Does modern man have the right to say about any new scientific statement: "This cannot be"? This is the question that is, in fact, central to various interesting books. Indeed, the words “this cannot be” are a very powerful, double-edged weapon in a scientific dispute. They can prevent the waste of human effort and material resources on the design of a "perpetual motion machine", but these same words can be used by opponents of the new to fight against a promising direction in science. These words can be an expression of skepticism, even obscurantism of an ignoramus, but they can also be a compass for an inexperienced person in a boundless sea of increasingly complex scientific information. After all, there are many cases when one can say with conviction: "This cannot be, this" renixa "is nonsense."
What is possible and what is impossible in science?
Not a single new discovery cancels the facts and laws that have been firmly established and proven by human experience. New discoveries can only find an area where previously known laws do not apply, and thus expand our knowledge, but they cannot replace old knowledge with new ones. At the same time, only general ideas are replaced by new ones, which become more complete and wider. One of the main classical examples is "Newton's physics - Einstein's physics".
The second criterion is the method, the manner of proof. In one of the books that I read, the author wittily compares scientific and pseudoscientific explanations of natural phenomena. "Bodies fall under the influence of their inherent gravity" - this is the ancient prototype of the "scientific explanations" of scholastics of all ages. The inexperienced reader does not immediately notice that this phrase does not contain any scientific information - the unknown reason for the fall of bodies is called "gravity", which by no means makes it any more understandable. Purely verbal "explanations", false profundity, "mysticism of words", playing with terms - these are the forms in which the "renixa" appears. The basis of the foundations of the materialistic theory of knowledge is experience. Departure from this principle, no matter how it is motivated (including philosophical reasoning), is a "renix".
And, finally, the last criterion can be called ethical: for its success, pseudoscience needs self-promotion, a sensational environment, and also the use of administrative pressure on dissidents. Self-praise, sweeping out the works of their predecessors is a typical feature of pseudoscientists.
Such books should somewhat moderate the gullibility of the general public in "scientific" sensations, instill a healthy amount of doubt in the minds of readers, who often take too literally the coquettish statements of scientists about the contradiction of modern science to common sense. The author returns to common sense its rights, giving at the same time a clear definition of this concept. Common sense is a generalization of human experience that is true for the particular conditions to which that experience relates.
How to distinguish science from pseudoscience?
The criteria are undoubtedly correct, and they should not be forgotten by professional scientists either. However, do they solve the problem? Can we say that from now on, armed with books and the Internet, we can confidently distinguish science from pseudoscience, the possible from the unbelievable? I think not, and the authors do not pretend to be. After all, the problem remains - how to apply these criteria in each specific case, and this is not always as simple as in most of the existing examples. The essence of the law of nature usually has some frame, that is, definitions associated with it, scientific terminology, philosophical concepts. This frame with the development of science can be discarded. And to say in advance what is the essence of the law, and what is its shell, what can be discarded and what remains, is not always easy.
Write comments
Comments