Russian science is on the verge of great changes - scientists expect that the new Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Dmitry Livanov, known as an extremely harsh critic of the Russian Academy of Sciences, will begin a radical reform of both the academy and all of Russian science as a whole.
Immediately after the inauguration, Russian President Vladimir Putin made it clear that he intended to pay considerable attention to science - a number of his first decrees were connected precisely with increasing the efficiency of science and funding research work, and one of the first big speeches took place at the general meeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Experts interviewed by RIA Novosti believe that changes are inevitable, but they fear that perestroika will destroy the old structure, and that an effective "new science" will not be created. Some of them believe that the Ministry of Education and Science needs changes no less than the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Disperse the "Ministry of Science"?
The current head of the Ministry of Education and Science, who in 2005-2007 served as deputy minister and then rector of MISiS, never spared harsh words for the Russian Academy of Science. In several articles published in the journal "Expert" in 2007-2009, he wrote that the Russian Academy of Sciences has become a "ministry of science" - with a swollen bureaucracy, inefficient spending of funds and a complete unwillingness to change. Livanov cited data according to which the scientific performance of the RAS - the number of scientific publications in relation to costs - is significantly lower than that of Russian university science, not to mention foreign scientific centers.
The new minister considers it necessary to conduct an international audit of scientific institutes and laboratories, which should close those that do not scientific research serious level. In addition, it is necessary to increase grant and competitive funding for scientific research, selecting projects based on the results of rigorous scientific expertise.
One of Livanov's proposals is to transfer the property of the Russian Academy of Sciences to procedural management, and to create a pension program for research workers on income from property rental. This, in his opinion, will allow 10,000 employees of retirement age to be painlessly retired, which will seriously improve the personnel situation in the Russian Academy of Sciences.
She rides herself, she presses, she gives help
Molecular biologist, Professor Konstantin Severinov considers the main problem of the RAS to be in a state of deep conflict of interest. "The Academy of Sciences (represented by a rather narrow circle of its members) itself determines the directions of research and carries them out by itself, using and distributing funds allocated by the state," Severinov said.
"I believe that this scheme is wrong in principle, since a person is weak, regardless of whether he is a good scientist or not, and the temptation to use funds for his" own "research and not give way to others is very great," the scientist explained.
He believes that under its current leadership, the RAS is not capable of solving its problems on its own.
As a positive example, Severinov cited the Molecular and Cellular Biology program, which has been operating since 2002, and which has transparent criteria for the distribution of funds. The main criterion for selecting the winners of the competitions is the presence of articles in leading international scientific journals.
“Since publishing in such journals requires passing through a rigorous sieve of scientific and editorial expertise, laboratories that regularly publish in such journals have in fact passed an external independent assessment and received a “quality mark,” Severinov said.
According to him, "no one prevented the academic leadership from extending this simple principle to other programs, and thereby stimulating those scientists who work at the world level," but this is not happening. "Instead, many academic curators of programs distribute funds in a non-transparent way, very often within a narrow circle of" comrades, "summed up Severinov.
"The desire to seriously change something for the better in the current ... (RAS leadership) is not noticeable. And initiatives, including those from academicians, aimed at changing the situation, are not supported by the RAS leadership," said a researcher at the Institute of Physics named after Lebedev RAS Evgeny Onishchenko.
Competitions and grants, grants and competitions
The leadership of the Russian Academy of Sciences constantly raises the issue of the lack of funding for science. At the same time, since 2002, the annual federal budget spending on civilian science has increased more than tenfold, to 323 billion rubles.
Experts agree that an increase in science funding is necessary, but believe that a simple infusion of money from the state budget will not improve the situation. Here, in their opinion, it is necessary to use the procedure of competitive distribution of funds with the involvement of external expertise with the participation of foreign experts.
"Funding through competitions and grants, of course, should be developed and increased, without this dynamic development of science we will not get it. But this type of funding will be ineffective without creating a transparent and independent system of expertise - this is absolutely obvious," said the academician, head of the laboratory of the Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry named after Shemyakin and Ovchinnikov RAS Sergei Lukyanov.
Independent expertise will strengthen "well-functioning groups," added Sergey Popov, a senior researcher at the Sternberg State Astronomical Institute (GAISh) of Moscow State University.
"In the end, the reforms should be based on them (these groups - ed.)," the astronomer stressed.
At the same time, the reforms will be associated with the solution of emerging social problems, Yuri Simachev, deputy general director of the Interdepartmental Analytical Center, is sure.
He explained that "an individual institute may be (according to average indicators) relatively weak, but it may have strong teams" in which honored scientists work. If it is decided to close the institute, such scientists should be given the opportunity to continue their work in other institutes or universities.
"Everything should be thought out here, just cutting down (and closing down weak institutions) is wrong," Simachev said. According to him, the age limit should not be applied everywhere either, since, on the one hand, there are really actively working scientists over 70 years old, and on the other hand, there is a "ballast" in the face of much younger employees of institutes.
Hirsch is good in moderation
It is believed that the measure of the effectiveness of science at different levels, from individual scientists to entire institutions, is the number of scientific articles. The experts unanimously urged not to see this as the only possible way to assess researchers.
According to Lukyanov, there are no ideal scientometric indicators, "but you need to focus on something, so you can't do without them." "The citation index and the impact factor of journals are good benchmarks, but each field of science needs its own scale, and you can't rely on them alone," the academician noted.
According to him, the h-index (takes into account the number of publications of an individual scientist and the number of citations of these publications) is very fashionable, but its value strongly depends on the age of the scientist. “As I get older, I personally like this index more and more,” Lukyanov joked.
“In addition, peer review mechanisms can be used, however, scientists with high citation rates should be involved as experts,” said Sergei Guriev, rector of the Russian Economic School (NES).
"Of course, you need to understand that in different disciplines the indices can have different meanings. In some disciplines, you need to rely more on peer review of world-famous scientists," he added.
Popov admitted that he is close to the approach, "when the initial selection of experts is carried out according to formal criteria, but in the end we have an expert assessment at the end."
“In addition, it is important to understand that nominating a person with a low citation as an “outstanding scientist” must be accompanied by a detailed explanation of this. Situations in science are very different, but explanations are necessary,” the scientist added.
"Of course, there is no need to set plans for indicators, but they must be published so that the community knows which institutions work at the provincial level and which ones at the world level," Guriev stressed.
University science needs to "grow up"
"Any attempt (to reform the RAS) will come down to increasing the bureaucratic burden on science, which will not make it any better. There are not so many ways to solve such problems, the most common one is to create a new structure in parallel or transfer the center of gravity to an existing one." social institution. Apparently, a change in the structure of science suggests itself - from academic to university," says Georgy Lyubarsky, a researcher at the Zoological Museum of Moscow State University.
At the same time, the rapid transfer of the "center of gravity" of science to universities will not be a solution to problems.
"University science is more universal and less specialized, it is less efficient in its structure than academic science, it is a tool with less specialization. So it is somewhat naive to arrange competition between them. Academic science does not work for us, not because it does not win competition with universities, but for a number of completely different reasons," Lyubarsky explained.
"At the moment, the academic segment of science has great potential, and a sharp shift of gravity to universities without experience and the possibility of good mobility (scientists) can have tragic consequences. Such issues are not resolved by order. In my opinion, it is most important to understand how strong academic groups are ready to cooperate with universities," Popov said.
At the same time, he did not rule out that in the future strong research centers could emerge on the basis of some universities.
"But, of course, the Russian Academy of Sciences will remain the main supplier of fundamental knowledge for a long time," Simachev emphasized.
The danger of conflict
At the same time, experts warned against attempts to reform Russian science based on the interests of the leadership of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Ministry of Education and Science, since this could only aggravate the situation.
"A conflict between the ministry and the top academics can lead to serious negative consequences," Popov is sure.
"I can urge (RAS and the ministry) to see something good in each other, because if both sides see only the bad, they have no basis for interaction," Simachev said.
"The compromise should be based on the interests of (strong) working groups at the level of laboratories, and not on the interests of ministry officials, members of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences and directors of institutes," Popov said.
In his opinion, reforms should be carried out with the participation of representatives of such groups, and the Society of Scientific Workers (SNR), established in February this year, can become the basis for the formation of representation. According to the charter of the ONR, its goal is to promote the development of productive scientific activity in Russia and increase the efficiency of using the achievements of science.
Popov lamented that "now, unfortunately, representatives of scientists at different levels are sometimes people who are not respected representatives of science."
"Neither the general meeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences, nor the trade union of the Russian Academy of Sciences are considered by a wide range of active scientists as (their) authorized representatives," he stressed.
wishes to the ministry
The experts shared their ideas with the agency on what they would change in the work of the Ministry of Education and Science, if they had such an opportunity.
“I would transfer science funding from the ministry to a real grant system, since funding for federal targeted programs and other programs through lots is more like purchasing goods than funding science. This is absolutely counterproductive for its development,” Lukyanov said.
"Many problems of Russian science are caused by infrastructural problems associated, for example, with the difficulties in delivering reagents necessary for research. The Ministry could be of great help in solving these problems," Severinov said.
Onishchenko believes that "at the moment, the Ministry of Education and Science is the same doctor who should heal himself." Many scientists reproach the ministry, in particular, for the inefficient use of funds allocated under federal targeted programs.
"If Dmitry Livanov manages to put things in order at least in the field of competitive financing within the framework of the FTP, create understandable and adequate mechanisms for the formation of topics for ordering work, establish a qualified scientific examination of applications and reports on the progress of work, then this alone will be a great achievement. This task should become one of the new minister's work priorities, I think," Onishchenko said.
Popov advises the ministry "to listen more to the opinion of real scientists, to work directly with them, to rely on representative representatives (of science)."
In his opinion, such a practice would bear fruit. Popov called the introduction of an amendment to federal law No. 94 on public procurement an example of taking into account the requirements of scientists. This change removed the use of state grants for science from the law.
"The key role (in the adoption of the amendment) was played by a small group of active and productive (from a scientific point of view) young scientists," Popov emphasized.
Guriev said that plans to change the work of the Ministry of Education and Science "will soon be made public by the new minister, I agree with him." "I can only say that the ministry should become and will be even more open to the community," the NES rector added.
Refers to "Science"academic science
About the differences between academic science and science, about how necessary the organization of science is, about what is harmful and useful in the organization of science.
There is already an article about science on the site: Science, which offers a reasonable definition: Science is a system of knowledge (and not information!), verified by personal experience, formalized in the form of publications (information), which is replenished by methods determined by scientific methodology.
The most important thing in this definition is that science necessarily follows scientific methodology: Science is based on a method of cognition that strictly uses the principles scientific methodology ii.
It also emphasizes that science does not exist outside of its carriers - scientists, just as hunting does not exist outside of hunters. Science is an abstraction for the conventional designation of the specifics of behavioral activity. Owners of such behavioral activity (carriers) develop purely individual forms of its manifestations.
The materials of the site reveal all the components of the concept of the definition of science, in accordance with the methodology of definitions and statements ( , ). In particular, personal experience, reliably reproduced under certain conditions by other researchers who observe scientific methodology, forms the axioms of the field of study, which constitutes a systematic description of the interrelations of phenomena, which allows us to assume and verify the mechanisms of its cause-and-effect relationships. Accordingly, researchers who strictly adhere to scientific methodology are called scientists.
For the interaction of scientists, providing them with research material resources and opportunities, it is necessary to organize scientific research, in the most general form called the organization of science. Historically, it took a variety of forms, and at the same time, very often it turned out that in some cases scientific methodology was neglected, which is understandable, because it has developed into a formalized system relatively recently and in some of its statements is still being corrected both in the understanding of individual scientists and in the general culture of scientific research.
Not so long ago, in the USSR, "Marxist dialectics" was in the first place, and the methodology of science was not even mentioned in universities.
As a result, Soviet scientists did not have a systematic understanding of scientific methodology at all and did not follow many of its principles, which, first of all, was reflected in the reliability of the actual research results, their comparisons and generalizations. They studied in the so-called. "scientific schools" of one or another authority from science - like artisans or children in the period of trustful learning, adopting the personal methods of the teacher. This early way of transmitting life experience is characteristic of all animals and ensures survival while there is still no personal experience, but then requires a period of personal initiative so that what is perceived becomes not dogma, but personal knowledge, adjusted depending on changed circumstances and personal characteristics, see Stages of the psyche economic development.
In the USSR, empiricism flourished in organized science, allowing many kinds of illusions in the interpretation of the results obtained.
The organization of science in the USSR simply repeated the organization of all other institutions; it is fundamentally impossible to cover everything centrally with the desired efficiency. Lack of understanding of scientific methodology and turned research, in fact, into alchemical experiments with the method of "scientific" poke.
The Soviet structure of academic science has basically been preserved to this day, which gives rise to many contradictions and conflicts, making the organization of science ineffective, and scientists within such an organization are almost incapable.
The general picture is as follows: a person who has come to science from a university and does not have the skills to apply scientific methodology to AI finds himself in the administrative subordination of his "scientific supervisor", who attaches him to some section of the structure organized by him. The visitor is forced, as in the Middle Ages, to first engage in rough work, the essence of which is generally not clear to him, and gradually become imbued with the topic of research of the supervisor, just like a craftsman.
On the site, in an article on psychophysiology, at the level of the mechanisms of organization of the psyche, it is considered how creativity differs from craft. It does not matter at all what the inclinations and personal interests of a young scientist are, he has no right to choose, except for the ephemeral right to find a more suitable scientific adviser. It is included in the routine of the flawed organization of academic science. Of course, at home in the kitchen or at his personal computer, he can do whatever he wants, if he still has time and energy for it in the evenings, but then why does he need academic science? Only in order to move up the administrative hierarchy, after unloved and sometimes unnecessary efforts to defend a couple of dissertations and get academic title allowing him to utter "scientific" statements with great aplomb and authority. What it is and why it is vicious is discussed in the article Competence or authority. This gives rise to a specific snobbery of the established "scientists" and their secretiveness with a low scientific potential e.
If science presupposes strict adherence to scientific methodology and this is the main criterion for selecting its products, then when the word "academic" is added, this quality is too often not in demand, and the selection is carried out largely according to other criteria. This became apparent when science-like trap articles were sent to the VAK journals, which the editors readily came across. This was revealed when a lot of fictitious dissertations, bought papers, low quality of the main mass of articles and dissertations in general were discovered, in which neither the subject of research nor the results obtained can even be needed by anyone in principle. This is revealed in many cases of revelations of "scientists" in the press, interviews, in their popular works (live example: S. Savelyev, and many other academic scientists in the field of psychophysiology, which this site specializes in: , , , , etc. .).
Many aspects of the organization of academic science do not correspond to the principles of science itself, for example, consider the system of reviewing publications. Ideally, everything seems to be true there, and I understand how you want something perfect that you can rely on. But in reality, the peer review system is a sore of academic science. Because the reviewer is always simple a real man, often no more educated (regalia notwithstanding) in a given topic and in general in methodology than the peer-reviewed author. But having received the right to judge from the position of the highest truth.
Here is who reviewed this article published in the VAK journal:
Effect of electromagnetic radiation modulated by biostructures on the course of alloxan diabetes mellitus in rats ??
Here, not even talking about the anti-scientific essence, the text itself is intentionally confusing and contains errors of formalization and simply juggling.
There are a huge number of such "works", with similar even formal errors. There are even more "works" that are of no interest to anyone - just garbage. What articles, what dissertations - the majority - a plan for the shaft because it is necessary not for science, but for the formal promotion of this "scientist" up the ladder of titles. Therefore, they publish everything that is beyond the soul, and not really interesting for science. Then science journalists dig through this huge pile, looking for very rare articles that are really worth something.
Where there is a prohibitive filter, acquaintances and money always flourish.
It is necessary to deprive publications of this negative functionality, and let them publish whatever they want, for example, on the websites of their laboratories or thematic scientific websites, but without receiving benefits that are not related to science (but what about the distribution of cash flows??!! ). Only scientific priority and the formalization of achievements should remain. Do you want to review what is hooked, what goes to the top of popularity and the focus of the community - yes please, even in the discussion of the article, which should be moderated in order to ensure only the discussion is essentially and justified, even if it is your own separate article but open to everyone. But academic workers, from the very beginning of their development in the system, are mired in the vices of this system and would perceive this as blasphemy and as an attack on science, and not on the sores of its organization. How many I have seen them, stupid and worthless, but with great aplomb. As elsewhere, the percentage of truly worthwhile researchers is very small. At best, this is a conscientious laborer in science, but at the same time everyone is equal, "have the right", and there is mutual responsibility.
That is why the scientific community is silent or speaks very affectionately about the freak S. Savelyev? Despite the fact that he released so much anti-scientific bullshit to the people, he continues to hold scientific posts and his type, not subject to open direct criticism in scientific circles. Everyone professes a certain ban on such criticism. Here in Japan, a scientist has disgraced himself on fraud (there is also a money matter there), so he does hara-kiri, and Savelyev continues to head scientific structures and muddy the waters, acquiring a sect of fans.
In the article The Role of Academic Journals: A Period of Uncertainty:
First, all experts have come to a unanimous understanding that data on publication and citation is not an exhaustive measure of scientific productivity. Moreover, due to the operation of Goodhart's law, almost all such indicators are subject to manipulation procedures; the modern scientific community has fully mastered these procedures. Thus, journal publications and the evaluations based on them lose their original meaning.
Secondly, the peer review system, the periodicity of publications and the period of waiting for publication are less and less consistent with modern requirements. As a rule, the peer review system is a "stencil" through which only standard articles manage to break through; truly original articles are often rejected. In addition, the peer review process and journal publication schedules result in papers being stuck in the editorial office for years. The rapid obsolescence of the studied issues negates such long publication lags. In this regard, various electronic publications - specialized sites and online journals - are beginning to act as an alternative to traditional academic journals. In addition to high speed and democracy in publishing scientific materials, these publications have another indisputable advantage - free access to them on the Web. Materials from prestigious open access journals are generally not available; they can only be accessed through traditional libraries, individual or institutional subscriptions. Meanwhile, the materials posted on the Web sites are subject to copyright and are already being used as full-fledged sources of scientific bibliographies.
Thirdly, Internet publications are becoming full-fledged participants in the global space of scientific information. This means that authoritative works can be placed not in prestigious journals, but in online resources and obscure publications - and this does not prevent authors from receiving recognition. A typical example is the fate of D. North, who, not being a representative of the mainstream, has practically no publications in elite magazines. However, this did not prevent him from becoming one of the most respected economists in the world and receiving the Nobel Prize. An even more impressive case was given by the story of G. Perelman, who posted preprints with his proof of the famous A. Poincaré conjecture on the site arXiv; this is what many mathematicians do before publishing their papers in journals to initiate discussion before the peer review process is over. However, the Clay Institute award suggested that the solution to the problem should be presented in the form of a publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Perelman categorically refused to publish his materials in the form of an article. Moreover, later the final proof of the Poincaré conjecture was performed by other mathematicians on the basis of the works of Perelman, nevertheless, the Clay Institute Prize was awarded to G. Perelman anyway (the fact that Perelman refused the prize does not change anything in the sense of recognition of his scientific merit). Although this case is exceptional, it has created an important precedent when the highest scientific awards can be received by a researcher without being published in prestigious scientific journals. The main thing is to fix your authorship on the official specialized site, the rest is not important.
Talk about the need to reform academic science remains largely unproductive and is hindered by academic scientists themselves, of course, first of all, by those of them who have reached the top of hierarchical authority and do not intend to lose their privileges.
Let's consider the existing opinions about academic science on the examples of published articles.
Vladimir Nakoryakov, academician, member of the Presidium of the SB RAS: " I never cease to be amazed at academic meetings. Favorable atmosphere, over-optimistic speeches. Like, we survived, adapted, and then everything will be fine. Is that so?.. If you listen carefully to the speakers, you cannot fail to notice that they are talking more about finances and very little about science itself, about major scientific achievements... ".
... experienced speakers try to pass off mediocre developments as major achievements. Cheerfully assert: the number of scientific publications is growing. But where are most articles printed today? Maybe in precocious collections or in magazines that have not gained credibility? It is worth paying attention to another indicator - how often do they refer to the works of Russian scientists in well-known international publications? I can judge by the Institute of Thermal Physics of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, where I worked as a director for many years, and now I head the department: the number of references to articles by employees decreases from year to year. Surely, the same is true in other academic research institutes .... But if the Academy of Sciences could be judged by the number of academicians and corresponding members, then progress is obvious .... it seems that this is becoming a tradition: the less real science at the institute, the more beautiful the pictures-slides in the director's reports ...
... "golden days" for fundamental science were in the 60s, when such research was carried out, mainly in academic research institutes. At that time, the Academy of Sciences was forbidden to look for additional earnings and conclude economic agreements. State funding was enough for the purchase of modern equipment, and for a more or less decent salary..
In pre-perestroika times, it was in science that a person could most fully express himself and maintain independence. There were no other opportunities like this. In today's market society young people have more chances for self-realization and the assertion of its own independence in other areas of activity.
The very spirit of the market economy does not correspond to the organization of research work that has developed in our country. Is it possible that competing firms will order new technologies from one large research institute, where it is impossible to keep a trade secret? Therefore, large applied institutes were doomed and left without work.
And in the US and Western Europe, science is driven mainly by small research institutes, laboratories and centers. It is there that up to 90% of innovations are born. Tens of thousands of innovative firms appear and disappear, having fulfilled their purpose and specific order.
In developed countries, the state also supports fundamental research, but even here state budget funds are not "tied" rigidly, for a long time, to one structure or another. Funding is designed for world-famous scientists.... Following the "stars" is moving and state budget funding.
By the way: Science is incompatible with commerce. And by the way, G.P. Fedotov said that "efficiency and intelligence are incompatible." It is very difficult to remain impartial and follow exactly all the complementary principles of scientific methodology. It is difficult not to love your creations and not to defend their "truth" at all costs, but to carefully and skeptically find refuting facts and judgments. And any incentives that interfere with such impartiality are capable of making a profanity out of science. That is why in no case should science be accompanied by commerce. It is one thing to perform some kind of commissioned research using science, but impartially revealing the true result, it is another to adjust the result or “scientifically” justify the effectiveness in such a way as to contribute to the prosperity of the relevant business (I think it would be possible not to give examples: the effectiveness of drugs and medical methods, "statistics" in favor of the development of a particular business, and much more). Well, the pursuit of science as a profession, in order to obtain mathematical benefits from this, also affects scientific creativity, as a professional pursuit of art in order to sell their creations.
Here is what the Science and Business article says:
A quite natural consequence of the formation of a new professional community was its striving for structuring along scientific lines, the struggle for status, including the formation of an elite, the first sign of which was the possession of master's and doctoral degrees, as well as the creation of scientific societies of the corresponding profile.
The American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS) analysis of this situation has greatly alarmed its leadership. First, the explosive growth in the number of newly minted doctors and masters did not correspond in any way to the amount of research in the course of which these "scientists" could be trained. Secondly, the quality of the selectively reviewed dissertations and their expertise by no means met the most liberal professional standards.
When the violations became widespread, the means of professional management by the AAAS turned out to be clearly insufficient. Moreover, in a number of cases, there were reasonable suspicions of corruption of the leadership of universities and colleges, who could not resist the pressure of business representatives and officials who were hungry for scientific laurels .... A mass check of the validity of diplomas was carried out, as a result of which massive violations were recorded.
At the turn of the 1990s, along with new successes in the interaction between science and high-tech business, a number of scandals were noted that attracted the attention of both the scientific community and government institutions responsible for the development of science.
It was about the manipulation, misinterpretation or falsification of research results in reports or articles in highly respected scientific journals. And although the number of discovered cases of unscrupulous reporting of results was relatively small - the count went to a few - the regularity of their appearance caused more than justified alarm among scientists and science managers.
By the way: For academic scientists to realize themselves and become less gullible, critical reasons are needed.
I must admit that the proposals and discussions of reforms that were actively taking place on the site around 2005-08scientific.ru , and then (since 2008) also on the pages of the Troitsky Variant newspaper, turned out to be very inspiring and encouraging for me and some of my Russian colleagues. It seemed that these discussions and specific proposals were about to “infect” the Ministry of Education and Science and the Russian Academy of Sciences with the necessary reforms.
Something even worked, but now it seems to me that this promotion was in the style of "one step forward, two steps back." The reformers clearly overestimated their influence and underestimated the resistance of the system. Many academic officials and researchers, despite some grumbling, adhere to conservative views, do not see structural problems and do not want to change anything structurally (reforms are always a risk that you will be the very “flying chip” when “the forest is cut down”) .
In my opinion, the most important of the proposed initiatives is the midi lab program (5 years and funding of 10–20 million rubles per year), but there is room for improvement here as well. Probably, it would be best to start evaluating applications through the already existing expertise of the RFBR and the Russian Humanitarian Foundation (plus invited international experts), rather than creating criteria and an expert council anew. In addition, it is necessary to think about what will happen to the new successful laboratories in 5 years.
Molecular biologist, Professor Konstantin Severinov considers the main problem of the RAS to be in a state of deep conflict of interest. "The Academy of Sciences (represented by a rather narrow circle of its members) itself determines the directions of research and carries them out by itself, using and distributing funds allocated by the state," Severinov said.
"I believe that this scheme is wrong in principle, since a person is weak, regardless of whether he is a good scientist or not, and the temptation to use funds for his" own "research and not give way to others is very great," the scientist explained.
He believes that under its current leadership, the RAS is not capable of solving its problems on its own.
And here is another attribute of academic science - like official journals of scientific publications, which, like crusts scientific degrees and titles give authoritarian weight to the statements of a scientist (and why is it bad - in the article Competence or authority). The negative aspects of the authoritarianism of such publications are increasingly being discussed, for example: Leading scientific journals - an end or a means? :
Nobel laureate Randy Shekman on the eve of receiving the highest scientific award opposed leading scientific journals because of tyranny and disruption of the scientific process.
...In five months of journalistic investigation, Science reporters found 27 companies that offer the widest range of services - from translating and editing the original text to freeing the client from having to write anything at all. Prices for services vary depending on the prestige of the magazine and range from 1.6 thousand to 26.3 thousand US dollars.
...“The fact that the scientific community in recent times began to actively address the problem of closed scientific journals, which I consider a very positive trend,” commented the head of the Cyberleninka project, candidate of physical and mathematical sciences Dmitry Semyachkin, commented on the current events.
...It is for such publications, free from reputational burden, that Randy Shekman advocates (by the way, he is the editor-in-chief of eLIFE magazine). And also calls on universities and foundations that are engaged in the allocation of grants to pay attention to the essence of the work, and not to what journal it is published in.
In the article What Turns Scientists On:
Neurophysiologists have experimentally proved for the first time that the mental activity of a scientist is physiologically different from the work of the brain of an ordinary person. The difference is in motivation: a normal person wants to earn more money, while a scientist wants to get as many publications as possible in prestigious scientific journals.
... the nature of scientific production and consumption is different from that which exists in Everyday life. The results of a scientist's work are judged by the number of works published by him in scientific journals, which in some way determines the "usefulness" of his activity and influence on the scientific community.
...The experiment demonstrated for the first time that the citation index really affects mental activity, thereby changing the behavior of a scientist. His nervous system adapts to the competitive environment: a high impact factor was the most desirable reward. The prospect of publication in a prestigious publication stimulates the scientist much better than money, emphasize neurophysiologists.
...In Russia, the value of this index is increasing from year to year: career growth and the possibility of "survival" in science depend on it. The index puts pressure on staffing decisions, the allocation of scholarships and research grants.
We read in a frank interview and book:
... a closed academic environment can develop in the direction of absolute stagnation and the complete cessation of any intellectual activity. In the XVII and 18th centuries most universities, including Oxford, Paris and Heidelberg, have become closed corporations, workshops that monopolize the issuance of diplomas. They took money for conferring doctoral degrees, took a fee for joining a corporation, and were mainly replenished by the children of the professors themselves, including those of little learning ability.
...An academic career in Russia looks like this: there is a young promising student who attracted the attention of a supervisor, the supervisor invited the student to graduate school, because having a graduate student is profitable - this is a convenient burden that brings the leader closer to the title of associate professor or professor. The same official, obeying the logic of total control, makes sure that the teacher does not sit idle - and a graduate student is presented to him. But from the moment someone enters graduate school, the bureaucratic machine has already clicked, because a graduate student must defend himself, otherwise the money spent on him is wasted. In official documents, this is called "the effectiveness of postgraduate study" - the proportion of those who defended themselves within four years from the moment of enrollment. For excessive demands on students, graduate school can simply be closed. And for the organization, and for the leader, and for the graduate student, protection is good.
...From this follows an inexorable conclusion: if you reasonable person, then you will try to defend the minimum acceptable dissertation so as not to waste time and effort on formalities. You can even download it from the Internet with a clear conscience, and tell your colleagues about your real ideas. “You understand that these are my real ideas, and the fact that this is so in the dissertation is a formality,” and they will answer: “Well, of course, we understand you.” In Russia, a dissertation is mainly suitable for consecrating a personnel decision in the face of higher officials.
...If you bring a revolutionary dissertation to the dissertation council, then the chances of this thesis to please him are minimal, as the whole history of science says.
...Thus, there is a set of formal reporting, not taken seriously by anyone, created by bureaucratic control. And there is something separate, which is considered a real intellectual life. Then it turns out that somewhere this life has remained, and somewhere it has disappeared - but the flow of dissertations has not dried up. Specialists in the creation of formalities appeared - far from those who can produce the best intellectual results. And in the career race, they overtake those who have such results.
... With articles, in a sense, everything happens the same way as with dissertations - it is much easier to publish a good, low-original text than a super-original one.
... Every adult inhabitant of the academic world directly and indirectly participates in the distribution of much more funds than he can appropriate for himself. He participates in the selection of candidates for positions, sits on a committee that distributes grants, plays some role in a dissertation or journal complex that allows others to apply for work, and so on and so forth. Generally speaking, he can fully monetize his decisions by allowing the highest bidder to buy them on each of these issues. This mechanism is called “rollback” in modern Russian, and the formal methods of evaluation that so poison the life of scientists are a direct reflection of the desire to somehow prevent its use. Perhaps, however, a less straightforward appeal to it is not for direct enrichment, but for opening moral credit, creating a network of obligations that bind others to oneself. Investing these resources in maintaining networks allows access to resources that the individual controls but does not possess in a roundabout way. The unfortunate feature of the network is that the resulting obligation is greater, the less likely the recipient of the good would be to become its owner on the basis of pure merit.
...One way or another, in terms of its organization, the Russian academic world is completely networked, and this has consequences both for the history of sociology and for the individual destiny in it. Of Weber's class, status, and party, the dominant form of stratification in him is, of course, the party as a form of voluntary association based on mutual assistance. These parties take the form of multi-generational academic families, united by friendships and moral obligations, headed by one (or several) of the founding fathers and mothers, who do the main job of coordinating all activities.
...an inevitable consequence of this state of affairs is that networks become accustomed to looking at organizations as if they were their own.
For those who are thinking about getting a Ph.D. or Ph.D. degree, it sometimes seems that the main thing is to do good work that deserves a positive assessment of the scientific community. But they are wrong. The regulation on the award of scientific degrees - exists in several versions from different years with different interpretations of certain procedural issues ...
The goal is to pass a plagiarism check. Commercial offices for 3-4 thousand rubles will gladly write out a conclusion and put a stamp, and if you, let's say, have confidence that the percentage of borrowings will be higher than 10-15%, the same intermediaries can mark out the most egregious places in your dissertation. Moreover, they will swap the words for you, so that, God forbid, no one would think that you were cheating.
... if the defense takes place, no one will be able to challenge the positive decision of the dissent council on the basis of anti-plagiarism or unscientific work.
... you will need to get the minutes of the meeting of the department (department) of the institute or university, which sends for protection. Please note: if you have a supervisor (for Ph.D.) or a consultant (for doctoral) and he is in charge of this department or department, in no case should he chair this meeting. And in general, we must remember that the applicant becomes something like a leper: the fewer contacts he has in the scientific community, the better. It is not necessary to enter into co-authorship, it is impossible to work together with potential participants in the defense - opponents, members of the commission. This is expressly forbidden: what if your opponent develops a subjective attitude towards you!
...A commission of three experts from the dissident council is being assembled, which checks the package of documents, appoints opponents and the leading organization - another scientific institute or a university that will make an official review of the dissertation. In scientific life, it is called the "conclusion of the troika."
... how do the experts of the Discussion Council select opponents? Let's open the secret: opponents are always selected by the applicant himself. And you must do this even before submitting documents to the council. Don't think that you can just put together two (for Ph.D.) or three (for Ph.D.) best people in your field. Official opponents should not be your co-authors, should not cross paths with you on any of your works, should not participate in the same projects as you, be specialists in the same field in which you work, and should not cross. Try to find a specialist in the syntax of the Hittite language in Moscow, suitable for opponents, if there are only four Hittite linguists in this country, only one of them is engaged in syntax and this is your supervisor; with all hittologists, you either work at the same institute, or have joint publications, or participate in the same project; and you also intersect with almost all syntaxists in Moscow in one of your places of work. The task is not easy!
... about 50-70 abstracts should be printed, signed on the cover and certified by the signature of the secretary of the dissertation council. if you post a list of opponents along with the abstract, and one of them refuses to participate for various reasons - for example, he does not like the number of mistakes you made when typing, or he unexpectedly gets a job in your organization - you will find yourself in difficult situation, because the abstract has already been posted. It is no longer possible to make changes to it, and the procedure will have to be started all over again.
... you should not expect that by the time of your speech all members of the Academic Council will have read the dissertation; with a high probability they will flip through the abstract during the report.
...remarks will come mainly from those who barely understand what you are talking about, so they will be petty and dependent on the character and habits of the particular speaker.
... The main thing at this stage is to provide a banquet. Colleagues will never forgive you for the lack of treats if the voting results are positive.
... it is procedural violations that are the main trap for applicants for scientific degrees. And the rules for the preparation, conduct and execution of the defense are arranged so that, in fact, any dissertation at the technical stage of the Higher Attestation Commission could find fault. Reading the rules, you rather wonder how people still manage to defend themselves. According to Sideltsev, “they defend themselves in 90% of cases because no one cares about the technical details. And the council, and the supervisory body, and the leader. Indeed, the system is designed in such a way that conscientious scientific work they practically have no chance to do without one or another technical violation on the defense and pass the VAK only if no one feels “great personal dislike” for the applicant. and much more...
Science is such a craft , which is transmitted in the only way: from the Teacher to the Student. There is no "textbook for scientific thinking" and will never.
This is a delusion stemming from a misunderstanding of the mechanisms of the psyche and non-compliance with the methodology and correctness of statements ... Purely methodologically, there is an error in it - the absence of application limits: will never.
Science is based on formalized, generally understood principles of scientific methodology. This information becomes personal knowledge after individual adjustment by personal experience with the formation of subjective concepts, forming a personal system of research behavior skills and creativity skills. Unlike a craft, which can be transferred by mirroring other people's skills and adjusting one's own (as all higher animals pass on their experience to their young), it is the creative skills that are important here, providing originality, novelty with a certain benefit (this is important not only for science, but also for art and in general all areas that feed the common cultures). Only the person himself can develop creative skills and develop his own area of research interest on the basis of the existing worldview, and no teacher will do this for him, although he can give methodological advice, motivate, warn of mistakes (but the fact that this is a mistake, man must understand for himself, see About the psychic phenomenon impudence). All this is already contained in the formalized information accumulated in culture about the scientific methodology of cognition. Such information was sorely lacking in the organization of Soviet science.
There is a typical trend of following authorities in science, which can be traced back to the time of Aristotle: " Aristotle claimed that the fly has eight legs. And the authority of Aristotle among scientists was so great that for several centuries it never occurred to anyone to test this statement on real flies. In addition to the statement about the fly, Aristotle has others: for example, the statement about different number goiters of a man and a woman, etc.". Saying and even thinking across the authorities in academic science is fraught with attitude as a dissident, and the reputation of a scientist is the most precious thing he has. Therefore, once the meters convinced themselves and others, for example, that the word is the basis of thinking, I do not even understand essence of thinking, then it is simply inappropriate to show doubts and think about this, and this is one of the serious underestimated factors of authoritarian conservatism in academic science, against which there is no reception, in contrast to the natural norm for the development of ideas through a period of violation of authoritarian dogmas among young people up to shocking arrogance.
When talking about the achievements of science, first of all, they mention the authors of discoveries and generalizing theories that are adequate to reality, first of all, this is not just some kind of law, but Newton's law, Einstein's theory of relativity, etc. All great scientists have demonstrated originality in their creations. The psychology of scientific creativity is directly subordinate to the mechanisms of adaptability to new conditions, see Basic mechanisms of creativity and Dissatisfaction with the existing ones.
Achievements of science do not arise on their own, it is an original result of understanding a particular scientist, a bearer of science, more precisely, a bearer of scientific methodology (in the part that allowed him to make adequate and correct statements). Whatever they say about collective research in science, they can only be collective in terms of conducting experiments and discussing them, and comparison, interpretation of data and generalization are the product of personal creativity. Most often, the final theory, which holistically describes the phenomenon within certain conditions, is the product of a fragmentary and consistent generalization by several individuals, but they created their own fragments in themselves, although taking into account information coming from others. And someone generalizes everything into a final theory with data - part of the overall work done subjectively.
Therefore, first of all, in the matter of organizing science, one must proceed from the optimal conditions for organizing personal creativity and the optimal organization of communications with other scientists.
It is those who have the proper skills to compare and summarize the evidence from research and should, in principle, determine what kind of additional research is needed for further progress.
Experimenters find additional evidence and verification of assumptions, and it is to ensure experiments that the main funding should go, because the work of theorists does not need anything other than tools that help to generalize and formalize their results: mainly personal computers. They do not need laboratories, they can work in the most familiar and personalized environment. They should not waste their time on the development of some scientific direction within the framework of the "topic" of academic science. They use formalized data obtained in various laboratories for comparisons and generalizations into a holistic picture of the interrelated factors of the phenomenon under study. Theorists should not be tied to any of the areas of research defined by academic science. The organization of science should not be centralized. What can ensure effective decentralization is a separate issue, and such solutions are quite understandable and far from new.
It seems that in this situation the main function of the academies is lost. But if this feature turns out to be retrograde, then why should it continue to be supported?
Academics - commanders of the hierarchy of warriors of science inevitably form a centralized, voluntaristic management with all the negative and personal subjectivism that limits science. And the older the academician, the more inevitably he is conservative - due to the peculiarities of the organization of personal life experience, in which critical periods of development irrevocably bypass, adapting the neural network to current conditions.
The development of science is dynamic. What one has to specialize in within the framework of the study of some phenomenon loses its relevance after a sufficiently complete study, and it is fundamentally impossible to specialize in the most general: there is an infinite number of this general. Theorists are constantly changing one topic of close attention (of their active creative dominant) to another, even if it is related, say, within the framework of psychophysiology, building an increasingly generalized picture, clarifying or expanding the scope of using previously found patterns. But this situation is even more typical for experimenters. Therefore, an academician "for life", as a lifelong monarch in some area, is an anachronism, which becomes more and more obvious with their age, which forces them, without advertising, to leave science and become more and more caretakers and politicians, performing precisely royal functions and sowing voluntarism, while increasingly using the authority of the highest scientist wherever it is beneficial for them, which it becomes simply dangerous to confirm openly for this authority.
From all that has been said, a picture of the need for a more explicit specialization of such two types of behavioral activity as theoretical (comparisons and generalizations) and experimental (obtaining missing facts with checking assumptions) emerges. Usually, in the course of development, at first a set of personal practical experience, experimentation is more characteristic, which then gives grounds for adequate reflection on the basis of personal practical knowledge, and not information (book "knowledge"). However, there are always attempts to theorize among beginners, and the less sophisticated a person is, the more global and universal they are. This is the period of early philosophy, the formation of a worldview, and the products of such philosophizing are naive, contain many errors and illusions of various kinds. But you need to go through these mistakes, correcting them and reaching more adequate skills. Those who immediately begin to love their theories become carriers of the fixed idea and are eliminated among scientists. Self-conceit, unfounded certainty (lack of constant reasonable skepticism, necessary even for one's own creations), misunderstanding of scientific methodology - all this makes it impossible to be a scientist in essence.
In personal development, personal interests, preferences, abilities are revealed, based not only on inherited predispositions - this is influenced by many factors of both the social environment and the characteristics of the personal development path. There are those who are increasingly specialized in experimental methods, both in the search for new data and in testing the assumptions made, and those who are increasingly improving the skills of comparisons and generalizations. This is the watershed of scientific specialization of the most general nature.
In each personality, at the level of the mechanism of organization of the psyche, an optimal system of interaction of subsystems-researchers has evolved, relevant for a given individual of a spectrum of specializations, solving the problems of cognition in adaptability to new conditions. Each subsystem is specialized to its characteristic context y conditions. For hundreds of millions of years of survival, a system of creative finding of solutions has been formed, which constitutes the intelligence of all outstanding theorists. They have in their heads a certain distribution of the specifics of research depending on the characteristics of the context and tasks, as if several scientists were working simultaneously, but without interfering with each other: someone monitors current news and compares, someone in the mode of unconscious activities fueled by a common creative dominant of an unsolved problem, prepares heuristic insights, someone generalizes everything into a consistent picture. The principles of such interaction, including both personal experimental exploratory behavior and personal experimental hypothesis testing, are already largely understood and could be used to most effective organization science.
Continuation: .
Presented in ch. 9 picture refers to the "academic" ( "fundamental" "pure") science, which is characterized by the fact that scientific knowledge arises here regardless of the solution of applied technical problems. If we turn to physics, then the foundations of all branches of physics, collected, say, in 10 volumes of "Theoretical Physics" by L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, will fall here, numerous VIO theories and experiments that grew up in links to emerging inside her questions. At the same time, we are not talking about the psychological "motivational setting" of scientists, which is mentioned in the work, but about a meaningful cut. In physics, the academic science and the community in which it lives can apparently be distinguished as follows. Take the relevant branch of physics (it stands out easily, since, as mentioned above, it has clear grounds in the form of the RUF) and identify conferences, publications, review articles, university faculties and training courses. The result will be content and a community that corresponds to academic science based on the branch of physics under study. There will be some admixture of applied research, but the basis would be clear, at least for physics until the first half of the 20th century.
If we turn to the history of physics of the 19th–20th centuries, we will see that a significant direct influence of technology on the formation of a new branch of physics takes place only in the case of thermodynamics, where such fundamental elements for it as the second law of thermodynamics, the Carnot cycle and the following from them the concept of entropy, caused by the development of steam engines during the industrial revolution of the XIX century. But this is an exception. Electrodynamics, statistical physics, special and general theories of relativity, quantum mechanics are born from the solution of problems that arise within "academic" and "university" physics, without being directly influenced by the development of technology. The military-industrial interest in Germany in spectroscopic research, of course, provided rich material for the formation quantum mechanics, but it cannot be regarded as a principal direct influence. The data generated by these experiments, which were expensive for that time, provided important material for posing fundamental problems, the solution of which became one of the important components in the creation of quantum mechanics. But it was still only material that was involved in the development of academic science. The problems of the black body radiation spectrum, the photoelectric effect, the instability of the electromagnetic version of the planetary model of the atom - three of the four main problems, the solution of which leads to the birth of quantum mechanics - are born inside academic physics. Within academic physics, the material of spectroscopic studies is also used.
Newton's "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" and Galileo's theory of falling bodies do not arise from technical problems either. (Galileo solved the problem posed by Aristotle, Newton built a theory explaining Kepler's laws of motion of the planets.)
The PIO and some SIA that arise in it are involved in "applied research" that is formed around the corresponding "technical" problems in engineering practice. This applied research can be organized in "applied science" (an example of such a process is the formation of "physics of magnetic fluids"). This process is typical of the era of the scientific and technological revolution, where the density of applied research increases dramatically. Another way of forming applied science is also possible, when some subsection of academic science finds technical application (it is possible that such an example is given by magnetohydrodynamics, which arose in the 1940s as a result of the intersection of hydrodynamics and electrodynamics, and later became the basis of plasma theory within the framework of the project on development of a controlled fusion).
The main difference between applied natural sciences and academic sciences is that the former are formed around technical problems, for the solution of which the achievements of academic science are used, and the latter are formed around their own problems.
It is possible to single out Technical science, type of radio engineering, in the center of which are not only technical problems, but also their own special FECs (inductances, capacitors, diodes, triodes, etc.).
The processes taking place in technology, as well as socio-political processes, affect the development of academic science, but do not determine its development. Vivid examples of such influence are the "atomic project" and the political repressions of the Stalinist period in the USSR. Stalin's political repression almost destroyed national school genetics, which was in the 1920s. one of the leading in the world. The "Atomic Project" not only saved physics from such a defeat, but also gave it a powerful impetus for development. But from the point of view of the development of physics, all this is only the influence of external factors within the framework of the "external" history of Lakatos (see paragraph 6.7). Yes, as a result of the consequences of the Second World War and the arms race, at the center of which was the atomic project, the centers of fundamental physical research shifted from Western Europe in the USA and the USSR, but this did not lead to any revolutions in physics comparable to those at the beginning of the 20th century.
The scientific and technological revolution is mainly the involvement of science in the process of technological development. The reverse impact through the growth of funding and prestige, the growth in the number of scientists, sophisticated equipment and empirical material is great, but not the fact that it is decisive for the development of academic science.
The people and institutions that make up the academic community are often included in other types of activities and structures related to applied science and technology. But regardless of whether they are engaged in academic science in the main working time and how this activity contributes to their income, there is a community of scientists involved in academic science, and the essence of academic science has remained the same (although the forms of existence have become more collective, today they are usually laboratories rather than individuals). The sociocultural factor, for example, in the form of a decline in the prestige of science and an increase in the prestige of money, of course, affects the well-being of academic science, but rumors about its death are clearly exaggerated.
However, in the middle of the XX century. a new phenomenon is born - "Big Science". The system-forming role here is played by a large-scale state project (most often military-technical), which involves technology, technical, applied and academic sciences, politics and economics. This leads to a sharp extensive growth of science, an avalanche-like increase in the number of researchers, institutions, journals, special attention of society and the state. Examples of such projects, both here and in the West, are the nuclear and missile projects. Let's outline them briefly on the available domestic material. Note that the structure and type of activity in applied and academic ("normal", because up to scientific revolutions it doesn’t work here) the sciences are very close - the construction of a VIS from the available PIS.
The scale and variety of resources involved in such projects is demonstrated by the Soviet rocket project. To create the first domestic combat missile R-1, cooperation of 13 design bureaus and 35 factories was required, the R-2 rocket - 24 research institutions, design bureaus and 90 industrial enterprises, and the first intercontinental ballistic missile R-7 required gigantic cooperation throughout the country - about 200 scientific and technical, research institutes, design bureaus, laboratories of various ministries and departments. The creation of production capacities proceeded in the same way as in the prewar years, i.e. by attracting a significant part of the existing workshops and factories and some construction of new facilities.
"The period 1945-1953 became the time for mobilizing funds and deploying infrastructure for the atomic and missile projects of the USSR. A significant part of the material and human resources went to science, including institutes and laboratories, which soon after the priority tasks of creating rocket -nuclear weapons were solved, took up fundamental scientific problems.Such, for example, were the laboratories involved in charged particle accelerators ..., which formed the core of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Dubna.New higher educational institutions were also created (for example, MEPhI , Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology), special departments and faculties at universities and other universities", "closely associated with the institutes of the Academy of Sciences and the defense industry, focused mainly on training personnel for Sredmash and other science-intensive sectors of the defense industry." This happened against the backdrop of a sharp increase in the influx of talented young people into physics, mathematics, and technical sciences. "The Soviet scientific, technical and defense-technical infrastructure almost completely absorbed an unparalleled scale (almost 10 thousand certified physicists and engineer-physicists a year!) Personnel flow ...".
"Leaders nuclear project, first of all, academicians I. V. Kurchatov and Yu. Sredmashevsky sphere, but also in academic institutions. And the efforts of the authorities to support and develop physical science in the country, and the sharply increased prestige of the profession of physics, and the numerous scientific schools brought their remarkable results not only in the nuclear field, but also in a number of other areas of fundamental and applied science: in solid state and low temperature physics, optics and quantum electronics, etc. . Similar processes took place in the USA. As a result, in physics (and a number of other areas), the USSR and the USA took the lead.
- The chapter was written with the support of the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation grant No. 14-03-00687.
- E. I. Pruzhinil points out that the formation of applied sciences is a “quite recent event”, characteristic of the middle of the 20th century. "The farther back from the middle of the century, the more fragmented and personal becomes the manifestation of ... dichotomy" .
Science academic, alternative, pseudoscience and epistemology
It will be about the struggle of academic science, led primarily by Russian Academy Sciences, with pseudoscience, more precisely, with all those studies and writings that claim to be scientific, which official academic science does not recognize as scientific. I have already devoted the article “Between the Scylla of Pseudoscience and Charybdis of the Fight against It” to this topic, plus several articles (which I will not list) to the problem of pseudoscience in general. Back to this...
Science is everything. She studies many problems, looks for their solutions and periodically answers questions hanging in the air. But sometimes the questions come across too tricky. I present to you a list of 13 phenomena that modern science still finds it difficult to fully explain.
1. Placebo effect
Salt solution will anesthetize no worse than morphine if it is administered after a long period of taking this drug to the patient, without informing him about the substitution. But it is worth adding naloxone to the saline solution, which blocks the action ...
One of the most difficult questions that non-scientists ask scientists is how to tell a real scientist from a fake one?
This question actually contains two. First - how to distinguish a whole scientific movement or direction, especially a new one, from a pseudoscientific one?
Let's say for the first time you hear about people studying torsion fields or revising world chronology. How to understand whether they are scientists or charlatans? Secondly, if we have decided which areas are scientific, then how to find out who ...
The science of Kabbalah and modern sciences
The truth of the criterion of the value of science
The value of any science in the world is determined by the value of its purpose. Therefore, there is no science without purpose. What is the purpose of science, such is its significance.
Therefore, science is valued not for its accuracy and knowledge, but for the benefits and advantages that it provides.
Accordingly, with the disappearance of the benefits brought by science in the future, the value of this science will also disappear. And despite the fact that science has a lot ...
The great silence of the Universe or the absence of Cosmic Wonders is in obvious contradiction with rapid development our civilization. But the most striking thing is that both of these phenomena and separately are in flagrant contradiction with "materialistic common sense" and should be considered as a real Cosmic Miracle.
This is the main crisis of modern natural science, the way out of which may be the recognition of the existence of the Supermind or the scientifically discovered God.
“Declining interest in science continues”, “science does not fit well into the laws of the market”, “this is the purpose of scientists” and “VTsIOM employees were too lazy to travel around the villages this time”, - these are the opinions of specialists in various fields of science, whom I asked to comment the fact that 81% of Russians could not name a single contemporary Russian scientist.
Due to the fact that 81% of Russians could not name a single Russian contemporary scientist, I conducted my own survey among ...
The science! Her majesty science! She ripened for a long time and painfully, but her fruits turned out to be abundant and sweet. Stop, moment, you're great! Hundreds of generations were born, suffered and died, and no one wanted to cast this spell. We are exceptionally lucky. We were born in the greatest era - the Age of Desire Satisfaction. Maybe not everyone understands this yet, but 99% of my fellow citizens already now live in a world where almost everything imaginable is available to a person. O science! You finally freed...
Science and pseudoscience
Introduction
The problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience has existed since the existence of science itself, but today it is incomparably more important and relevant than ever in the past. Science has become the main productive force, without which the very existence of modern humanity is impossible: an unusually overgrown and continuing to grow, modern humanity simply will not be able to feed itself without science, because the resources that nature can provide without the help of science are not ...