Lessons of
A.Voin 26.3.11
We are accustomed to believe
that man, his life and well-being is the main value. Objection to this is
blasphemy, and we brush aside such objections from the doorway, not looking. I
wrote already that this belief is wrong, but the events at nuclear power plants
of
Shamelessly brazen statements of scientists
and politicians in the early days of the tragedy, that nothing terrible has
happened and can not happen ("It is not Chernobyl,
there was a one-off error, which is now fixed forever," etc.), smeared
with a thick layer of words of the same scientists and politicians, that, of
course, anything can happen, but we took into account the previous errors, we
will strengthen control, but we will continue to build new nuclear power
stations. We have not any alternative. For hydrocarbon energy leads to climate
change and "green" energy sources can not provide the right amount of
it. But such alternative, as just to stop increasing of energy production, not
even mentioned and it did not spend the extra words to refute. Why to deny, if to
everyone it is clear (supposedly), that then the growth of human well-being will
stop (say, although not necessarily), and this is not humane, high value ...
etc.
But the highest value is not human life and even
more so his material wealth (though both are certainly not negligible). The
highest value is the survival of humanity. Atom for Peace, no less than
military atom, poses a potential threat to survival. Since
The neglect of scientists,
politicians and many others of risk the destruction of mankind testifies to the
intellectual and moral defect of modern humanity. Intellectual defect is in the
wrong understanding of the relationship between scientific knowledge and
reality and the consequent failure to understand the difference between theory
and hypothesis, between science and pseudoscience, misunderstanding of the limits
applicability of scientific theory and the what science can prove and what can
not. This lack of understanding manifests itself not only in the assurances of
the scientists in nuclear plant construction safety before the
The reason for this deficiency lies in the rule
of wrong-theoretical cognitive models in philosophy and related methodological
ideas in science itself. My theory of cognition and based on it the unified method
of justification of scientific theories give the way to overcome this defect.
In particular they provide the criteria for separating science from
non-science, theory from a hypothesis, give limits of applicability of the
theory and much more. I will not list the names of my works relating to the
subject, showing where what is published and what specific question in which
one of them covered. Instead I refer the interested to the website of my
institute (www.philprob.narod.ru), where they all
are.
It is possible to talk a lot on the moral defect
of modern humanity and many have already written a lot about it. (Certainly, there
are many differences in opinions about the essence of this defect, its reasons and
what are the ways to correct it, not to mention the fact that a lot of people simply
deny the existence of such a defect). I also wrote on this subject and even
developed a theory of optimal morality, but, again, I will not repeat it here,
referring wanting to the same site. I note only that seen in the context of the
history of
It is difficult to explain by a misunderstanding
of the essence of scientific knowledge and its relation to reality a statement
of the former director of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant Shterenberg
immediately after the tragedy at Fukushima (he was interviewed by the BBC) that
nothing bad can be here. After all, he certainly gave similar assurances before
and after the explosion on
But above all this moral defect is manifested in
the fact that speaking more than 25 years with my philosophy,
and of them 15 years with a unified method of justification, I can not get a
normal discussion, neither one nor the other. This is despite the fact that
although the resistance, but still, I published several articles on a unified method
in philosophy journals and I have positive feedback on it from some venerable
philosophers, and I turned with a proposal to consider this method to a large
number of individuals and authorities, explaining his importance (for example, to
the presidium of the Academy of Sciences of Russia and Ukraine). Here is just
one example illustrating the situation and also relevant to the nuclear
industry and its apologists.
I have repeatedly talked with the chief lobbyist for
the Ukrainian nuclear power academician Bar'yakhtar. I
know him through the so-called "Interdisciplinary Seminar", one of
the leaders of which he is (other - Rector of Kiev Polytechnic Institute academician
Zgurovsky). I have a number of years systematically
attended the seminar and participated in discussions. At the seminar was
ever-present problem, common to all such seminars and conferences - lack of a
common language between representatives of different disciplines. I offered to
make at a seminar a presentation on a unified method of justification of
scientific theories, which just gives this common language. And my report has
already been appointed by secretary of seminar Ryzhkova
at the next meeting, and even the announcement of this hanging in the House of
Scientists. But when I came to the seminar, it became clear that this time
there will be another report, and I was moved a month. Then I was transferred
for another month and another, and my report did not take place for today. Despite the fact that the very Zgurovsky,
to whom I spoke, promised that me. With regard to Bar'yakhtar,
then to him I too turned and he wished to get acquainted with the method
previously. I gave him a couple of articles and after he read them, he said he
did not object to the report. Why then with the full consent of the leadership of
seminar the report still has not taken place?
An additional story on the same seminar and with the
same Bar'yakhtar sheds light on that. He himself has
repeatedly made reports on seminar, lobbying building of new nuclear plants in
And such examples I could give many more.