Article Type : Review Article
Authors : Levintov A
Keywords : Problems and problematization; Technologized world of people; Exchange for money; Goals for interests
The lecture gives an
understanding of scientific activity as a collective mental activity that can
be organized as a flex technology. The author reveals his idea of humanistic
science and humanistic education, about the role of an individual scientist in
scientific activity and points to a specific ad hoc phenomenon. The text also
presents a schematic diagram of scientific production, its place and functions
in scientific activity.
Science in Russia, as indeed in many other countries,
has lost public interest. Scientific works lie on the shelf to collect dust, no
one is interested in them and does not know about their existence, and the
scientists themselves have resigned themselves to their uselessness. The goal
of scientific production is to provide scientific developments with practical
meaning, including commercial ones. The most important component of scientific
production is marketing. Marketing is not about selling what you can produce,
but about producing what you can sell. Scientific and technical marketing is
not about finding a consumer (as a rule, he is known in advance), but about his
problems and problematization; then hallucinations and hypotheses of their
solution follow, verification of these hypotheses in clients. The problem is
that the modern consumer has no problems because he has no goals (the problem
is the lack of funds relative to the goals). We live in a technologized world
of people, not workers, but employees that is, spending time in exchange for
money. The only reasonable solution to this typical problem is the substitution
of goals for interests, as well as the problematization of interests. Of dealing
with losses can come in handy. For the
scientific organization of production, it is important to minimize the following
losses allocated by Toyota.
·
From the time of waiting.
·
Due to excessive
processing.
·
Due to unnecessary
movements.
·
Due to marriage issue.
·
Due to unrealized
creative potential.
Unfortunately, the idea of business angels, popular
and productive in the West, is very doubtful for Russia due to a deep ethical
crisis and a crisis of trust. In America, film production and especially film
distribution was first concentrated in New York, Chicago and New England.
Studio photography predominated, and this business itself was part of the
restaurant business, as in Europe (see the film "The Man from the
Boulevard des Capucines”). To achieve independence, many filmmakers went to
California, to the village of Holy Wood (Holly Wood), where there are more than
300 sunny days a year, the land costs pennies and, therefore, you can move on
to location shooting. This is how the Film Academy and film production came
into being. Starting with the film industry, you can talk about producing as a
process. And like any production process, film production is divided into
procedures and operations, therefore, we technologize.
·
Script.
·
Scenario.
·
Casting.
·
Shooting.
·
Installation.
·
Voice acting.
·
Rental.
The producer does not participate in any of these
operations - he takes a managerial and / or entrepreneurial position regarding
this. The next step, even two steps on the way of production is taken by David
Sarnov in 1922 he launched radio broadcasting, radio theatre and radio concerts
as a global socio-cultural phenomenon, and in 1939 - television broadcasting as
a commercial project. Actually, TV production has become a real diffusion of
film production. The world froze in anticipation of further diffusion museum
and gallery producers, spectacle producers, sports producers appeared.
Everything that does not fit into industrial or agricultural, material
production has become - actual or potentially - subject to production;
everything, including design remember the American Albert Kahn in the USSR,
education and science. Of course, there is and has the right to exist
political, in particular, electoral production. Thus, production has spread and
continues to spread to the entire sphere of humanitarian production, creating
its own humanitarian technologies, which differ from material technologies in
spontaneity, prominences of creativity, unpredictability, freedom and
flexibility.
Scientific production begins long before the start of
the actual research and consists in the formation of a certain image of the
researcher, as well as in the search for a potential buyer / customer. At the
same time, it quickly becomes clear that, no matter who the buyer / customer
is, the consumer behind him is more significant and more important, and that
this is always a self-order, an initiative of the researcher, much more
demanding and demanding than any customer. Of course, the figure of the
customer is very important.
The days of lone scientists ended in the 19th century.
Modern scientific activity is a collective mental activity.
The concept of "collective mental activity" was developed and introduced into scientific, philosophical and methodological use by G.P. Shchedrovitsky and his followers. Science is a complexly organized and coordinated contradictions, discrepancies, different opinions are allowed and even welcomed collective activity, which is distinguished by a number of features [1].
I would like to speak in defence of science - not at
all because it has been customary to attack and denigrate it for more than half
a century. We are accustomed to accusing science of many sins, including
non-existent ones, for example, that it serves the state for the most part in
matters of armaments. But it was not science that started this dangerous game,
but the state, and it is not science that adopts the laws that establish the
rules of this game.
The history of science is, alas, the history of the
loss of its rights and freedoms.
At the beginning of World War II, Great Britain and
the United States, fearing that Germany could get ahead of them in nuclear physics
and the creation of an atomic bomb, established a ban on publications in this
area. The USSR, having obtained the secret of the bomb in a spy, illegal way,
immediately introduced the secrecy of scientific research, first in this area,
and then in almost all others. Even maps at a scale of 1:500,000 “half a
million” and larger turned out to be classified, and distortions began to be
introduced into all other, smaller scales, making these maps unsuitable for
practical use and navigation. Things sometimes came to the point of
ridiculousness: sea captains were forced to buy sailing directions even to
Soviet ports, but these maps, open "in the West", were immediately
classified in Soviet shipping companies. Freedom of speech and communication,
which is so necessary for the development of science, if only in order not to
reinvent the wheel, has not yet been provided in domestic science - and this
gives rise to insurmountable difficulties in the cooperation of scientists.
Separated by the "first departments”, developers in related industries do
not know what and how their neighbours are doing. A vivid example from personal
experience: at the Soyuzmorniiproekt, the head institute of the Ministry of the
Navy, I headed a division engaged in foreign trade transportation of goods and
passengers, as well as foreign trade, maritime transport services. We,
"freight traffickers", were acutely aware that cooperation and
information exchange with colleagues from other transport ministries, primarily
with railway workers, was necessary. I was the only one in my team who had access
to secret work of form 2 access to Soviet secret materials and documents, and
therefore only once I was allowed to manually rewrite the developments of
colleagues from GiprotransTEI the head economic institute of the Ministry of
Railways, now Russian Railways. I was disfigured in the first department of
this institute for a whole month, from dawn to dusk, for another month the
materials went by special mail from the Baumanskaya metro station to the
Airport metro station. When I received them, it turned out that all the notes
were completely crossed out with a bold black felt-tip pen. The same thing
happened with the materials of SOPS under the State Planning Committee of the
USSR, for which we and 500 other institutes of the country worked. Another
example is from Siberia. The Institute of Economics and Organization of
Industrial Production of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences
developed the so-called "Siberian report" on state assignment - a
sociological analysis and forecast of the situation in Siberia. The report was
sent to Moscow under the heading "for official use" (chipboard), and
returned to the developers with the heading "ss" and was not available
to ALL performers. It is characteristic that the State Planning Committee of
the USSR did not accept developments
using open statistical information of the USSR State Statistics Service as unreliable which is true, allowing only
departmental statistics to be used, which are an order of magnitude more
reliable, but completely inaccessible outside the department.
Right to be wrong
History teaches that the path of progress is not a
series of achievements and victories, but a hard path of trial and error. Step
by step, science has been deprived of the margin for error because research has
become too costly. The main factor in the rise in prices is the state tax
policy the developers themselves receive only about 10% of the cost of
scientific developments in the USSR, the norm is 8% in general, from which
personal income tax taxes on the activities of individuals are deducted,
including income tax in the amount of 13%. Risk has disappeared in science, and
with it the passion, and with it the true achievements and victories, even if
they are rare. There is nothing to expect from such a science, except for what
is expected. Science has become useless because of its predictability and
indistinguishable from industrial production.
False Direction
Science often goes in the wrong direction: either it seeks caloric, or the philosopher's
stone , or the elixir of youth, or it
raises frost-resistant macaques to collect pine nuts in Siberia the film
"Garage", or it fattens the gastro-satisfied cadaver "Monday
begins on Saturday" brothers Strugatsky,
then builds the material and technical base of communism. These and many other
delusions are inevitable after all, no one illuminates the path ahead and even
necessary for those who follow to know where to go is not or is not worth it. But
let's remember how many scientific directions were trampled upon by those who
do not understand a damn thing about science: “genetics is the public wench of
imperialism”, “cybernetics is the walking wench of the bourgeoisie”; these same
people removed Darwin from school biology, expelled sociology, psychology and
logic from schools. Science is able to determine for itself what has gone wrong
in it and establish prohibitions. As the French Academy of Sciences forbade the
development of a "perpetual motion machine" back in 1775, thereby
preceding the Great French Revolution. By the way, no one cancelled the laws of
political economy of socialism and all economic theories like the TPK or
“planned and harmonious development of the productive forces” - they died on their
own.
Negative result
“A negative result in science is also a result,”
officials and managers from science like to say, but in all instructions of the
Higher Attestation Commission, in all standards for research, in all technical
tasks and requirements, there is a clear setting only for positive results.
Negative results, which, by the way, in a normally developing science are much
more common than positive ones, are not allowed. This taboo has led to the fact
that no one undertakes research in which a negative result is possible, which
sometimes advances science much more than a positive one.
Science needs to restore its freedoms and rights if it
wants to remain a science and not a fiction. At present, this liberation is
possible only by the institute of scientific production, only on the path of gaining
sovereignty by science. Galileo argued that man is a unique being capable of
idealizing, that is, transferring the visible, sensual into ideas and ideals:
theories, schemes, hypotheses, models, layouts, reductions. Actually, science
is built on this ability.
The simplest and most obvious is a hypothesis, an
assumption. Many sciences are based on hypotheses. Especially the sciences of
man and society - psychology, economics, politics, history, that is, where
theories are most needed, not hypotheses. In geography, these hypotheses are
simply simplified to the point of inventing names “hypo” - deep, internal,
“thesis” - a name. The word "theory" appeared at the end of the 5th
century BC. In Athens - this is how Pericles called the festive theatre box
office for the poor. Theatre and theory are not only words of the same root,
but both - a spectacle, a show, a way of translating the ordinary and visible
into the principled and visible to look is physiology, to see is an
intellectual ability. Danish prince Hamlet dies at 12 I was in Elsinore in 1984
and this version was given to us by a tour guide, but Shakespeare turned this
spectacle into the most profound tragedy. It is clear and visible to everyone
that if objects of different masses and shapes are thrown from a height, then
they will fall to the ground at different speeds, but Galileo proved that g,
the acceleration of free fall, does not depend on mass, shape and material “if
the facts are not coincide with my theory, so much the worse for the facts.
Model - identification of the most frequently occurring, occurring features,
qualities, characteristics. As Teilhard de Chardin argued, evolution moves
along random lines: four roots in the back teeth are characteristic of both
cows and humans, but this is pure and non-functional chance. A model is almost
always a reduced copy of a real object, reduced for clarity, convenience and
safety of experiments, etc. All kinds of idealizations are reductions, and
therefore, as Galileo honestly admitted, they are just parodies of reality,
sometimes funny.
Search
and research
Unfortunately, the vast majority of scientific papers
and publications are limited to search, research, search, literary search,
dictionary-encyclopaedic, collecting herbariums and collections of rocks and
minerals, butterflies, statistics - and describing what is found: simple, for
example, classification or all sorts of correlations this so much more than
that, and this has grown more than that by so many percent. Sometimes this is
accompanied by a search for causes and cause-and-effect relationships, although
we no longer live in a causal world, or a search for meanings and goals, as a
rule, too sealed for confident judgments and assessments. As soon as we move
away from reality and begin to idealize it turn it into reality as a springboard
for actions and activities, we enter into actual research, research, reflection
search. It is clear that the reflection of the search is much more important
than the search itself, because what is sought is something superficial and
primary (primitive), while the reflection of what is sought and the search,
research, is deep and ennobled by abstraction. Science is, of course, a search,
but what are we looking for? There are several versions and each is true in its
own way, does not deny all other versions, but is included in a certain
composition, ikebana.
We are looking for the truth
Many people say so, and some even think so, while
everyone unanimously admits that the truth is unattainable. The search for
truth is not always self-deception. There are people who are sincere in their
search for truth. True, there is one flaw here - this search is practically non-reflexive,
and therefore does not go into research. All the searchers of truth known to me
are scribblers and rhymers from science, the search process and its infinite
duration are important to them (God forbid they reach the truth and discover
it, but they are calm - the truth is unattainable, at least in their lifetime).
Unfortunately, they are all dogmatists and sectarians, arguing with whom is
like against the wind. The search for truth, or rather, Truth , is a deeply
vain occupation: that Truth, Hestia ,
with which the world began, as a result of the Big Bang, fell apart for more
than 14 billion years, first into space and time, then into smaller fragments,
fragments, into the smallest and microscopic - it is no more. I have never
dealt with this hopeless case.
We are looking for a solution to
the problem
Problems arise only there and then when people have
goals: the problem is the realization of a shortage or inadequacy of means in
relation to goals. Science is one of the ways to solve problems, along with
design, programming, inventing, intuition, and engineering. Problem-oriented
science is always applied in nature and is aimed at one or another practice. I
like the idealization scheme proposed by Galileo (slide 3). Science began when
an ideal object appeared in it. This major revolution in theology, and science
was embryonicly present precisely in theology (theology), at that time the 16th
century containing not only science, but also philosophy, was made by Galileo,
who with unparalleled honesty carried out all the methodological, surgically
precise work on isolating sciences from theology - and precisely thanks to the
introduction of the institution of the ideal object by him. The main thesis of
Galileo is that human consciousness is able to penetrate reality due to its
special structure, namely, due to the potential of ideologization. All other
sentient beings are unable to idealize reality. The imputation of the ability
to idealize, to capture reality, albeit in a distorted certainly distorted and
highly individualized form, allows a person to form and retain the memory of
this reality in the form of an ideal object. This ideal object has a purely
ontological status and is quite far from reality, even unbelievable: all bodies
fall with an acceleration g, regardless of their shape, mass and fall height.
However, this freak meaning the ideal object allows a person to do something
very important - to create a reality in which he can act reasonably and
purposefully. In the course of developing practice, having already completely
forgotten about the cardinal and almost insurmountable dissimilarity between
the ideal object and reality which is never given to a person in any sensations
or experience, a person begins to use the ideal object technically: g that does
not exist in reality turns, for example, into a technical load parameter during
the training of astronauts and in other areas of reality. Thus, the ideal
object appears twice: the first time in the transition from reality to reality
as a means of penetrating and constructing reality the ideal object is a master
key that allows us to penetrate the world of reality, the world of activity and
actions, and the second time - as an instrument that arises in course of
reality. Moreover, in the second case, this is not only an ontological
representation, the ideal object acquires logical harmony and completeness, it
can be mathematized, as almost all of physics was mathematized, as
consciousness is mathematized by V. Lefebvre. Moreover, the ideal object-2
becomes a resource of ideologization - and we return to the first step, to the
person's standing in front of reality and his attempt to penetrate it through
his ability to see something ideal in it. The circle closes, however, our
return to the original position means that we are no longer the same as we
already have the experience of entering and leaving reality, and the experience
of acting in reality, and the experience of building and using an ideal object.
In fact, this is all very suspiciously reminiscent of autism: we see the world
not as it really is we don’t know what it really is, but as we see it and can
act in it. Reality acts according to our ideal ideas about it, reality emerges or
it seems to us that it emerges in accordance with them. And, since we manage to
technically realize our ideal ideas and ideal objects, then we have no choice
but to recognize the correctness, the truth of these formations of our
consciousness, rely on the power of our own mind and not pay attention to the
discrepancies that arise between ideal and real objects: "If the facts
contradict the theory, then so much the worse for the facts." And this, in
fact, is no different from myth and mythologization. The ideal object-2 is
placed at the basis of a particular science, turns into its model core, about
which science begins to form a shell of experimental data, rules and laws of
circulation and application, a system of knowledge, a tuple of tasks and
problems, the entire paradigm of this science, while the model itself, the
ideal object itself, is the syntagmatic invariable part of science, irrefutable
in principle, since refutation crosses out the entire path already travelled
and it cannot be crossed out and all the outlined and planned prospects. The
change of scientific paradigms, according to T. Kuhn and P. Feyerabend, is the
normal state of science, but the collapse of the syntagmatic of science will
lead to a shock similar to that which will engulf the world if it finds out
that mathematics turned out to be false. We will talk about all this later,
since I am a representative of just such a science, problem-forming and
applied.
We are looking for the
unknown
Socrates, in his declining years, sadly stated:
"I know that I know nothing." Nicholas of Cusa, who lived long before
Galileo, devoted his research to knowledge of ignorance. The greater and wider
our knowledge, says Kuzansky, the greater and more spacious is the sphere of
the unknown and the unknown. It is obvious that now we are in any science! We
do not know much more than a hundred or two thousand years ago, and any
breakthrough in science opens up new horizons and depths of the unknown for us:
we do not exhaust the unknown, but increase it. And this makes the path of
science and the path of all mankind endless, infinitive. One day, the project
manager of the Katunskaya HPP it was at the very end of the 80s invited me to
his Hydroproject. Can you establish social and environmental monitoring
regarding the Katunskaya HPP? And what is it? If I had known, I would have
installed it myself. Of course I can. And after all, we installed it in two
years! True, the Hydroproject refused the Katunskaya HPP project, and the work
on social and environmental monitoring (SEM) formed the basis of the ecological
direction of the Faculty of Natural Geography of the Gorno-Altai State
University.
We are looking for the
future
The future is a special case of the unknown: there is
no future, never was, and, most likely, never will be. In this sense, there is
nothing to study here, but - you can create: predict, plan, design, program,
stage, create a concept of the future, a roadmap and foresight - the palette of
work with the future is variegated and diverse. And science knows how to build
the future - not to study it, but to create it. And it is very reckless and
exciting: in front of your eyes and by you yourself, a future is being created
that just did not exist - social and environmental monitoring, a new,
recreational Crimea and not a health resort for workers and members of the
Politburo, Silver University, Workshop of organizational and activity
technologies, scientific producer and so on. And the most exciting thing is
that you, a researcher, then live in the future you created, participate in it
not as a demiurge and boss, but as an ordinary, simple character, almost a
mimam, and you no longer obey the creator’s plan and will, but the natural
course of events and the laws of life of this future that has become present.
We are looking for the
normal and errors as deviations from the normal
The norm is a desperate attempt to perfect the past in
the immutable imperfect of the present in the name of a beautiful and perfect
future. The past, like the future, has a perfect and imperfect form, unlike the
present, only imperfect. In retrospective reflection, comprehension of the
past, we produce a special idealization - rationing, highlighting norms as
certain supports of harmony, beauty, "correctness". According to J.
Canguillaume, the Latin word Norma etymologically represents a perpendicular,
the "shortest" point of view relative to an object. It is normal that
we see directly in front / below / above us, and not in peripheral vision. The
search for this normal, "normal vision" gives rise to the effect of
reverse perspective, which is used, in particular, in iconography. The icon,
therefore, is the most “normal” vision of the world, more precisely, its
spiritual essences, and not situational phenomena. Conditionally, but still
quite reliably, we can consider rationing as the “iconization” of the essence
of things and the world. Rationing as "direct viewing" is close in
meaning to the "epoch” of E. Husserl, the fundamental concept of
metaphysics and phenomenology. The norm is by no means the mode the most
frequently repeated or the median the average value. Strictly speaking, the
norm, like truth, is elusive and unknowable, but on the other hand, using
scientific honesty, we can look not for it itself, but for deviations from the
norm, that is, errors - such deviations that lead to irreversible consequences.
The whole course of history and mankind is a path of trial and error. We move
not from achievement to achievement, but from error to error. At the same time,
the realization of the error comes only a posteriori, in retrospective
reflection. That is why we are strictly told: “And remember all the way in which
the Lord your God led you”.
We are looking for the
beauty of the world
The search for norms and errors is a special case of
the search for the beauty of the world. A. Einstein admitted that he built his
theory of relativity solely because he was aesthetically dissatisfied with the
Newtonian picture of the world. Any theory is not only a parody of reality, but
also an attempt to embellish it. To be honest, beauty is the only thing that
truly comforts us as scientists. Rodoman's cartoids are an aestheticization of
the landscape, it's not for nothing that some English art gallery acquired them
as works of art, and in Moscow they were shown in the premises of the Tretyakov
Gallery. All this makes science akin to all the arts as a cortege of means for
the aesthetic exploration of the world.
We are looking for God
Of all types of intellectual activity, science is the
most intelligent. It brings us as close as possible to the Cosmic Mind, of
which we are all children. The knowledge of this Mind, which is also the
Navigator, which is also the Creator, the Creator, which is also God, is, in
fact, scientific activity. If the ancient thesis that “the house of man is God”
is true, then this is, first of all, the house of a learned person, and not a
monk, priest, priest and other servants, slaves and boobies of the king of
heaven. Many scientists admit that they came to God through science, through
their research and research results.
We are looking for ourselves
For several years I taught at the Central Music School
at the Moscow Conservatory in the class of geography. And in the eighth grade I
had a horn player from Shuya, who ended each lesson with a reflexive maxim. And
one day he said. I understood what we are doing here we are not studying
geography, we are learning ourselves in geography. And this is true. It turns
out that we seek and find ourselves in what we are doing. Once one of my
teachers in geography, Evgeny Efimovich Leizerovich, told me: “You are Chopin
in geography”, then I found confirmation of this many times. Large geographical
works are, of course, accessible to me, but I prefer small forms. In addition,
I am a romantic, and therefore the dull steppe Transbaikalia, especially the
dull Kalmykia, is not for me, in general, the sunrise over the swamp is not
mine. And in geography I am more attracted to travel than to office work. My
other teacher in geography, Boris Borisovich Rodoman, always looked for
himself, his super-sexuality in the landscape, therefore he loved the landscape
of landscapes and was frankly indifferent to cities and other creations of
people. To do this, one must love, if one understands by love the ability and
gift to see oneself in another: in another person, in a landscape, in a text,
in everything that has the property of reflecting our image, ourselves.
Frankly, I certainly need to fall in love with the territory or object being
studied - at first sight or after peering, it doesn’t matter.
Against the background of the total and frenzied
dehumanization of everything, including science and education, all this
digitalization, robotization and other things, the cries and cries of
humanization look very false and inappropriate, but I think I have something to
say about this.
Foundations
of F. Bacon
Humanistic science has several fundamental differences
from the natural sciences. These differences were laid down by Francis Bacon.
In 1620, he publishes his New Organon, where he sets out a program of
scientific and technical work for the next few centuries, including ours. No,
of course, he did not draw up a disciplinary plan, he did not even present the
main directions for the development of science and technology, and he did
something more: “all from the beginning, all on his own and everything is
ahead.” To do this, he had to rethink and rewrite the entire history of mankind
and turn it from the past into the future. The "New Organon" revised
all previous scientific and philosophical experience. Inspired by geographical
discoveries and the development of new lands, Bacon realized that the explosion
of the ecumene, if it had occurred in the time of Aristotle, would have forced
him to revise his Organon. A red line runs through the "New Organon"
the phrase of the prophet Daniel: "many will pass, and knowledge will be
manifold." F. Bacon's antique distinction of nature into physis and nature
reaches a tragic tension: yes, nature is a workshop of human thinking and
activity, but it will never be known in its totality and completeness. Here, F.
Bacon anticipated the whole tragedy of modern environmental issues, when the
consequences of our economic and other utilitarian activities cease to be
predicted and controlled by us, arising in the most remote and unexpected
areas. F. Bacon called for stopping in mastering the laws of nature, for the
very nature of man is unnatural and unnatural: “Let people order themselves to
renounce their concepts for a while and let them begin to get used to the
things themselves.” He managed to understand that the world reflected in our
consciousness is only a distorted image, but not the world itself. Man, his
feelings, thinking, consciousness are not the measure of all things. Thus, F.
Bacon disidentified the subject and object (subject) of science, separated them
and, consequently, for the first time clearly expressed the position of the
natural-scientific approach to nature: man is in himself, the nature he studies
is in itself. He also owns the priority in posing the main epistemological
problem of science: how can the mind leave the nature of the mind to understand
the nature of nature? Bacon, having abandoned formal logic and syllogisms as
operators of formal logic, began to follow inductive logic, the logic of science.
Later we will see the development of this revolutionary move in the works of
Hegel. We are all well aware of the paraphrase of the famous formula of F.
Bacon: “Scientia et potentia humana in idem coincidunt “Knowledge and power of
man coincide”. For a long time this paraphrase sounded like the slogan
“Knowledge is power”. The Communists, not wanting to share power with anyone
and fearing the intellectual attack of scientists, not only shot, drove into
camps and exile any thought, any knowledge, but also remade the slogan itself:
"Knowledge is power." From now on, starting with F. Bacon, science
ceases to be focused on inductive reasoning - this remains the prerogative of
philosophy. Experience becomes the organon of science. Nature as a complete
text is fundamentally unknowable and totally indescribable: science must
“objectify”, focus its attention not on the entire text of nature as a whole,
but on separate and specialized aspects and directions.
Immediately after him, R. Descartes , not so much a scientist as a philosopher
and theologian, as well as Galileo, Newton
and Leibniz , no longer so much
philosophers and theologians as scientists, but simply scientists, the first
"scientists only". F. Bacon separated the natural and humanistic
sciences into opposite corners of the ring, but this led to the fact that the
natural sciences captured almost the entire ring and foothold, doomed the
humanities to the smell of charlatanism: the physicist Thomas Kuhn, in The
Structure of the Scientific Revolution, frankly wondered how sociology, and
together with it all other humanities, can claim to be scientific. The basis of
his suspicions was the fundamental assumption, recognized in the natural
sciences, in particular, in physics, that two mutually exclusive theories,
systems of knowledge, etc. cannot exist - only one thing is true. Me, just out
of mischief and disrespect for the respected T. Kuhn, states. Humanistic
knowledge, theories, principles, recommendations are considered true if there
are other, mutually exclusive knowledge, theories, principles, recommendations,
etc. For example, faith in God is true, because there is faith in the absence
of God or faith in the existence of another God, just as true as the first. Any
humanistic truth - and this is its special strength and attraction - is versial
and allows the presence of other truths on an equal footing with itself. In K.
Popper, this conflict is clearly described in the correspondence, through Popper
himself, a dispute between Freud and Charcot. J. Charcot convinced K. Popper
that his theory and methodology were correct, because there are numerous
testimonies of his patients who were cured of their ailments with the help of
Charcot's soul, and Freud, Charcot's student, is an ordinary charlatan. In
turn, Z. Freud convinced K. Popper that his theory and methodology were
correct, because there are numerous testimonies of his patients who were cured
of their ailments with the help of psychoanalysis, and Charcot, Freud's
teacher, was simply a retrograde. The plurality and mutual exclusivity of
humanistic knowledge should change the essence and meaning of the education
system, which to this day is based on the natural science foundation and the
monotruth of knowledge and theories. The second fundamental difference between
humanistic science and natural science is the approach. In the natural
sciences, the subject-object approach dominates, in the humanistic sciences,
the subject-subject one. A person, as best he can, resists being an object of
research (as well as observation, education, upbringing, management,
veneration, deification, design, and any other influence on himself). A person
generally avoids being an object, broadcasting something, that is, being a
thing, and, consequently, being a slave and means of another person. He - and
even then with great difficulty - agrees to be a servant of God, but he is
forced to admit this almost daily, to convince himself of this - not God.
Actually, my entire concept of regionalization and cultivation of regional
subjects is built on the idea of subjectivities. This concept in the first half
of the 90s stirred up Russian geography, up to the auto-da-fe arranged for me
in the Geographical Society in person and in absentia. The paradigm of
education that prevails to this day is built, of course, on the natural science
platform and subject-object relations, where the teacher-teacher-professor acts
as the subject, and the schoolchild-student-student is the object. And this is
not prosthetized in any way by “reflection”, “system-thought-activity approach”
and “choice of educational trajectory by students”. As it was, "I am a
teacher, you are a fool, you are a teacher, I am a fool", so it remains to
this day. I am glad that at least at the Silver University for the elderly,
because this is the Silver University, it is possible to create and maintain in
the audience an atmosphere of conversation about, conversations about an
atmosphere of subject-subject relations. It is this system of relations that is
capable of transforming education into self-education, into the cultivation of
the human in oneself by the person himself, and not from outside. And the last
fundamental difference between natural and humanistic science. Natural science
continues to affirm its purpose as a search for truth, although almost 90% of
all these studies are frankly aimed at the needs of the military-industrial
complex and the destruction of people and culture. Natural science has long
discredited itself with anti-humanism. Humanistic science does not serve
benefit and harm after all, harm and benefit have long been indistinguishable
from each other - it asks a person questions, trying to answer which, we,
people, know ourselves. As an eighth-grader, a 14-year-old horn player from
Shuya, once said after a geography lesson at the Central Music School at the
Moscow Conservatory “I understood what we are doing here: we are not studying
geography, but we are learning ourselves through geography .”
Rejection of anti-human
themes
In 1976, I, a junior researcher at a small and musty
scientific institute, with an indecently low salary, but burdened with a family
and expensive housing, was offered the rank of major, a colonel's position, a
salary two times higher than mine, a job in the most prestigious quarter of
Moscow and many small and large privileges, bonuses and benefits I was invited
to the laboratory for the study of the effective use of prisoners. I did not
sleep all night, and in the morning I came to the KGB department, where the
offer came from, and refused “It's a pity,” said the elderly Chekist curator
and looked at me with pride. Academician Andrei Sakharov had to give up all
blessings and conveniences, embark on a dangerous path of resistance and
dissidence, when he realized the anti-humanity of what he was doing. In the
end, humanistic science is not about a person and not about people, it is for a
person and for people.
Subject-subject (SS)
relationship
The humanization of science consists, among other things, in the transition from subject-object relations to subject-subject relations. I realized this in the mid-80s, when I began to formulate my regional theory regionality is given by the presence of a regional subject. Then, over the course of decades and work, I became convinced of the need for SS relationships.
SS science is fundamentally different from dramaturgy
in that its characters and authors are living people interacting and
communicating with each other. These are not roles at all and there is no
dictate of the text or the director.
The world of absolute truths is inhuman and therefore
has the right to exist, just like the Infallible. We must know our place in the
universe, and as long as we are people, we can afford a plurality of truths:
this is our salvation from the slavery of God. The scientific development of
the world, like the artistic one, should please the Creator with its diversity
and dissonance - why does he need monotonous and monochrome cinema?
Humanistic science is always aimed at its own
realization, so as not to turn itself into a game or not to fit into archive
shelves. The search for truth is a convenient form of indulgence for parasitic
science, because these searches can be unsuccessfully pursued not only all your
life, but even centuries. At the same time, special joy, surprise and
inspiration are caused by the fact that, as a rule, the most incredible and
impossible is realized, grey predictability is of no interest to anyone, and
therefore is never realized.
Humanistic science, no matter how complex and
intricate it may be organized, is fundamentally not technologized, since any
scientific product and result is unique in principle. That is why people are
engaged in science: who wants to repeat and repeat existing patterns and forms
- let this be done by material production, industry and agriculture. No matter
how you robotize, computerize and/or automate science, you cannot throw a
person out of it, because only he is given the right to ad hoc: to a happy accident,
to unravel a mystery, to a combination of circumstances. Modern science is
indeed a complexly organized activity, where “bookworms” and stubborn analysts
with brains with a capacity of thousands of terabytes are needed, where
managers and producers, floor and test tube cleaners, blond post-graduate
students, be nice employees and trade union leaders are needed: all the same,
all this - only to make it ad hoc for someone, namely the researcher.
These requirements are few. Briefly, they boil down to
the following:
1. Education
should be based on solving real problems, but deduce, lead to the formation of
abstract ideas and concepts. Thales solved the problem of calculating the
height of the Egyptian pyramids and thus formulated the theorem on the
similarity of right triangles, and Protagoras extracted from this case the
famous phrase-lecture: “Man is the measure of all things, both existing, that
they exist, and not existing, that they does not exist". The Unified Collection
of Digital Educational Resources has 317 triangle-like problems and an infinite
number of examples on the same topic. For almost two weeks, the unfortunate
seventh-graders hammer this theorem, solve dozens of examples and problems,
until, finally, misunderstanding of this problem is brought to automaticity:
the correct answers bounce off teeth and ballpoint pens completely painlessly,
but these exercises have no practical value.
2. Humanitarian
knowledge becomes humanitarian only when it presupposes and admits a plurality
of other knowledge that is as true as itself. Humanistic truth becomes truth
only if there are other truths alternative to it. Knowledge is plural and
versial even being opposite, they do not exclude, but complement each other.
Descartes is not refuted by Newton, and Newton is not refuted by Einstein.
Richmann and Lobachevsky do not reject Euclid, Charcot and Freud, declaring
each other charlatans, have preserved themselves in science and medicine. Remaining
within the framework of humanism, we must grant the right to the existence of
all and any systems of knowledge, realizing that they are all imperfect. In
this sense, all religions, churches and sects are anti-humanistic, because they
serve not a person, but a god or gods, including atheistic teachings, and
because they consider only themselves to be true, and all other teachings about
God are false or insufficient. The truth argument testifies not to truth, but
to inhumanity. There are no answers in the life problem book at the end - for every
life task there is an infinite number of decisions, both already made and
possible for making in the future. That is why this problem book is good, that
it is pointless to look at the end in search of an answer.
3. The
humanization of education should be based on the knowledge of the world, on a
human scale home culture, family society, relationships with relatives and
relatives. And about the sphericity of the Earth, a person can remain in
blissful ignorance: in his practical activity, this sphericity is intangible
and insignificant.
4. Humanitarian
education should restore its ideological and ontological component. Both do not
fit into tests with one "correct" answer and two to ten distractors. Worldview
is a system of views and ideas of a person about the world and his place in it.
The worldview can be religious, atheistic, mystical, philosophical, scientific,
engineering, artistic, professional, and so on. A person can completely combine
a collage of several worldviews, only from the outside seeming contradictory:
you can have a scientific, philosophical, materialistic and professional
worldview at the same time. Worldview is expressible - in rules, points of
view, beliefs, values, belongings, etc. The worldview also allows such extremes
of subjectivism as the idea of a world that the subject only dreamed of.
Ontology, like reflection, which exists both in psychology and in
philosophy/methodology, and therefore differs greatly in these two realities,
is considered here as a philosophical essence and as a methodological concept.
In philosophy, it is customary to consider ontology in tandem with and in
opposition to epistemology and epistemology. In this sense, ontology deals with
the problems of the world beyond and beyond the boundaries of consciousness, the
subject, the Self. Another, more subtle sense of philosophical methodology is
much closer to the methodological concept of ontology: the study of laws that
are common to both the objective and the subjective world. Such, for example,
is the ontology of human nature and culture. Finally, methodological ontology
is considered as a constructive part of thinking generated by logic and
generating logic. The main content of the methodological ontology are concepts
in their consistent totality. Unlike a worldview, a methodological ontology is
in principle indescribable: either a person has no concepts - and then he does
not have ontology either, or these concepts exist, but there are so many of
them that it is simply impossible to imagine them. A thesaurus of concepts is
like a lexicon: we cannot list our lexicon, but it is presented in our written
or spoken language, it is available to an external observer and communicator.
5. Understanding
and Hermeneutical Education. The current education is not only deaf to
understanding, but with all its mass is aimed at its destruction, at the
formation of biorobots capable of automatic actions in binary situations:
"1 - 0", "yes - no", "right - wrong", "one's
own – alien”, etc. Humanities education is a hermeneutical education, it is
built on understanding and for the sake of understanding.
Understanding, in our opinion, is the primary
intelligence regarding thinking. In the process of communication, understanding
goes from language to clusters of meanings that are equivalent for
communicators to working concepts that are common to communicators, and these
concepts already serve as the basis and material for thinking expressed by
language, schemes, or in any other way.
In the scheme of the concept, the credo can replace the triad “values-theory-principles”, but at the same time, unlike this triad, the creed is not only not translatable, but also not re-flexible. It should also be borne in mind that the very concept of the concept came from “conception”. There are many humanist creeds. Here are some of the most impressive I quote from memory. Plato “God deliberately created this world imperfect so that a person in the struggle with it would improve himself.” I. Loyola "The end justifies the means, if the end is the salvation of the soul." I. Kant “Act in such a way that the maxim of your will could be a universal law; or - never treat people only as means and do not allow them to also treat themselves as means. I. Kant “Two things always fill the soul with new and stronger surprise and reverence, the more often and longer we think about them - this is the starry sky above me and the moral law in me.” I. Goethe "Man is nature that knows itself." P. Riker "A person is a meeting place." M. Heidegger "Man is a being who is forced to prove by thinking the fact of his existence." I. Ilyin “Do not blaspheme the world and the time in which you came - after all, you came here to improve it.” The law of total self-justification "He did it by nature, I did the same, because circumstances forced me to do it." Once upon a time, I myself formulated my humanistic creed as a very, very strong anthropic principle of cosmogenesis.
But now I would like to formulate my educational
humanistic credo. A person is an image of himself, which everyone strives to
achieve. Note: of course, this image is not alive, it exists somewhat longer
than its bearer - in the memory of children, grandchildren, students and other
people, as well as in the spiritual heritage left by us.
Features
of humanistic science
There are several. They are also not from a
theoretical ceiling, but based on practice. Here are the most important ones.
1. Humanistic research requires scientific production
and promotion:
2. The result of humanistic research should not be the
achievement of truth, but know how: how and what should be done for people. In
this sense, they are the only commercially viable studies
3. Humanistic studies can have several orientations:
4. Humanistic research is synthetic and complex, not
analytical and systemic. Analytics is just a stage, a search for further
research. From this feature it follows that they.
5. Humanistic research, fortunately, is poorly scaled,
broadcast and technologized - it is unique because it is built on the
uniqueness of each situation.
Organization
of scientific activity
Even T. Kuhn in his “Structure of scientific
revolutions” discovered that science and education proper have fundamental
differences and different history [4]. Domestic university science, in general,
does not apply to science, just as scales do not apply to musical works,
dictations - to literature, conspiracies - to medicines. What is the organization
of scientific activity? First of all, it is a diverse, multifaceted activity
that can be differentiated as follows.
Actually scientific activity
·
Research.
·
Research.
·
Scientific tourism and
scientific recreation.
Educational
activities
·
Lecturing on own past and
ongoing research.
·
Reading basic courses.
·
Public educational
lectures.
Scientific
and educational activities
· work as a master and the
cultivation of masters from apprentices and apprentices;
· work as an apprentice and
apprentice in new directions
Scientific
and communication activities
Each scientist configures his bouquet of activities
and studies according to his own taste, temperament, habits, character traits
and disposition - at his own discretion. The beauty of the life of a scientist
is in his freedom and independence, for the sake of this one can sacrifice
prosperity, live moderately, without any frills, because freedom and will are
still more precious than everything else. Whether a supervisor finds a producer
or whether a producer finds a supervisor is a matter of chance. But already the
supervisor carries out recruiting, casting and selection of performers. At the
same time, the organization of work is behind him, and he acts according to the
following concept. The level of development is determined by the order and the
customer, the degree of complexity of the work is set, of course, by the
supervisor. All performers can be divided into two categories/positions.
· The position of the
invitee.
· The position of the
inviter.
I was only at the beginning of my journey in the
position of an invitee, so I have a very vague idea of its functions
· mastering, assimilation
and appropriation of the idea and topic of research, turning the task into a
personal goal, understanding the goals and the general scope of work, in a
word, adapting to work and adapting work to one’s capabilities and goals.
· Performance of your work
area.
· Opposition to other
sections and sections, participation in discussions and discussions.
· Cooperation and mutual
assistance.
As for the inviting, first of all, supervisor, here I
have much more clarity. Research is almost always a collective work, but each
researcher appreciates and protects his loneliness, solitude, because it is
fruitful and comfortable. Compatibility should be dosed and, if possible,
regulated by regulations and schedules. The supervisor is not the bearer of the
ultimate truth, especially outside of his scientific specialization, he is not
a father and not the boss of his colleagues, therefore.
· he works and learns more
and faster than others,
· he maintains an
atmosphere of mutual trust and respect for the competence of colleagues,
· He allows for differences
in assessments and opinions and does not require an indispensable consensus,
this, by the way, makes it possible to identify the negative consequences of
the proposed conclusions, projects and decisions, and also guarantees the
participants creative scientific freedom.
Perhaps the main concern of the supervisor is the
launch of reflection search =research. I myself, accustomed to reading
scientific literature and even written statistics, got used to reflecting on
what I was looking for, so the notes go in two columns: on the left - the
content of what was read, on the right - thoughts and reflections about what
was read. The supervisor ensures fair and timely payment of labour and expenses
of his colleagues.
Scientific production differs from any other
production and entrepreneurship in that, in addition to the standard set of
producer functions (financial, organizational, PR functions, etc.), it must
provide conditions for the emergence of ad hoc [5]. Ad hoc (on occasion) as a
phenomenon of scientific life is most fully described by P. Feyerabend [6]. The
ad hoc of Archimedes was that, while
taking a bath alone, he understood how to measure the volume of a complex piece
of pure gold jewellery using the law he discovered “a body immersed in water
[or any other liquid or gas] loses weight as much as the weight of the water it
displaces." Of course, Archimedes was not focused on this law, but on how
to determine if the goldsmith mixed foreign metal with gold when forging the
crown of King Hiero II. Ad hoc Galileo - the task he received from the Duke of
Tuscany Cosimo II Medici, who wished to be both in the thick of the battle and
be safe. Galileo, like Leonardo da Vinci, and the Dutchman Leeuwenhoek, and
Kepler, and later Galilee Newton, made a telescope with successive lenses. He
preferred to do this in solitude, at night. Another night owl, a cat, always
spun under his feet. Driving away the purr, Galileo accidentally touched his
pipe with his elbow and suddenly saw through the telescope the sky and the
moon, mountains and craters similar to those on the earth. In those days, the
rotation of the Earth around its axis was refuted by the simple consideration
that in this case, stones from the mountains should fall only in the evenings,
and they roll down at any time of the day. The heliocentric version and the
sphericity were then considered eccentric, contrary to the authority of
Aristotle and Ptolemy. Galileo, observing the movement and rotation of the
planets through his telescope, came to the impossibility of a geocentric world,
but we remember that he made a device that allowed the duke to be in the thick
of the battle, being safe. Dmitri Mendeleev dreamed of his periodic table of
chemical elements, according to legend, in a dream, like a card solitaire,
which the chemist was fond of: on the other hand, its atomic weight and the
formulas of the main compounds. For hours in his office, he shifted this
chemical "solitaire", lining up the elements according to their
properties in logical rows. In the end, like a chess player, he imagined in his
mind the entire field, consisting of sixty-three cells [as many elements were
then known], in which the elements were to be placed. But none of the options
satisfied him. And then one day in a dream he saw the only order that he could
not imagine in reality. The picture was so clear and distinct that he woke up
and wrote it down on a piece of paper. And in the morning the periodic table
was read” [7]. The story of solitude tells of Isaac Newton and an apple that
fell on him on his parent's farm, about the ship's doctor Robert Mayer, who
discovered the law of conservation of energy by comparing blood tests of
sailors taken in temperate and equatorial latitudes, about Steve Hawking, who
turned the physical ontology of the universe upside down, sitting in a suburban
train compartment. There are many examples of this kind, and one can also refer
to personal experience: on expeditions, situations arise from time to time in
which all actions become impossible. I call these situations an action crisis,
and I value these states very much. Once in an action crisis, a person that is,
myself should calm down, stop fussing and looking for a way out of the current
situation, delve into reflection and reflection, for example, listening to good
music or watching an inspiring landscape, just forget and fall asleep. It is in
the state of action crisis that the most remarkable and beautiful, unusual
solutions come - not for this situation, but for something more general and
abstract. And a specific situation. Usually resolves itself and pretty soon, as
soon as new thoughts and ideas present themselves and exhaust themselves. They
say that God helps only those who are focused on a particular problem, and in
time slip ad hoc seekers and solutions. Every research has two limits.
· one is expressed in a
complete formula, formulation, law, principle: this is the ontological limit of
research,
· The second - in the
technical, engineering solution, technical theory for example, the theory of
the internal combustion engine. This is the organizational and activity limit
of the study.
And after it comes the second ad hoc situation: we
abruptly begin to understand what needs to be done: having discovered a
homogeneous solution of alcohol, the golden ratio of the ratio of water and
alcohol (62% water and 38% alcohol), Mendeleev realized that vodka can be not
only a distillate ( moonshine), but also rectified a strictly dosed mixture of
alcohol and water, Watt understood how the translational movement of the piston
can be brought into the rotational movement of the wheel - due to the eccentric
and crank. And when this second ad hoc and the principle of action associated
with it is accomplished, only then does the design space begin, we enter the
technosphere and the practical fruits and results of scientific activity.
In the conditions of collective scientific
activity, the scientific producer is obliged to organize the scientist's space
in such a way that it is not just solitary - it must be methodologically
oriented and coordinated. The scheme of methodological work was proposed by R.
Descartes. Scientific activity
is not only not standardized in time, it can be carried out at any time of the
day, in moments, flashes, short intervals, continuously - by any impulsiveness,
most often in solitude, but can also be dialogical, in a laboratory, in a pub,
at night in a dream or in insomnia. This flexibility of conditions and
environment, unpredictability and dependence on chance requires patience and
composure of the scientists themselves, and of the scientific management, and
of the scientific producer. But at the same time, subject knowledge, an arsenal
of tools, and the organization of work should always be at hand and be in a
mobilized state. The organization of
the scientific research space is the prerogative of the scientific producer and
manager, but it must take into account the individual characteristics of the
performers: someone cannot work without music, someone needs absolute silence,
someone needs the presence of pretty and young girls, someone is inspired
landscape outside the window, but all this should contribute to concentration
and depth, detachment
Perhaps the concept of detachment is the key here.
Detachment is the state of the scientist himself: the scientific producer and
scientific manager does not and cannot interfere here. Detachment is a kind of
sterilization of the communication channel and communication between the
scientist and the Navigator, freeing him from interference and noise. Detachment
is a necessary state close to an action crisis, a voluntary refusal to search
for solutions, all but one, cutting off all sociocultural ties and contacts
that act as external interference and noise, showing trust in the Navigator,
the description of which is difficult and therefore most often it is perceived
intuitively it can be a teacher, an opponent, God, the Cosmic Mind, a student,
a pet and any other external subject. With it, an induction \ creative. It is
important to note that the role of the "induction coil" (L) and
"capacitor" (C) is performed by the Explorer and the Navigator
alternately and quite arbitrarily. The scientist, as the subject of research,
most often finds it difficult to indicate who, he or the Navigator, made the
necessary push, and therefore usually refers to a fallen apple, a cat
underfoot, a dream, a junction of train cars, a blow of billiard balls. Sometimes
studies gather huge teams of hundreds and thousands of people. At the same
time, truly scientific problems are always multidisciplinary and
interdisciplinary. They require either polyprofessionals, who, frankly, are
very few, or a special co-organization of different professionals. For example,
regional and urban studies conducted by our Laboratory for Regional Studies and
Municipal Programs are 30-50 people: historians, geographers, economists,
architects, philosophers, designers, psychologists, etc.: the recruitment of
professionals is always dictated by the specifics of the object, and not the
circle of acquaintances of the work manager. For archaic Soviet science, where
not ideologically, but in practice, sympathy for lone scientists dominated, it
was typical for small topics and the implementation of research for years and
even decades - in the same garden.
If we imagine the study as a technological process, it
can be divided into the following stages and procedures.
In reality, research can go on in parallel, in the
fields of search: the thought cannot be stopped. However, the design of the
study still takes place sequentially after the research. The research has two
independent and parallel directions. Mastering is the second level of
reflection, possible only if there is a first level of reflection on research,
development. The end of the R&D itself means the beginning of the next,
implementation stage, which is also quite technologized.
·
practical testing,
·
Implementation of
research results through education.
Sometimes these two types of implementation merge. So,
for example, social and environmental monitoring (SEM) in the Altai Mountains
was built, and the construction of the Katunskaya HPP, for which the SEM was
started, was postponed indefinitely - this is how the idea of the Gornoaltai
Ecological University appeared.
Another example of such a merger is the Moscow Silver
University.
The place of production
in science
The producer is a key figure in the preliminary stage,
but not central; the central figure, image and authority is the scientific
director of research. It is he, the supervisor, who is the key to success and
the guarantor of quality for the customer. The producer plays a secondary, dash-dotted
role in the actual R&D he is responsible for finding performers and real
consumers, media coverage and QMS. The producer becomes the decisive figure
when the R&D is completed. His main sadness and concern is not to let the
work lie on the archival shelf in order to die, to give it life. Its fronts are
PR and advertising, interviews and discussions, holding seminars and
conferences, but most importantly, educational courses and programs to attract
fresh and energetic forces to the research carried out and its results. All
this is more than meaningful, if the scope and use of research has not yet been
found. If this task is solved at the pre-research or research stages, in order
to ensure competitive advantages, it is necessary to give the work the status
of confidentiality and closedness. And this establishment of the degree of
secrecy is also the prerogative of the scientific producer.
In our opinion, a scientific producer should perform the following functions
It is clear that in a planned and centralized economy,
which remains predominantly Russian, the possibilities and need for scientific
production are very limited, but that is why significant efforts are needed to
form and develop it. Scientific knowledge is a very perishable commodity and
cannot be stored for a long time. In addition, this product has an amazing
property - to grow with use, but - under certain conditions. At present, it is
no longer scientific developments and prototypes that are traded, but
well-established and fairly promoted businesses that have massive and stable
demand, self-developing and highly competitive. Modern scientific production
should offer ready-made and well-knit teams, clips, teams capable of not only
running this or that business based on research, but also reproducing and
multiplying themselves.
Producer of scientific
projects
Scientific production is characterized by
·
packaged results,
·
Shift not only in the
field of technology and engineering, but also in the socio-cultural sphere, as
well as in the field of education.
Apparently, according to this pattern or close to it we
should not forget about the elasticity and flexibility of humanitarian
technologies, it is possible to build any developments, especially educational,
regional, urban and municipal ones, which by their nature are
“package-suitable” and socio-cultural.
Science abroad is an expensive institution. Generally
accepted forms of appropriations for science, not counting budgetary ones, have
developed: grants, contracts, venture capital. Corporations interested in
innovation enter into contracts with universities. In the mid-1990s, the Book
University in Ruins by Bill Ridings was published, which describes the shift in
the function of the university from the Kantian concept of reason and
Humboldt's idea of culture to the modern technocratic idea of superiority [8].
This work stated the fact that the model of the classical university is a thing
of the past, and an entrepreneurial university has taken its place.
Educational-scientific-industrial complexes are being formed around research
universities. In forward-looking science, new ideas are especially important. A
young talented team develops an innovative idea, but does not have the means to
bring it to the finished product. The Technological Incubator program is being
implemented. Over the past 25 years, in regions with a high density of
inventive activity, one can encounter a phenomenon that did not exist before -
serial technological entrepreneurship. The concepts of science
producer/producing are absent in the English-language literature. The terms
science producer/scientific producer are pseudo-anglicisms. Assumptions that
the scientific producer is translated as entrepreneur, impresario, or,
moreover, science-maker, also turned out to be very controversial. It turned
out that in large highly developed countries there has long been a
science-oriented business (part of the venture business is start-ups). At the
same time, for at least the last half century, there has been both a monetized
and a logical connection between invent (invent), commercialiaze
(commercialize) and invest (invest money). All Western culture was originally
built on geniuses, who combined the first two most important types of activity
from the point of view of the development of society and man. Consider the book
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in Histor. The most active
promotion of scientific production began in the 19th century, during the period
of the first socio-political and scientific-technical revolutions taking place
simultaneously. At the end of the 19th century, instead of single producers,
labour collectives began to appear, in which, instead of one-man management,
two bosses appeared: a director and a producer. In the highly developed
countries of the world, a scientific producer is the same profession as a film
producer or an entrepreneur in a theatre or circus. The most striking type of
entrepreneur-producers are business angels. Business angels, most often, launch
start-ups. The largest organization uniting them is the World Association of
Business Angels. Angel Investor Review has been created for the information
channel of interaction, which is aimed at raising awareness and meeting the
multiple needs of key players in the early and subsequent stages of the equity
markets.
Producing is a phenomenon of market economy and
entrepreneurship. In the USSR, entrepreneurial activity turned out to be
criminally punishable (since the end of the 20s), severely persecuted, up to
execution (the case of Rokotov and Faibishenko) and condemned by society. What
today is called perestroika (the end of the 80s) was accompanied by mass terror
against enterprising business executives: about 400,000 were imprisoned for
entrepreneurial activity, economic, economic and commercial initiatives. The
so-called planned economy with its over-centralization, lack of competition,
state monopoly on production, pricing, and distribution also left no chance for
entrepreneurship and one of the forms of entrepreneurship - producing. Initially,
the "market economy" in post-Soviet Russia acquired pseudomorphs that
only remotely resembled market mechanisms and institutions: stock exchanges,
banks, insurance and pension companies, corporations, holding companies, etc.
The fact that the corporate university of Sberbank translates and publishes
books by Western economists and financiers does not make Sberbank a bank, since
the main function of this institution is to deceive and rob the population on
an especially large scale and in small ways. In fact, there is not a single
person in the country who has not been deceived at least once by Sberbank. All
this is reminiscent of a “Fiji plane” made of banana leaves with shamans
chanting in anticipation of how beads, cigarettes, chewing gum, condoms,
lighters and cans of Coca-Cola will fall from this plane. At present, and for
an indefinitely distant future, a very peculiar production has been formed in
Russia for the capture and appropriation of certain resources: monetary,
financial, natural, power - any: not by chance and not in the rampage of the
elements, the resource of supreme power has concentrated in the hands of one
person - he produced it. Actually, the scheme of Russian production, or rather,
anti-producing, is extremely simple: a resource is extracted from any source
material - but not for the production of something productive, but for the
appropriation of this resource. The most important link in this technology is
the inexhaustibility of useless work (changing curbs, annual planting of trees
that cannot withstand Moscow winters, “improving” streets and courtyards, laying
paving slabs, widening sidewalks, etc.), which gives rise to the
inexhaustibility of the resource extracted for oneself. So Kant's "thing
in itself" like a Brazil tree planted in a tub of polished granite turns
into a "thing for itself" in offshore accounts and tropical islands. And
this resource technology is certainly built on the meaninglessness of what it
parasitizes: the meaningful is prone to self-will and even rebellion, the
meaningless is weak-willed. And this humility leads to the formation of immovable
platforms with zero tectonics. And only in geosynclinal, and better - in
anticlinal folds, platforms rubbing against each other, in mountain caves and
gorges, under glaciers, is it possible to have a quiet and inconspicuous
beating of the jets of entrepreneurship and production, not in Russian, but
according to the concept.
Let's make a conceptual description of what is an intellectual technology, including the technology of scientific production