Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Science is not a form of ideology, but only a set of empirically based and practically useful models for describing reality.�
Should such activities be separated from government funding? Unlikely: science is useful enough to justify funding with public money, and it is often both too theoretical and too expensive to be expected to be effectively funded exclusively by private funds in a modern economy. Be it radio telescopes or the LHC, large scientific projects today require not even state, but international funding.�
In turn, science (in a broad sense, including the humanities) provides effective models for solving practical problems – the most effective ones that we currently have. Therefore, reliance on scientific principles in government decision-making is justified within the limits of the applicability of these very principles.�
However, an excessive and uncritical desire to solve absolutely any problems using the scientific method, even those for which the scientific method was not originally intended, can be dangerous: as practice shows, an attempt to solve absolutely everything using scientific methods first of all destroys science itself, as Grigory Yudin correctly wrote:
Therefore, it is important to draw a line between science and the scientific ideologies that mimic it. The latter arise when the natural sciences begin to take on functions that are not peculiar to them, claiming to solve not only empirical problems, but also ideological questions. That is, to define values, ethics, make judgments about metaphysical questions, etc., while claiming to be generally valid and generally binding on their answers.
At the same time, there is a monopolization of science by a certain group of scientists who begin to claim that their interpretation of science is the only correct one, and the rest are wrong. Thus, science loses its pluralism and debatability-vital factors for scientific discourse – and quickly degenerates into an ideology.
This combination can have very dangerous consequences. Let us not forget that communist ideologies and national socialism, the former based on class theory and the latter on racial theory, were founded on the appeal to science in the twentieth century. And the scientific community was happy to support both, for example, the destruction of genetics in the USSR was committed not by any forces external to science, but by the hands of the scientists themselves, the then fighters against pseudoscience.�
So science is a tool, not a way to make decisions about how to use it. For decision-making, we have other mechanisms – we call them democratic institutions-and other means, first of all, philosophy as a basis for rational discussion of worldview issues. The state can and should use science as a tool and maintain this tool in working order, adequately financing it. At the same time, it should prevent science from becoming an ideology and support the pluralism of scientific discourse, just as it supports, for example, the free market or religious diversity.
Science, by definition, cannot be an ideology.
Science can only be applied and academic.
The state should encourage both types, and a smart state should also finance them.
Science is not an ideology. Science is a system of objective knowledge and a methodology for obtaining and verifying it. иде And ideology is a system of views (opinions, judgments, if you will) that express some (someone else's)thoughts. subjective interests.
Then let's separate the Law as well. It is also “a form of ideology”…
I don't know who came up with this “trick” about “separation”, but it doesn't work. It is possible to “separate” ideology from the state. But it is impossible to “separate” the state from the ideology, because the state model itself is the result of the influence of one or another ideology.
The result is an ideology (usually “imported”) becomes ABOVE the state. The ideology, according to the” patterns “of which this state is” tailored”, has a lot of” levers of influence “both on individual officials and on the state as a whole, but, here, the state does not have such” levers “- the ideology is”separated”.
Science is not a form of ideology. Science is science, and it is not clear why the author assumed that science is a form of ideology. The humanities can form an ideology, but they are not an ideology..
To begin with, only such sciences as philosophy, sociology, economics, and psychology are related to ideology, i.e., the sciences of the individual and society. The state is not only interested in their data, but is often a customer for specialists from these fields of science. Through these sciences, the state comprehends itself and develops ways to improve and adjust its institutions, develops its ideology. Natural sciences deal with the material resources of the state. The introduction of new technologies in production, transport, medicine, and the military is vital. Only basic science is in question in terms of research that is not directly related to any immediate benefits. But basic research is an integral part of science and cannot be derived from its organizational structure. Thus, science requires constant and most active attention on the part of the state. At the same time, science should be led by scientists, not officials. Science has its own organizational structures and mechanisms for nominating leaders and making decisions. The quality of all scientific activity as a whole and the practical significance of its results depend on how effectively feedback mechanisms are built between the state apparatus and the science management apparatus.
Any management structure, both the state and science, carries the history of its formation and the experience of generations of its leaders. The conservative always struggles with the innovative, new realities require transformations, the introduction of new ideas and principles. Here, the role of the personal factor and the interaction of the scientific and state apparatuses is extremely important.
Science, in general, is sponsored by the state. If science is separated from the state, it will simply disappear. But scientists can do research, regardless of the ruling elite, and convey the truth to people. In fact, any science is useless if it does not make people happier, and happiness is an internal indicator. For this reason, along with scientific achievements, it is necessary to develop the spiritual and moral component. So that instead of a pile of corpses from the bomb, there would be a lot of happy people, from free energy.
What's that supposed to mean? To put it simply, science means all our human knowledge about the world around us (plus the desire to expand this knowledge). Naturally, you can criticize some theories or logical conclusions, but you can't, abruptly decide not to stick to science (which you can do with ideology). What will it look like at all, you decide to stop putting up with it, snap your fingers, and gravity, EM waves, will stop acting on you, and the friction force will disappear?
If you are talking about the theory of evolution, it does not carry an ideology, does not call for demolishing temples and hanging priests. It simply shows the failure of other approaches (religious ones). For which, of course, and constantly tolerates throwing from all possible sides. Few people like competitors, especially if they do your job better.
Believers don't really want to admit that their world structure was based on ancient fairy tales, on the level of Greek or Norse mythology. Ministers don't really want to lose the parish and become poor peasants in women's dresses. Therefore, to present the scientific approach as an ordinary “religious” alternative, an ideal approach for all faiths.
So, attempts to deny the scientific approach, or expose it as an ideology, is a very vile thing, fooling people leads to the degradation of humanity. In fact, this is the destruction of your own achievements, you can hardly find an easier way to ruin a civilization.