On false dichotomies: a reply to Alexander Nikiforov

In the article, the author criticizes the thesis by Alexander Nikiforov on the role of modern science in the contemporary world. The author's first claim consists in denying Nikiforov's contradistinction between "science as search for truth" and "science as technological development". First of all, this contradistinction leads towards a false hierarchy of disciplines whose subject of investigation is science, i.e. philosophy of science, history of science, sociology of knowledge, etc. By defining the "true nature and purpose" of science as technological development, Nikiforov either rejects or oppresses other definitions and ways of investigation, the philosophical one included. Further, this contradistinction does not take into account the fact that fundamental scientific theories have existed and still exist without a necessary development of technologies, so it can hardly be said that science per se is just a way to make gadgets for satisfying human needs. Though the simplicity of this dualistic approach may seem to be quite appealing, its theoretical benefits (especially for epistemology) are questionable. The development of fundamental science and the so-called "technoscience" are the results of a single process, i.e. general scientific development. That is why they cannot be considered as two opposite phenomena. The author's second claim covers the lack of Nikiforov's attention to the contribution by social sciences and the humanities to science in general: these disciplines do not create any technologies in the sense of tools or gadgets, but their development successfully influenced societies in their political structure, social policies and civil rights, especially in the First World countries. Then the author argues that some concepts by Nikiforov like "biological needs" or "spirituality" are opaque and their link to scientific development is groundless. Finally, the author claims that the very answer to the initial question on the moral value of science is incorrect, because it is based on the substitution of the thesis.

Keywords

Authors

References