Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Science and Parascience: Review of Literature on the Problem (Late XX – Early XXI Centuries)

Science and Parascience: Review of Literature on the Problem (Late XX – Early XXI Centuries)

Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social 7 (2014 7) 1234-1248 ~ ~ ~

УДК 167/168

Science and Parascience: Review of Literature on the Problem (Late XX – Early XXI Centuries)

Svetlana A. Iarovenko* and Aleksandra S. Cherniaeva Siberian State Technological University 82 Mira, Krasnoyarsk, 660049, Russia

Received 12.03.2014, received in revised form 16.05.2014, accepted 29.05.2014 The article presents a review of predominantly Russian literature dedicated to the problem of relations between and parascience, states various points of view on the structure of extra-scientific knowledge and the place parascience occupies in it. Recourse to the current problem is caused by its openness, absence of clear classifications and definitions of parascientific knowledge as such, which leads to the necessity of the present explication. The article summarizes the experience of teaching “Science and Parascience” topic in the lecture course for post-graduates and external PhD students “ of Science”. Keywords: science, scientific knowledge, demarcation of scientific and non-scientific knowledge, abnormal knowledge, parascience, , protoscience, anti-science, quasi-science, deviant science.

Introduction Modern literature reflexively admits the The question “Science and Parascience” fact of disagreement in the use of the term is included into Topic No.7 “Peculiarities of extra-scientific knowledge, absence of clear modern science development. Prospective of semantic certainty and distinctive boundaries progress in science and ” of the self- of the notion, terminological inconsistency of preparation Program for Post-Graduate definitions and classifications of extra-scientific and Qualification Exam knowledge. It offers various solutions for the for post-graduates and external PhD students. problem of terminological inconsistency. Thus, The evident theoretical and practical significance N.I. Martishina considers it rational to draw a of the issue on one hand and the inconsistency of boundary between the common term of extra- its treatment in literature on the other substantiate scientific knowledge and its use for defining a the need for a special study. The purpose of the particular sphere of knowledge, disclaiming present publication is the review of late 20th – any scientific status trivial, ( religious, artistic, early 19th century’s literature on the problem philosophic, mythological knowledge etc.), of meaning and composition of parascientific while defining the multitude of non-scientific knowledge. knowledge forms inclined to the status of science

© Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved * Corresponding author E-mail address: [email protected] – 1234 – Svetlana A. Iarovenko and Aleksandra S. Cherniaeva. Science and Parascience: Review of Literature on the Problem…

(popular science, parascience, pseudoscience, , etc., each of which is an exciting antiscience etc.), with the term would-be scientific object for an independent . In the present knowledge (Martishina, 1996). The opinion case we join the opinion formulated in “Cognitive of V.A. Lektorskiy is similar: he connects the Foundation of Parascience”: in a general sense, process of science institutionalization with extra-scientific knowledge encompasses all its essential separation from extra-scientific types of cognition found beyond the boundaries knowledge (trivial knowledge, art etc.) which of science (religious, artistic, mythological, does not claim to be scientific, and with opposition trivial etc.); the term parascience is applied to to pseudoscience which claims to be science a narrower group of would-be science forms of (Lektorskiy, 1996). It thereby establishes a cognition modeling only few of the properties certain primary classification of knowledge types typical of science (Martishina, 1996). that stretch beyond the boundaries of science. It is necessary to admit, that various options of 1. Science and Parascience: defining theextra-scientific knowledgeterm itself Border Conflict Reflection are extremely efficient for solving the problem of If the self-sufficiency of the main extra- demarcation between science and non-science. scientificforms of knowledge, such as philosophy, According to one of the reputable non- religion, or art, allows them to avoid identifying scientific cognition researchers I.T. Kasavin, themselves with science to increase their own development of cultural pluralism idea is authenticity (or, at least, not to claim for it), then unthinkable within the strict opposition of science the sphere of knowledge conventionally referred to another form of cognitive activity. Kasavin is to as parascience, on the opposite, is fighting for convinced, that in the situation of tolerance in recognition and admittance of its evidence as modern sociocultural reflection, the dominating legitimate through obtaining the scientific status. philosophical paradigm in the cognition theory In the name parascience, the denotation shall be: admittance of historical variability of and the concept conflict with each other due to scientific criteria and legitimate status of diverse its negatively-attitudinal valence and correlation extra-scientific knowledge, unacceptability of with the term science. A derivative, secondary knowledge property evaluation from the positions origin of parascience term created by affixing of scientized dogmatic rationality principles. This the root science with the noun functor, prefix is the philosophy which intends to substantiate para- (anti-, quasi-, pseudo- etc.) demonstrates the status of normal knowledge in the enormous the principal “attitudinalness”, derivativeness valuable mass of non-scientific experience of the term, the actual absence of an adequate (Kasavin, 1990). term to generalize the phenomena referred to as It is essential to remark, that, though the parascientific phenomena. theoretic parascience analysis is carried out in Scientized world outlook prefers denying the context of general ratio of science to extra- the “believe-it-or-not” evidence which cannot scientific knowledge, the term parascience is be yet assimilated at the modern level of interpreted in a narrower sense than extra- science development. Denial is another way of scientific knowledge,and, therefore, the insight is psychological defense, the use of which is caused limited to parascience-related. It eliminates from by the habit of scientist culture to cut itself off the our sight a whole range of such extra-science so-called parascientific with the shield walls of phenomena as trivial cognition, esoterism, logocentrism. – 1235 – Svetlana A. Iarovenko and Aleksandra S. Cherniaeva. Science and Parascience: Review of Literature on the Problem…

All publications on the problem of any knowledge, alternative not even to the science non-scientific (antiscientific, pseudoscientific, itself, but to Enlightenment as such, outlining mock-scientific, quasi-scientific, alternative such types of antiscience as pathological etc.) knowledge admit the impossibility of science (concepts borne by knowingly ideas and clear distinction and differentiation between suggestions), pseudoscience (concepts obviously these terms. A serious challenge for clarifying contradicting the fundamental scientific facts) the epistemological of parascience and (superoptimism in evaluating phenomenon is the absence of universality and the power of science). V.P. Filatov subdivides certainty in understanding the meaning of the would-be science into unspecialized (everyday term, and the absence of serious systematization experience, popular science etc.) and specialized and classification of such notions, asparascientific, knowledge, which, in its turn, is structured into pseudoscientific, alternative, quasi-scientific, science (theories of secret powers of mock-scientific, anti-scientific etc. knowledge. nature underlying ordinary natural phenomena); For this it is necessary to describe some pseudoscience (concepts claiming to be (more or less successful) attempts made in scientific, but unfulfilling the cognitive scientific clarifying the meaning and classification of these criteria); deviant science ( by marginal notions. It goes without saying that the selection scientists based on alternative programs). V.V. between the listed opinions is always judgmental Ilyin outlines the following components of and restricted due to the immensity of researches would-be science sphere: non-scientific forms dedicated to the problem, while the statement of of cognitive activity (practical-routine, artistic the opinions themselves is usually brief. etc.); prescience (protoknowledge); mock-science It is universally admitted, that terminological (prejudice camouflaged into science);parascience distinction between certain types of would-be- (knowledge unfulfilling scientific criteria in its science knowledge (according to the classification epistemological status); anti-science (intentional offered by N.I. Martishina), particularly distortion of the scientific world view). M.R. popular science, protoscience, parascience, Zhbankov subdivides would-be scientific pseudoscience, mock-science etc. is not adequately knowledge into: protoscience (attempts to substantiated. These terms are used by multiple create an integrative scientific outlook under the authors, and each author uses them in a different conditions of information deficit); pseudoscience meaning. Moreover, many authors introduce their (characterized with subjectivism, esoterism, own, added value categories, such as deviant authoritarianism); pathological science, partially science, pathologic science, marginal knowledge, intersecting with pseudoscience (voluntary deviating knowledge, abnormal knowledge etc. A definitions formulated under scientist orientation brief insight into the existing attempts to bring and judgmental conviction in compliance to the such cognitive phenomena into order is presented scientific research criteria) in “Cognitive Foundation of Parascience” From the point of view expressed by the research, the author of which complements the authors of encyclopedic Parascience article system with some positions adopted from the published in Wikipedia, one of the most popular most original classifications, which frequently information sources among modern Russian contradict each other (Martishina, 1996). Internet users, the closeness of notions quasi- Thus, G. Holton operates the term science and parascience allows using them as antiscience as a collective reference to the synonyms: ‘Parascience (or quasi-science) is – 1236 – Svetlana A. Iarovenko and Aleksandra S. Cherniaeva. Science and Parascience: Review of Literature on the Problem… a group of concepts and theories of ideological, Pathological science category of G. Holton hypothetical, theoretical and pseudotheoretical encompasses phenomena from the spheres character, striving to apply scientific methodology of mock-science, parascience, and, probably, to non-scientific and extra-scientific objects anti-science in the understanding of V.V. Ilyin (including so-called paranormal activity). and deviant science of V.P. Filatov; at the same Parascientific knowledge emerges as an time, Holton’s interpretation of pseudoscience alternative, an addition to the existing forms is close to the definition of paranormal science of scientific knowledge, but does not meet the by V.P. Filatov, who also operates the term criteria of structuring and substantiating scientific pseudoscience, however, in a different sense. theories, and, thereby, is not capable of providing According to the author of the same research a rational definition to the studied facts. “Cognitive Foundations of Parascience”, the At the same time, the authors of the current complex of would-be science includes popular article principally distinguish between the terms science, extra-science, parascience and mock- parascience and pseudoscience, which is used to science. By mock-science (=pseudoscience) generalize non-scientific concepts and theories, the author understands the concepts based on positioned or perceived as scientific. principally false grounds, claiming to be self- Similarly, Martin Mahner suggests that sufficient in the current field of knowledge, parascience refers to all types of non-scientific based on empiric material obtained from the activities, not classifiable as pseudoscientific normal scientific research procedures, and on (Mahner, 2007). the similar theoretic assumptions, but with The corresponding Wikipedia article on significant deviations. The term extra-science Pseudoscience presents pseudoscience and stands for mystical theories, studying the mock-science as synonyms, explaining that objects lying beyond the boundaries of actual the details of its semantics are not reflected in being, presenting the space beyond reality; the English: both of them have one and the same methods of extra-science are irrational and English equivalent, pseudoscience. Among close are opposed to those of regular science as less terms, it lists: parascience (which contradicts subtle or developed. Parascience denotes an the opinion on principal difference between aggregation of concepts based on non- parascience and pseudoscience, as determined interpretation of rational initial assumptions, in the mentioned Parascience article), quasi- reproducing specific properties of scientific science, alternative science, non-academic knowledge, though replacing some of its criteria science. It is also remarked that some researches with the opposite ones. At the same time, refer to the complex of pseudoscience, deviant science, meaning marginal research parascience, mock-science, quasi-science, deviant from the standards of its time and intended to distort the authentic science, with presenting an aggregation of original, though the term deviant science. scientific concepts, and protoscience, the term Therefore, it becomes evident that the which characterizes the level, not the form of invariant term set is interpreted by various conceptual development, are put beyond the scientists in fundamentally different ways. V.P. sphere of would-be science (Martishina, 1996). Filatov uses the term pseudoscience to what The question on classification of a certain V.V. Ilyin refers to as parascience, and to what concept as belonging to this or that variety of M.R. Zhbankov names pathological science. would-be science is answered depending on the – 1237 – Svetlana A. Iarovenko and Aleksandra S. Cherniaeva. Science and Parascience: Review of Literature on the Problem… ideas outlined as its basis. For example, For this reason they have always upheld their may be regarded as both pseudoscience and existence either by the side of what is accepted parascience, depending on what is considered to as real science, being a sort of alternative be its basic idea: the thesis on predetermination science, or even as a deeper type of knowledge, of human fate by zodiacal constellations or the substituting all other candidates to be recognized idea on the influence made by cosmic bodies and as science. It means, that besides scientific cosmos as a whole on the human activities. knowledge, there are various forms of non- Generally, any theory is built around a scientific knowledge that position themselves central, generic term, uniting close phenomena as scientifically and empirically substantiated, into a conceptual whole. Thus, E.B. Tylor argumentative. Following the ideals of science, centralizes early religious phenomena around the parascientific knowledge is striving to adjust term animism. V.I. Kopalov considers fetishist itself to the paradigm. As the attendees of round conscience to be a generic term for a whole range table “Pseudoscientific Knowledge in Modern of conscious forms (such as, mythological); I.R. Culture” remarked, parascience representatives Kasavin brings all the aggregation of paranormal are consistently inclined to using the forms phenomena together under the central term of (principally, linguistic) that outwardly resemble magic: “clairvoyance, , ability to see those of professional scientific texts. Magicians spirits and to levitate, biolocation, telekinesis, and wizards frequently use various forms of poltergeist are all phenomena necessarily included academic communities and position themselves into the magic cosmos”. I.T. Kasavin agrees with as Masters and Doctors of white (black) magic D. O’Keeffe, who argues against understanding and or members of various research academies. It paranormal activity as epiphenomenon of science. happens due to the stable momentum of science The fact that some psychic phenomena may be prestige that exists in the public opinion. In understood as caused by electrostatic charging the tradition of public opinion, argumentative, (telekinesis), statistic coincidence (prediction), positive knowledge is associated with the hallucinogen effect (clairvoyance) or placebo authority and prestige of science as a social effect (paranormal healing) does not play any role. institution. On the opposite, it is important to study the cases Comparing scientific and extra science unexplainable by physics, biology or psychology. forms of thinking, A.V. Kezin in his article According to D. O’Keeffe, the relevant factor “Ideal of the Scientific and Parascience” is to understand, why the humankind keeps develops a thesis that in the argument between forming minor groups, producing and confirming science and parascience the choice is based paranormal experience; maybe, the question not on any criteria, but on the worldview, and on the in this experience is not as that there is a similarity between parascientific important as the question of functioning of the knowledge and a new ideal of science under whole system, or institution of magic. This is the development, marked with antifundamentalism, approach I.T. Kasavin finds most appropriate pluralism, externalization. In the view of Kezin, for the philosophic analysis of the paranormal understanding parascience as having a serious (Kasavin, 1994). social and humanitarian potential is heuristic. Multiple researchers remark, that Remarking high social and practical orientation parascientific inquiries have always claimed as the main feature of the new developing ideal to be true, to assist the cognition of reality. of scientific, Kezin mentions that the majority – 1238 – Svetlana A. Iarovenko and Aleksandra S. Cherniaeva. Science and Parascience: Review of Literature on the Problem… of paradisciplines (paraphysics – ; 2. Example , eternal engine etc.; – 2.1. «Parascience» as the Context clairvoyance, telepathy, etc.; of Scientific Knowledge , astrology etc.) meets the ideal Let us have a deeper insight into the ways surprisingly well (Kezin, 1996). of systematizing various forms of non-scientific Analyzing the problem of demarcation (would-be science) knowledge according to between science and non-science in his work researches dedicated to the issue. “Alternative for Parascience”, Yu.M. Serdiukov Parascientific knowledge (from Greek arrives at a conclusion, that the difference between “para” – near, close) is usually defined as a form them is not in the degree, but in the core of it. He of cognitive activity, emerging as an alternative joins A.V. Kezin, who assumes that science and or an addition to the existing forms of scientific parascience are antipodes in their worldview. cognition. The term parascientific also refers to The main thing that separates them is the belief ideas and concepts, not firmly agreed on by the in miracles. Science is radical in denying the members of academic community to recognize very opportunity of breaking the course of it as fully legitimate elements of the scientific nature, while parascience originates from the cognition system. Parascientific knowledge is idea of trivial miracle. “The principal difference regarded as non-complying with the common of scientific knowledge from all other types of criteria of building and proving scientific theories, human cognitive activity is in unacceptability incompatible with the existing epistemological of explaining and characters of the standards, such as including some assumption of studied phenomena by postulating hypothetical the phenomena not yet argumentatively explained transcendent ideas beyond the limits of human from the scientific rationality point of view experience” (Serdiukov, 2005). (such as, mysticism, spiritualism, extrasensory In his turn, V.A. Lektorskiy, pointing at the perception – clairvoyance, telepathy etc.). evident similarity of parascientific assumptions As authors of Parascience Wikipedia article and synergetic paradigm ideas (new, open form of remark, in modern practice the term parascience rationality based on the dynamic chaos idea etc.), is applied in various contexts: remarks, that in the context of this new approach • In relation to new theories that have many ideas accepted as antiscientific by science not yet gained their authority, non- may be rehabilitated in a certain way (Lektorskiy, complying to the dominating theoretical 1996). At the same time, he emphasizes that the paradigm. Examples of such theories, like subject matter is not elimination of a boundary Tsiolkovsky’s cosmonautics or Weneger’s between scientific and extra science thinking. theory of continental drift, witness that This boundary exists at every moment of time. some parasciences have a chance of But it is mobile, historically variable. The entering the sphere of “” opposite to science in a certain period of history with the course of time. may turn to be close to it: admitting the necessity • The fact that the complex of practical to complement itself with some other, extra- cognition, which does not require any scientific methods of understanding reality, scientific rationality ideal, or does not science may correlate with the extra-scientific contain any ideal object systems, is the cognitive tradition, making its own boundaries reason why scientific substantiation more universal. procedures or prediction, do not rise over – 1239 – Svetlana A. Iarovenko and Aleksandra S. Cherniaeva. Science and Parascience: Review of Literature on the Problem…

systemized and didactically formulated elements are authentic, the whole message is experience (i.e., popular sciences: folk admitted as authentic); equalizing of possible medicine, folk meteorology etc.) with authentic; quasi-documentation. The general • In relation to concepts and theories criteria of parascience are: maximization of exaggerating the role of certain natural initial assumption; shifting modality of reaches processes, and postulating the existing conclusions; cure-all effect; non-falsifiability and of supernatural bodies, phenomena or axiological type of substantiation (Martishina, powers, unknown to traditional science 1996). (i.e., parapsychology, , “occult In his article “Parascientific Knowledge” sciences”: alchemy, astrology, , M.R. Zhbankov claims, that paranormal geomancy, chiromancy, physiognomy, knowledge exists as a constant context of a dream interpretation etc.). developing scientific knowledge as protoscience, It is remarkable that, as a rule, the deviant science and pseudoscientific (non- subdisciplines, the names of which include the scientific) knowledge (Zhbankov, 2001). para- prefix, are not related to parascience as Protoscience presents the primary forms such. It denotes the methods, means and practices of reality contemplation which occur in the beyond the main field of the science or practice. process of development of a certain historical For example, paralinguistics is a subdiscipline of scientific knowledge type at the absence of linguistics studying non-verbal means within the required empirical material, in the situation of composition of spoken message; paramedicine is crudity of research methods or theory-building a subdiscipline of medicine that studies first aid regulations. Relying on the existing authentic methods. data and subjective assumption of the researcher In her specialized research for “Cognitive (inevitably influenced by the epoch atmosphere), Foundations of Parascience” N.I. Martishina, protoscience serves as the basis for building more regarding parascience as a dialectic opposite of authentic theoretical models, the pre-fundament science, as a “peculiar alternative” of science, for a scientific theory. emphasizes that the tendency of parascience to Deviant science is an independent field co-exist with science in different historic periods of theoretical knowledge, which, according to is determined by the extent to which parascience academic community, does not comply with the meets the cognitive and sociocultural needs. existing criteria of science. The reasons for such Parascientific knowledge exists as a type of determination may be: world outlook, conceptual knowledge that strives to satisfy the social or political arguments between the natives of such necessity for perfect science. Parascience does deviant knowledge and the orthodox majority. not oppose itself to science; on the contrary, it Therefore, the status of deviant science may be emphasizes the “scientific” character of its basic ascribed both to esoteric, parapsychologic and ideas and methods. similar concepts, or actual scientific theories, According to the definition by N.I. Martishina, which contradict the current world outlook parascientific moodsare characterized by specific (e.g. helio-biology of Chizhevsky, theory of techniques of operating empiric data, such as: “passionarity” by Gumilev etc.). In a totalitarian equality of assumption (a “natural” explanation is society deviant (from the ruling ideology point of regarded as equally possible with the “maximum view) science gets prohibited, and its followers allowed”); conjunctive verification (if certain are subjected to persecution and repression (for – 1240 – Svetlana A. Iarovenko and Aleksandra S. Cherniaeva. Science and Parascience: Review of Literature on the Problem… example, let us remember “The White Robes” by historiography, particularly, “”; D. Granin). wave genetics; torsion fields etc. Pseudo-scientific knowledge is an attempt The third group includes the argued attempts to expand the sphere of scientific search by to connect modern scientific theories with religious building a theory based on non-scientific or mystical ones, such as: scientific ; grounds. Pseudoscientific knowledge is often parapsychology (telepathy, telekinesis etc., understood as intellectual activity speculating psychotronic weapon); telegony etc. on popular theories (for example, the treasure of Into the fourth group we include various the Nibelungs, the submerged Atlantis, ancient “marginal” theories (“healing systems”, astronauts etc.). psychological, occult, religious etc. theories and Among the radical violations of scientific movements), particularly: , health regulations by pseudoscience are: supernaturalism; care science, ; socionics; phrenology; neglect of methodological principles of economy etc. and fallibilism; recognition of truth characteristics The arguable presence of various in such subjective elements as belief, sense, pseudoscientific knowledgeforms in encyclopedic mystical vision and other paranatural types of articles indicate the crudity of clear definitions experience; use of non-falsifiable hypotheses. and criteria for science and pseudoscience, The authors of Pseudo-science Wikipedia disinformation of certain encyclopedic sources, article remark, that at any attempts to classify where unsystematic and mutually exclusive the forms of pseudoscientific knowledge, the positions are presented as trustworthy “scientific” ascription of certain fields of human activities information. to pseudoscience is gradual, depending on In the proceedings of the Round Table the development of the humankind and the “Pseudo-Scientific Knowledge in Modern obsolescence of its previous worldview. Thus, Culture” B.I. Pruzhinin states, the problem of the first group includes some empirical theories pseudoknowledge is actualized in those areas of the past: alchemy, which served as fundament where identification of scientific knowledge to modern chemistry and may be regarded as a is complicated, where the mechanisms of historical period of its development; astrology, differentiation between science and pseudoscience which boosted the development of ; do not work out. Not claiming to follow a that appeared at the moment of strict classification, researchers interpret such exuberant bloom of philosophy, mathematics and pseudoscientific knowledge as mock-scientific astrology, and gave a push to certain ideas of the and quasi-scientific knowledge as well. theory of numbers. Pseudoscience today includes the attempts to use similar theories as adequate 2.2. “Mock-Science” replacement of modern science, ignoring the and “Quasi-science” current scientific facts, to use their old age as The “mock-science” (the term itself has an argument in favor of their authenticity and some negative axiological connotation: ”mock” scientific character. as intentionally harmful and false, though the The second group encompasses the literary meaning of the Russian term is “non- “sciences” and “theories” which appeared as true”) is sometimes interpreted as intentional improper attempts to found a new, alternative use of prejudice, often associated with the science or a theory, for example: supercritical behavior of a pathological psyche, inadequate, – 1241 – Svetlana A. Iarovenko and Aleksandra S. Cherniaeva. Science and Parascience: Review of Literature on the Problem… pretentious person intolerant of criticism striving Quasi-science is an ideological phenomenon for sensation. Usually this sort of knowledge is which forces scientists to come together. And not systematic, paradigmatic and often manifests while highly professional quasi-science is and develops itself by means of quasi-scientific limited to “mild” forms of violence, confident knowledge. Quasi-scientific knowledge exists that it may protect itself by its own means, and develops under the cover of the ruling the lower professional quasi-sciences, on the ideology, which provides it with the support of opposite, tend to stricter ideological methods the authorities and makes it critic-proof. of dissidence security: dismissals, repressions, An attempt to differentiate between the arrests etc. Highly professional quasi-sciences terms quasi-science and mock-science was are harder to overcome than less professional performed by V.A. Legler in his work “Science, ones, as their delusions are not so obvious for Quasi-Science, Mock-Science” (Legler, non-experts. In this sense less professional 1993). In his opinion, the term quasiscience quasi-sciences are more vulnerable, and, stands for the form taken by science under the consequently, less harmful. But when science conditions of hierarchically organized society; turns into quasi-science, it makes no difference it is a merely social, collective phenomenon. whether it is presented by scientists or mock- While mock-science is an individual matter. scientists, as, according to V.A. Legler, it is It is a theory in the relations of mutual denial not regarded as science any more. In such a with the similar world science. It is related to situation a scientist is of more hazard, as he science as, after V.A. Legler, a mental disorder may protect the quasi-science more efficiently is related to normal conscience. Mock-science is (Legler, 1993). a mistake of a certain individual caused by their fanaticism, low education, intellect or mental 2.3. “Abnormal Knowledge” illness. According to the definition given by M.V. Authors of the article “Extra-Scientific Volkenshtein, author of “Mock-Science Tract”, Knowledge and Modern Crisis of Scientific there are several types of mock-scientists. In the Worldview” study the problem of abnormal most primitive and the most pitiful case they are knowledge, which they understand as the part mentally challenged people obsessed with the of knowledge that does not conform to a certain desire to invent. Another type of mock-scientists common paradigm with its aggregation of is ordinary , swindlers, scam artists. regulations and ideals (Dynich, El‘iashevich, The greatest group of the three is ignoramus and Tolkachev, Tomil‘chik, 1994). The abnormal laymen (Volkenshtein, 1975). knowledge term itself bears no negative In the opinion of V.A. Legler, in the emotional or semantic meaning and denotes academic community mock-scientists may nothing but the fact that the knowledge itself, or be compared to noise which blocks the useful the method of obtaining such, does not conform signal. They obstruct the academic community, to the norms accepted as common in the modern decreasing its total capacity. The real hazard science of the current historical period. for the science is organized mock-science, Authors divide abnormal knowledge into organized in the form of quasi-science. The three types: paradox of the quasi-science world is that often • Abnormal knowledge which appears as a it may be headed by famous and authoritative result of the unacceptable, for a certain scientists. individual, divergence between “common – 1242 – Svetlana A. Iarovenko and Aleksandra S. Cherniaeva. Science and Parascience: Review of Literature on the Problem…

sense” regulatives and the norms and abnormal novation to find its place within the methods of a certain science or science in system of scientific knowledge, is its capacity to be general, “AK-1”; expressed through the terminological apparatus, • Abnormal knowledge born inside a science traditional for this field of study, notwithstanding and revealing itself in the divergence of its extraordinariness or paradox. paradigms – “AK-2”; Consequently, as suggested by V.I. Dynich • Abnormal knowledge that occurs at the and his co-authors, the elements of abnormal attempt to unite norms and ideals form knowledge, born within the framework of science principally different (rational or irrational) and rejected by it, find themselves as incapable forms of knowledge and activity – “AK-3”. of being non-contradictorily expressed in the As the first type, “AK-1”, lies beyond science categories of science terminology, as having aims and is absolutely evident, the authors are more and methods, alternative in relation to modern interested in the second and third types, “AK- scientific knowledge. Driven out of science, such 2” and “AK-3”. The second type of abnormal ideas continue their existence beyond its limits, knowledge, or “AK-2”, includes the science transforming into abnormal knowledge of “AK- frauds hardest to recognize, and the third type 3” type, and begin to attract authenticity criteria of abnormal knowledge, “AK-3”, may also be from other fields of spiritual and cognitive socially dangerous, as it is directly projected on activities (religion, trivial cognition etc.). This is the common conscience and this influence is the process of of abnormal knowledge multiply enhanced during the periods of social or from science into the mass culture, inappropriate spiritual instability. expansion of scientific paradigm at the expense Speaking about the second type of of ultimate philosophic concepts, introduction abnormal knowledge, “AK-2”, the authors of such terms, as “faith”, “good”, “evil” etc. into remark that emergence of any radically new scientific structures. The sympathy and support idea is a generation of knowledge, abnormal for such studies is usually shown due to their (“deviant”) in relation to the traditional science. explanation with the “general human values” It is explicitly demonstrated by examples of terms. reaction of the academic community to the first Based on their own classification ofabnormal versions of some fundamental physical theories, knowledge types, the authors of “Extra Science such as, Maxwell’s electrodynamics, quantum Knowledge and Modern Scientific Worldview theory, special relativity theory etc. However, Crisis” make an attempt to oppose their typology the community’s negative reaction towards any to other approaches to extra-scientific sphere. novation as such may be only regarded as a proof As an example, critical analysis of V.P. Filatov’s of abnormality of the suggested idea, not the view is presented, which outlines paranormal feature which drives it beyond the boundaries of knowledge, pseudoscience and deviant science in science. As we see in the history of great scientific the would-be science sphere (Filatov, 1990). As, discoveries, the principally new concepts that after V.I. Dynich and his co-authors, V.P. Filatov radically change the face of science are usually claims that science “undermines humanistic obtained as “abnormal” results of “normal” values, substitutes traditional forms of culture researches, targeted at “normal” aims (such as and life, splits the previously unified culture discoveries of A. Einstein, M. Planck, N. Bohr into two opposite spheres, scientific-technical etc.). Another essential criterion which helps an and humanitarian”, as the question of alternative – 1243 – Svetlana A. Iarovenko and Aleksandra S. Cherniaeva. Science and Parascience: Review of Literature on the Problem… culture under the modern context is, first of all, authentic meaning of the world, as it always is the “question on compensating the known includes the basic component of a working limitedness of modern science” and “getting over prototheory on the nature of physical and the alienation of science from the everyday life biological reality, which forms the fundament world of people, its compatibility with humanistic for the protoscientific type of worldview. The ideals and values” (Dynich, El‘iashevich, world outlook which lacks the typical traits Tolkachev, Tomil‘chik, 1994) (in the attempt to of a standard one, is, as a rule, perceived as an find the “third way”, the synthesis, the recovery alternative from the point of the outlook which of the cultural sphere split into expressively has such traits. G. Holton concludes, that instead irrational and scientifically theoretic conscience, of antiscience (inappropriateness of the term the authors of the mentioned work extract an antiscientific knowledge is connected to its unsubstantiated extrapolation of values and judgmental character), it is better to speak of norms of humanitarian conscience on the sphere alternative science, but as the word “alternative” of rational scientific conclusions, which is the creates the illusion of equality of such concepts in third type of abnormal knowledge “AK-3”). the ontological and pragmatic sense, and possess (to the equal extent) the status of real science; 2.4. «Antiscience» for this reason, after G. Holton, it is even more Having explained their unconsent with V.P. accurate to name such concepts parascience. Filatov’s point of view, the authors of “Extra In general, counter-scientific assumptions Science Knowledge and Modern Scientific (parascientific, alternative outlook)are negatively Worldview Crisis” express their solidarity with evaluated by G. Holton as destructive (Holton, the opinion of G. Holton, which is also worth 1992). mentioning. In his article “What is Antiscience?” G. Holton states, that the antiscience term consists 2.5. «Parascience» and «Myth» of a great number of meanings, comparable with The isomorphic relations between the notions true science, pathological science parascience and myth are caused, particularly, (which stands for the activities of people, by the fact that the “supernatural”, “miraculous” convinced that what they are creating is true phenomena themselves are absolutely natural and science, but in fact trapped in their unhealthy expected both for parascience and myth. fantasies and illusions), pseudoscience (“science” K. Hübner presents an original vision of of paranormal activity), scientism (excessive the normalization of the theoretic discourse enthusiastic belief in the power of science, development problem as an opposition to the expressed in imposing “scientific” models to extra expressive and mythological, to the problem science cultural spheres; extravagant ambitions of the choice between science and myth, yet in of technocrats, blindly trusting the all-mighty a different relation to miracle phenomenon. power of science). A special interest of G. Holton Demonstrating the relative character of de- and is drawn by such phenomenon of antiscience as re-mythologization, Hübner remarks, that the pseudoscience, which claims to be alternative attempt to explain the fact of “transition” from science (Holton, 1992). the totality of mythological world perception to Regarding the conceptual structure of the theoretic and discoursive understanding of the world outlook, G. Holton remarks that there is world makes us face the normative conditions of no world outlook which is antiscientific in the such a transition. And while there is no explanation – 1244 – Svetlana A. Iarovenko and Aleksandra S. Cherniaeva. Science and Parascience: Review of Literature on the Problem… for the transition from mythological to scientific public conscience, manifesting itself as the world outlook, either natural or historical, in the cultural re-mythologization phenomenon. scientific meaning this process may be regarded According to definition by A.M. Lobok, the as a mere coincidence. But the things interpreted conscience of an educated 20th century person by science as a coincidence, is explained as a has actualized the level of myth, which is typical numinous interference by myth. – Therefore, for a prehistoric human or a pre-schooler: “allow- Hübner suggests that the replacement of myth by all”, or “unlimited myth”. Today we observe an science may be equally explained scientifically, incredible phenomenon: a person brought up with as a coincidental event, and mythically, as a the rationalist thinking, forming the fundament numinous interference. Correspondingly, both for the European education ideals, gets more return of the myth, or re-mythologization, is and more persistent in turning not to irrational, a coincidence from scientific point of view (a but “all-allowing” type of thinking. For him, “needless tragedy”, as total de-mythologization the world is populated with vampires is the objective and the ideal of scientism), and and werewolves, demonic forces, karmic fate from the mythological one (Hübner, 1996). incarnations, otherworld creatures, and, as A.M. Expansion and popularity of parascientific Lobok enhances, simultaneously! Strangely, the knowledge in the modern age is mostly minds of our contemporaries create an amazing associated with the phenomenon of culture re- mix of different, yet at the same time, opposite mythologization. Regarding various correlations mythologies. A modern person may pray at an of parascience with other forms of extra-scientific Orthodox church, celebrate Catholic Christmas, knowledge (philosophy, religion, art etc.), N.I. break hex and evil eye spells with the help of Martishina, for instance, is inclined to interpret healers and magicians, determine the astrological parascience as modern mythology, and to connect scenario of his life using the Chinese Calendar, the actualization of parascientific research with believe in multiple incarnation of his life, and, at the modern culture re-mythologization processes the same time, in the achievements of scientific (Martishina, 1996). and technical progress. Jesus Christ and Albert An original interpretation of re- Einstein are equally real for him. The dominating mythologication in modern culture and idea of the mass public conscience in the 20th adherence to parascientific knowledge is century is the common belief in everything and presented in “Anthropology of Myth” by A.M. strong conviction that everything is possible. Lobok, who emphasizes, that even though While this conviction is the key characteristic throughout many centuries the strategic objective of mythological conscience in its most naïve, of European civilization was the idea of total childish and prehistorically archaic forms. de-mythologization of the public conscience, Everything is possible: it means, that the whole 20th century lives under the sign of clairvoyance, vampirism, turning into a werewolf, myth. Despite the gist of European science and afterlife, multiple reincarnation, naturalized European Enlightenment determined with the demons and witches are all possible. The educated dominant of “rationalism”, claiming that rational humankind of the 20th century is absolutely thinking means analytical thinking, that separates tolerant to any cultural difference in the form of possible from impossible and sticks exclusively to the all-allowing myth, unlimited myth. the “possible” space, the 20th century experiences At the same time, the dearest, the most a powerful mythologism flow into the educated meaningful thing in the existence of an educated – 1245 – Svetlana A. Iarovenko and Aleksandra S. Cherniaeva. Science and Parascience: Review of Literature on the Problem… person, the myth, is also put on the railway of his and Non-Scientific Forms of Thinking” (1995), rational and cultural thinking. This is how an which underline that scientific thinking is just absolutely different myth is created: the myth for one of the ways of reality cognition, existing building a reflexive dialogue. While theunlimited along with the others, principally incapable myth of a child or a prehistoric human accepts of replacing them. But different forms of everything, the intelligent myth does not only thinking do not only exist; they interact with believe in a certain major mythological force, but each other in a continuous dialogue. This is is also strong in cutting off everything which may why the boundary between scientific and extra- contradict the authenticity of the myth. It applies scientific forms of thinking is flexible, vague, all power of rational argumentation to protect his historically fluctuating. The so-called criteria mythological truths (Lobok, 1997). – This rational of science is of less demarcating than regulating argumentation is the one to cause the cognitive or orienting character. Therefore, the fundament consonance of the myth in the conscience of a of this “argument” between science and non- modern person, the mosaic of his world outlook, science is formed not by rational assumptions, the adherence to supernatural, paranormal, and, but by world outlook preferences. The thinking at the same time, “protects”, “prevents” him called scientific world outlook, is, basically, a from realizing the contradiction of his own world naturalistic world outlook, which does not admit outlook, as myth is not sensitive to contradiction. any miracle (Kezin, 1996). On the contrary, the This is why the limit between the scientific and basis of parascience is the belief in various parascientific knowledge finds its mythological miraculous phenomena. shape. In summary, it is important to remark, that all the theoretic positions demonstrated Resume in the present literature review and in the The above arguments make it evident that list of references, are representative enough, the invariant classification for non-scientific though, naturally, do not cover all the points knowledge form has not been built yet in the of view on the problem expressed in literature. modern philosophy of science. The process of The study of the ratio between science and post-neo-classic science formation requires parascience within the framework of “History understanding both the features of scientific and Philosophy of Science” course assumes, as a knowledge as such, and the characteristics minimum, introduction into the main definitions of alternative knowledge forms. This is why of parascientific knowledge and its structure. the problem of the boundary, demarcation of At the same time, the analysis of the studied scientific and extra-scientific knowledge gets so parascience phenomenon shall not be a priori topical in the modern philosophy of science. The built on the unequivocal critical assessment; it is flexible boundary idea is one of the basic ones still essential to study all the patterns, underlying among the conclusions of researches, results its emergence and functioning. of which are presented in “Critical Analysis of There is no doubt, that the most heuristic initial Extra-Scientific Knowledge” (1989); “Deluded position in studying the parascience phenomenon Mind?: Diversity of Extra-Scientific Knowledge” is studying it in the context of interpreting science (1990); “Magic Crystal: Magic Through the Eyes and extra-scientific knowledge as correlating, of Scientists and Magicians” (1992) edited by I.T. complementary, synergically cumulative ways of Kasavin, conclusions of symposium “Scientific describing the world. – 1246 – Svetlana A. Iarovenko and Aleksandra S. Cherniaeva. Science and Parascience: Review of Literature on the Problem…

References 1. Dynich, V.I., El‘iashevich, M.A., Tolkachev, E.A., Tomil‘chik, L.M. (1994). Extra-Scientific Knowledge and Modern Crisis of Scientific Worldview [Vnenauchnoe znanie i sovremennyy krizis nauchnogo mirovozzreniia]. Questions of Philosophy, (12), 122-134. 2. Examination program «History and Philosophy of Science» («Philosophy of Science»). [Programmy kandidatskih ekzamenov «Istoriya i filosofiya nauki» («Filosofiya nauki»)]. Moscow, Gardariki Publ., 2004. 64 p. 3. Filatov, V.P. About the idea of an alternative science [Ob idée al‘ternativnoy nauki], Deluded mind?: Diversity of Extra-Scientific Knowledge [Zabluzhdaiushchiysia razum?: Mnogoobrazie vnenauchnogo znaniya]. Moscow, Political Publ., 1990. pp. 152-174. 4. Holton, G. (1992). What is «Antiscience»? [Chto takoe antinauka?] Problems of Philosophy (2), 26-58. 5. Hübner, C. The truth of myth [Istina mifa]. Moscow, Republic Publ., 1996. 448 p. 6. Iarovenko, S.A. (2008). Scientific and Extra-Scientific Knowledge: Mythology of Demarcation. [Nauchnoe i vnenauchnoe znanie: mifologiia demarkatsii] and Philosophy of Science, XVIII (4), 88-107. 7. Kasavin, I.T. Discovering Diversity of Reason (as the Introduction) [Postigaia mnogoobrazie razuma (Vmesto vvedenia)], Deluded mind?: Diversity of Extra-Scientific Knowledge [Zabluzhdaiushchiisia razum?: Mnogoobrazie vnenauchnogo znaniya]. Moscow, Political Publ., 1990. pp. 5-28. 8. Kasavin, I.T. Contemplation on Magic, its Nature and Destiny [Razmyshlenie o magii, ee prirode i sud‘be], Magic Crystal: Magic Through the Eyes of Scientists and Magicians [Magicheakii kristall: magiia glazami uchenih i charodeev]. Moscow, Republic Publ., 1994. pp. 6-28. 9. Kezin, A.V. Ideal of the Scientific and Parascience [Idealy nauchnosti i paranauka], Scientific and Extra-Scientific Forms of Thinking [Nauchnye i vnenauchnye formy myshleniia]. Moscow, Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences, 1996. 336 p. 10. Kochanowski, V.P., Leshkevich, T.G., Matiash, T.P., Fahti, T.B. Principles of the Philosophy of Science: a textbook for graduate students [Osnovy filosofii nauki: uchebnoe posobie dlia aspirantov]. Rostov-on-Don, Phoenix Publ., 2004. 608 p. 11. Legler, V.A. (1993). Science, Quasi-Science, Mock-Science [Nauka, kvazinauka, lzhenauka] Questions of Philosophy, (2), 49-55. 12. Lektorskiy, V.A. Scientific and Extra-Scientific Thinking: Fluctuant Boundary [Nauchnoe i vnenauchnoe myshlenie: skol‘ziaschaia granitsa], Scientific and Non-Scientific Forms of Thinking [Nauchnye i vnenauchnye formy myshleniya]. Moscow, Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences, 1996. 336 p. 13. Lobok, A.M. Anthropology of Myth [Antropologiia mifa]. Ekaterinburg, Bank of cultural information edition, 1997. 685 p. 14. Mahner, M. Demarcating Science from Non-Science, Handbook of the Philosophy of Science: General Philosophy of Science – Focal Issues. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 2007. pp. 515-575. 15. Martishina, N.I. Cognitive Foundation of Parascience [Kognitivnye osnovaniia paranauki]. Omsk, Omsk State University Publishing House, 1996. 187 p. 16. Parascience [Paranauka] Available at: http://ru.wikipedia.org/ (assessed 28 November 2012) – 1247 – Svetlana A. Iarovenko and Aleksandra S. Cherniaeva. Science and Parascience: Review of Literature on the Problem…

17. Pseudoscience [Psevdonauka] Available at: http://ru.wikipedia.org/ (assessed 30 November 2012) 18. Pseudoscientific knowledge in contemporary culture. Materials of the Roundtable Questions of Philosophy, (6), 3-31, (2001). 19. Serdiukov, J.M. Alternative for Parascience [Al’ternativa paranauke]. Moscow, Academia Publ., 2005. 308 p. 20. Volkenshtein, M.V. (1975). Mock-Science Tract [Traktat o Lzhenauke]. Chemistry and Life (10), 32–33. 21. Zhbankov, M.R. Parascientific Knowledge [Paranauchnoe znanie], World Encyclopedia: Philosophy [Vsemirnaia entsikloppediya: Filosofiia]. Moscow, AST Publ., 2001. pp. 760-761.

Наука и паранаука: обзор литературы по проблеме (конец XX – начало XXI века)

С.А. Яровенко, А.С. Черняева Сибирский государственный технологический университет Россия, 660049, Красноярск, пр. Мира, 82

В статье проводится обзор литературы, преимущественно отечественной, по проблеме отношения науки и паранауки, фиксируются различные точки зрения относительно структуры вне-научного знания и места в нем паранауки. Обращение к данной проблематике обусловлено ее открытостью, отсутствием четких классификаций и дефиниций паранаучного знания, что делает необходимым его экспликацию. Статья обобщает опыт преподавания темы «Наука и паранаука» в лекционном курсе для аспирантов и соискателей по дисциплине «Философия науки». Ключевые термины: наука, научное знание, граница между научным и вненаучным знанием, анормальное знание, паранаука, псевдонаука, протонаука, антинаука, квазинаука, девиантная наука.

Top View