Why Alexander Nikiforov advocates devil and what follows from this

This paper is a reply to the paper "How the Modern Age Science Has Enriched the Humanity" by Alexander Nikiforov. The paper represents the key elements of the Modern Age science critique. The arguments of Nikiforov are considered through the advocatus diaboli metaphor. The author shows that the arguments about the inability of science to provide answers to eternal questions do not hit the target, since they aim to underline that the Modern Age science fully succeeded at its epistemological purposes. The author considers Nikiforov's arguments as ideologically biased and unjustified. The author compares these arguments with the ideas of Albert Einstein in his essay "Science and Religion". She claims that this comparison makes all of these biases clear. It is shown that the Russian philosopher and the great physicist shared the same basic statements but, nonetheless, have come to the mutually exclusive conclusions about the value dimension of science. This fact shows the vulnerability of Nikiforov's thesis. The author argues that the value dimension of science inevitably depends on the connections of science with the other social institutions (state, religion, education and law). The most important point here is the openness of the social institutions and their ability to correct their own normative programmes in accordance with the current scientific recommendations. Scientific knowledge could contribute to the process of humanisation only with the institutional support which aims to provide its integration. The author claims that scientific knowledge acquires a personal regulative meaning mostly if it becomes a basis for any institutionalised social norm, especially legal one. The author concludes that the institutional aspect of the value dimension of science could make the discussion meaningful.

Keywords

Authors

References