Applied Natural Science

Environmental Issues and Global Perspectives

Mark D. Goldfein, Alexey V. Ivanov

• Publisher: Apple Academic Press
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781771882729
• eBook ISBN: 9781315342344
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Environmental Science
• Index: Biological Sciences

Applied Natural Science: Environmental Issues and Global Perspectives provides the reader with a complete insight into the natural-scientific pattern of the world, covering the most important historical stages of the development of various areas of science, methods of natural-scientific research, general scientific and philosophical concepts, and the fundamental laws of nature. The book analyzes the main scientific trends and developments of modern natural science and also discusses important aspects of environmental protection.

Topics include:

• The problem of "the two cultures": the mathematization of natural sciences and the informatization of society
• The non-linear nature of the processes occurring in nature and society
• Application of the second law of thermodynamics to describe the development of biological systems
• Global problems of the biosphere
• Theory and practice of stable organic paramagnetic materials
• Polymers and the natural environment

Key features include:

• An interdisciplinary approach in considering scientific and technical problems
• A discussion of general scientific trends in modern natural science, including globalization challenges in nature and society, the organic chemistry of stable paramagnetic materials, the fundamentals of the environmental chemistry of polymeric materials, etc.
• A justification of applying classical (non-equilibrium) thermodynamics to studying the behavior of open (including biological) systems

Of particular importance in the book is the discussion of some problems associated with the place of man in the biosphere, issues of the globalization of science and technology, new ideas about the universe, and the concept of universal evolutionism. At the same time, the book discusses more specific issues related to solving major global and regional environmental problems (particularities of organic paramagnetic materials, the influence of polymers on the man and environment, etc). All this leads to the fundamental conclusion of the unity of animate and inanimate nature, as well as improvement of the process of cognition of the real world, which consists in objective and natural changing of world views.

The book is intended for professors, teachers, and students of classical and technological universities who are interested in the development of the foundations of modern natural sciences, as well as for professionals working in the field of chemical physics and applied ecology.

PART 1

CHAPTER 1

INTERRELATION BETWEEN THE NATURAL-SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND THE HUMAN KNOWLEDGE

CONTENTS

1.1 Problem of “Two Cultures”

1.2 Relations between Philosophy and Science

1.3 Features of Socio-Natural Laws

1.4 Integration of Science and Education

Keywords

References

ABSTRACT

The interrelation between the natural-scientific knowledge and the human knowledge is traced. The problem of “two cultures” is characterized. The relationship between science and philosophy is touched upon. The problem of the integration of science and education is posed.

1.1 PROBLEM OF “TWO CULTURES”

Despite the rising status of integrative trends in the natural sciences and in science, in general, the English writer and physicist C. Snow (1905–1980) formulated a thesis of the danger of opposing the natural-scientific culture and the humanitarian culture in the mid-20th century. The idea was that the development of the natural sciences and the humanities would not go to the desired level of integrity. Scientists’ opinions on this point diverge. Some of them fix the further “gap” between the natural-scientific knowledge and the humanitarian knowledge, predicting approximation of an era of the “plurality” of cultures; they also predict the increasing trend of differentiation of the knowledge about nature and man. Others note the raising status of the humanitarian disciplines in relation to the natural and technological sciences. There are such who argue that the historically appeared subordinate position of the humanities in relation to the sciences of natural laws is preserved. While more than 30 years ago, during the emergence of debates on the “two cultures” problem, in fact, the absolute dominating status of natural sciences in the hierarchy of modern knowledge was spoken of, by the end of the 20th century, naturalists increasingly turn to the laws traditionally revealed by the human sciences. Moreover, this appeal is associated not only with searching for answers to philosophical, ideological, or social questions but also directly affect the scope of their professional activities: identifying the “limits” of penetration of biological sciences into the “mystery of the living” or analysis of the sociocultural consequences of the modern orientation of physical knowledge. Representatives of the humanities sometimes state (their position is often supported by naturalists feeling “restrictions” of the traditional natural approaches to cognition of nature and man) that only the humanitarian sphere of knowledge, related to the true spiritual values, would lead to cognition of nature and man in all their diversity. Nevertheless, the increasing interconnection and interdependence of natural sciences, technical sciences, and human sciences and art is obvious.

The relationship of the natural, technical, and humanitarian sciences (and art) does not mean the absence of differences between them. The perfection of Planck’s or Einstein’s theoretical constructions causes a feeling of admiration in a physicist, comparable, say, to the contemplation of the paintings by Titian or Gauguin. Moreover, the new elements introduced into music and painting by, say, Wagner or Cézanne, can be compared with discoveries in the field of natural sciences, which have led to the scientific revolution. If Isaac Newton were not born at his time, the corresponding laws of mechanics would have been discovered, no doubt, sooner or later, by another physicist. At the same time, works of art bear a stark reflection of the personality of their creator (this is typical, but to a lesser extent, for the sphere of science). The music by Mozart or Beethoven, the paintings by Velazquez or Dali, the novels by Theodor Dostoevsky, the prose by Böll are associated with these persons only. Consequently, the “gap,” on the one hand, between scientific knowledge and human knowledge, and, on the other hand, between science and culture has a real basis. If the above differences between them were absolutized (e.g., the objectivity of scientific knowledge and the subjectivity of the humanities were exaggerated), by the end of the 20th century, emphasis is increasingly set on such elements which unite them.

The united, or a “third culture,” is: (i) the type of sociocultural integrity formed in the process of overcoming the “gap” between different spheres of modern scientific knowledge and art, and (ii) going into such a level of sociocultural development of our civilization where the unity and interrelation of natural sciences, technical sciences, and human sciences would be obvious. The reality of this “third culture,” that is, the feasibility of integrative trends in science, is supported by the level of development of modern knowledge. First, the traditional differentiation of scientific knowledge, characteristic of the natural, technical and humanitarian sciences, has prepared the ground for interdisciplinary links in the existing system. Second, the apparatus of modern scientific knowledge is actually adapted to the realization of integrative concepts, which are caused by the internal logic of the formation of science, the universal design, and methods of scientific thinking. Third, the universal (global) problems arising in the framework of civilizations in the late 20th century demand, for their solution, activation of processes associated just with integrative tendencies in the structure of science. Vernadsky’s forecasts are coming true, who as far back as in the 1930s noted the reality of wiping off the borders between individual sciences, the suitability for scientists to specialize by problems rather than by sciences. In any case, the traditional disciplinary approach, identifying its specific limitations, is gradually replaced by the problematic approach, where the synthesis of scientific and practical concepts occurs in the context of solving certain tasks (or their system) of social practice. The transition from the disciplinary to problem-disciplinary development of science creates theoretical, methodological, and social prerequisites for constructive realization of integrative trends in the system of modern natural sciences, technical sciences, and human sciences. Going into the level of the “third culture” implies mutual enrichment of the principles and methods of reflection of the objective reality inherent in natural sciences, humanities, and artistic cognition. Conceptual thinking, predominant in science, and creative thinking, which determines the style of art, forms an interconnected unity, expressing the indivisibility and interdependence of science and art. At the heart of the “third culture” is the concept of the “unity of the world,” which determines, ultimately, the unity of natural sciences and humanities. The unity of our knowledge of the world based on a unified system of methods is deduced from the unity of the scientific and sociocultural being. The idea of the common character of theoretical and sociocultural foundations of scientific knowledge thus manifests itself. Therefore, within the framework of the “third culture,” the unity of scientific knowledge is not achieved by negation of the specifics of its different areas but is expressed in a variety of forms.

1.2 RELATIONS BETWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE

Philosophy has originated as a form of reflection and comprehension of reality. Philosophy and science are historically interrelated and oriented to solving a similar problem, namely, the identification of regularities in nature and the essence of man. Initially, especially within early philosophical systems, before the middle of the 19th century, philosophy existed mainly in the form of “natural philosophy,” trying to interpret the “essence” of diverse things and phenomena of reality in their “mental” (“speculative”) integrity. At the same time, developing philosophical systems tried not only to formulate the theoretical basis of ideology but also claimed to be the “highest level” of cognition, the role of “the science of sciences.” As special sciences developed, philosophy was losing its former importance. The situation in philosophy was somewhat similar to the tragedy of Shakespeare’s King Lear having distributed his wealth among his daughters. Special fields of knowledge were detaching themselves from the body of philosophy and tried to forget about the relation with it. “Positivist philosophy” was to relieve the situation. In the framework of it, the thesis of the necessity of converting philosophy to a special particular discipline with a relatively limited subject of research (the language of science, the methodology of scientific cognition, etc.) was developed. Positivists, especially post-positivists, predicted the “death” of philosophy in the traditional sense. The development of science has had a fundamental impact on philosophy, which was to find its place “under the sun.” And in this “drama of ideas,” philosophy was not lost and preserved its targets and a high status in culture.

The philosophy of science is such an area of scientific knowledge which studies the philosophical and methodological aspects of the development of natural sciences, technical sciences, and human sciences (including social sciences).

The interrelationship of philosophy, natural sciences, and other particular sciences is implemented in several ways. First, the philosophical analysis of different fields of science, interpretation of their achievements and identification of their possible philosophical and methodological consequences; second, the use of the philosophical and methodological apparatus (categories, laws, principles, etc.) for analysis of scientific knowledge, going into a new level of theoretical cognition; and third, the perception of the achievements and results of natural scientific cognition by philosophical knowledge. In several historical periods, the relationship between philosophy and science was posed and resolved in different ways. As will be discussed below, in the ancient period, the notion of the features of nature, arising in a generalized philosophical form, had the character of natural philosophy, with its predominantly speculative interpretation. Philosophy was treated as “the science of sciences,” offering its a priori schema of cognition to other sciences.

During the Renaissance, the process of separating sciences from philosophy began, which had an impact on both science and philosophy. On the one hand, the object of philosophy was as though getting narrower, sections becoming independent sciences (mechanics, physics, etc.) were detaching themselves from it. On the other hand, it expanded because sciences needed their philosophical-methodological basis and a fundamental understanding of their results. In the early modern period, the differentiation of natural sciences continued, the process of separation completed, but, at the same time, the relationship between science and philosophy strengthened and went to a more fundamental level. Currently, philosophy gets not only empirical material for its own constructions from the natural sciences but also contributes to overcoming the theoretical contradictions arising in the emerging scientific knowledge.

Every historical period of the relationship between philosophy and science has its own style of scientific thinking, which is a specific system of principles, laws, and categories of the theoretical assimilation of objective reality. Analyzing the scientific achievements of the late 18th–mid-19th centuries (Kant–Laplace’s cosmogonic hypothesis, the discovery of the cell, Darwinism etc.), Friedrich Engels revealed the evolution of the style of scientific thinking in his “The Dialectics of Nature.” His concept was that the ancient era was characterized by a dialectical way of thinking in its spontaneous-naive form. In the context of the Middle Ages, the scholastic style of scientific thinking predominated, having been developed in the framework of religious discussions. It is underlain by the subordination of the scientific values to the religious ones (science is the “handmaiden of theology”). In the New Age, a metaphysical style of scientific thi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Part 1
• Part 2
• Index