Interesting social sciences/Science

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXpRMNOoO2g&ab_channel=%D0%92%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2

Thomas Kuhn. Theory of scientific revolutions.

Charles Darwin and his finches is on the cover. Stages of development of science. Paradigm. Two stages in the development of science are normal science and revolutionary science. Charles Darwin's theory as an example of a scientific revolution in biology.

The history of science
The historical stages of development of science:


 * Antique science. Science had arisen in times of ancient time, but scientific knowledge stayed in embryonic condition a long time. The first scientists are Aristotle, Archimedes, Euclid and so on. The shortcoming of antique science was that the antique science leaned on abstract reasoning with help of formal logic only, but the antique science didn't lean on the experience and experiment.
 * Medieval science. Medieval science existed under strong pressure from religion, medieval science  could not put under doubt the Bible’s myths about creation of universe by God and about creation of man by God.


 * Science of Modern history . Situation had changed in 16‐17 centuries cardinally. Science has become to lean on experience and experiment. At first Church tried to struggle against science for ideological influence on society, some scientists have become by victims of inquisition even, for example, Giordano Bruno was burned on the fire. Galileo Galilei was forced to make repentance under threat of tortures and execution. But then the Church was forced to recede, and then science and Church had divided their functions in society and science and Church have ceased to struggle with each other. Function of the Church is upbringing and consolation of people, especially the consolation of the fear before death, and function of science is cognition. Church doesn't pretend already to search truth today. Science has become by important factor of life, it is impossible to construct industrial society without science, in particular,  it is impossible to construct industrial society without the Newtonian mechanics.

Science is activity of man to acquisition, systematization and verification of the knowledges.

Thomas S. Kuhn about scientific revolutions
The paradigm (from Greek – "pattern, example, sample") is a scientific principle, model, a sample for carrying out a research or a scientific formula. The Paradigm is the model of setting of problem and decision of problem recognized by all scientific community for a long time. According to Thomas S. Kuhn, textbooks are sum of obsolete paradigms often. These textbooks don’t reflect the process of development of knowledge, these textbooks often do not say a word about disputes and conflicts between scientists who are supporters of new and old paradigms

Two, replacing each other, stages of development of science exist:

• normal science,

• revolutionary science.

Most scientists believe in truth of the old paradigms in period of normal science, most scientists try to classify, to pack the facts on theoretical boxes of cupboard of old paradigm in period of normal sciences. Most scientists try to solve the small tasks in period of normal sciences, but most scientists try do not put under doubt of truth of old paradigm lying in base of their studies during period of normal science. Representatives of normal science fight against supporters of new paradigms often, because new paradigms destroy the old paradigms and theoretical basis of normal science. Nicolaus Copernicus, Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein are examples of scientists who could invent a new paradigm and realize the scientific revolution.

“Stubborn” facts or “anomalies” were found in the beginning of period of revolutionary science, these “stubborn” facts сann't be placed in “boxes” of cupboard of old theory, this “stubborn” facts cann't be explained with help of the old paradigm. Therefore scientific reformer must break of old cupboard and this reformer must create a new paradigm, which can explain these “stubborn” facts. Success in dispute between representatives of old and new paradigms depends not only from the degree of genius of this reformer, but from presence of friends of this reformer in sphere of business, politics and science, this friends can provide opportunities for public recognition. Supporters of the old paradigm don’t want to recognize new paradigm and this supporters of the old paradigm persist in heresy often, therefore supporters of the old paradigm have to leave naturally – to die or to go to pension.

Development of science doesn't represent the gradual and consecutive accumulation of knowledges (such history of science is described in textbooks), and development of science represents a sequence of scientific revolutions, accompanied by a conflict between scientists and scientific schools. Such conflicts are examples of ideological conflicts. Early stages of development of majority sciences are characterized by constant rivalry between different views on nature. This is happening today in the sphere of macrosociology, where many competing schools and directions exist. Observation and experience can and must limit sharply the number of these competing schools and directions. History of science is a “cemetery” of obsolete paradigms. Supporters of obsolete paradigms in science try to resist to the new paradigms until the end. Supporters of obsolete paradigms remain convinced sincerely that, eventually, they can solve all problems with help of old paradigm that the nature can be squeezed in a framework of boxes of a cupboard of an old paradigm, supporters of obsolete paradigms believe that those failures is a temporary difficulties. But change of scientific paradigms is an inevitable process within the development of science.

How this resistance of supporters of an old paradigm in natural sciences is overcome? This resistance is overcome with help of promises of supporters of a new paradigm to solve all problems which have led of old paradigm to crisis. For example, Nicolaus Copernicus claimed that he solved the long-irritating problem of duration for  the calendar year, Isaac Newton  claimed that he has reconciled  the celestial and terrestrial mechanics. Besides, it is considered that the new theory has to be "clearer", "more convenient" or "simpler", than old theory.

Example of the scientific revolution in biology
Supporters of the old paradigm in biology were guided by the Bible. According to Bible, all species were created by God, therefore all species exist in invariable look from the moment of creation of Universe by God for seven days, species were not changed, species did not arise and did not disappear. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck has composed the classification of species. The doubts has appeared after opening the of huge number of species. The doubts has appeared that Bible’s Noah could put in its Ark by representatives of each species and that Noah could save them from the World flood. The doubts has appeared that God has created of Adam and Eve as primogenitors of the human genus.

Charles Darwin has gone to circumnavigation and Charles Darwin has discovered “stubborn” fact on the Galápagos Islands. Charles Darwin has discovered that populations of birds of finches on different islands have beak different of shape and size. Question has arisen before Charles Darwin: Do these populations belong to one specie or to different species? it is impossible to explain this "stubborn” fact with help of the old paradigm about creation of species by God therefore Charles Darwin has created a new paradigm (the theory of biological evolution) and Charles Darwin explained this fact that specie of birds of finches exists in process of splittig and the formation of new species. The criterion of belonging to one specie is an ability to have healthy posterity under reproduction with each other. The theory of biological evolution explained this “stubborn” fact perfectly. Populations of birds of finches from different islands belong to the one specie, because representatives of these populations can reproduce with each other perfectly and to have the healthy posterity still, but perhaps that the further evolution can lead to emergence of new species which can not have the healthy posterity. Species arise and disappear according to the theory of biological evolution of Charles Darwin. And man and apes have general ancestor according to the theory of biological evolution of Charles Darwin, but this ancestor is not Adam and Eve. New facts have appeared with  development of biology, this facts has confirmed the theory of biological evolution of Charles Darwin. Paleontologists have discovered the skeletons from already died out species, for example, skeletons of dinosaurs. Genetics confirmed the origin man from general ancestor with apes with help such fact that genes of chimpanzee and man coincide on 99%.

The modern overturn in Russian historical science and social sciences in General as an example of the scientific revolution
The last years were period of genuine scientific revolution in the Russian historical science and other social sciences. The secrets have disappeared in the history of Soviet Russia thanks to information obtained from confidential archives. In addition, crisis was found in philosophical and sociological foundations of historical science. These foundations are necessary in historical science with purpose to explain and to connect the historical facts. The historical science will turns into a simple enumerating of facts without these foundations inevitably, the historical science will turns into set of stories and myths which aren't connected among themselves.

Sociological foundations of historic science
The historic science stays the descriptive science in general since the time of Herodotus and till today, the historic science stays as sum of facts and descriptions of life of heroes of history, although some scientists undertook the attempts to find laws of history with the purpose to explain, to connect in a whole and to foresee the course of events sometimes. Karl Marx had undertook to similar attempt in 19 century, and then communists had undertook the experiment to building of communism in Russia, this experiment  was based on forecasts of Karl Marx, and this experiment has ended by failure. Therefore, the theory of Karl Marx and his historic laws turned out false in general, only Marxist theory of mode of production has for me certain value. In my opinion, it is necessary to take into account that the socialist mode of production is a regression and impasse in social construction, that communism is an unrealizable utopia. It is necessary to pay special attention to studying of the theory of Asiatic mode of production, because the Bolsheviks has built this backward Asiatic mode of production in Russia instead of capitalist mode of production. It is necessary to enumerate in this paragraph those sociological and philosophical theories which allow to formulate the laws history, this philosophical theories allow to connect and to explain the historical facts, this philosophical theories allow, perhaps even, to foresee of the course of history.

In my opinion, following theories can be included in the list of important for historical science:

• the theory of mode of production (Karl Marx is author of this theory),

• the theory of Asiatic mode of production (Karl August Wittfogel is author of this theory),

• the sociology of revolution (Pitirim  Sorokin is author of this theory),

• the theory of challenge and response (Arnold J. Toynbee is author of this theory},

• the theory of forms for Government (Aristotle and Montesquieu are authors of this theory),

• the theory of political regimes, especially, the theory of totalitarianism (Raymond Aron is author of this theory),

• the theory of political elites (Vilfredo Pareto is author of this theory).

This theories are the basis of historic science and it is necessary to begin the explanation of bases of historical science with explanation of essence for this theories.

The essence of old Marxist paradigm is as follows:

 * The history of mankind is a history of fight between the exploiter classes and exploited classes, between oppressors and oppressed men.


 * The history of society develops through stages (modes of production).


 * The Marxist forecasts consists that tools of oppression (the state, religions, family, army, law enforcement agencies, bureaucracy, the market) have to die off at communism, that social conflict and social control have to die off at communism. General freedom, equality and a brotherhood have to come between people at communism.

Bolsheviks have made an experiment in Russia on the basis of these forecasts with the purpose to construct communism.

The following "stubborn" facts were found as a result of Bolshevist experiment:

 * Workers have received salary increase, the right to vote, the right for a strike, unemployment benefits and so on in the 20th century in the West. Workers didn't want to participate in socialist revolution in the West and workers didn't want to vote on elections for local communists whom Russian communistic leaders supplied by money vainly. As a result capitalism wasn't going to "rot", as Vladimir Lenin predicted, and capitalism "has blossomed".


 * It has turned out that Bolsheviks couldn't construct communism, despite the enormous number of the victims of civil war and state terror.  Backward Asian mode of production and the primitive forms of government were constructed in the USSR instead of communism.  Such form of government as tyranny was constructed at Joseph Stalin, oligarchy was constructed at Vladimir Lenin, Nikita  Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Konstantin Chernenko and Mikhail  Gorbachev, whereas all problems (crises of overproduction, threat from fascism and communism) were solved in the West successfully.


 * The attempt to achieve equality in the income has resulted to ruin in economy and balancing on the verge of hunger at socialism. Workers worked badly at socialism, despite application to them of most severe administrative stimuluses in the sphere of free labour and despite application to prisoners of corporal punishments in system of Gulag. Unsuccessful attempts were made even that is ideological stimuluses were applied in the sphere of free labour in the form of a socialist competition, but it has turned out that people didn't want to work for flags and certificates of honor, and people want to work for money’s award only which could only be given by the private owner of the plant. A chronic deficiency of goods and their poor quality exist because of lack of the market competition at socialism.


 * The attempt to cancel some social institutes and the organizations has resulted in deplorable results. The attempt to cancel the religious organizations has ended with a failure at socialism. Cancellation of freedom of speech and freedom of the press has led to creation of the ideological machine to deception of own citizens. Cancellation of freedom of speech and freedom of the press has led to defeat in an ideological competition with foreign West "radio voices". The attempt to invent the "Soviet" science has led to isolation from world science, to backwardness and to emergence of various pseudosciences, like the biological theory of Trofim Lysenko, materialistic dialectics, the Lenin's theory of reflection and so on.

Conclusion: Experiments to abolish certain kinds of social conflict and control developed during the natural development of society ended in complete failure at socialism.

The essence of my new paradigm is as follows:

 * Society is constructed on the relations of social conflict and social control between people. Progress of society consists in improvement of this system, in invention all of new and new kinds of social conflict and social control. The logical interrelation between the principles of social conflict and social control is as follows. On the one hand, the winner in the conflict becomes a controller or takes away a sphere of influence from the loser, and the loser becomes object of control. On the other hand, too severe or too soft control leads to the destructive conflicts. Therefore it is necessary to support optimum degree of severity of social control.


 * Society consists of groups and the organizations – family, the production organization, the government, army, law enforcement agencies (that is police, court, prison), bureaucracy, church, school, the scientific organizations, mass media and culture, the organizations of health care. This groups and organizations have arisen in turn in the course of history. Each of this groups and organizations has specific function in society and this groups and organizations can't be cancelled in principle, contrary to Karl Marx's forecasts. Modes of production (formations) are stages of development of society. The criterion which distinguishes one formation from another formation is a kind of social control in the sphere of economy. The tribal and neolithic mode of production (primitive communism) was constructed on moral control. Slaveholding mode of production (Antique mode of production or asiatic mode of production) was constructed on armed control. Feudal mode of production was constructed on administrative control. Capitalist mode of production was constructed on economic control. The communistic mode of production can't be constructed in principle because Marx hasn't invented  new  more effective kind of social control in sphere of economy for communism. Socialist mode of production is regress and deadlock in the development of society that leads to backwardness.


 * Examples of unsuccessful attempts to cancel some kinds of social conflict or social control are known in the history. Communists, anarchists, fascists and islamic fundamentalists tried to cancel such social inventions as representative democracy, economic control, the market competition, an ideological dispute, multi-party elections and so on. Three political regimes exist: totalitarianism, authoritarianism and democracy. Tyrant tried to control all spheres of life of society (political, economic, family and cultural spheres) at totalitarianism, that is, tyrant tried to cancel almost all kinds of the social conflict in all these spheres. Such regress in the organization of social structure has led to the general decrease in competitiveness of citizens, such regress has led to general backwardness of totalitarian society and such regress has led to resistance of citizens, who had no opportunity to realize own abilities in the conflicts, citizens had no opportunity to receive the wealth, prestige and power, therefore this citizens tried to organize illegal forms of the conflict – the "black" market, "samizdat" and so on. The authoritarian leader tried to control only political sphere at authoritarianism and  the authoritarian leader tried  to control the ideological sphere sometimes, therefore authoritarianism is lesser of two evils in comparison with totalitarianism. A blossoming of all forms of the social conflict and control, rapid progress of society exist at representative democracy.


 * According to Pitirim Sorokin, peaceful reform is better than revolution. Weakening of social control leads to chaos in the organization or in society, weakening of social control leads to civil war or death of this organization or society, weakening of social control leads to the fact that the real power passes to usurpers or criminals, underworld is the spare or underground center of the power in society.


 * The source of development of society through modes of production is the conflict between civilizations. According to law of challenge and response of Arnold Toynbee, the environment offers the challenge to civilization, the elite has to find the response, otherwise the civilization risks to die. Thus, progressive development of society has no ultimate goal, progressive development is result of blind search on the principle of trial and error. Local civilizations made this trial and error. Local civilizations are a unit for selection in the history of society like species in the history of the biosphere. Thus, only one highway of progressive development of human society exists.


 * There are five forms of government which are constructed on different kinds of a political conflict:


 * 1) Monarchy and tyranny are constructed  on the armed seizure of power and civil war.
 * 2) Aristocracy and oligarchy are constructed  on elections in privileged assembly (in senate, Boyar duma, the Central Committee or the Politburo of Communist Party).
 * 3) Direct democracy are constructed on elections in popular assembly in Athens or on Veche in Novgorod, on the Cossack Rada, on peasant assembly of the community (Obshchina) in Russia, on a meeting of criminals or pirates.
 * 4) Hereditary monarchy are constructed on transfer of a throne by inheritance, on palace coups (Coup d'état) by means of guard, on campaigns of impostors.
 * 5) Representative democracy are constructed on on multi-party elections.

Different forms of government has different vices or shortcomings. Different forms of government has different organizations of the Supreme power. Different forms of government has different kinds of the groups and the organizations competing for the power for these reasons. The best form of government is representative democracy.

My paradigm explains the "stubborn" facts perfectly:

 * According to my paradigm, opposite social ("exploiter" and "exploited") classes can not only conflict with each other, but opposite classes can cooperate perfectly within preservation of the relations of social control also. The social peace is profitable to both opposite classes though the social peace is profitable for the controlling ("exploiter") class slightly more, than for a ("exploited") class which is object of control. Businessmen were forced to make big concessions to hired workers in the conditions of communistic threat. It is so possible to explain the first the "stubborn" fact".


 * Communism couldn't be constructed in principle, because it is impossible to cancel all forms of social control and social conflict in principle. Communism  was a harmful social utopia from the very beginning. Communism is the fairy tale for adults. All victims suffered in Russia in process of construction of communism were vain and  all victims lie on conscience of fanatic communists and communistic tyrants though fanatic communists aren't going to repent in own sins today.


 * Workers worked at socialism badly because there were no economic stimuluses to work perfectly. Only business owners can apply these economic stimuluses to workers but this business owners were robbed and destroyed at socialism. Economic control is more effective in comparison with all other kinds of control – ideological, moral, armed or administrative control. Deficit and poor quality of goods are inevitable in the conditions of cancellation of market competition.


 * Social institutes are great social inventions. Social institutes is very difficult to cancel or social institutes is even impossible to cancel in principle because social institutes perform important functions in society and social institutes have big benefit. For example, the religion consoles the fear before death  and the religion brings up people. Tales about communism can't console fear before death.  Mass media  begin to lie in favor of ruling regime and bureaucracy in the conditions of the prohibition of ideological discussions and in the conditions of censorship inevitably. Isolation from world science and the prohibition of scientific discussions result to backwardness of national science and the invention of pseudosciences inevitably. Successful development of science is impossible in principle without discussions and exchange of information with foreign scientists.

If Russian society has endured the period of reforms and change of ruling elite for the last years in general successfully, then old communist teachers have kept the leading posts in social sciences today. These old liars criticized and held up to shame of western sociology. Old communist teachers were a component of machine on deception  of citizens. The Soviet regime was constructed on big terror and on big lie. Old communist teachers repeat as a spell today: "Karl Marx is a genius of all times and the peoples!". Though all their forecasts about communism have failed, old communist teachers continue to lie and to dodge today. Old communist teachers aren't going to retire on pension or die today because old communist teachers appeared by long-livers.

Conclusion: The Marxist paradigm did not stand the test of life and the Marxist paradigm should be sent to the archive of scientific delusions.

Sociology of genius.
My purpose is to estimate degree of professional suitability of various the personality types for achievement of good results in the field of social sciences. At first it is necessary to estimate this degree of suitability on the example of great philosophers of the past who have made the significant contribution to science and by that great philosophers of the past have proved own professional suitability, then it is possible to suggest to consider results of these researches at assessment of potential abilities of modern applicants on scientific degree.

Establishment of personality types of these philosophers was made by means of studying of their biographies and styles of compositions (a biographic method and the stylistic analysis). The difficulty in carrying out this research consisted that it was impossible to apply more reliable written test or visual test for  the personality type because these philosophers have died long ago. Biographies of some mathematicians, physicists, biologists, psychologists, economists and historians except philosophers were considered in this paragraph. Scientific creativity of this scientists has great importance for development of a philosophical picture of the world. Selection was made on the basis of textbooks on history of philosophy. Actually, almost all great philosophers exist in my list of respondents, who have at least some value in the history of philosophy.

As the only obstacle for entering into this list has served the absence in scientific literature of the description of the detailed biography of many philosophers of Ancient Greece. 81 philosophers exist in my list of respondents. 9 Jews, 10 ancient Greeks, 3 ancient Romans, 7 Russians, 13 British, 3 Americans, 12 French, 5 Italians, 10 Germans, 2 Austrians, 1 Swiss, 1 Dutch, 1 Dane, 1 Pole, 1 Czech, 1 Chinese and 1 Hindu exist on national identity in this list. Thus, the list of respondents covers geniuses of all times and all peoples.

Bertrand Russell divided philosophers and their theories according to the dominant passion that prompted this philosopher to engage by philosophy.

According to this classification following types of philosophies and group of philosophers exist:


 * Philosophies of feeling, inspired by the love of happiness. They, first of all, are optimistical or pessimistic, they offer schemes of salvation or try to prove that salvation is impossible. Almost all representatives of religious philosophy belong to this class.


 * Theoretical philosophies inspired by love of knowledge. Creators of great systems belong to this class for though the desire for knowledge is rare, it was by the source of most of what is best in philosophy.


 * Practical philosophies inspired by love of action. Those philosophers belonged to this class which considered happiness as practical result, and knowledge as instrument of success activity.

In my opinion, the philosophy of feeling is characteristic of psychologists by personality type, theoretical philosophy is characteristic of theorists, practical philosophy is characteristic of technicians. Bertrand Russell hasn't considered at all necessary to consider scientific works of speakers in own textbook "A History of Western Philosophy", except of speakers Erasmus of Rotterdam and Francis Bacon because the contribution of speakers in development of philosophy is insignificant. Bertrand Russell has given a negative assessment of scientific works of such philosophers as psychologists Socrates, Plato, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Henri Bergson and technicians Immanuel Kant, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. I agree fully with Bertranr Russell 's negative assessment of these philosophers.

The theorist has the following inclinations:


 * To carrying out researches in the field of mathematics and logic.
 * To loneliness and to nsociability, to use of paradoxical "British" humour.
 * Absent-mindedness and fanatical thirst of knowledge.
 * Scientific, laconic, categorical and clear style of compositions, ability to draw a paradoxical conclusions, to make classification, to output scientific formula or the law. The originality and objectivity of his theoretical conclusions so strikes of his contemporaries that at first even this originality and objectivity causes charges of the theorist in madness, but then descendants are forced to recognize correctness of theorist under pressure of indisputable proofs. The speech of the theorist against religion for the sake of the scientific truth often led to prosecutions of theorist from the church.
 * The profound knowledge allowing to create of excellent textbooks and to make the significant contribution in development at once of several sciences.
 * Rationalism. Use of a deductive reasoning.

Inclinations of the speaker:


 * Active character, take-off and falling during life, high success at women, high leadership and oratorical abilities. Ability to find money, to use acquaintances and to organize of other philosophers for the edition of the scientific collection or the encyclopedia.
 * Thirst of the political power, participation in revolts and wars, occupation of high positions in the government.
 * Entrepreneurial talent, ability to go even on financial frauds.
 * Popular style of compositions, using of satire instead of strict scientific proofs. Banality of theoretical conclusions. Low theoretical level.
 * Speaker doesn't like to study and speaker has no of university philosophical education often. Speaker  is capable to make an excellent translation of scientific works from a foreign language.

Inclinations of the psychologist:


 * To unwarranted fantasy, to social utopias. The originality of his conclusions reaches to the point of absurdity and leads to serious mistakes.
 * To religious philosophy, mysticism, to carrying out researches in the field of ethics, cultural science, psychology and linguistics.
 * Literary, graceful style of compositions, composition of verses, love to art.
 * Too large volume of compositions which remind a chaotic stream of consciousness.
 * To poverty and to search of patrons.

Inclinations of the technician:


 * Boring style of compositions by means of which technician tried to disguise of lack of the original ideas. The technician is a reactionarist in social sciences and technician has conservative political views.
 * Pedantism, arrogance and lack of sense of humour. Quiet monotonous life. Low degree of interest to an opposite sex which leads to late marriage or to a barchelor's way of life.
 * Carrying out of valuable empirical researches. Using of an inductive reasoning.

The following indicators are used: for assessment of value of scientific contribution:


 * Creation of the new theory within the existing science (grade is "satisfactory").
 * Creation of a new paradigm which has led to a revolution in science (grade – "good").
 * Creation of new science in the field of philosophy (grade – is "excellent").
 * The lack of these scientific achievements means grade "unsatisfactorily".

Thus, theorists make 38% among philosophers, speakers  make 9% among philosophers, psychologists make 44% among philosophers, technicians make 9% among philosophers. Average degree of success (S) of the personality types  in philosophy can be counted by means of the following formula

S = (1×Q¹+2×Q²+3×Q³) : Z 

Where Q ¹ means total quantity of pluses in a column for satisfactory grades for this personality type,  Q ² means quantity of pluses in a column of good  grades for this personality type, Q ³ means quantity of pluses in a column of excellent grades for this personality type. Z - the number of the philosophers belonging to this personality type.


 * For theorists S=(1×18+2×14+3×10):31=2,45,


 * for speakers S=(2×1):7=0,29,


 * for psychologists S=(1×11+2×2+3×1):36=0,5,


 * for technicians S=(1×6+2×1):7=1,14

It is possible to draw the following conclusions. Theorists are capable to create great philosophical theories. The philosophy and science are the only social channel where theorists are capable to make great success, and speakers show full professional unsuitability and inclination to plagiarism. Technicians are the most suitable for a role of the experimenter in science, but the attempt of the technician to create philosophical theories results in mediocre results. Therefore I can advise to technicians  to be engaged in empirical sociology, natural or technical science instead of philosophy. Psychologists have low degree of success in philosophy, though psychologists make up the greatest share among philosophers. Psychologists specialize in a research of such pseudosciences as ethics, theology, pedagogics and an esthetics. I can advise to psychologists to be engaged in psychology instead of philosophy,   to be engaged in the composition of children's fairy tales instead of the composition of social utopias.