Bulletin de l'Académie Internationale CONCORDE, 2019, N 1, р. 3-16
Dr Alexander M. Voin
International Institute of Philosophy and Society problems
alexvoin@yahoo.com
A level-up program of analytical thinking is proposed in this article. The program is based on the apparatus of the JIPTO mathematical games, developed by Professor G. V. Tomski and on the unified method for substantiating scientific theories, developed by A. M. Voin. The aforementioned
apparatus and method of substantiation are based on the application of an axiomatic approach, the beginnings of which were developed by Euclidean and whose application in the natural sciences, especially in physics, is becoming increasingly popular today. But his educational capabilities to improve analytical skills have so far almost not been used. While the need for this is rapidly increasing, as shown in the article.
The program is designed for inclusion into the system of teaching in universities, and for the development of independent or in organized groups
Keywords: analytical thinking, math games, axiomatic approach, method of substantiation.
Today,
the contradiction between the rapid growth of science and the
availability of any information via the Internet, on the one hand,
and a decrease in the analytical level of thinking of the majority of
the population, on the other, is becoming increasingly obvious. The
so-called clip thinking flourishes. A person does not try to look for
a solution to problems himself, does not try to analyze and compare
the proposed solutions. He accepts uncritically either the solution
that comes first to him on the Internet, or the solution that lies
more to his soul. And he is looking for it not in the primary
sources, not in the writings of the authors of scientific and
philosophical theories, but in products that can be labeled “for
dummies” or in a kind of scientific comics, where the material is
extremely compressed and simplified so as not to injure the pristine
brains of the reader. On the other hand, there are several
fashionable terms from this field and the names of recognized
authorities (as Kant said, although Kant, perhaps, did not say this),
in order to tickle the ego of the corresponding reader. And then this
reader, without any doubt, gets into any scientific or philosophical
discussion on the Internet and expounds these truths from such a
comics book, discussing some solid article or book that he did not
read and responds to the title or, at best, to the annotation.
But
not only the number of “sofa thinkers” is growing. Pseudoscience,
which claims to be enrolled in real science, flourishes on a massive
scale, as RAS academicians trumpet. An academy has even established
an office to combat pseudoscience. But even within the academic
science itself, especially in the human and social sciences,
imitation of science i.e. pseudoscientific speaking in the name of
making a scientific career flourishes. As evidenced by the endless
attempts at reforming the Academy of Sciences, stories with fake
dissertations, etc. That leads to a decrease in the effectiveness of
science and the penetration of mediocrity into it, the writings of
which litter the information space and through which the real ideas
needed by society cannot penetrate.
The
decrease in the level of analytical thinking of the population is
reflected in all processes occurring in society, and in particular,
the quality of power and the decisions it makes. What manifests
itself in the low quality and inconsistency of decisions taken by the
authorities even in developed countries, not to mention third world
countries, and in speeches of their representatives, who then become
the object of numerous bullying in the media. This is logical to
expect in countries with democratic rule for the lower the level of
analytical thinking of voters: the less they are able to choose
worthy rulers, the easier they are manipulated by demagogues and
populists. Well, and where power is not elected, things are even
worse.
The
main reason for the decline in the level of analytical thinking is
the crisis of the rationalistic worldview, on which Western
civilization arose and flourished, which until recently was the
engine of progress on the planet [1-6]. As a result of this crisis,
the inherent to era of classical rationalism (Descartes, Bacon,
Pascal, Newton, etc., up to the appearance of the theory of
relativity) belief in the unity of truth has been lost. It is
especially lost in the humanities and social sciences. The so-called
pluralism has flourished, understood not as the right of everyone to
defend his view of what is truth, but as the truth of each. But if
everyone has their own truth, then why develop analytical thinking
and get to the bottom of a single truth that does not exist? It is
enough that I think so, it seems to me and I want. "And if you
have another truth, so stand on the other corner and do not compete."
As a result, the resolution of political conflicts, and often
scientific disputes, occurs not through the proof of the correctness
of one of the parties (such proof is possible only if the unity of
truth is recognized), but through the use of force, connections and
competition of propaganda, whose power is more powerful. And then
each of the parties complains that they are not listening to her
arguments, as if she is listening to the arguments of the other party
and is not engaged in propaganda herself.
The
digitization of everything and everyone only aggravated this trend.
In addition to the fact that, as mentioned above, the computer and
the Internet provided us with an opportunity to quickly find any
answer to any question without straining our brains, and thus
deprived the average person of the motivation to learn to think,
digitalization also provides another kind of demotivator of the
ability to think. Digitization, and especially the upcoming
artificial intelligence, makes many intellectual professions
unnecessary.
Or,
at least, greatly reduces the requirements for the intellectual
level, the ability to independently think of the average specialist
of the relevant profession. Say, about 50 years ago, the designer,
designing a machine, one might say, invented it from beginning to
end. From the concept, how it will do what it is created for, to the
development of all its components and parts with thought-out, how
each of these parts can be made, in principle, and even easier and
cheaper. And today he climbs into the Internet, finds a similar
machine there, borrows knots and parts from it, and only slightly
changes something there. Brains for this purpose are required 10
times less, and his productivity is 10 times more than that of the
former engineer. As a result, 80% of former engineers of designers
become unnecessary, 10% becomes stupid, and only 10% moves to some
more intelligent sphere, such as the design of space technology. The
same 80%, that have become unnecessary, go to the service, for
example, distributors of the same technology, sales managers, etc. As
a result, the nation of engineers, doctors who think and not write
out prescriptions, which a computer program suggests based on tests,
teachers who also think, and not those who can be successfully
replaced by a computer program, turns into a nation of distribution
managers, waiters and entertainment workers. And if earlier this
nation demanded spiritual food in the form of classical and similar
to it literature, symphonic music, cinema at the level of Tarkovsky,
now it wants only to hang out and tear off with the help of showbiz,
preferably with striptease, films with shooters and porn, and worst
drug and even more thrill. And then everyone is surprised: here, we
change the power in regular and extraordinary elections and in
revolutions and in general “we wanted the best, but it turns out as
always.” And the economy, which at the current level of science and
technology should grow like crazy, grows weakly, and even falls.
This
situation is beginning to be gradually realized by a part of thinking
people, they begin to talk and write about it and some measures are
proposed to prevent this process. Most often these are some changes
in educational programs in schools and universities. For example, it
is proposed to increase the number of hours of teaching mathematics
in schools and universities, as it was in Soviet times.
This
is a step in the right direction. Math is really a great gymnastics
of the mind. But this is not enough today. Indeed, during the times
of the Soviet Union there was still no digitalization of everything
and everyone. And the crisis of the rationalistic worldview, although
it had already developed throughout the West, but the population of
the Union was protected from it by the Marxist doctrine, which was
strictly imposed on the population. Marxism, though far from being a
true rational science, for which he claimed (“the only scientific
doctrine in the world”), by his intentions was certainly rational
and instilled in the Union’s population although a simplified and
containing certain mistakes, but a rationalistic outlook. In
particular, Soviet citizens believed in the unity of truth and did
not poison their minds with relativity of all and pluralism. Now, as
said, the situation has changed in Russia, not to mention the West,
and therefore simply returning to the Soviet education system is not
enough. The question is, is it possible to increase the effectiveness
of the development of analytical skills based on mathematics, and if
so, how?
Improving
the development of analytical thinking and creative abilities with
the help of mathematics is provided by the JIPTO
intellectual, creative and mathematical game developed by Professor
GV Tomski
[7-10]. The idea here is this. Although the study of mathematics in
school with the solution of tasks develops analytical thinking, but
much more the work of the mathematician scientist develops it. It is
impossible to connect schoolchildren to creative work in the field of
mathematics by studying algebra, geometry, trigonometry, started the
mat of analysis and solving tasks at school. That is because
creativity in mathematics is the creation of new theories, but not
the study of already created ones and the mastery of the ability to
use them. But the JIPTO
game allows even schoolchildren to practice creating mathematical
models and theories, starting with the simplest ones with a further
increase in complexity.
I will cite, with the permission of G. V. Tomski, extensive quotations from his works:
I will cite, with the permission of G. V. Tomski, extensive quotations from his works:
“The
most important thing is that the
Mathematical Olympiad is a competition for solving problems of
heightened difficulty,
which, if successfully defined, can be solved in principle within no
more than one hour. Real mathematical problems require many months
for their solution, sometimes many years of continuous reasoning.
Thus, the scientific work in the field of mathematics can be compared
with a marathon, and the Olympiad with a run for a hundred meters.
Therefore,
victories in Olympiads are not evidence of suitability for
professional scientific work in the field of mathematics.
The
habit of teaching higher mathematics rooted in physical and
mathematical schools leaves
no time for attempts at independent creativity.
In education of children and young people, priority should be given
to the ability to use the knowledge gained.
Therefore,
we believe that the System
of accurate determination of mathematical talents
can only be based on testing students' abilities to research unsolved
mathematical problems described in the language of school
mathematics.
It
is hard to disagree with this statement. We worked long and hard to
create the sources of such tasks. For this purpose, Elementary
pursuit geometry
has been developed, which is a new extension of the classical
Euclidean geometry, which has unlimited development prospects with
the participation of all lovers of mathematics [8].
The
Mathematical Theory of JIPTO
developed by me and my students gives an inexhaustible number of
unsolved mathematical pursuit problems formulated in the language of
elementary mathematics [9]. Such problems can be investigated by
capable students who know only school geometry. The most gifted of
them can prove real mathematical theorems in 15-16 years. There is no
doubt that such children will later become good professional
mathematicians.
One
should listen to the opinion of Singapore’s innovation policy
architect, Dr. Philip Yo, who advises: “Actively look for children
with mathematical abilities. Mathematics is extremely important.
Smart children who understand mathematics can do physics and all
other sciences. ” The
education of mathematical culture is the basis for training
specialists for an innovative economy.
In order to do mathematics it is enough to have abilities and
incentives, a pencil and paper. Therefore,
we describe under what conditions the use of the System of the
unmistakable definition of mathematical talents could turn an average
or even a small state into a mathematical power and form the basis of
a System for searching exceptional talents for countries seriously
thinking about their future. ”([7],
p. 5) .
“In
the elementary geometry of pursuit, the trajectories of“ pursuers
”and“ evaders ”, which are the objects of Euclidean geometry,
are considered: broken lines or chains of circles connected to each
other. But transformations and other relationships studied in
classical geometry (rotation, similarity, etc.) add an infinite
number of transformations and relationships generated by different
strategies. These strategies are algorithms defined in geometric
terms. Further, the results are guaranteed by the studied strategies
in accordance with various criteria.
The
combination of such problems forms an inexhaustible source for
geometric studies. Much of this research can be conducted on the
basis of the results of classical elementary geometry without the use
of other areas of mathematics.
Thus,
elementary
pursuit geometry is a new perspective expansion of classical geometry
with an infinite number of topics for research,
interesting for the purposes of popularizing mathematics and for
mathematical education.
Popularization of elementary pursuit
geometry is designed to help raise the mathematical culture of
teachers and students. It is possible to move from the use of
indirect criteria of mathematical giftedness to the testing of
capable students on real unsolved mathematical problems and their
early initiation (from about 14-16 years old) his first theorem, he
can defend his dissertation much earlier than other mathematicians.
”([7], p. 35).
“In
1993, this system was approved by the leadership of the education
sector of UNESCO and entered into my official job description (an
expert of the highest category P-5 of UNESCO) so that I could begin
to popularize it worldwide. "([7], p. 52).
“In
1993, UNESCO Deputy Director General for Education, Professor Colin
Power came to Yakutsk for a UNESCO conference on education. During
this trip, he became acquainted with the JIPTO
development game I invented and used in schools as a stimulator of
various types of creativity (artistic, literary, etc. [10]). In the
same year, at his suggestion, I created in Paris and headed the
International Federation for this game - FIDJIP.
FIDJIP
is an international scientific, cultural, educational and sports
association, working in close liaison with UNESCO.
Its activities contribute to the implementation of programs for the
development of education and other programs of UNESCO.
As
a cultural and sports association FIDJIP
develops and promotes the JIPTO
Art and organizes the JIPTO
Festivals with international tournaments, exhibitions, games, plays
and other entertainment events. As an international network of
researchers, FIDJIP
coordinates mathematical, pedagogical and psychological research on
the theory of JIPTO
and its implementation in education, conducted in many universities.
"([7], p. 41).
As
can be seen from the above quotation, the basis of the JIPTO
is geometry. Moreover, for preschoolers and junior schoolchildren who
still do not know anything about geometry, the JIPTO
is just an exciting game, but playing it, they unconsciously get
involved in the world of geometry. For those who want to develop
their analytical thinking, this game opens the entrance to the world
not only of the classical Euclidean geometry, but into the world of
its endless extensions due to new possible transformations.
Transformations of varying degrees of complexity, but most
importantly, those that have not been done by anyone before, which
allows independent mathematical creativity, the importance of which
is stated above.
Here
it is important to emphasize the special role of geometry, which
makes it most suitable, in comparison with other branches of
mathematics, for the development of rational analytical thinking. It
was not by chance that at the entrance to Plato’s academy it was
written: "Let no one who does not know geometry do not enter
here." The fact is that the geometry from the very beginning,
i.e. already in the "Principles" of Euclid was built
axiomatically (Euclid was the father of the axiomatic method). Plato
could not yet know what role the axiomatic method would play in the
development of rational science as a whole, and not only in geometry,
in the New Time and in the formation of a rationalistic world view,
the role of which in European civilization is mentioned above. But he
had a premonition. Today, the axiomatic method is applied not only in
geometry and not only in mathematics, but also in physics and a
number of other natural sciences. The role of the axiomatic method in
rational science and rationalistic worldview is fully revealed in the
unified method for substantiating scientific theories developed by
the author. For unified method for substantiating scientific theories
the axiomatic construction of the theory is one of the two
cornerstones on which it stands. Geometry is still the easiest way to
assimilate the axiomatic method and its application.
But
the study of mathematics and exercises in it develops analytical
skills only in a certain direction. The fact is that mathematics,
ideally, is not a science that studies reality, but only a great tool
for rational science. Ideally, mathematics completely abstracts from
reality and deals only with abstractions. Moreover, concrete objects
known to us can correspond to these abstractions in real life (for
example, the rays of light in geometric optics correspond well to
straight lines in Euclidean geometry). But it may be that today there
are no known real objects that correspond to the abstractions of a
specific mathematical theory, but in principle they can be, which
means that this theory may someday be useful to us. And there may be
such mathematical theories (calculi), the abstractions of which, in
principle, can not correspond to any real objects. (This is called,
the theory has no object set, or a set of values).
Of
course, mathematics arose from the need to solve specific terrestrial
problems, such as measuring the areas of landowners' possessions. And
abstract objects of this initial mathematics (rectangles, triangles,
etc.) were directly related to real objects. But already at this
stage, in the name of efficiency, mathematics was forced to idealize
these objects (no real boundary of the land plot was an ideal
straight line, corresponding to its definition in Euclidean
planimetry). And the further, the more mathematics has abstracted
from reality. And it came to the fact that at one time there was even
a fashion to build calculus according to such a scheme. Enter the
objects that are denoted by the letters of the Latin alphabet: a, b,
c ... (you can use the Greek alphabet and even Chinese characters).
Above these objects, the actions of addition, multiplication,
inversion (and any other that will occur to the creator of calculus)
are possible. Further, we postulate axioms: (a + b) + c = a + b + c,
etc. And then, on the basis of these axioms, we begin to wind up the
theorems and obtain calculus. But the calculus of what it is in real
life, and whether there can be anything in real life that you can get
into this calculus, does not interest us.
From
the foregoing it is clear that a person with brains well-trained in
mathematics analyzes the real situations well in case if the problem
is either already formalized and you only need to find its solution,
or it is easily formalized. Therefore, a good mathematician easily
becomes, say, a brilliant financier. Here everything is already
formalized: debit, credit, interest, etc. All these concepts are
already quite clearly defined and tied to experience and mathematics
can only solve the problem, where and how to invest the available
money in order to get the maximum profit. And this is exactly the
task for the mathematician. But in life there are many problems where
the task of formalization: introducing concepts, linking them to
experience, i.e. to real objects, the formulation of basic laws is no
less, and often more important, than the subsequent solution of
specific problems in this area. This is well known to physicists and
other natural scientists. For example, when creating the classical
electromagnetic field theory, it took decades of brilliant physicists
to work for decades, based on experiments in which the deflection of
a magnetic needle, charged balls suspended on a string, and similar
observable phenomena, appeared, first go to the intermediate concepts
of electric current, voltage, resistance, etc., then move on from
them to the basic concepts of electric and magnetic field strengths
and after all connect these concepts with Maxwell’s equations,
which are the electromagnetic field theory. And then, having these
equations, they began to solve and still solve various specific
problems from this area with the help of mathematics.
It
is clear that for the development of analytical skills in this
direction, it is useful to study in school, along with mathematics,
also physics. And just as in the case of mathematics simply studying
physics at school, even with the addition of hours, is not enough
today. Here it is possible to increase the efficiency by studying and
acquiring the practice of applying the unified method for
substantiating scientific theories [4], developed by A. M. Voin on
the basis of his theory of knowledge [1]. More precisely, this method
was developed in the development of the natural sciences, physics
first of all, but so far has not been explicitly presented and
existed only at the level of the stereotype of natural scientific
thinking, just as the grammar sits in every language before it is
written. The author presented this method in an explicit form and
showed the possibility of its use with appropriate adaptation in the
field of the humanities and social sciences.
The
importance of using the method of substantiation in the field of
humanities and social sciences is difficult to overestimate. The
natural sciences, in which the unified method of substantiation is
applied, even at the level of a stereotype of natural scientific
thinking, have provided and continue to ensure rapid scientific and
technical progress. The latter, in turn, unusually increased both the
creative and destructive power of mankind. This creates many problems
and threats, including the threat of self-destruction of humanity,
and also exacerbates many previously existing problems, such as the
problem of mutual understanding between different nations, countries
and representatives of different ideologies. These problems can only
be partially solved on the basis of the same scientific and
technological progress, but, above all, they require the resolution
of the philosophical and with the help of other humanities and social
sciences. And these sciences, precisely because they do not possess
the unified method of substantiation, even at the level of a
stereotype of natural scientific thinking, are unable to solve
anything. They are divided into many schools, between representatives
of which there is no common language (which can only be a unified
accepted method of justifying the truth), and therefore they are not
able to accept or reject any theory by the whole community.
On
this topic, as well as on the application of the unified method of
substantiation to solving specific problems, the author made a number
of reports at international conferences, forums and congresses. In
particular, at the World Philosophical Forum under the auspices of
UNESCO in 2010 in Athens, where the author was a member of the
Program Committee [12] and at the 5th World Congress of Geoversal
Civilization in Nairobi in 2018 [13]
As
stated above, one of the cornerstones of a unified method of
justification is the axiomatic construction of a theory. Such a
construction provides a reliable “prediction of the results of
future experiments based on past experiences”, reliable and
unambiguous, we note, provided that the basic concepts of the theory
are unambiguity, unambiguously binding them to experimental data and
consistency of axioms. No other method of constructing a theory, for
example the so-called genetic, provides reliability of the
conclusions of the theory under any additional conditions. The
science, which cannot guarantee the reliability of its conclusions,
is no different from the predictions of Nostradamus and even
fortune-tellers in the coffee grounds.
The
second cornerstone of the unified method of substantiation is the
author’s theory of concepts, developed on the basis of his theory
of knowledge [1, 4]. The application of this theory ensures the
unambiguity of the definitions of basic concepts and the uniqueness
of their binding to experience. This is what the head of the sector
of philosophy of natural science at the Institute of Philosophy of
the Russian Academy of Sciences prof. E. A. Mamchur, in response to
one of the articles of the author on the unified method of
justification writes:
"A.
M. Voin convincingly shows that if science really follows the unified
method of substantiation, then "binding" of concepts to
experience denied by Quine (Quine is one of the post positivists
relativizing scientific knowledge, in particular denying binding
scientific concepts to experience) necessarily exists, and there is
no bad infinity in expressing some concepts through others, of which
Quine speaks. A. M. Voin believes that supporters of cognitive
relativism in the interpretation of scientific knowledge quite
accurately recorded the real phenomenon that takes place in the
process of changing paradigms of scientific thinking, namely, the
phenomenon of changing the meaning of the same fundamental concepts
of successively replacing each other fundamental scientific theories.
But just this phenomenon from the point of view of the author of the
article confirms that the method of substantiation reconstructed by
him really works in science. It
is this method that ensures the determination of basic concepts
through the properties of the objects described by the theory.”
What
does the unified method of substantiation give to a person who has
mastered him, and to society as a whole? For society as a whole, it
is important that the presentation of the unified method for
substantiating scientific theories explicitly refutes the notorious
pluralism, understood as a denial of the unity of truth. After all,
if there is no single method of justification, then it is impossible
to agree on a common truth for all, from which the lack of unity of
truth follows. And the recognition of the unity of truth and,
moreover, the unified method of its establishment, returns society to
a rationalistic worldview, the meaning of which, from the point of
view of the level of analytical thinking of the population, has been
said above. Moreover, the author’s books eliminate the mistakes of
classical rationalism, which led to his crisis, and refute the claims
of the post-positivists and representatives of other philosophical
trends relativizing scientific knowledge, which is also important for
the revival of the rationalist worldview.
For
society as a whole, it is also important that the unified method of
substantiating scientific theories provides objective criteria that
separate science from pseudoscience, hypotheses from a proven theory
and allows you to set the boundaries applicability of the theory. In
the light of what has been said above about the clogging up of
pseudoscience in science and the unsuccessful struggle with it
(connected, by the way, with the lack of objective criteria
separating one from the other), there is no need to explain why this
is important.
It
is also important for those people who are trying to understand the
truth and the scientific nature of ideas, theories, projects and
government decisions that affect the state of society and hence their
personal destiny. For example, mastering the method helps to sort out
all sorts of economic and social projects that the mass media in any
country are filled with today. And, at least, to try, if not
understand these things is the duty of every citizen. Those who do
not want to understand this, in fact, are not citizens, but the
population.
Why
the study of the unified method of substantiation helps to understand
quickly any theories and projects? It is because the mastering of the
method quickly finds the axiomatic basis (postulates and definition
of basic concepts), which, though implicitly, must be in any
worthwhile theory. If this basis does not satisfy the requirements of
the method (axioms contradict each other or experience, the concepts
are not uniquely defined or are not tied to experience), then it is
no sense to waste time studying such a theory. If this basis is more
or less satisfactory, then further understanding of the theory is not
difficult, since in the system of axioms, as in the embryo sits the
whole set of conclusions that it is potentially possible to get from
it.
Based
on this, the authors of the project are sure that sooner or later the
study of the beginning of the unified method of substantiation and
the JIPTO will be accepted in all schools and higher educational
institutions. So far, those who wish can independently to study the
unified method of substantiation for the mentioned books by A. M.
Voin and practice the assessment of the degree of science of
theories, ideas and projects which now full at academic journals in
the humanities and social sciences and especially the Internet. This
practice is a creative work that develops analytical thinking in the
direction in which it is developing by a work of a theorist
physicist. But in order to become a theorist physicist, creating his
theories, it is not enough even to finish the physical and
mathematical faculty of the university. Only a few who have graduated
from such a faculty become real physicists and theorists.
And
the basics of the unified method of substantiation can be taught even
in high school. And this level will be enough to analyze on the
subject of science many simple social and economic projects, walking
in the media and the Internet. That will be useful both individually
from the point of view of the development of analytical thinking and
from a social point of view, allowing you to clear the information
space from the mountains of pseudo-theoretical ideological garbage.
The
results of such studies can be sent to the authors of the project at
the addresses: g.tomski@gmail.com
and alexvoin@yahoo.com.
The best of these works will be published in the magazines of the
CONCORD International Academy [11] and on the website of the
International Institute of Philosophy and Problems of the Society
www.philprob.narod.ru. On the basis of such studies, candidate and
doctoral dissertations in the humanities and social sciences can be
defended. Those who wish to master the unified method of
substantiation and apply it to assess the degree of scientific nature
of various
works,
can receive by agreement advice and guidance from the author of the
method. It is also possible to create courses of analytical thinking
based on the JIPTO
(jointly with G.V. Tomski)
and the unified method of substantiation (jointly with A.M. Voin).
Such
courses can be created at universities with the consent or at the
initiative of the university management or at any other organizations
interested in this, as well as on the basis of voluntary association
of those who wish. Participants in such courses, in addition to
learning the basics of the unified method of substantiation, will be
trained to find an axiomatic structure in their proposed projects and
theories, that means will be trained to find quickly basic positions,
postulates, starting from which the authors of a project or theory
draw their conclusions. Then check these postulates-axioms for
consistency with each other and experience, the uniqueness of the
definition of the concepts contained in them and the uniqueness of
the binding of these concepts to experience. Having done such an
analysis in relation to a popular philosophical or other theory, one
can easily defend a dissertation and at the same time benefit
society. This will be especially easy for physicists and
mathematicians who wish to pursue a professional career in the
humanities and social sciences. Today there is a certain trend of
such a transition.
But
since this is done without using of the unified method of
substantiation then, as a rule, although the dissertations are
defended successfully, science and society loses from such defenses,
since incorrect and fuzzy initial premises are hidden behind
mathematics. As a result a society receives science-like hack-work
instead really science. And it must be borne in mind that, in
addition to dishonesty, one cannot go far on such careless work.
Sooner or later, this shop will be covered up and well even if
without taking action against those who took advantage of it. And
the use of the unified method of substantiation allows physics or
mathematics to make a good thesis without much effort. For
representatives of other professions, mastering the unified method of
substantiation followed by writing a thesis will require some great
efforts. But for each participant of the mentioned courses, a
training program can be selected, corresponding to his initial level
and abilities.
References
1. Voin A.M. Neoracionalizm – duhovniy racionalizm [New rationalism is spiritual rationalism]. - M.: Direct Media, 2014. - 259 p. (In Russian)
2. Voin A.M. Ot Moiseya do postmodernizma. Dvizenie idei [From Moses to postmodernism. Movement of ideas]. - Kiev: Phoenix, 1999. 120 p. (In Russian)
3. Voin A.M. Filosofiya i globalniy krizis: monografiya [Philosophy and the Global Crisis: monograph] - M. - Berlin: Direct Media, 2016. - 544 p. (In Russian) Bulletin de l'Académie Internationale CONCORDE, 2019, N 1
4. Voin A.M. Ediniy metod obosnovaniya nauchnih teoriy [Unified method of substantiation of scientific theories]. - M. - Berlin: Direct Media, 2017. - 268 p. (In Russian)
5. Voin A.M. Filosofiya i deystvitelnost [Philosophy and reality]. Chapters 1-3 // Bulletin d'EUROTALENT-FIDJIP, 2018, N 3, p. 56-111. (In Russian)
6. Voin A.M. Filosofiya i deystvitelnost [Philosophy and reality]. Chapters 4-7. // Bulletin d'EUROTALENT-FIDJIP, 2018, N 4, p. 3-60. (In Russian)
7. Tomski G. Mathematical talents: System for infallible and early detection, 2017 (Amazon Kindle). - 57 p.
8. Tomski G. Elementaty Geometry of Pursuit, 2017 (Amazon Kindle). - 208 p.
9. Tomski G. Mathematics of JIPTO and research topics, 2017 (Amazon Kindle). - 120 p.
10. Tomski G.V.. Sistema poiska iskuchitelnykh talantov [Search system of exceptional talents] // Bulletin de l'Académie Internationale CONCORDE, 2015, N 3, p. 86-110. (In Russian).
11. Tomsky G.V. Mezdunarodnaya Akademiya CONCORD [ CONCORD International Academy] // CONCORDE, 2018, N 4, p. 3-20. (In Russian)
12. Alexander Voin. [The formation of public morality]. http://wpfunesco.org/rus/offpap/top4/avoin2.htm (In Russian)
13. A. Voin. Absoluteness or relative of scientific knowledge //
https://www.academia.edu/37203447/My_speech_at_the_5th_World_Congress_of_Geoversal
_Civilization.doc
