|
The End of Lie, or What's Wrong With Science Whereas today's spectacular technologic progress seems to strongly confirm the utility of underlying scientific activities, the modern state of fundamental science itself shows catastrophically accumulating degradation signs, including both knowledge content and organisation/practice [1-49]. That striking contradiction implies that we are close to a deeply rooted change in the whole system of human knowledge directly involving its fundamental nature and application quality rather than only superficial, practically based influences of empirical technology, social tendencies, etc. Science problems, in their modern form, have started appearing in the 20th century, together with accelerated science development itself [50-55], but their current culmination and now already long-lasting, welldefined crisis clearly designate the advent of the biggest ever scientific revolution involving not only serious changes in special knowledge content but also its qualitatively new character, meaning and role [33-39,44-49,56]. We specify below that situation, including today's science problems, related development issues and objectively substantiated propositions for sustainable progress. Summarising critically growing problems of modern science, it would be not out of place to begin with the internal science estimate by its practitioners and dynamics of its “human dimensions”. Increasingly dominating mediocrity of results, human choices and relations in today's fundamental science is expressed in a huge variety of public or private opinions (e.g. [1-39,42-46]) and presents a striking contrast not only to simultaneous triumph of empirically advancing technologies, but also to a previous, very recent (decades-old) and visibly huge, euphoric success of the same science, with ever brighter perspectives appealingly looming ahead. But more than ever “pride goes before destruction”, and the haughty spirit of seemingly omnipotent knowledge is “suddenly” transformed now into a dirty fight of vain ambitions accompanied by the “discovery” of omnipresent ethical decay in science practice (direct fraud or “officially permitted” lie, organisational corruption) [18-38] rather than any novel truth about reality. We reveal below the exact, rigorously specified reason for, and true meaning of, such dramatic “end of science” (cf. [3]), as well as much more positive perspectives of knowledge development far beyond its now ending, unitary level [35]. We show that scandalously stagnating old scientific problems, its supernatural “mysteries”, and increasingly accumulating, catastrophically big new paradoxes result from the artificially limited scheme of officially dominating, “positivistic” science approach, where the unreduced, interactiondriven, dynamically multivalued reality is replaced by its artificially fixed, effectively zerodimensional (point-like) projection [35-37]. That huge, maximum possible simplification of reality within the subjectively imposed unitary doctrine explains both its visible (though always strongly incomplete) success at the lowest levels of complex (multivalued) world dynamics and even more evident (and this time complete) failure to provide objective world description at higher complexity levels, marking the border between “exact” and “natural” sciences (let alone “humanities” and arts) which is only formally postulated in the official knowledge framework. Thus scientifically specified origin of conventional science limitations exceeds essentially their existing empirical descriptions (e.g. [3-6,19-21,39,50,55]) that often correctly present various aspects of the resulting knowledge degradation, but fail to trace its genuine meaning and related perspectives of positive change. The End of Unitary Thinking As noted above, organisational, social and other “human” problems of modern science are directly related to the unitary, strongly and explicitly reduced framework of its content, and as the latter is determined by the mathematical basis of science, one cannot avoid analysing its limitations that underlie and illustrate all higher-level features of knowledge. The deliberate rejection of a search for realistic, complete explanation of natural phenomena in terms of natural entities in favour of purely abstract “model” adjustment to quantitative results of selective measurements is the real, now totally dominating basis of official science doctrine, also known as “positivistic science” (due to explicit emphasis of the concept by Auguste Compte) and stemming from Isaac Newton's approach and attitude (“hypotheses non fingo”). It is that very special, strongly and artificially limited “paradigm” that was imposed on the whole body of knowledge since the apparent “great” success of Newton's model, which explains also its modern “end” accompanied by a catastrophically growing multitude of difficult, practically “unsolvable” problems and related “distrust of science”. Another kind of science oriented to the causally complete understanding of reality was founded by René Descartes half a century before Newton, but was later practically totally excluded from official science practice despite the accumulating difficulties of Newtonian “science without explanation”. That “terrible mistake” of conventional knowledge involves transformation of mathematical tools (or language) of science into its self-important, absolute and therefore dominating purpose, so that the whole tangible reality is finally replaced in that “positivistic” doctrine by purely abstract world of mathematical, imitative and immaterial structures (see e.g. [67-75]). But is it a problem of mathematics as such and can the unreduced, tangible reality be exactly reproduced by a mathematically rigorous language of science? As shown in detail in the universal science of complexity [35-37,57-66], the answer is positive and it is due to essential and well-specified extension of the basically wrong, artificially restricted use of mathematics in conventional science. Conclucion While the necessity of transition to another, qualitatively different kind of civilisation development becomes evident from various perspectives and within different approaches giving rise, in particular, to the ecologically motivated sustainable development idea [90], it seems yet to be poorly recognised that such important change can only be based on the equally deep progress of underlying knowledge, so that the desired truly sustainable civilisation development can be uniquely realised in the form of society based essentially on a new kind of science ensuring causally complete, totally consistent understanding of all practically modified systems [37]. As the already realised applications of universal science of complexity convincingly demonstrate [35-37,57-66], that kind of knowledge also uniquely provides the causally complete understanding of fundamental universe structure, laws and purpose, from elementary particles and cosmological problems to life, intelligence, consciousness and their development. It is such unreduced, reality-based vision of the forthcoming change of science that should guide its modern development, as opposed to obscure manipulations of unitary science scribes remaining totally closed within their self-interested, narrow doctrines and abstract models separated from real life and related purposes of human progress. The best science advances have always been driven by intrinsic, individual creativity and constructive interaction within the whole civilisation development. But those could only be rare, “enlightenment” moments in the dominating kingdom of scholastic unitary thinking. And in today's epoch of “material life” triumph, fundamental knowledge as such has lost its creative character, superior purposes and has become just an imitative, parasitic and unpopular appendage to flourishing empirical technologies. There is no positive solution on that way of quickly advancing decadence, for either science, or civilisation whose development it should guide. Any hope for usual, evolutionary progress by small steps within the existing system is vain, that is the definite conclusion of both rigorous analysis of the universal science of complexity (applied now to the system of science or civilisation as a whole) and accompanying qualitative considerations. The last scientific revolution outlined in this is a unified and uniquely consistent change to another, progressive branch of development of knowledge and civilisation based on the power of that qualitatively new knowledge. 网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文作品权归所有；未经官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯作品权现象，英语论文题目，保留一切法学追诉权。() 更多范文欢迎访问我们主页 当然有需求可以和我们 联系交流。-X()，英语论文 |
