Artificial intelligence (3): Is its progenitor, science, healthy?

Fusional science

Diversity has its advantages and disadvantages. Brilliant originality of thought and possible excesses. Major progress or disaster. Science has welded together in a collective so fusional that one can wonder why. Is it to consolidate the fabric of knowledge or to avoid the excesses of mad scientists? Depending on the look used, soliDary or soliTary, the answer differs. Let us note that the evolution of scientific society has naturally been towards stricter rules governing research with more impressive potential. It is necessary to embrace the scientific spirit before participating in the march of knowledge. I’m not talking about amateurs who gravitate around science. Preparation for marriage always follows a strict protocol, over many years. The family notebook is not obtained with only a few items.

These rules limit the mind of the researcher by what the rest of the collective achieves. Professional journals contain everything you need to know. The rest is incidental. The content of journals is already considerable, turning scientists into information search engines. But the ideas disconnected from this privileged network do not appear there. The soliDary of the scientific society protects it against the dangerous soliTary. Would they have lost anything?

How to avoid alienation?

It is the isolation of the human being in his reality that produces the most original ideas. They eventually go as far as alienation. Originality without contingency. Is it alienation that is the problem, or to come back from it?

It is not possible to find a solution to the T <> D conflict (soliTary vs soliDary) because it is the engine of reality. On the contrary, this conflict must be protected by locking it into a superior organization that temporarily reduces its instability. Why temporarily? Because it keeps a reason to exist and could lead to other solutions in case the current organization loses its effectiveness. Order on the verge of chaos. Human society has found solid foundations but must continually find new organizations so as not to collapse the edifice.

A science that is too corporatist cannot be integrated into the new organizations. It isolates itself in reaction to the anarchy that spreads to the rest of society, to the success of the T, of the individual-king. Science remains soliDary, distrustful of its own soliTaries. But is it not from it, from its “human” disciplines, that the new social strategies should come? Is it not by prioritizing itself more and opening its hierarchy to the rest of society that it can integrate into it, without falling into the same anarchy?


Artificial intelligence synthesis
Hierarchy synthesis

Leave a Comment