In the occurrence of a sort of an excessive ‘reverence’ regarding ‘ progress’, I am reminded of the words expressed by Jacques Maritain when he said that sometimes we are in the presence of a 'kneeling in front of the world'. In addition, Joseph Ratzinger when he spoke of a 'widening of ‘reason’ intensely interpreted this stream of thought as the opening of a path towards widespread relativism. There is a danger that an excess of rationality in science risks of becoming as something that necessarily renders a religion - such as the Christian one - as a faith that is against everything. For this reason I believe that the choice to an ancient discipline as philosophy may still be the connecting link between various forms of knowledge because of his love and tension towards ‘truth’
The Darwinian evolutionism radically changed the idea of progress, understood as the advancement of history and mankind towards a desirable direction. However, as I see it, it resulted in a random order, and blind-ending, meaningless cosmological and historical sense. In this way it nullified its own idea of the rationality of the universe and of history that inspired the modern science. As it is not the proper occasion to do so. Specifically, the Darwinian evolutionism reduced ‘ progress’ to a casual order, devoid of a meaningful cosmological and historical sense. In this way it nullified just that idea of rationality of ‘cosmos’ and history that inspired modern science.
I’m not to continue even a brief history of the evolution of the content and meaning of progress through the centuries. Only to mention the upheavals in the physical sciences , the tragic questions raised by the Holocaust and the nuclear power, the event of devastating economic crises , the succession of barbarous and tyrannical dictatorships and finally the Cold War , destroyed every residual naive faith in progress . The general debate was extinguished . This would allow it to focus on the advancement of science and , in terms of historical and socio-cultural contexts, a kind of approach different from the one of previous period . By now, the world seems driven by uncontrollable events that inspired awe and pessimism. Rationality, scientific, technical, economic or industrial enterprises were criticized and accused of oppressing the people , violate nature , impose the tyranny of the machines. Increasingly, the themes of progress , those of alienation, exclusion , restriction and suppression of freedom , loss of values, meaning and purpose , survival entered the field. Modernity was accused of bringing in a "new barbarism ." The old rationalist -positivist identification with the progress of science survived in the media, in schools and , in part, in common parlance. That period was characterized by multiplied criticism of techno-scientific activities and enterprises , which were considered bad for the planet and " regressive " for the human species .
Prominent events in the physical sciences , the tragic questions raised by the "useless slaughter " of the world wars and local authorities, the Jewish holocaust and nuclear power, the use of devastating economic crises , the succession of barbarous and tyrannical dictatorships and finally the Cold War , destroyed every residual naive faith in progress . The general debate was extinguished . This would allow it to focus on the advancement of science, in terms of historical and socio-cultural contexts very different from the previous era .
The relationship between the progress of science and the human condition focused the question of whether science can be said to be a progress in itself or only with respect to a general human progress. In the face of scientific knowledge more numerous, extensive and rigorous than in the past, we wondered which consisted in their progress and how to evaluate it. The debate moved from a generic and hypothetical progress of science, in a more concrete and specific progress in the sciences.
Yes, it is true. Of course, science could not solve many of humanity's problems though added many as weapons of mass destruction especially biological and chemical ones resulting in painful death. But, for what there have come up a community of scientists, thinkers and general public that has made science a cult i.e., scienticism which the community defend fiercely. Process of science is good, it seeks truth but in the search of truth many falsehood are added.
I would like to express some considerations when it comes to disclosure of science. It refers to a phenomenon typically contemporary. You may remember eloquent examples already at the end of the seventeenth century. It will be in the second half of the nineteenth century that it tends to touch all aspects of life and to determine the character of civil society. Thus it emerges the need to make available to all the results of an activity that is a candidate to play a decisive role in the development of society.
The climate in which the first instruments of popular science were forged has influenced and still influences much of its development: positivism believed within the limitless capacity to understand the nature of man and his right to turn it unconditionally. We have then a first characteristic of the disclosure, announcing the great promises and expectations of social betterment stored in a scientific and technical progress that seems unstoppable. Initial imprint is manifested even today in the manner in which they are presented and disclosed the progress and results of scientific research through articles that contribute to creating favorable conditions for acceptance.
In the second half of the twentieth century, to these factors it is added the increasing power of the mass media, the control of which we can not escape. In the case of a punctual disclosure as precise as possible the approach is maintained under an accurate diffusion of results that the research obtained so far. This gives the reader the impression that they have the real terms of the various problem, We can take a particularly interesting cultural aspect . The popular science fits into the broader media landscape, it takes on the aims and methods, becoming a component of the work of cultural homogenization implemented by the work of homogenization. One of the contradictions of contemporary advanced societies is that, with the proliferation of tools and technical possibilities of communication we reach a progressive uniformity of content. This depends also on the grounds of political and economic order, and is one of the main consequences of the concentration of the powers of popular science. This is part of an approval process by leveraging the growing specialization of knowledge: the disclosure is justified precisely from the specialization of the sciences and the consequent need for continuous updating, because , very often , scientists do not know the advancements in fields other than those of their competence.
A this point we need a warning because it conveyed a cultural concept based on the idea that the sum of many specializations can build a culture. The problem of the development of the cultural dimension is then set in purely extensive access to resources and information management with serious consequences especially in education. Even the relevant variety of content, that could be an element of richness of communication, is only an apparently real expression of cultural pluralism : diversity is confined to the surface of phenomena, which keep moving on a background determined by the criteria accepted by the dominant mentality. It follows the concept of a man driven to the possession of things and personal success , a man the absolute master of his life, ruler of the world . The disclosure is so conditioned and at the same time contributes to the spread of a culture unfortunately divided , fragmented , minimalist and it looks with suspicion any attempt to address the major issues of metaphysics.
As they grow up, the tools of dominion of nature, which should make man more and more defended and secure, it happens that insecurity and fea grow. The positivist pride that permeates every announcement of new discoveries and innovations, alternates with postmodern disappointment, in which the oscillation of the disclosure is a witness.
Man has always developed thinking and techniques, whereby the essential transformation of the West in the sixteenth and eighteenth mainly consists in applying a systematic rationality techniques, so aware of the results achieved. It passed from the transaction to the technical phenomenon, since there they were no more satisfied with empirical improvements, but they sought the processes employed elsewhere and comparing methods and results to find out the best way. A comparison of techniques to establish reciprocal relationships fostered their practical, theoretical and conceptual. Development. Each technique creates power and, consequently, always expresses a spirit of domain of things and people. It is a kind of invasion by intervention tools, which allow to reach the stage of collection of tools available to man.
Disappeared the old dialectic of nature and culture, human society is the result of the relationships created by the technicaI relationship between man and technology that have become a critical issue. In a society structured by technical man ultimately depends on it. Even the forms of governance and organization are disrupted by the technique and the concentration of the technical means and by the growing mass of information. In new forms of society, technicians do not need a man but turn it into an object. The technique is not only an environment, but a system of coordinates between them, for which changes are reflected on the whole, changing the global organization.
Reciprocally, any change affects every part of the whole, cheking and balancing unity, autonomy and rationality. However, the individual techniques appear rational, while the overall system is not and, in growing, increases its irrationality in relation to people, culture and society. In fact, it is developed according to a single purpose, but following changes that accumulated and associates, produce ever more powerful devices. So its causal progression does grow chaotically. Since its regulative principle is the pursuit of greater efficiency measured by instruments, self-regulation has become increasingly difficult. The increasing complexity of the system does not allow to predict different effects, unintended, hypothesised and unpredictable.
The final collapse of capitalism, due to its inevitable growth divides the world into two parts: technologized and not. The decisions of the representatives of the people are the work of "elite" Techniques for anything inspired by the popular choices. We do not need technocracy, because the technicians are already working their power motivated by competence
Returning to one of the main themes of our fields of research, we wish to point out that it has been hypothesized – following Professor J. R. Meyer – that an understanding of an industry market structure is best achieved by analyzing the extent to which firms in an industry successfully pursue three market structures strategies: “ overall cost leadership, differentiation and focus”. That is, firms can succeed by becoming: 1) becoming the lowest cost supplier of a particular good or service; 2) developing a product or service that differentiates itself from the competition in some important way; or 3) focusing on a particular market niche, which can be achieved either through differentiation or through cost leadership. Actually, by elimination, there is also a fourth group in this analytical structure that of being “stuck in the middle”.
All this clearly suggest that those advocating deregulation were usually correct in arguing that the consequences should not be too adverse. Specifically, if deregulation normally produces pricing practices and market structures akin to those of industry in general, it is difficult to argue that continue regulation is required unless one is prepared to argue that the economic performance of the rest of the economy is not all that the economic performance of the rest of the economy is not all that acceptable.
Industrial policy is not exactly the same as old-fashioned economic regulation for a particularly industry. One particular difference is clearly that of scale. Furthermore, industrial policy almost invariably emphasizes the distribution of activity between different industries cosseting one or a few particular industries.
Following my previous comment on regulation, I’d like to add that critics of pre-form regulation believed that the price setting policies caused rates to be higher than it would be in the absence of regulation. Previously, the regulation has relied on industry-wide average cost pricing in approving motor carrier rates.
Regulatory reform has developed in much the fashion that it supporters had anticipated. Reliance on market forces rather than regulation to allocate resources has increased entry into the industry, enhanced price competition and improved service, including that to small communities.
For the present the cost of freight transportation appears to increase faster than the generl rate of inflation and the future must be looked for improvement in overall transport performance
Many people do not realize that the idea of progress is a decisively modern one. During the medieval and early modern eras, the standard view was that humanity and society were slowly degenerating rather than improving.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy