The sciences of man, his life in society. They arose during the times and within the framework of scholasticism. Philosophy was defined first as the science of human actions. The source and means of knowledge in such sciences was the word and thoughts and their interpretation. Now to…… Fundamentals of spiritual culture (encyclopedic dictionary of a teacher)
Encyclopedia of Sociology
HUMANITARIAN SCIENCES- see Human knowledge. Big psychological dictionary. Moscow: Prime EUROZNAK. Ed. B.G. Meshcheryakova, acad. V.P. Zinchenko. 2003 ... Great Psychological Encyclopedia
HUMANISM, HUMANITARIAN SCIENCES The sciences and arts, the study of which leads to the harmonious development of a person's mental and moral powers. In the Middle Ages, classical languages \u200b\u200band their literatures were revered as such, to which mainly ... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language
Humanitarian sciences- social sciences (history, political economy, philology, etc.) in contrast to natural and technical sciences. Oddly enough, the humanities for the most part study predominantly non-humanoid processes ... Theoretical aspects and basics environmental problem: interpreter of words and idiomatic expressions
HUMANITARIAN SCIENCES- in a broad sense, the science of all products of human activity (the science of culture). In a more special sense, the science of the products of the spiritual creative activity man (the science of the spirit). They are distinguished from the natural sciences that study nature, ... ... Philosophy of Science: Glossary of Basic Terms
Humanitarian sciences- (from Latin humanitas human nature, education) social sciences that study a person and his culture (as opposed to natural and technical sciences) ... Research activity. Dictionary
HUMANITARIAN SCIENCES- English. humanities; German Humanwissenschaften. Sciences that study the phenomena of culture in their various manifestations and development (for example, literature); G. n., with an emphasis on social. the nature of human activity and his works, are societies, sciences ... ... Dictionary in sociology
Humanitarian sciences- Philosophy, art criticism, literary criticism ... Sociology: a dictionary
division of social and human sciences into social and human sciences- DIVISION OF THE SOCIAL HUMANITIES INTO SOCIAL AND HUMANITIES A methodological approach based on the heterogeneity of the sciences of man and society and problematizing the concept of "social humanities". On the one hand, there is... ... Encyclopedia of Epistemology and Philosophy of Science
Books
- Humanities Univ enc schoolboy , . Arranged in alphabetical order, encyclopedic articles on history, regional studies, art, social sciences and other humanities will not only help schoolchildren ...
- Integrum. Exact Methods and the Humanities, . This book is addressed to all who study modern Russia and Russian, who needs a large number of data about Russia, who are interested in using modern ...
Any individual and society as a whole would like to live in conditions of prosperity and material well-being. Almost every person would like to have a comfortable house or apartment, to buy the goods they like, to receive moral and material satisfaction from living in a rich and respected country.
However, in conditions of limited and uneven distribution of resources, when the necessary amount of goods and services is not enough for all members of society, it is not easy to ensure proper well-being. And even in those countries where the standard of living of the population is quite high, people want more than they currently have.
In addition, different strata of society and professional groups have a heterogeneous level of wealth - some people own billions of dollars, others eke out a miserable existence. These social groups often misunderstand each other, and this circumstance gives rise to economic conflicts, which sometimes turn into open clashes and even civil wars.
It is designed to find answers to many economic questions related to the uneven distribution of income, living standards, inflation and unemployment. Defining the goal of economic science, A. Smith pointed out that "it is designed to enrich the people and the sovereign."
Despite the fact that more than two and a half centuries have passed since the formulation of this definition, it still remains the most concise, capacious and correct. Let's just add a few touches to it. Economy- This scientific discipline, which studies the issues of improving the welfare of the people and the country, subject to the balance of economic processes and the observance of social justice.
Solve this complex and multifaceted economic task not possible without scientific analysis, studies of trends in the development of economic systems, establishing relationships between economic and social phenomena.
In the chaotic behavior of thousands of people and enterprises, it is necessary to single out those common, recurring phenomena that are called laws, regularities or business trends.
But do they exist at all? economic laws, or is it some kind of abstraction, divorced from the real practice of economists' assumptions? Once such eminent scientists as Vilfredo Pareto and Gustav Schmoller argued on this topic. One of them argued that there are no economic laws in nature, to which the second reasonably asked: “Can you dine in a restaurant without paying for lunch?” Pareto asked. "No, I can't," Schmoller replied. "That's what economic law is."
The question of economic laws is complex and diverse. What, for example, will happen if economic laws are not observed and replaced by written, subjective laws, that is legal regulations. In turn, a different legal and social environment should change the economic thinking and behavior of people. This is how the classics of Marxism-Leninism reasoned, believing that being will determine consciousness. However, this did not happen. Man has remained true to himself even after seven decades; in the USSR it was not possible to create a new person in which altruism and collectivism would supplant egoism and individualism.
Although, of course, one cannot turn away from the fact that Russian society nevertheless rendered strong influence Soviet period. And if so, then economists have the right to raise the question of relativism, that is, the relativity of the action and variability of economic laws in time. Will the law of market competition still operate, say, in 100 or 200 years, or will it be replaced, as the anarchist theorist P. Kropotkin pointed out, by the law of solidarity and mutual assistance? Will, as they said, “bestial hedonism” also act in the future, resurrecting slavery and giving rise to such a situation in society, when, according to T. Hobbes, “man is a wolf to man”? Will the state wither away in the future, how will this or society be transformed in a different way? No one can give an exact answer, there are active discussions about this.
So, is it possible to squeeze in a variety of human behavior in the Procrustean bed of specific economic laws? Indeed, with a wide variety of tastes, preferences, and characters of individuals, one can always find opposite models of people's behavior. Some of them are altruists, the other part are egoists. Someone lives by increasing their wealth and consumption, others make a conscious choice in favor of self-restraint and asceticism. That's why economic laws are, first of all, laws big numbers based on the behavior of large masses of people in which deviant behaviors are absorbed by dominant trends. These are the laws of supply, demand, self-interest, competition, diminishing utility.
economic science, unlike astronomy or physics, does not give absolutely accurate forecasts of future economic processes and phenomena. Modern economists and analysts have not yet learned how to predict global financial and economic crises (a living example of this is the global crisis of 2008-2010), remove the cover of uncertainty from the future development of individual industries, states and the world economy as a whole. Moreover, economists are constantly arguing among themselves about the causes of economic phenomena, about ways to improve the quality of life of the population, about methods of intensifying economic growth, about the amount of taxes and directions for business development. A natural question arises - what kind of science, economics, which allows such failures and discussions?
Here you can answer as follows. Firstly, heated debates and discussions are conducted in all sciences - exact, natural, humanitarian. There is no science without debates, opportunists, different scientific approaches and schools.
The second point is that economics is a complex scientific discipline, which is based on many other sciences – psychology, biology, history, sociology, cultural studies, ethics. Therefore, an economist in his forecasts, like a tightrope walker, must maintain balance on numerous moving elements, based on the knowledge of other sciences, which is a very difficult task.
In addition, economists deal with thinking beings and very complex multidimensional systems for which the degree of uncertainty is very high. It is much higher than for systems consisting of inert matter. Eliminate Uncertainty Completely economic phenomena and processes is impossible, no matter how hard we try. This results in forecast errors, misjudgments, and miscalculations.
However, all of the above difficulties and errors in forecasts do not undermine the authority of economic science in the eyes of the world community. Recall that only in economics, out of all the humanities, annual laureates are determined. Nobel Prize. This emphasizes the special importance of economic science for improving people's lives.
Which sciences can be attributed to economics, humanities or natural sciences? and got the best answer
Answer from Andrey Kotousov[guru]
The social behavior of people can be described by the law of large numbers. The economy is engaged in the distribution of quite material resources: products and products. The key levers of the economy are in the hands of a limited elite: bankers, legislators, financiers and industrialists.
Science itself is borderline. Even if they pass a law requiring the cultivation of bread in the desert and allocate money for this, then nothing will come of this venture.
Andrey Kotousov
Artificial intelligence
(177740)
Alexander, only the author of the answer receives notifications about comments. If you have any questions for Igor, then write to him by e-mail. He will receive a letter - a NATURAL and irreproachable fact.
Answer from Alla[guru]
humanitarian
Answer from A.D. (do not offer cologne)[guru]
To the humanitarian!
Answer from Denis Leonenko[newbie]
humanitarian
Answer from lovelly[active]
The humanities are disciplines that study a person in the sphere of his spiritual, mental, moral, cultural and ... Geography Astronomy Geology Geodesy History Linguistics Philology Psychology Sociology Economics Computer science.... Look at Wikipedia)
Answer from Alexander Igoshin[guru]
Humanities with a developed mathematical apparatus. It can also be classified as a social science. But definitely not natural, natural - physics, chemistry, biology.
Answer from Valery[guru]
There is another term exact sciences! Mathematics!
Answer from Anastasia[active]
To the social sciences!
Answer from 2 answers[guru]
Hello! Here is a selection of topics with answers to your question: What sciences can be attributed to economics, humanities or natural sciences?
Social science grade 6 Explain the meaning of the concept (science), (social sciences), (education), (self-education).
1. SCIENCE, sphere human activity, the function of which is the development and theoretical
The prevailing (besides the usual for LiveJournal "the author, why are you so stupid, huh?") turned out to be something like this opinion. Economics is not a natural science, everything is constantly changing in it, any measurements are inaccurate, distributions are not normal, therefore it is necessary to test hypotheses not on the basis of numerical data, but with the help of common sense and / or formal mathematical models.
In this regard, the philosophical question again arises before me - How do we know that we know? In other words,
How (forgetting about economics for a moment) can we even say that the hypothesis passed the test and became reliable knowledge?! After all, tomorrow the Black Swan (tm) can fly in and peck in the head so much that it won’t seem enough? Where is the guarantee that 2 * 2 will be equal to 4, and the sandwich that falls out of the hand will fall to the floor and tomorrow too?
The conventionalist theory of knowledge answers this question very simply: the guarantee is given by society in the person of Authorized Experts (tm), who, in which case, will be to blame that 2 * 2 is no longer 4. All we know is that we have been hammered into head at school, but in fact there is no Truth. There is only the Official Point of View, and whoever disagrees is a dissenter, an accomplice of terrorists. A simple and convenient world, isn't it?
Techies like me try to bleat something (because there are sheep, not wolves) in response. Like, 2 * 2 is equal to 4, not because it is written in the primer, but because it turns out this way over and over again in practical calculations. No matter how much you add 2 thousand rubles to 2 thousand rubles, 5 thousand has never happened. And a sandwich can be dropped on the floor until it is completely destroyed - as it fell, it will continue to fall, regardless of the opinion of the Authorized Experts. In addition, the global crisis, about the impossibility of which these very Experts kept repeating, did happen, and there is nothing to put experiments with a sandwich on.
A rhetorical question for friends - which of you never checked that 2*2 is 4 and the sandwich falls to the floor instead of soaring into the sky? Who just believed the math teacher and old man Newton? I suspect that there are such, because what a stupid thing to check the Experts yourself. You can get paid for this.
For the rest, I'll ask the following question. And what is the actual difference between the practical verification of the laws of arithmetic and Perelman's proof? Newton's Law and Bell's Inequality? Does it have a qualitative level (“only gods can check complex laws, people can’t do it”), or is it purely quantitative (“if I had 10 free years, I would learn mathematics and check it, it’s business”)?
In my technical view, of course, purely quantitative. Once to decide cubic equations only the greatest mathematicians could; today it is simply not interesting to anyone, the computer solves faster and more reliably. Rutherford once observed the collision of alpha particles with a screen with the naked eye; now the collisions of particles in accelerators are counted by the same computer. Has anything fundamentally changed in practical test knowledge? No, only changed check cost, mankind got to the bottom of the very expensive laws of nature.
Thus, testing hypotheses is possible not only with the help of Expert Consensus (as in the case of global warming), but also with the help of the notorious practices. The theoretical economist may be adorned from head to toe with regalia; but if the result of his practical activity is the bankruptcy of a managed fund (I'm hinting at LTSM), then the hypotheses of this economist can be considered refuted. That's actually my whole simple creed.
Knowledge is only tested by practice. In some sciences (humanities), this practice is purely social, for lack of the opportunity to experiment on the subject of science (theology), they are placed over the scientific community (which idea will gain popularity and which will be discarded). In other sciences (technical), we have the opportunity to practice not only on colleagues in the shop (only an opportunity! In fact, the more experienced intriguer wins, of course). That's the whole difference.
What science is modern economy- humanitarian or technical - decide for yourself. Personally, in my economic studies I am guided by a technical approach, and I set up natural experiments (for example, with an exchange account). But at the same time I recognize the numerical and organizational advantage of the humanities, and I am even a little afraid.
How is economics similar to medicine, what do universities and military registration and enlistment offices have in common, and why the theories of economists do not always work, a well-known economist, author of the book “Sonin.ru: Lessons in Economics”, candidate of physical and mathematical sciences, professor at the National Research University Higher School of Economics and the University of Chicago, told the site Konstantin Sonin.
- Konstantin, tell us what economists do?
Economists deal with issues related to human economic activity. Roughly speaking, everything that is connected with making decisions and evaluating their consequences, even if it is not directly related to the acquisition of material goods and money. These are questions for an economist.
- That is, the main thing for an economist is choice?
Exactly. Economics is about choice, all situations where we weigh the pros and cons, the benefits and costs of each alternative.
- At the beginning of your book Lessons in Economics, you compare economics to medicine.
Yes. By the way, this is a very useful comparison. Economics and medicine work with systematic data, conduct experiments.
- Another one common feature- recipes for the treatment of diseases, social or individual.
When we talk about macroeconomic policy, yes. And recipes.
When you talk about charlatans - both in medicine and in economics - you put forward two criteria that distinguish science from non-science. This is the consistency of judgments and the testability of hypotheses.
Yes, science deals with testable hypotheses.
What is a "testable hypothesis"? After all, man and society are the most complex matters that so far no theory has been able to explain and, perhaps, will never explain. What then does it mean to test a hypothesis?
The question of how to make a person healthy is not scientific. But the statement that "if a person is given some medicine so many times a day for so many days, then his tumor will begin to decrease" - this is a hypothesis and it can be tested. It can be difficult. Because the tumor can shrink by itself, and a person can get hit by a car during the experiment. But there is a hypothesis. According to the results of the experiment, this hypothesis will either be disproved, or we will say that we cannot disprove it. This means that she is one of the explanations for what happened. Economists do the same.
Here we have received empirical results and we begin to interpret them. What is our criterion for whether the data support the hypothesis or not?
The criterion is, in a sense, part of the experiment. When you design an experiment, you define a criterion. For example, I am an economist and I want to test the following hypothesis: if I offer you two stacks of money, you will always choose the one with more of them. I can decide that I will not reject this hypothesis if I put 100 pairs of piles of money on your table and you choose larger amounts in 95 cases. Then it's probably not a random fluctuation. You don't choose randomly, do you?
The experimenter might say, "If the wad with the most money was chosen more than 90 times, then we would conclude that it was not random." The physician researcher does the same when he is studying the application of a new technique or the use of a drug. We give this medicine to 100 patients. It had a positive effect on 60, negatively on 30, and no effect on ten at all. At the same time, we agreed in advance that if the drug had a positive effect on most of the patients, then we would consider it effective. In fact, this is the arbitrariness of the experimenter.
- It turns out that there remains the possibility for the influence of other factors that we do not know.
Yes, there is always that possibility.
- As for whether economics is a science at all...
Do you need to talk about it? Would you ask such a question about medicine?
-About what? Is medicine a science?
Yes, or chemistry.
It seems to me that the whole point is in the way that is used to explain the observed phenomena. This distinguishes economics from medicine.
Many drugs that fight the most common diseases have no explanatory mechanism. We just know that they help. There are medicines that were developed as cures for some diseases, and then it turned out that they inexplicably help in other cases. Since then they have been used. These are different things: to establish a pattern and understand the mechanism. It's good when we can do both, but it's not always possible.
- However, in the blog that you maintain together with Ruben Enikolopov, it was just about empirical patterns that were mentioned. There Ruben says that the criterion for a good economics article today is to explain the mechanism behind the observed dependence.
If I remember correctly, in the post you're talking about, we're discussing an article that shows a strong relationship between testosterone levels in infancy and later career success. As a theorist, I can come up with several different explanations for this empirical fact. Those researchers who wrote this article noticed an interesting thing. This is something like a coin that fell a hundred times as an eagle. It is unlikely that we observe a random result, but at the same time there is no good explanation. You can come up with different theories, but the very fact of correlation does not confirm or refute them.
"Economics is like writing a novel"
It is clear, as is your comparison of the economy with medicine. However, Ariel Rubinstein - co-author of one of the most famous textbooks on game theory - replaces the testability criterion that we discussed with the ability to tell a good story. He compares economics to literature and argues that good story does not have to explain everything and be verifiable. More attention should be paid to the beauty of history, that is, whether the mechanism proposed by the authors of the article can give something new.
Rubinstein expressed this idea more than once. Science is generally a very large and diverse community. There are people who deal with completely applied questions, there are people who deal with intermediate ones, and there are pure theorists. Their work is motivated by the same questions: how people make decisions or why some countries are rich and others are poor. But sometimes such questions can seem so far from applied that, indeed, maybe articles should be judged by how they help us think about the world, and not by what specific hypotheses they produce.
- This is where your metaphor about economics and medicine differs from the metaphor about economics and literature.
I blogged about a conversation between two Nobel laureates, Roger Myerson and Mario Vargas Llosa. I heard it in Myerson's presentation. He told Mario Vargas Llosa ( Nobel laureate literature) about how it works. Myerson is one of the most eminent modern specialists in economic theory. Llosa opined that it was indeed like the process of working on a novel. When the theorist builds a model, he does not yet know how the characters will behave. It seems to me that Rubinstein is talking about just such situations.
Look at other sciences that may be more familiar to the reader. For example, physics. There are people who work as engineers, they build roads, bridges, buildings. In their models, the earth is round, there are no Einstein effects. There are people who study the properties of some metals. There, even when it comes to specific alloys and specific applications, there is a complex quantum mechanics. And there are people who are engaged in algebraic geometry, for example, mirror symmetry, this is absolutely abstract mathematics, but very beautiful. Ultimately, it's all connected in one big science. But a person who deals with mirror symmetry will not help in any way to assemble a mobile phone.
-And the economist, he, conditionally, will help to collect?
Economics will definitely help. She is set up the same way.
There are people who are engaged in completely abstract things, and there are people who are engaged, for example, in the installation of ATMs or a credit card. They are also economists. As a rule, those who are further from applications work as professors, and those who are closer to applications learn from them.
Konstantin Sonin
Economist, Professor, National Research University Higher School of Economics
- Who do you consider yourself to be?
I am an academic economist and far from any engineering stuff. But it happens that useful conclusions can be drawn from a purely academic article.
It seems to me that sometimes - and Rubinshtein also writes about this - a certain dominance of mathematical abstractions appears in economics, it moves away from applications.
If you take all the economists who publish in the leading journals, that's less than the number of economists working for one bank. Or if you look at all the people who write economic columns. Even if we take the literate and the illiterate. Like Nikolai Starikov, for example, who writes simply internally contradictory nonsense. All the same, it will be a hundred people together - nothing among tens of thousands of economists. It seems to me that one should not confuse what is in sight with people on the front of academic science.
Sometimes people on the front lines of economics take the results of their research and try to teach us - the society - something. Tell us what to do, how to live, what policies to pursue, what is good and what is bad, and so on. These scientists hide behind some economic knowledge. And is it reliable enough to be guided by it?
Let's say you go to the doctor. Or you can take, for example, a book or textbook written by a famous scientist. A specialist on this topic may never have operated on anyone in his life, but still this will be a source of information for you. Only the decision will be made by you and your doctor. The issue of monetary policy is solved in the same way. It may be interesting what macroeconomists think, but the government official who is the chairman of the central bank makes the decision. He can listen to their opinion or not. He is in the same position of the patient.
In medicine, scientists investigate the biological mechanism of certain phenomena. For example, cell behavior. And they can vouch for it to one degree or another. Can economists vouch for something?
Of course, there are many things we can vouch for. We don't notice it. Everything seems to work by itself. Just like people drink panadol, knowing that for most it reduces headache. 200 years ago they died of appendicitis. Appendicitis is everything, it's death. And now doctors operate on him in 99% of cases completely successfully. In the economy, too, there are a huge number of questions that were difficult to answer with confidence a hundred years ago, for example, the banking system. It was enough to manage unsuccessfully, and that's it, the bank burst. People were losing deposits, and shareholders were losing money. Now the central bank is dealing with short-term liquidity problems in much the same way that we take panadol.
True, but now we are talking about this post hoc. Now we know how it works, because in practice there have already been many economic collapses. And how much more lies ahead of us.
Again, the analogy with medicine is very productive.
Doctors have learned to treat many diseases, and you tell me that people still die. Yes, they die. There are many things that we may never be able to handle.
Konstantin Sonin
Economist, Professor, National Research University Higher School of Economics
For example, modern banks are incredibly stable. Now in all developed countries, the vast majority of depositors are 100% insured against events related to banks.
- Directly one hundred percent?
Small amounts are insured and reimbursed by the state, while the vast majority have just small deposits. But, of course, if the depositors of one bank or, even worse, all Russian banks conspire and come to collect their money, they will bring down the banking system. It is impossible to escape from this.
“People who could work normally are wasting their energy to get rid of the army with the help of pseudo-study in a pseudo-university”
If we talk about such well-known economic facts, is it true that the redistribution of income through taxation, including through indirect taxation, creates obstacles to market competition and economic development?
Let's not deviate from the medical metaphor. Let's just say it general pattern. If you exercise little and eat a lot of unhealthy food, you will become obese and increase the chance of various diseases. Redistribution creates a disincentive to the productivity of those who are being taken away from. We see the mechanism and understand how it works. In the same way, we understand how an addiction to cake contributes to weight gain. But not all people who eat cake will gain weight, everyone has a different metabolism.
Redistribution has the effect you mentioned, but there are others. For example, when the rich get very rich and the poor get poorer, there is a revolution in many countries. We know the mechanism. The poor stop recognizing the laws, and then the country becomes much worse. An economist can understand that income-equalizing redistribution creates disincentives, but at the same time it reduces social tensions.
- I asked you this because I thought I found a contradiction in your recent LiveJournal post. The first few points there are almost classically liberal. To make the economy free, to stimulate and by all means support competition. Down with the bureaucracy, the army too. And towards the end of the entry, you talk about indirect taxes: we will support poor children, let the rich study for a fee... Such advice seems to be contrary to liberal ideas about the freedom of the market.
There is nothing wrong with redistributive taxes. They have several consequences, and in our country, inequality is a huge problem. Many bad things happen because there is such inequality.
- On what basis do you draw such conclusions?
And on the basis of what the doctor draws conclusions? I have a patient, for example, a country. The doctor usually has two sources of information. There is knowledge gained through the analysis of data arrays. In our case, these are causal relationships and correlations between inequality and development. And then there is what doctors call clinical descriptions, that is, individual cases. Of course, just as no two people are the same, no two countries are the same. It is always the attending physician, the one who decides to what extent different theories describe the case of a particular person.
You also write in the same post: “Universities and scientific institutions should not be a social protection body (this does not mean that such bodies are not needed - just do not turn educational institutions into them).” What do you have in mind?
Look, a huge number of higher educational institutions in Russia they work like this. People who enter them go there, either simply because there is nothing else to do, or because they want to protect themselves from the army. In both cases, the university operates only as some social organization. There is nothing wrong with having some form of social support, for example, for youth. But often they are taught by people who give these students very little. It turns out that this is also a form of social support for teachers. We pay very little money to people who are not capable of anything else and, in fact, bring nothing. I believe that if society wants to provide social support, then it is better to do this not through the education system: some universities can be closed, but unemployment benefits can be increased.
- And abandon the army, right?
The fact is that, it seems to me, there are no arguments for a draft army in Russia. If you talk to her consistent defender, he will not be able to give any arguments. It seems to me that this would already be enough to refuse it. But my argument here is about education. The army makes a huge distortion.
People who could work normally are wasting their energy to get rid of the army with the help of pseudo-education in a pseudo-university. Military enlistment office workers are also an unnecessary draft army. Their job is essentially unemployment benefits. Moreover, many of them - the military, heroically served in the army. That is, there is nothing wrong with them receiving social benefits. But here is another problem. People do not want to receive social benefits.
- Well, is your argument, in fact, also an example of a fascinating story?
Well, yes. If you don't like the medical metaphor, think of the economists' argument this way. Let's say you need to make a decision. Imagine that the economist who convinces you to make a certain choice is a lawyer, a participant in litigation. How does he construct the proof? There may be direct evidence. More often - indirect. And you can have a combination of direct and indirect evidence, plus scientific data, for example, blood DNA.
Yes, but you will agree that there may be other explanations that we simply do not name and which will eventually lead to other consequences. Maybe now we are proposing to abolish compulsory military conscription and close pseudo universities, and we think that it will work out well, because we have a lot of smart arguments, we have data, intuition. Everything seems to be leading up to this decision. But we can never deny, the truth is that everything will go wrong ...
