Plan

1.Science in Russia

2. Science in the service of man

The development of science is very important for any state. Much is being done in Russia on this issue. Putin V.V. constantly pays attention to the development of science, follows and is interested in innovation. The quality of our life depends on it. There have always been many minds in our country, these people created radio, television, telephone and much more.

Science in Russia is at the service of man. There is not a single industry in the country where scientific discoveries would not be attracted. To feed the country with quality products, many agronomists are involved. They develop new varieties, cooperate with employees of large enterprises and small farms.

Unique objects are created on the basis of scientific projects. For example, the Crimean bridge. It is being built thanks to the developments of Russian scientists. There is no such bridge anywhere in the world.

Composition Why is the development of science important for Russia Grade 5

Plan

1. The value of science in Russia

2. Discoveries for people

For Russia to be a strong state with a developed economy, a large number of scientists is needed. For this purpose, various scientific platforms, science cities are being created in our country, which attract gifted youth. Russian science is valued all over the world, our discoverers and creators are invited to work abroad. And the task of the state is to keep them and create all the working conditions for them.

Scientists make new discoveries, develop new projects to make life easier and calmer for people. They come up with new medicines so that people get sick less and live longer. It is necessary to develop medicine so that serious diseases can be cured, such as AIDS, cancer and others.

For the development of the economy, scientific developments in agriculture are important. Production of products will increase, their quality will improve, they will become cheaper for buyers. And it is also very important that scientists help protect our Motherland with their discoveries. Military science invents new weapons, military designers design ships and submarines that cannot be detected. And we must study hard and try to have outstanding scientists in our generation.

The problem of scientific comprehension of the world is as relevant as ever. The direction of scientific knowledge is determined spontaneously or from practical considerations of rational existence on Earth. The direction of the development of science must be determined scientifically. About this article.

WHY DEVELOP SCIENCE
Question: "Why develop science?" - sounds very unusual, but such a question is worth tackling, because the direction of science does not correspond to modern trends in the conservation of the planet. Even the question of the development of science is very interesting, because the question arises of the premature development of the scientific knowledge of earthlings. Yes, progress cannot be stopped, including the progress of science, but the lifetime of the planet is enormous; the development of science brings the premature end of civilization closer than its preservation. In the Middle Ages, in the embryonic state of science, there were no questions about the preservation of civilization and the preservation of the nature of the planet. Nowadays, there is no need to look deep into space; there is no need to look for other civilizations, since more urgent tasks for science are on earth. These are the tasks of the social development of all states as a single whole international community. Without a unified approach to this issue, there will be no correct solution. The solution of this issue is not possible within the framework of the existing economic system. Science should direct its efforts towards solving the issue of the social structure of mankind on the planet. The complexity of this task cannot be determined. Without determining the complexity of the problem, it is not possible to solve it. The second question of scientific knowledge about man is the question of population. Science should direct its efforts not to study the human body as a biological species with all its health problems, but to direct its efforts to solving the existence of the human biological species in terms of stabilizing its numbers, and even reducing it for the full existence of the next generations of people on the planet The Earth, as a cosmic object of intergalactic significance, because no one can deny the Creation of the earthly civilization by the intergalactic mind now, just as no one can deny the existence of God within the framework of the conception of Him by the man of the Earth. The complexity of the second question cannot be assessed, and without assessing the complexity of the issue, it is impossible to solve the issue itself. The science of our time on planet Earth is burying its head in the sand like an ostrich, succumbing to these two questions; and in order to continue his scientific research, he is engaged in much less important tasks in order to justify his presence in the body of the culture of earthly civilization, as one of the branches of this culture, with a complete failure, which was indicated above.

The principle of relativity of morality on Earth will help in solving the second unsolvable problem of the population of the Earth. This principle will allow you to have the right decision regarding the imperfect (damaged in relation to DNA) flesh of the born child. This principle will make it possible to have a correct decision regarding life expectancy in favor of its reduction to the time of the reproductive period of a person's life. This principle will reduce the birth rate on the recommendation of scientific programs based on calculations on powerful computers that allow you to regulate the birth rate with the condition of its reduction for the possibility of a full life for the next generations of people on the surface of the planet Earth. The value of life is not in its duration, but in its continuation in the next generations. The instinct of motherhood of all living things in nature is based on this principle, when the mother sacrifices herself for the sake of the cub (both animal and human). The Savior sacrificed His flesh for the salvation of mankind; now humanity must sacrifice its flesh from generation to generation for the sake of preserving the next generations of people on the surface of planet Earth. Otherwise, humanity will become like herds of cattle that eat all the vegetation on Earth, without which there will be no animal life on Earth.

The meaning of human life on Earth is in the existence of the UNIVERSAL MIND, for HE nourishes all life on Earth with the mind, for He feeds all life on Earth with the energy of the flesh!!! Without a human there will be no sense in the existence of the UNIVERSAL MIND. Without the universal mind there will be no human life, there will be no human life if a person does not understand the reality of the existence of the UNIVERSAL MIND. The discovery of the Mystery of Almighty God by the science of earthlings will be the greatest scientific discovery. It will be a revelation for the church, which still does not understand the MYSTERIES OF ALL GOD!!!

The question may seem strange, but the answer to it is banal, like a wheel - well, of course, modern society needs science! But let's approach the answer to this question not out of habit, but consider the problem from a sensible and, perhaps, somewhat cynical point of view.

First of all, let's define the terminology. Speaking of "science", I will mean only "a system of knowledge about the patterns of development of nature, society and thinking." I leave aside equipment and high technologies, which do not form a new "knowledge system", but only exploit the existing one. The thesis that I will try to substantiate here is that the development of science in the classical and orthodox sense of the word, namely as the formation of a "system of knowledge", is not necessary for modern society today. It burdens society. It diverts resources from solving the problems of survival of huge communities of people. It is not able to solve (although science should not solve this) the global problems of mankind, the solution of which is required "here and now".

I mean, first of all, the problems of energy production and consumption, the problems of supplying entire continents with food and fresh water, the problems of environmental pollution, and many others that newspapers write about every day, smart and advanced TV presenters talk about. Sad as it may seem, but today science is needed only by those who work in it (including, sorry, me too). But this is only because it still makes it possible to receive for your unnecessary (or rather, necessary for a very narrow circle of colleagues), but very exhausting work, a small piece of the common pie baked by law-abiding citizens - taxpayers. This idea does not inspire me myself, and I would not agree with it if it were not for the objective realities of modern life, which confirm it every time. But let's talk about this and other things in order.

A bit of history, or why do generals need to know the mass of neutrinos?

Studies in the sciences have always been the lot of the rich. First rich people, then rich metropolitan areas, and today rich states. Only wealthy people in a wealthy society could afford to think "On the nature of things" and not think about their daily bread. At the same time, engaging in science was a personal choice, and not at all a social order. Powerful kings kept astrologers and alchemists at their courts not to form a "system of knowledge", but to predict fate and extract the "philosopher's stone".

The first textbooks on the universe were written, apparently, by Ptolemy. In his books on astronomy, geography and optics, he gave a generalized body of knowledge of his time. The Alexandrian scientific school, of which Ptolemy was a prominent representative, ceased to exist after 640, when the famous Library of Alexandria burned down during the conquest of Alexandria by the Arabs. In 1428, the great grandson of Timur, the ruler of Samarkand and the head of the Timurid dynasty, Ulugbek, built the best observatory for that time. It existed for only 21 years, and after the murder of Ulugbek by religious fanatics, it was destroyed by them to the ground.

And in a hundred years, King Frederick II, at the request of the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe, will build the first Uraniborg observatory in Europe. The king will spend "more than a barrel of gold" on the construction of the observatory (this is about one and a half million dollars). But this observatory will not last long and will be burned along with all astronomical instruments during the fighting.

These small historical examples, in my opinion, clearly demonstrate that the formation of a "system of knowledge" (read - the development of science) has always occurred not at all by order of society, but in spite of it. Society in the person of kings, and today presidents, ministers and various foundations - does not order, and is not able to order what is unknown - new knowledge. The formation of orders for scientific research took place and is taking place today according to a vicious, but the only possible scheme - they (the state and society) finance scientific programs and developments, and we (scientists) issue the result introduced into the national economy.

In the historical examples described, the embedded result was a long-term astrological forecast along with a recipe for getting "gold from manure". And today, to designate such a result, even a special term has appeared - "innovative potential of scientific development", which in Russian simply means the possibility of immediately introducing the result of scientific work into economic activity and making a profit. All this is good and even wonderful, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the formation of a "knowledge system". The formation of a "system of knowledge" occurs as if by the way and is a side and unclaimed (of course, for the time being, but more on that below) product of "innovative research".

And the contradiction here is irremovable, at the level of a fundamental regularity - scientific research carried out by small teams always outstrips the development of the intellectual potential of the rest of society and that is why they remain unclaimed. And representatives of the scientific community, filling out applications for funding, are cunning, just as Tycho Brahe was cunning, who advised Frederick II to build an observatory supposedly for more accurate astrological forecasts, but in fact understood that this observatory was needed to gain new knowledge about the structure of the world. I do not think that Frederick II would have slept better if he had become an adherent of the heliocentric system.

What is science today? The times of great loners, such as Lomonosov, Faraday or Maxwell, are long gone. Modern science today consists of huge teams equipped with large-scale installations and equipment, devouring considerable resources from the budget of their states. We owe many achievements in the formation of a modern "system of knowledge" to the joint contribution of the budgets of several countries to scientific research. The scale and energy costs of obtaining new knowledge are beyond the power of one state.

An anecdotal example can be given when scientists in the 1980s received huge funding to develop communication systems between nuclear submarines using neutrino streams (neutrino is such an elementary particle, predicted by Pauli and discovered in the 1930s, that can freely pass through Earth). Specialists understand that it is impossible to do this - the neutrino interacts too weakly with matter. But scientists had to determine whether this particle had a mass, or if it was exactly zero. The fate of the then created picture of the universe depended on this. So the generals, who determine the financing of the project, were offered an "innovative idea" to create transceiver devices that work not on radio waves, but on neutrinos that freely pass through the globe, for example, from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic.

The device, of course, was not made, but the mass of the neutrino was measured. Considerable resources were diverted, scientists satisfied their curiosity and told the generals that the mass of the neutrino, if any, is very small, less than 10-32 grams. But by that time the president had changed, and the generals had retired.

And here a reasonable question arises: do we really need such a science in order to build steamships, fly into space and talk on a mobile phone (including from a submarine)? Is such a science really necessary for society in order to create new weapons to protect the interests of its "states" that are not entirely clear to it? And is it really necessary for society today to spend colossal funds on expanding the "system of knowledge about the laws of development of nature, society and thinking", to know the features of the subatomic world and discover new laws of nature that only the discoverers themselves can understand? Why would a general pay a general's money to find out the mass of neutrinos?

Rule "100 years"

Legend has it that after a report at the Royal Society of London in 1831 on the discovery of the law of electromagnetic induction, Michael Faraday was asked by one of the Sirs: "What good is your discovery for our society?" To which the wise Faraday replied: "Wait, a hundred years will pass, and you will tax my discovery." Today we cannot imagine our life without electricity, the production of which is based on the "knowledge system" established by Faraday. We pay a lot for it, and its producers pay taxes on their profits. The prediction not only came true, but stated the existing pattern in the relationship between science and society in time - the rule of "100 years"!

Indeed, a similar example can be given with the discovery by Antoine Henri Becquerel in 1896 of the phenomenon of radioactivity, without which today (again, in a hundred years) the existence of entire sectors of the national economy (medicine, nuclear energy, and others) is unthinkable in almost all countries and on all continents. (and who also pay taxes).

Today's achievements in the development of quantum computers and nanotechnologies are entirely due to the same "knowledge system" - quantum mechanics, which was also created almost a hundred years ago by a very small group of scientists whose names can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

The American Physical Society and UNESCO declared 2005 the Year of Physics. Almost exactly one hundred years ago, in 1905, the first article of one person appeared, which was called "Zur Elektrodynamik der bewegter Korper" ("On the electrodynamics of moving bodies") and which turned the existing ideas about the structure of the world, about time and space. This man's name is Albert Einstein. Today, that is, in a hundred years, the "knowledge system" initiated by Einstein not only replenishes the budgets of various countries in the form of tax deductions, but has become simply the worldview of the majority.

Faraday was right. Wait a hundred years. But if we approached his time with today's yardstick for evaluating the effectiveness of scientific developments, the "innovative potential" in all these examples would simply be equal to zero. Now, knowing this "100 years" rule, I dare to assert that today's society, concerned with the problems of survival, does not need a "knowledge system" that, perhaps, will be in demand in a hundred years. And only a rich society (and what kind of society is rich today?), which has enlightened leaders at its helm (and are there such?), can spend its resources on an as yet unknown "knowledge system".

But in the context of the existing systemic crisis and the unresolved global problems mentioned above, there is no wealthy society on any continent today. And in the next hundred years, the situation is unlikely to change, unless the "golden billion" of our earthly population finally usurps the access of the rest to the planet's vital resources and, exclusively for themselves and their descendants, will replenish the "knowledge system".

Overproduction in the "knowledge system"

The rapid development of science has already led to negative consequences. This is a pile of unused information, and a large gap between what is done in scientific laboratories and what is taught in school, and the emergence of a new type of professional career scientist who puts science at the service of his own interests, and very little effectiveness in correcting the harm caused nature by inept "scientific and technological progress". All the features of the crisis of overproduction of the "knowledge system" are present. Open modern school textbooks on natural science. You will not see a word there about the "knowledge system" that was formed several decades ago.

The structure of the microworld, the "grand unification" of interactions in nature, quantum teleportation and achievements in astrophysics. The good old Peryshkin's textbook on physics in three volumes is more up-to-date today than the current ones. The logic is simple - there is no "innovative potential" in this "knowledge system", and there is no need to bother children with this. And the children of these children will live in a hundred years on our land. Society does not want to prepare them for life in accordance with the "one hundred years" rule. Because it doesn't have time, and it can't (though it may want to) wait a hundred years.

But astrological predictions have "innovative potential" today as never before. In every way they conjure, bewitch and turn away, all sorts of magicians and psychics remove damage. You could call it a mental crisis. Our main enemy today is the disease of ignorance that has struck society due to the overproduction of the "knowledge system", which is no longer perceived by society.

An analogy arises with a stupor with strong emotional arousal - inhibition of the nervous system on the incoming flow of information. The lessons of history and the knowledge acquired over the centuries are forgotten. Scientists and professionals leave and are replaced by dilettantes who do not have any theory or hard-won teaching behind their souls. The development of society does not keep pace with the formation of a new "system of knowledge". There is a huge gap between the minority, which forms this very "system of knowledge", and the rest of the majority, who are not able to perceive it. Unlike the objective circumstances that I mentioned earlier, this is a powerful subjective factor that is tearing society away from science.

About morality and spirituality

I will try to answer another important question: does the pursuit of science in itself contribute to the education of moral qualities, which are so important for the development of society, for its enlightened structuring? I dare say that the history of the development of science and society does not make it possible to establish any connection between these two categories - science and morality. And in general, it is doubtful that there are professions that are capable of transforming devils into angels and witches into nuns only by the fact of their existence. And there are no less scoundrels and swindlers in the scientific community than, for example, in banking or housing and communal services.

Our wonderful writer Lev Uspensky (who once created, together with Y. Perelman in Leningrad, the famous House of Entertaining Science) said that only the professions of executioners and prostitutes were (and remain) like that, and even here there is a dilemma about a causal relationship - or a profession began with a vice or a vice with a profession. That is, here, too, today's science is not able to influence anything.

Dinosaur Cemetery

The discoverer of the largest known dinosaur cemetery in the Gobi desert, writer Ivan Efremov, in one of his long-standing interviews with Literaturnaya Gazeta, said that even today there are grounds for stopping scientific research. "Complications of scientific research, especially in physics and chemistry, absorb a significant part of the social income. In order not to turn science into an economic disaster, it is probably necessary to proportion its contribution to the happiness of people with the funds spent on it. This is difficult, but achievable if science will be able to earn again the trust that she has already begun to lose precisely in the matter of human happiness. I cannot agree with this idea in terms of human happiness. Happiness from science in the sense of the word that I outlined above will come to us not earlier than in a hundred years - we will no longer be in this world. Human happiness will not increase from understanding the nature of vacuum, and from the discovery of new elementary particles. Only those few who have reached the next understanding of the structure of the world will be happy, but there are only a few of them.

And they will be happy only because, due to their genetic predisposition, they cannot live without a sense of understanding of nature. These, I repeat, are few, and they will always appear as long as humanity exists. And society needs to make efforts to more effectively use the existing "knowledge system" to solve its problems on its basis. Let new and expensive accelerators and colliders not be built to reveal the secrets of the microworld, let expensive telescopes be removed from orbit to observe distant space. Tragedy will not happen.

But if the "system of knowledge" that has been formed over the past hundred years is lost, then a tragedy will occur. And it is quite possible that in a million years (or maybe even earlier) representatives of the next new civilization will open another cemetery, but not dinosaurs. And the task of society today is to preserve (I'm not saying to multiply - it is beyond the power of society today) for the sake of its own salvation, what its best representatives have done.

V. MALYSHEVSKY "Knowledge is Power", No. 3. 2007.

I keep thinking about V. Shubinsky's book about Lomonosov.

The author rightly claims that Lomonosov did not make fundamental discoveries in science, similar to the laws of Galileo, Newton or Leibniz, remaining at the level of his teacher Wolf, an encyclopedic philosopher who had a qualified opinion on all the main issues of science of his time.
What is the reason - it is clear. Galileo and Newton were the products of a very advanced civilization, driven by ordinary scientific curiosity and a desire to profit from their inventions (like Galileo or Huygens). When they thought about questions of mechanics, the idea did not occur to them at the same time as the formulas to start writing poems about their subject. Science remained science for them - and nothing more. Lomonosov, on the other hand, pursued completely different goals, and these goals have remained with us to this day. First, he needed science to build a developed civilization in Russia, to make up for lost opportunities and to subsequently overtake European competitors. Secondly, he was a scholar-poet who continuously sang about what he was studying, looking at the experimental world with a bit of the eyes of a contemplator. In science, he was tempted by the opportunity to comprehend the highest beauty of Being. There was nothing third either in Lomonosov himself or in Russia since the time of Lomonosov.
We are still held captive by these two goals. We want to civilize the country with the help of science and overtake our neighbors. Why is the country still not civilized? After all, science has been developing for about three hundred years, but the goal is still the same. The country is not civilized because the worldview of our people does not include scientific curiosity and scientific rigor of thinking, and this, in turn, is a consequence of dislike for order. In our universities, they were engaged in anything - drunkenness, political struggle, a bureaucratic career, but among the motivations for young people to enter the university, there was almost no simple interest in how the world works. However, despite the dislike for order and the sciences, for the discipline of life and thought, in Russia there has always been a poetic attitude, a desire to join the beautiful, to experience delight, inspiration, fascination with beauty. From this comes the most productive and most general type of Russian scientist - the poet and mystic. Hence Lomonosov, Tsiolkovsky, Mendeleev, Vernadsky, Chizhevsky, Vavilov. Poets, subtle souls, discoverers of beautiful patterns. observers of the universe. Everyone else is in their shadow. Kurchatov, Kapitsa, Landau became possible (including administratively) only thanks to the ideas and insights of Vernadsky, Korolev, despite the genius of his engineering thought, forever remains a follower of Tsiolkovsky, all modern botanists and breeders, strict and pedantic, are inspired by Vavilov's insights. Butlerov has much more discoveries and students than Mendeleev, but he is always second, because, although a mystic, he did not rise to such generalizations. At the same time, not a single law of electricity, magnetism or mechanics was derived by Russians, but a huge number of inventions and innovations became possible only thanks to Russia. And here the third goal of the Russian scientific path opens - the invention of curiosities and the creation of miracles. Lomonosov was not interested in this, but Kulibin was his contemporary.
Why do Russians want curiosities and miracles? Why doesn't a shod flea dance? It's the same question. The creation of a savvy flea is necessary not in order to make it a functioning apparatus, but in order to amuse, show off, mock the existing order. To break this order, to say to the Creator: this is how we manage without you! This is an amazing paradox of consciousness, when a believer decides to be rude to what he believes in, and as a result dies, very pleased with his rudeness. Invented by the Russians for the sake of fun and courage is seriously borrowed by Western serious minds, and the result is a well-functioning, useful and therefore profitable thing.
So, all our scientific achievements can be reduced to just three motivations: a) catch up and overtake (this includes the defense industry); b) admire the beauty of the world; c) to sneer at both order and beauty. Until the people fall in love with the order of life and thought, there is no need to talk about any serious and massive movement towards knowledge and science. The example of Lomonosov eloquently speaks of this.
What is the general conclusion from this? Science in Russia cannot be reproduced by independent efforts. Periodically, a German inoculation is needed, an extract from Western professors to Russian departments, significant funds for providing internships for Russian students in the West, and expert analysis of Russian dissertations by Western scientists. If something is missing in the composition of the people, then it must be administered intramuscularly or intravenously. No other way.

Saved

The ArtMisto editors are opening a new category of popular science articles, where our friends from the 15x4 project will publish materials on scientific discoveries, technical progress, new technologies and their interaction with the environment.

Text: Andrey Filatov

Today, in the first article of our new column, we will try to figure out what the benefits of science are for the average person.

The first thing that comes to mind is that science explains the fundamental principles of the world.

It follows from this that thanks to science, a person is able to better understand the world in which he lives. But in order to make at least some significant discovery, theoretical knowledge is not enough, it is also necessary to create equipment on which it is possible to apply them.

The modern world is arranged in such a way that the creation of a new technology requires funding, and funding for research in the proper amount can receive and use effectively only two branches: scientific, and military. However, the discoveries of the military industry most often fall under the heading "secret", and only after many years become public knowledge (not to mention the fact that they often cost thousands of human lives). Scientific discoveries and technologies, in turn, become available to the commercial sector almost immediately.

X-ray detectors have been used for some time in the military industry for intelligence purposes.(on spy satellites, to control the testing of nuclear weapons). Like many others, these technologies were classified, but as soon as astronomers began to study the celestial sphere in the X-ray range, the astronomical detector manufacturer created a baggage screening device that is still used at every airport. When developingLarge Hadron Collidertechnologies for creating superconducting magnets (which are also the main part of MRI machines) were worked out. As a result, magnet production costs have been drastically reduced, and a significant number of clinics around the world have been able to purchase more affordable MRI machines. So,the creation of a modern large scientific instrument entails a number of technological discoveries that are available to the commercial sector.

It can be argued that many large commercial companies, like Apple, spend serious sums on the development of new technologies and are also the engines of technological progress. This is quite a truthful remark, but there is one story worth telling here. In the late 80s, the first wireless technologies came into people's lives, and it became clear to the leading players in the IT industry that the creation of wireless communication between portable devices is a very promising direction.

To create this technologysignificant resources were thrown, but with no visible result. Meanwhile, at the Australian Radio Astronomy Laboratory CSIRO , engineer John O'Sullivan, worked on the search for radiation from black holes, predicted by Stephen Hawking. He was so enthusiastic that he decided to modernize the radio telescope on which he worked. The result of its modernization was the radio signal processing algorithm that underlies the well-known Wi-Fi technology. What is the reason? Why was a radio astronomer able to solve a problem that the best engineers of leading IT companies struggled with unsuccessfully?

The answer lies in motivation: work on an exclusively commercial task cannot motivate you to work as efficiently as doing something interesting and beloved.

The second important role of science in modern society can be formulated as follows: doing science, people are in a highly motivated state, which allows them to make grandiose discoveries, without even realizing their importance to society.

Science for everyone

If the value of science for humanity as a whole is quite clear, then it's time to ask if there is any benefit for a single person who is not directly related to scientific activity? The answer to this question is better to start from afar. Often, large international companies hire people from the scientific community in their research departments. It can be assumed that scientists have a vast store of knowledge in their field, but this is far from a key factor. The reason is that, working in the scientific community, a person needs to solve problems that no one has yet solved before him, and without any guarantee that they even have a solution. H the need to constantly process huge flows of new information form a special mindset, which is conventionally called critical and analytical thinking. It is these qualities, brought to perfection, that help to find answers to seemingly unsolvable questions.

And here it will not be superfluous to remember that the work of our brain is very similar to the work of muscles: in order to maintain high brain activity, it must be constantly trained.

When solving complex problems or learning new material, neural connections are formed in the brain, which in the future will help to more productively process any information that the brain will have to face.

From this point of view, science acts as an ideal simulator for the mind, allowing you to become not only more educated, but actually smarter.