Created / Renewed
2012/03/27 / 2015/04/18


There are such pages on the site:


More significant materials of the site:

Shortage of panoramic thinking: signs seen everywhere
Panoramic thinking as a concept
Creating a system of civilization security
Opening a path to sustainable development
Civilization Security division at the UN has to be
Bankruptcy of intelligent people in civilization process
Civilization omissions to be found and filled in
Nature's recommendations for international institutions
New dimension of human rights
Universal Declaration of Human Planetary Responsibility
Humankind must have been fooled
Coauthoring with Voltaire
Secret of humor from depth of the evolutionEvolution classification of J.Warfield's mental bugs

National Academy of Anthropology as a social project.
Why not?

Dr. Uladzimir M. TRATSIAKOU

Since ancient times, when branches of the knowledge became arising, it was the idea about a single and integral science what went to us. It appears some times that common ground was already found: idealism, mechanistic worldview, holism, dialectic materialism, information approach... But in a while, the dream came back again.

There is a saying “it's seen better on a side off”. Thus let us look at the man “on a side very off”, namely on cosmic heights. What this human being from Earth planet occupies his reason with? Well, he is developing one-single science what is named human-knowing , or anthropology . Just so, as in different its sections, are studied, using human notions, phenomena of the live world (biology), the lifeless world (physics), space and quantitative relations (mathematics) etc. There are as well sciences “ twice human ”, after both notions applied and objects of studies (psychology, medicine, sociology, anthropology, cognitive science).

What about to lay into ground of the single earthy science such the sequent human approach? There are arguments to support such the decision.

First, this ground is already existing, it is only not recognized and isn't used explicitly.

Second, any scientist might then work for sake of the dream, i.e. to realize single science at his daily scientific activity.

Third, aiming to the single science, inter-disciplinary barriers are getting lower, whole manifold of “cross-ideas” arises (at that replenished constantly), and general scientific activity revives.

Fourth, there are unprecedented creative stimuli for researchers in area of anthropology (here: anthropology in narrow sense of the word, such as now used, not as that mega-science), as well psychology, pedagogy, and sociology. Enrichment of the ground for single-science union depends just of those sciences first of all.

Those 4 arguments for the anthropology in that widest sense are as well arguments for a National Academy of Anthropology ( NAA ) to create in anyone country in place of a National Academy of Sciences. There are other considerations to realize NAA:

a). Attractiveness for the look on side off. National Academies of Sciences are in each country, but NAA would be unique in the world... The country with NAA would have in world-wide scientific division of labor the very responsible and perspective front of researches.

b). Topicality. It is felt especially for fundamental sciences. It is known the saturation phenomenon in the science showing itself in more and more hard obtaining results having rank of discovery. Knowing the root causes of this, scientists might be successful in generating ideas of great significance and integration, up to global ones.

c) Bettering philosophy of the science. The science is going to objective knowledge ”. It is delusion in severe sense of the word because of not taking into account the evolution origin of our science's notions and techniques, because of educational systems being until now aimed to overcome evolution conditioned backwardness of human mentality. As a result, the existing barrier of human/earthy subjectivity , being common to all people as determined by common anthropogenesis, even not aimed to be overcome.

On base of the article published in 1994 in “Novelties of Belarusian Academy of Sciences” newspaper (in Belarusian).

February 2011 Addition

That was Russian writer V.F. Odoyevsky who said out the interesting thought: «What is necessary to think correctly? No seeing through yourselves». It means you can't think correctly if you don't “take aside” your subjectivity, being characteristic of you.

But the thought may be apprehended more widely, as a call to clearer our thinking from any subjectivity, not only individual, but connected with our belonging to any groups, parties, nations, classes, organizations, professions, religions, etc. Really, all those «subjectivities» in either event are entangled in the interest .

This interest has its “ancestor” what is the instinct of self-saving. It appears in particular in that we believe willingly in anything for us preferable and with hardness in that is unpleasant for our self-esteem and self-estimation. There is Francis Bacon's Idol of Human Race who guards always and is ready muddle us from correct considerations with his persuasions-exhortationss.

Let's suppose any hypothesis occurred to you. As usually in the science, it should be juxtaposed with facts and others scientific tenets. But there is Idol, and you hear his ingratiating voice, at that from within:

-- What may oppose to such incontrovertible arguments? Which a hypothesis! It is a scientific fact of the clear water! Moreover , a Law of the Nature !

To flatter self-esteem of any kind – individual, groups, parties, see above – it is his specialization. Here are some example flatteries what were not always unsuccessful:

> «You are greatest leader of all progressive humanity!»

> «Our party is a reason, honor and conscience of the era!»

> «Ours is the greatest nation!»

> «Only our religion is true»

> «Human being, you are the top of the evolution!».

It is quite possibly that the thought

> «The science is intending to objective knowledge»

was as well prompted by this Idol.

It is very likely because such the opinion is flattering any scientific worker's self-esteem in pleasant way and nobody as I know question the thought till know. Thus, common-human subjectivity, this barrier on the way to objective knowledge, remains as before invisible.

National Academy of Anthropology having been anywhere created would have to tackle first of all that “barrier” for it to be seen clearly, to estimate how many it is “embedded” into the science, to reveal those scientific notions what too much struck by this common-human subjectivism, to plan problems of highest priority to be researched, to determine these sciences where that Idol was “consulting” especially much at building theories.

From whether will be or not be given the start of researches to take off not realized till now common human subjectivity is depending not only progress of the human sciences experiencing “the effect of saturation”, but as well the future of human civilization. For humankind to have survived, it should more get out of myths and delusions of any kinds. The human reason mastered with a more perfect, panoramic thinking is necessary tool to cope with the goal.

How paradoxically it is, for sciences using “twice as human” notions, researches at this Academy would be in any sense of opposite direction, namely intending to reveal what notions might be substituted for others to be more fitting the human reason and its manners of thinking, as well to be more comfortable for using.

On base of the article published in 1994 in “Novelties of Belarusian Academy of Sciences” newspaper (in Belarusian)


Copyright © IntelTech—Vladimir Tretyakov/Uladzimir Tratsiakou. The present information is intellectual property of the site's author interesting in knowing any use of his materials. Contact me [email protected] or [email protected]