Dilettantism in science: a "sad twilight"

It is shown that the criticism of science and its achievements from the standpoint of the worldview which seeks answers to "meaningful" questions - why a person lives and what one should strive for - is incorrect. Alexander Nikiforov keeps a seemingly biased account of the losses and gains of the humankind in connection with the formation and development of modern science, but his conclusions are too radical: people have not become better in the moral dimension. What is more, science has contributed to the development of hedonism and consumer sentiment; hence, science is inhuman and immoral. The initiator of the discussion also states that philosophy of science, which built the image of the researcher living in an ivory tower (i.e. as beings that are objective, not interested in the financial "customer", generously presenting results of achievements for the general good), made the grossest error. The modern scientific picture of the world, especially cosmological, which completely banished the traces of any anthropocentrism, deprives people of courage and dignity. The modern worldview, based on the achievements of science, does not give humanity a moral point of support. These objections, from the author's point of view, recall the famous article "Dilettantism in Science" by A.I. Herzen. The great writer and philosopher visibly warned that the development of scientific knowledge would force to revise the usual everyday ideas and values. It is this adjustment that takes time, because in the face of the huge dangers that threaten the earthly existence of man (monstrous diseases, natural and man-made disasters, hard and hopeless work, etc.) only the development of science and technological progress allow us to hope for the best. The modern answer to the traditional question of Christian theology "What can I hope for?" can only be searched for in this intellectual space. Science, as now understood, is not supposed to interfere in religious matters, to touch the emotions of a believer. Polymorphism of culture is a challenge and an imperative of our time.

Keywords

Authors

References