Determine the nature of scientific creativity. Formulate the paradox of creativity. Evaluatetheroleofintuitioninscientificdiscovery

Creativity — generation of cognitive innovations (opening of new laws, theories, the principles, methods and technologies)

Creativity is:

• the activities generating something qualitatively new, never earlier not existing;

• creation something new, valuable not only for one person, but also for others;

• process of creation of subjective values.

The necessary element of creative activities of the person which is expressed in creation of an image of products of work, and also providing creation of the program of behavior when the problem situation is characterized by uncertainty, is the imagination.

The industry of knowledge studying creativity is the heuristics. Main issue of heuristics: what causes creativity?

Creativity paradox: new knowledge emergent is also at the same time predetermined.

The intuition is a capability of comprehension of the truth without reasons and the proof.

Creativity types: 1) Scientific, 2) technical, 3) Art, 4) Social

The role of intuition in scientific discovery has been has much maligned in favor of the importance of rationality in everyday life and human relationships. Worse, the two (intuition and rationality) have often been considered as opposites, as defining different types of mental activity, and even different kinds of people. Just think of Star Trek’s Mr. Spock: the quintessential rational entity, yet completely incapable of both emotions and intuitions.

First, we need to look at what one might possibly mean by “intuition.” The most common interpretations of the word include the immediate understanding of something that is not obvious (“intuitive”), a hunch (“I’ve got this intuition”), the whole as seen by the mind at once (“an intuitive understanding of the problem”), or some kind of natural knowing independent of logical reason (“I just know it, period”). If we exclude the first, rather uninteresting, meaning, all the others have something in common, in that they refer to somehow seeing something before (or even despite) rational deliberation.

49. Analyze the problem "Science and morality."

1.Science is morality

2.Science is amoral

3.Science is immoral

The science is the set of theoretical ideas of the world oriented to expression in concepts and mathematical formulas of objective characteristics of reality, that is those which don't depend on consciousness. Morality (morals), on the contrary, is set of the values and regulations regulating behavior and consciousness of people from the point of view of contrast of the good and evil.

The first sphere - a ratio of science and scientists using their opening in practical everyday life. The second – inside scientific ethics, i.e. those regulations, values and rules which regulate behavior of scientists within their own community. The third - the certain "median field" between scientific and unscientific in the most different areas.

Speaking about the first sphere, it must be kept in mind that the scientist - the person who makes and expresses objective (adequate) knowledge of reality or its certain areas and characteristics in language of science of the time. Process of scientific knowledge is movable in modern society by a number of factors, from large-scale financing to passionate cognitive interest of the most scientific. It is known that outstanding scientists reach in the thirst of knowledge fanaticism. Knowledge in itself as we already told, apparently, doesn't bear any moral characteristic and doesn't pass on department "kind" and "bad". However only until, when it, having passed a number of stages of transformation, doesn't turn into an atomic bomb, a supercomputer, the submarine, the laser machine, devices for total impact on others mentality or for intervention in the genetic device. Here then before the person scientist there are, at least, two serious moral problems:

- whether to continue researches of that area of reality which knowledge of laws can do harm to certain people and mankind in general;

- whether to take the responsibility for use of results of opening "in the evil" - for destruction, murder, supremacy over consciousness and destinies of other people.

Vast majority of scientists resolve the first issue positively: to continue. The learning reason doesn't suffer borders, he aims to overcome all obstacles in a way to the scientific truth, to knowledge of that, are how exactly arranged the world and the person. Be it a riddle of a genome or secrets of biopower information cover of our body, they shall be revealed. There is nothing secret that wouldn't become obvious. Scientists continue the experiments even then when their search appears under an official prohibition, they work in underground laboratories, do experiences on to themselves, approving the right of reason to KNOW. Actually, the moral side of the problem consists here that the laws opened by scientists can do much harm to people, inflict on them the evil.

Opponents of some types of researches consider that the mankind isn't ready to information on deep genetic laws or on work opportunities today yet with unconscious because it will allow to manipulate in large quantities for mercenary reasons other people. They also consider that knowledge of the device of our planet or opening of new power sources can be used by malicious groups of terrorists, the warring states, tyrannical governors. To give to the contemporary such knowledge, opponents of boundless development of science believe, all the same, what to give in hands to the innocent child this gun or a saber: that will do troubles. And the mankind risks to destroy itself at all. Defenders of freedom of science answer that and the axe it is short to prohibit - to them too somebody can demolish the head, and, meanwhile, in economy not to do without it. So it isn't knowledge and in that as to apply it.

And here we come directly to the second question au to intra scientific ethics. On it opinions are shared too, and this separation is initiated by a real contradiction. In one relation the scientist can't be responsible for consequences of the researches as in most cases not he makes the cardinal decision on how to put its opening into practice. Other scientists representing a wing of applied knowledge and working directly to order can use formulated by it and laws for creation of the specific devices and devices capable to create to mankind of a problem. As for mass application of open laws in practice, it at all on conscience of businessmen and politicians - the governments, presidents, military.

The third important sphere of the problems concerning science and morality is problems, on the one hand, interactions of science with adjacent areas of knowledge, and with another - interactions of the theory with experimental area in the science where an exit out of theory limits - in life is made.

50. Make your own outlook on the topic: "Perspectives and Priorities of Science of the XXI century".
Now, according to the American futurologist Ray Kurtsveyl, the mankind is on the threshold of revolutionary opening in the field of astrophysics, physics of high energies, nanotechnologies.

The near-term outlook of development of science can be the following.

1) New achievements in medicine.

- Longevity augmentation by code conversion of the cells which are responsible for longevity.

- Creation of the nanorobots implanted in a body able to collect and sort molecular chains for diagnostics and prophylaxis of diseases.

2) Holography and recognition of images.

The holography allows to conduct search of any images at any their number (even on

to fragment of an image).

3) Space-rocket technologies.

By 2020 creation of permanent base on the Moon, to the 2030th – flight to Mars is supposed. Creation of the nuclear space drive of a megawatt class.

4) Biotechnologies (use of live organisms and biological processes in industrial production).

It is microbiological synthesis of enzymes, vitamins, amino acids,

antibiotics, hormonal drugs, etc. A design of the new, genetically modified microorganisms, vaccines.

5) Robotics.

By 2025 50 billion robots will be used (their 7 million now).

Robots will be used on dangerous productions, during the search and rescue works.

Дата добавления: 2017-01-13