though here, perhaps, I am mistaken in the facts. He is not familiar with genetics, washing activity lies in IT - the sphere.
Then so: :) If I tell that devils exist, then my statement will be true in the sense that I will find the mass of people who will confirm that they saw them own eyes. At the same time this statement cannot be considered scientific. Not because devils do not exist, not at all. But because such statements are also far from science, as well as Democritus`s statement “ the whole world consists of atoms “. Until we do not show some law which we try to approve, it will be so.
If I tell that devils are shown always after drinking 2. 5 liters of vodka in the evening at intersections of roads, it will be already scientific hypothesis. And if the scientific community, having tried, comes to a conclusion that it not always so, then my hypothesis will be recognized as false.
Behind an exception, besides a human factor because who wants to find - that will find also what is not present. (We will remember Death and its theory resurrection of the dead).
Generally and everything, I ask not to judge strictly, point to mistakes. I hope, to someone saved nerves or money :) Behind this I bow to
. Yours faithfully,
the Used materials:
1. Discussion of the article “ Whether Program us horoscopes “
2. Conversations of a forum Delfimaster, Ashot Tovmasyan
3. Modest thoughts of your obedient.