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?
The main problem with the monopoly of science on explaining the world is that at any given time, the complex of ideas recognized as scientific is determined by many factors, including extra-scientific ones. It's just a sociological fact.
A classic example is the criticism of genetics and cybernetics in the USSR, which was actively engaged not only by party leaders, but also, above all, by Soviet scientists themselves. To make sure of this, just look at the scientific journals of the relevant time. If we assume a certain monopoly of “scientific” explanations, it will almost inevitably be a monopoly of “some specific scientific explanations”, which is hardly beneficial for the development of science.
That's why concepts like “pseudoscience” and “pseudoscience” are dangerous. Those who actively use them are usually sure that they are absolutely engaged in true science and that they will never be declared false scientists. However, this is very doubtful.
Another reason why a scientific monopoly on explaining the world is dangerous is that science can easily become a totalitarian institution of power and coercion. A classic example is punitive psychiatry, for example, in the USSR, when controversial scientific concepts like “sluggish schizophrenia” were used for extrajudicial prosecution of dissidents.
Again, some people mistakenly believe that if scientists are given unlimited power, they will surely lead humanity to peace, happiness and prosperity. But this is not the case. Any social institution with unlimited power becomes an institution of control, suppression and coercion.
Finally, of course, there are many extra-scientific ways of knowing the world, especially in the humanities. Questions about the meaning of what happens to us, about human emotions, etc. almost inevitably lead us to the field of art. Questions about ethics, for example, lead us to philosophy (if we don't consider it a science). Etc.
Moreover, even in science itself, extra-scientific methods of cognition play a huge role. You can recall, for example, about Ramanujan, a famous Indian mathematician, who claimed that mathematical ideas were revealed to him by the goddess who protects his family. I will note that I do not claim that Ramanujan was actually visited by a goddess. But I would argue that the religious and cultural context in which Ramanujan's personality was formed played an important role in his scholarly work.
In other words, the process of scientific knowledge of the world itself is much more complex and involves more factors than is usually represented in simplified and idealized models of the history of science. Listening to a piece of music, seeing a picture, meditating, attending a religious service, having dreams and occasional insights can play as much of a role in the process of scientific work as working in a laboratory or library.
Science as we understand it today is a specific format that comes from the London Scientific Society of the 17th century, when Newton and co. found a very effective method of selecting ideas and practices.
However, if we pay close attention, we will find that virtually every branch of modern science has a huge amount of” unscientific ” knowledge and procedures (if we are not talking about basic science). Finally, if we are consistent and rely on experience, then the correlation method – as it is, fig knows why-has always been and is today, it seems that in connection with the invention of quantum computers, it will prevail.
Surely it is not a science in the Newtonian-Leibnizian system to “hammer” factual information into a database and calculate predictions based on a probabilistic approach??
In addition, the current flourishing of astrology and a million other mystical practices indicates that the triumph of the scientific worldview in fact did not affect the belief of the world's population in miracles, omens, coincidences, and so on. and so on. and so on.
And this is also cognition, because it has both a conceptual component and a practical application.
The triumph of science today is more “sloganlike”. And these “tangled” particles? Generally a plague! Quantum theory and string theory have plunged us into” scientific ” mysticism, as well as complex numbers.
Well, since the word “cognition” was used in the question, and not “explanation”, “vision”, “understanding”, … then we should probably understand the standard definition of the term and the problems of cognizability of the world.
And yet, if the question is turned in this way, then there is no understanding, and what is “knowledge”?
The scientific method is based on logic and experiment. What can you oppose as an alternative to science?
Faith, denying both logic and experiment? Knowledge of God… There is no knowledge here, there is the comprehension of faith, immersion in a state of boundless denial of doubts, logic, … the truth is already given. This, sorry, is not cognition.
Science as a social institution has emerged for a reason. Especially active development of science took place in conjunction with the industrial revolution due to the fact that individual errors and mistakes begin to have serious consequences, both social and economic.
Social control over such areas of knowledge as medicine, engineering, etc. is especially great, because the price of a mistake is a human life, or even more than one. The scientific apparatus makes it possible to reduce the probability of errors to a minimum, since it imposes strict requirements on knowledge, and therefore, in socially significant industries, the monopoly of science is more than justified.
However, it is impossible to prohibit unscientific knowledge. First, such spheres of life as culture and art cannot be built purely on rational (scientific) grounds. Secondly, the social institution of religion has, in addition to epistemological meaning, also a social meaning, as Feuerbach and Marx wrote, for example, and therefore it will not be possible to simply throw it out, despite its unscientific nature.
Any monopoly is guaranteed to lead to degradation and a decrease in the quality of work.
OPTIMAL – competition, competition, control.
SCIENCE has a lot of secret ailments and needs treatment and major repairs, a monopoly will ruin science.
The question is basically not difficult, if you do not bother.
There should be an order in the world, which should be based on certain rules.
Science is something generally accepted and is quite suitable for defining these rules.
There will be no monopoly, there will be a mess.
But this by no means precludes unscientific knowledge.
Actually, these are parallel paths, although
there is a caveat: the unscientific, sooner or later, will become scientific.
This is a question.
=))
Here, for example, is a school. They teach physics, biology, and all sorts of other sciences. Is it a monopoly? what would it look like if it wasn't a monopoly?
Not every person and not at any age can master different explanations for supposedly the same thing. But we still live in a world where the natives of the Philippines use solar panels.
Whether people should be forbidden to explain the world in any unscientific way is another matter.
Of course, not much would come of such a ban, but why not try it? This is also a question.
…
Imagine that all unscientific explanations are forbidden everywhere, including on television.
The Ren TV channel is being closed. TV-3, too, and Gazprom and Profmedia are being sued. STS stops showing movies.
Perhaps they will finally restore ” 100 “and return” Norwegian slow TV”, there is no silver lining… but the question is “Culture”, so it's bash on bash.
Unfortunately, no one will remove the ad. Rather, they will let down the scientific base and prohibit content reduction. News, too – but all sorts of political shows, thank God (sorry), will go to hell. If you try hard. Except on the Zvezda channel – how they manage to conform to science, I can't imagine, but the fact is obvious.
In general, a good half of the programs will be removed, censorship will be restored-scientific, everything is in order… All right, all right, to be honest, and the editors of Discovery will probably be shaking their heads.
From the humorous remains “comedy club”, no? They seem to have everything under their own names… Zadornov died, but it's a pity. Although yes, it would have been closed in the first place, unscientifically.
Although I won't lie, I didn't watch much. In general, my TV has long served as a stand (since the “Norwegian slow” ended).
The Internet.
The Internet is completely Russian, everything else is unscientific (well, not that it would be completely, it's just difficult to follow them).
Churches are closing, that's understandable; but we'll leave the churches. Economic theory against. There will be libraries of popular science literature and museums of atheism, and in some places observatories can be made. There is a certain problem with the availability of the literature itself, however; half of the authors are crazy, and we can't do math alone – but nothing, in principle this is fixable. Basically.
In general, nothing terrible.
Even in some places right away a useful effect.
Just one more question: will science itself remain a science?..
In a broad sense, science is a sphere of human interests aimed at understanding (assimilating by the mind) the entire surrounding world (including the world of feelings, sensations and emotions of the researcher himself), using strict scientific methods (methods of objective research).
In a narrower, speculative-emasculated interpretation, science is understood as a set of official scientific institutions with its contingent of full-time researchers.
Only scientific bureaucrats can claim the right to a “monopoly on truth”. Real scientists always strive to open up the issue for clarification and deepening.
“Monopoly” is from the sphere of commerce, more precisely, violence in the interests of commerce. In short, power for the sake of money. This is from the field of political science, but it's not about science as such.
Human (individual) knowledge of the world begins in the womb. Of course, it can be called unscientific.
In addition, cognition very often occurs in an irrational way, without consistent logical reasoning, and through a wonderful insight, for example, the Periodic Table – in a dream.
Such a discovery-insight, “sent down from above” can not be called unscientific knowledge .
This is the result of long-term intuitive work with a large unsystematic volume of new scientific data (facts, theories, hypotheses) against the background of a huge fundamental scientific baggage of a scientist.
“Unscientific” knowledge by intuitive insight can be rejected for a long time by the official “science”.
But gradually, proofs are found, a dissertation is written, and a proven hypothesis becomes a recognized theory and becomes objective scientific knowledge.
And new “bricks of knowledge” find their place in the “puzzle” – a harmonious, consistent picture of the world order.
No offense,but it's a stupid question. Knowledge is knowledge-the truth is one – it is absolute! And it can only have any monopoly.In medicine, unscientific knowledge is called delirium.
Science is one of the many “tools “(strategies, rules, methods and techniques developed on the basis of them, etc.) for understanding the world. Science is a” tool ” in the broadest sense of the word, and in principle it cannot give a complete picture, which is exactly what science recognizes. In a microscope, it is pointless to look at the stars, measure their electrical voltage. Science can answer a limited number of questions. Science has nothing to do with emotional cognition of the world, sensory cognition of the world (although it receives all information through the senses and sense organs), does not concern the existence of God, the cognizability of the world.
@Alexey Ms, my answer is incomprehensible to most, and I don't understand the author's question, which is filled with contradictory uncertainty.
If we are talking about science, then, today, for most, it is presented with the established technological structure – the subject, hypothesis (theory, statement), method, fact and its description. The product of science must necessarily be repeatedly reproduced in any acceptable conditions.
If at least one technological link is not detected, then the result obtained cannot be called scientific.
However, due to the involvement of a large number of people who often do not know the culture of scientific research in solving urgent problems, “science” has become widespread.
I put the quotation marks deliberately, taking into account that if the information formally related to science has not passed all the stages of scientific technology (the hypothesis is not based on proven basic facts, the method does not correspond to scientific ones, the results are not reproduced in arbitrary laboratories, etc.). There is a blurring of ideas about science, about the scientific level of work to the everyday level. In my practice as a reviewer, supervisor, and consultant, there are plenty of cases of vulgarization of science. This is especially true in humanitarian areas.
Explanations cannot be monopolized at all, everyone has the right to resort to scientifically proven facts and laws, or to generate hypotheses.
And finally, we came to the realization of the unknown by unscientific methods …..
I am at a loss …. for such “knowledge” there is art (visual, musical, theatrical …..), but the author added this to science.
The word “monopoly” sounds confrontational. As if the questioner decided to push the heads of those who are for scientific knowledge of the world with those who are for an alternative “explanation”. How would you react to the question ” should alphabets have a monopoly on forming text messages?” of course, podcasts and YouTube have appeared – you can explain it without the alphabet(but it's also a catch, speech uses the alphabet.. well, let it be with music and without text…)
If the question is “cognition” – then from the moment when the instincts and behavioral aspects of interaction with the world end – only science. Fairy tales, myths, anecdotes, and the pleasures of speech music are all required and welcome, but this is not “knowledge and explanation”…
The task of explaining the world lies with philosophy, since it is precisely in it that the human being is at the center of its research. Physics deals with bodies, not souls. It observes, systematizes, and deduces general patterns in the movement of the material world.
It is like an observer who examines a human being, gets to the very first minutes of its existence in the form of a newborn, but still cannot understand where the child came from.
This is an allegory, but it clearly sets the boundaries of knowledge for materialistic (as yet ) science.
Find a movie lecture about cosmology on the Web. For example, Boris Stern. You will learn about the many hypotheses, dead ends, inconsistencies, and generally unknowns in your attempt to build a picture of the world.
Physics can be given a monopoly only in high school on teaching the school curriculum. And even then, with great effort.
Science, as Wikipedia teaches us, is a field of human activity aimed at developing and systematizing objective knowledge about reality.
Question: who defines objectivity or what defines it? And if science has a lame worldview, what will it define objectively? It won't detect anything. Everything will be subjective and according to her worldview.
If I am asked whether the worldview of materialistic science is correct, I am forced to answer-No, it is not. Not yet.
Cognition is the comprehension of the laws of the objective world.
Unscientific knowledge, as you put it, is knowledge that does not have a materialistic worldview as a method.
It can be said that I do not share a materialistic worldview. Does this mean that by applying the methods of a different philosophy I do not know the world?
Cognition can be anything, and explanation can also be anything.
The power of science is not in explaining the world, but in its predictive power.
If we take a transparent object with a convex shape and let the sun's rays pass through it, then we can definitely find the point where these rays intersect and the energy is concentrated. If a combustible object is placed at the same point, a fire will ignite.
Try to find out in any other way the place of origin of fire, which in many religions is considered a deity.
Try to get to know another person (soul) with the help of computer programs or even the notorious AI. The “monopoly on explanation” is very similar to the monopoly in selecting the bride for the groom.
Our phenomenal physical world is a small part of the existing world. Let's assume that we live in the Sahara and know nothing beyond it. And now science has monopolized the explanation of the world-that is, the Sahara, as the only one that exists. But then there was a man who put on wings and flew far beyond the borders of this world.
When he arrived, he began to talk about what he had seen.
But they ridiculed him and put him away, so as not to embarrass the people.
In the 16th century, scientific knowledge revolved around the geocentric system, and the “unscientific” put forward a heliocentric one. What is “unscientific” today ( not everything is natural) will become scientific tomorrow. This is the dialectic of cognition.
Here is a slightly ambiguous moment with the wording “explanation of the world”.
Even in antiquity, there was a division of knowledge and explanation of the world into several areas. This is clearly seen in Aristotle with his “Physics” and “What is beyond physics”, i.e. “Metaphysics”.
Science should have a 100% monopoly on working with “physics” – the material world in which it can be weighed, measured, and experimented upon. Within the framework of natural sciences and mathematics, the explanation of� must be strictly scientific. Otherwise, we get a poem by Vizbor about the sublime and the earthly:
“Oh, silly, the rainbow is a temporary bridge,
From the sky to the field, from eternity to the moment”
Unscientific knowledge is found in philosophy and religion. But there we give an explanation of the world not from the point of view of the technique of what is happening, but work with meanings. Scientific knowledge is not confined to meanings, it is confined to laws. For a biologist, the birth of a child with Down syndrome is a statistical error. For him, the question “why did I have such a child” does not make sense, and the answer to the question “should I have an abortion if my child was diagnosed with Down syndrome before birth” simply does not exist. Ethics, morality, and philosophy are involved here, but not science.
At the same time, scientific methods of cognition within the framework of meanings and morality are not applicable. From the point of view of science, the value of human life does not exist, and murder is not something out of the normal course of biology or history) So it is unscientific cognition that works here.
So we have two cognitions – one strictly scientific (for studying processes), the second strictly unscientific (for studying meanings), and they should not overlap with each other.
There should be no monopoly. There should be authoritative scientific opinions of a different spectrum. But the opinion of society and any person in general can also be valuable.
Over the past two hundred years, science has made a powerful breakthrough in understanding the world and thereby greatly improved the quality of life of the average person. It was in this way that she bribed humanity and achieved her own idolization. But it seems to me that she doesn't have much time left to feast on, because her resource is almost exhausted. Knowledge of the world has come to rest in quantum physics, which no one understands. And there are no prerequisites that they will ever understand . The consequence of idolizing science is that people can't see the banal fact. By the scientific method, a person can only learn what is simpler than himself. And a person, being a part of this world, is a priori simpler than this world. Just as you can't write a terabyte of information to an old gigabyte disk, you can't fit the world's device into a small human head. It's a shame, but alas. My forecast is that science has exhausted its potential in understanding the world and soon work in this area will stop. They stumble by inertia for another 50 years and will give up. Then it will be replaced by other institutions and the monopoly will be lost. So it doesn't make sense for the author to worry about it.
Unfortunately, science does not have a monopoly on explaining the world. In general, science, like any other tool for understanding the world, has its own limits – binoculars are certainly a good thing, but it will not help in cooking dishes, for example. So science can answer most of the questions of why in the material world and everything.�
We also have art-explains the world with feelings�
We have a myth and a parable that simultaneously work with both the subject and the object
There is also occultism, which shows us, sometimes unintentionally, the influence of the unknown on us � �
And finally, the philosophy that defines the framework of all this and is the most elegant tool�
About religion I can not say tk some religious. systems don't tell us much about the world at all
But in reality, the questions of our world are open questions, and in fact, science, even philosophy, is more likely to make themselves more complex than the world is simpler. After all there is no gnosis)
“Unscientific knowledge” is an oxymoron.
Science deals with any phenomena that can be reproduced. This is the only condition: so that the result of scientific activity can be somehow verified (the so-called Popper falsification criterion). It doesn't matter to the scientist how strange or crazy the theory is formulated or how esoteric the subject is — any knowledge that meets the criterion of verifiability will be scientific.
Conversely, if judgments are made about something that cannot be verified, then calling them “knowledge” is by definition incorrect. Just use other words, well, I don't know “personal sensory experience”.
Thus, knowledge is only scientific and nothing else.
Science has no monopoly on explaining the world.
Every philosophical trend, every religion, every belief offers its own explanation.
Science has only one difference.
Only science, based on its explanations, makes it possible to make verifiable predictions. In other words, only science works – in the sense that, based on its explanation, you can do something really new.
For example, all microelectronics is based on quantum theory. This area of knowledge is characterized by the fact that it is absolutely counterintuitive, i.e. it has nothing to do with our everyday experience. And yet, it works.
That is why it is easier to achieve success in practice by relying on science than on other explanations of the world. And that is why the feeling of a “scientific monopoly on knowledge” is created.
As Alexander Sergeev, famous in his circles, noted, natural science theories are not proven. They only have confirmations in the form of particular facts and observations. But no particular observations have deductive evidentiary value for the general theory.
The law of sufficient reason forces us to agree only with those statements that have been sufficiently substantiated, that is, logically proven. Natural science theories have no such basis.
Any attempts by any natural science community to monopolize the knowledge or explanation of the world will certainly turn such a community into a kind of totalitarian cult, which dictates its immutable dogmas to society, and persecutes and punishes heretics in every possible way.
In short, yes, it is highly desirable that only a scientific explanation of the world be given, since there is no such thing as unscientific knowledge (only fantasies and speculations are unscientific). And if it is more complete and evidence-based, then you will have to read the longrid below.)
It should be noted that there is no unscientific knowledge of the world. All previously known practices and methods of cognition that arose before the emergence of science, but proved their practical usefulness, effectiveness and effectiveness, were subsequently combined into what is called the ” scientific method [of cognition]” or simply “science”. Of course, you can imagine some good method of cognition, which for some reason is not part of science, but if such a method exists (or will exist), then, having shown its effectiveness and usefulness, it is guaranteed, over time (sooner or later) to be recognized as scientific, i.e. it will become part of the scientific method of cognition. Thus, if not in the moment, then at least in the limit, scientific knowledge is the only effective, efficient and useful from a practical point of view. On the contrary, since science always (sooner or later) adopts all the best practices of cognition, “unscientific cognition” is knowledge that is ineffective, ineffective, or useless from a practical point of view: indeed, if a certain method of cognition is good, then it is either already part of science, or it will certainly be recognized as scientific, which means that if a certain method of cognition is not recognized as scientific, then, most likely, it is something bad: the principle of recognizing approaches to cognition in science is somewhat similar to Zadornov's reinterpretation of coffee brand advertising Chibo: “we select only the best coffee beans, and we sell everything else to you” – this is about the same as science applies to approaches to cognition of reality: it includes only the best of them, and leaves everything else for fans of foil caps, attacks on Wi-Fi towers and other methods of “unscientific cognition”. In short, any method of cognition, if it is really good from a practical point of view, is already scientific, if not in form, then certainly in content.
From this we get that there is science in form (any homeless person who wears a white coat and buys a diploma in the transition is already a “scientist”), and there is in essence (i.e., any research based on the scientific method of cognition, regardless of regalia or lack thereof, does not matter whether academic or not). I think the memes about “British scientists who…” are already a clear illustration of this thesis. A mandatory criterion for any science is practical utility: although not all practically useful knowledge is scientific, any knowledge that does not (ultimately) bring practical benefits is not scientific in principle. Another mandatory criterion of science is validity and evidence: statements that cannot be verified – not only proven, but also refuted (if not experimentally, then at least theoretically; if not now, then at least in the future) – depending on the results of their verification, are unacceptable; unsubstantiated statements based only on, for example, “faith” are also unacceptable: any theory must necessarily be based on at least another theory, and preferably on observation or experience; any looped argument is unacceptable, therefore, all theories, if not directly, then indirectly (through other theories) are confirmed by the experience or observation of the subject of research. By the way: there is no science without a subject of research either.
Some who do not understand what is written may object: what is the experience/observation in such subjects as, for example, mathematics, philosophy or history?
For those who have asked such a question (and therefore did not understand what I wrote in the paragraph above), I emphasize that experience/observation is meant in the context of the subject of research. It is obvious that if the subject, for example, in mathematics, are a “relationship between objects, about which we know nothing, except that describes some properties – namely those that axioms are put in a basis of one or another mathematical theory”, and the experience/observation in mathematics refers to with regard to the relations between such objects. That is, experience and observation in mathematics imply, in relation to its subject – formal research methods and the ability to describe empirical data in the language of formal methods – to create a mathematical model.
Similarly, we can speak of philosophy as a science whose subject is to build a unified, holistic and systematic picture of the world, based on the knowledge of private sciences – an interdisciplinary field of knowledge that systematizes the conclusions of other sciences into a single most generalized view of the world and human thinking, its laws, features and laws in the most generalized form. Experiment and observation in philosophy are mental in nature, not empirical, based on analogy and similarity with known empirical data taken from other sciences.
Finally, experience and observation in history are also possible in accordance with its subject matter – the past, real facts and patterns of changing historical events, the evolution of society and relations within it, due to human activity over many generations. What kind of experience and observation can there be if the subject is the past? – Answer: related to restoring the chronology of events in one way or another, proving the possibility or impossibility of certain events in the past (based on an analysis of their causes), finding out which sources of information about the past are reliable and which are unreliable, which knowledge about the past is correct and which is not, how these or other events are related, etc..
And, as you can see from the examples above, experience and observation are closely related to the subject and method of research in a particular scientific discipline. Simply put, the subject of research is what we work with and what we want to learn, the research method is how we do or can do it and how we make sure that the received knowledge corresponds to the reality, and experience and observation are what we change or track during the research process.
It was a “lyrical digression” for those who “manage” to find ” science without experience and observation.” Let us return to the correctness of the scientific method of cognition.
As mentioned above, science consists of the most effective methods of cognition known to mankind. And since science is a developing phenomenon (and not a frozen set of dogmas – “eternal truths”, such as religion), then if some method of cognition is good, then it will certainly supplement science if it has not yet done so, and if some method of cognition is bad, then it will certainly be excluded from it if it has not yet been excluded. Development is a fundamentally important, obligatory and indispensable property of science: a frozen teaching inevitably becomes outdated, loses its connection with reality and ceases to correspond to reality in the light of newly discovered facts. Anything that does not have this property is not a science a priori-by definition.
Thus, there is no unscientific knowledge of the world, since any knowledge (and not at all faith, fiction, or speculation) is scientific knowledge. From this we get that in order to avoid the dominance of obscurantism, if not monopoly, then at least the priority of a scientific explanation of the world over an unscientific explanation is highly desirable.
No way, because Divide and conquer, in other words, sounds, dissected and perish! One science? No, of course, there should be a symphony with Philosophy and Religion. Explicit example…Ukraine has so far been in a strong alliance with Russia and Belarus! Everything was acceptable and understandable…but as soon as the feeling of being chosen rose up, it was unclear to the acc of freedom! We can see for ourselves. Yugoslavia was still a song…now. Snippets of phrases…The same thing awaits science!!!. Scholasticism compressed into an experiment, but stupidly resting on the unknown!
Science does not have a monopoly on understanding the essence of being.
Science, in the matter of knowledge of the world, goes its own very narrow way.
There are studies that are hundreds or even thousands of years ahead of the level of knowledge of almost all academic sciences.
Some members of the human race freely communicate with: gods, demons, devils, devils, and so on. And they know a lot of different things.
Question: WILL ACADEMIC SCIENCE ACCEPT THIS KNOWLEDGE?
And we will not lose face in the dirt. We will meet their expectations.
Have you noticed global trends towards widespread monopolization?
However, in many EU countries they want to take as a model our style of managing science based on non-scientific knowledge….. (or is it just my imagination?)
If you do not gather on the streets for more than two, then I am sure that no one will prohibit unscientific knowledge
I understand the question, I answer it
What kind of science? here someone said either in the answers or in the comments that feelings are neural interactions in the brain, but any doctor will tell you that this is nonsense, with emotions such a huge range of everything works, from hormones to muscle activity, that it is not possible to reduce the emotion to something specific in the body. And who should investigate this? create a separate science of emotionology? and where will he have a research area? only the body, and for example a person shows emotions in people differently than in solitude, and even on different people in different ways, that is, you also need to add sociology here.
This means that neither the method nor the research area of a particular science can be determined, so who will make any judgments?
The same sociology did not exist before Comte, that is, a layer of new research is mixed in with its own methodology, different from physics and chemistry. Is sociology a scientific study of the world or not? And there linguistics “spread its owl wings” over all this and says that you have such research because you have such a language. And here it is not far from the fact that shamanic practices are the same scientific activity, smoking post-structuralism
So there will be no monopoly, even if you set a goal, science will constantly expand, deepen, split up into the most bizarre forms of research, each of which will claim to be primary/main/fundamental.
We are not yet taking the internal problems of science, we still have general relativity and quantum mechanics in the contraceptive and exist parallel to each other. Although both are physics. And nothing
That is, even in the case of a relatively single science of Physics, we have come to contradictory results, and if there are ten sciences and each one claims to be fundamental for one reason or another
So, a monopoly will not work
And what is “scientific” and “unscientific” knowledge of the world is even more unclear. Psychology is it scientific or unscientific? Science is invented or discovered? Is my proposed Emotionology a new science or not?
So the scientific and the unscientific go hand in hand
Any knowledge is Good and Correct, the main thing is to have 100% predictive power – it will be Knowledge, Knowledge.
If there is no reference ideal predictivity – that is, there is no possibility to repeat and verify the experiment with the same absolute result in the presence of exactly the same conditions-then there is no Knowledge.
Well, one hundred percent predictivity and the ability to get a verifiable result regardless of the experimenter's personality (which is important for the concept of “absolutely the same experimental conditions”)- there is only in the Scientific method.
There is no unscientific “knowledge” and there can be no such thing, there are only unscientific fairy tales without the possibility of verification and in general without the presence of a Result.
Let's distinguish between three different “areas”:
1 – thinking accessible to each person,
2 – “social” cognition inaccessible to a single person
, 3-science as an attempt to organize cognition.
Now it's easy to see that:
every person has a monopoly on thinking (without which neither knowledge nor science is possible),
society / humanity has a monopoly on knowledge (which can be anything, even aesthetic, even religious, even experimental, even theoretical),
finally, science has a monopoly on the ordering of all knowledge.
What is science? This is knowledge laid out on shelves. As soon as the knowledge obtained by non-scientific methods is classified and sorted, it will turn into a science. Something like that.