MONOPOLY AND CENSORSHIP OF LIBERALISM IN SCIENCE: SCIENTIFIC VIEW TO "RULING SCIENCE"

Under the new conditions, the understanding of the world and its various processes takes place through science. However, the question arises as to whether this science contributes to the knowledge of the truth. As it is known, modern science is a western science. With the theory of Western science, we are enlightening the world today. However, it is felt that this science has difficulty in recognizing the truth. In other words, modern science is a form of veiling the truth. Of course, the dominant science is the Western science under the liberal ideology. Science should not be subordinated to ideology, but the teachings and science of the postmodern era are monopolized and censored by liberalism. Unfortunately, in the post-Soviet space, people are adapted and socialized through Western values ​​and science. The result is the formation of zombization, immorality, hedonism and Satanism in the younger generation. It is time for the scientific elite to realize this and free themselves from the censorship of liberalism and Satanism.

During the Soviet era, science developed in an ideological framework, and efforts were made to make ideology scientific. Ideological censorship existed in all fields of science, and no truth was recognized except ideological truth. Ideology demanded that the process of decacralization of values ​​be carried out and that the recacralization of phenomena be initiated. Recognition of the world and processes and events was carried out with a new context and vision. Of course, there was diversity, but only within the framework of Marxist-Leninist ideology. There was no other level of attitude, which led to the expulsion of other intellectuals from such an ideological monopoly.

During the Soviet era, Western bourgeois science was severely criticized, and this naturally stemmed from ideological antagonism. Many of the sciences that were later studied in the post-Soviet context of development were not taught due to being “bourgeois” in the Soviet era. Ideological censorship of science has led to the numbness and dogma of scientific thinking. The impulses of development in science were completely suppressed, and the ideology tended to become scientific. The collapse of the Soviet Union destroyed both Soviet science and ideology. Under the new conditions, the scientific elements of the Soviet era did not meet the new consequences and could not adapt.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the scientific elite, once critical of Western science, began teaching bourgeois science in the country's universities. Soviet ideologues became the missionaries of Western science in the new conditions, and the subjects taught in Soviet times as "bourgeois" were taught by Soviet ideologues. From here one point needs to be noted, the scientist-researcher is the agent of science or the spokesman of science. Because with the transformation of society and changes in the political regime, science and scientific values ​​change, and depending on the situation, the views of scientists and researchers change. From this it is clear that the phenomenon of science and education is highly dependent on politics and the political regime. If this is the case, then the problem arises that science was specific to a specific time and place. As science and scientific values ​​change depending on the political regime and time, that is what science is. Naturally, this is not a science, it is a tool of social manipulation used for management purposes.

The disappearance of the Soviet state from the historical process led to the opening of a new window in the development of science in the country. New scientific values ​​were introduced into the domestic space, which did not coincide with the scientific values ​​of the Soviet era. Given this situation, the domestic scientific community and the scientific community were adapting themselves to the qualitatively new conditions, as there was no other way to solve the problem. Soviet-era research has become insignificant in the new conditions. Those who once held the position of scientific atheism have changed their position in the new conditions.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, in the name of globalization and Westernization, Western values ​​entered post-Soviet society. Westernization has spread to all spheres of life. In the political sphere, the political regime was democratized and science and education were Westernized under the ideology of liberalism.

Qualitatively new conditions in the domestic scientific community have completely changed the attitude to the phenomenon of science. In this context, it was realized that the science of the Soviet era was a kind of reflection of ideological ambitions with the modern science, which is not worthy of comparison and competition with the goods of the Western world. The sharp criticism of Soviet science arose from the standpoint of new science. But it is important to note that in Soviet times, if this "science" was called unscientific, it would naturally be the reaction of the scientific elite that they are the enemies of communism and have no knowledge of real science. However, in the new conditions, it was this scientific community that, from the position of "Western science", began to sharply criticize the science of the Soviet era.

In the current situation, the idea is being considered not to separate science from domestic and foreign, and to prove that science does not have a homeland. In fact, this approach is acceptable, but the social reality shows a different situation. In a country where modern science has been imposed on the country by the western world, it is recognized as a western science. In fact, modern science, like Western science, is spreading around the world. From this point of view, there should be no geographical limitations in science, but the objective reality is that modern science is Western science.

In modern times and space, there is an issue of not confusing science with ideology, as in Soviet times, and science should not be under ideology. But has the domestic scientific elite felt what ideology modern science is under? Even in Soviet times, it was not common to think that science was under ideology. What is the ideology behind the modern world science? The scientific potential is weak in understanding this issue.

The consequences of the new world order, the westernization of science and education, along with other areas, need to be studied, but because this scientific knowledge has its origins in Western values and Westernization, it cannot recognize these phenomena. In other words, modern science cannot consider why it has such a form and content. Hence, it should be noted that the domestic scientific community does not have science in their own science, and there is no answer to the question of what is the phenomenon of science.

But the next issue in which there are contradictions is that modern science is not based on ideology. The aim is not to link science to the ideology of the state, but to modern science, which is subordinate to any ideology. Due to the fact that modern domestic science has entered the country through Westernization, the scientific community is unaware that it is under the next ideology. Comparing modern times with the Soviet era, they say that science was based on ideology in the Soviet era, and now it is free from this ideological domination. But this is not the case. If we look at modern science from an expert point of view, we can see that its roots are connected with ideology. In other words, modern science is a form of expression of the ideology of liberalism. It is fair to say that modern science is based on positivism and is undoubtedly under the ideology of liberalism.

All the sciences that are on the scene in modern times are related to the world in the context of liberalism. The teachings of liberalism have influenced both the exact sciences and the social sciences and the humanities, and after the expansion of Western culture, all sciences developed under secularism, Satanism and liberalism.

It should be noted that the social sciences, which are taught in modern scientific centers, have a Western literature and are specific to Western conditions and civilization. As they spread to other countries through the social sciences, they spread Western culture and ethics in other societies, including at home. This situation contributes to the Westernization of national thinking. We are talking about the fact that it is a science and does not have these features. However, modern science, which came to the country from the cradle of European civilization, creates in the younger generation aspects of vulgarity, hedonism, utilitarianism, intolerance. This science, which is based on pleasure, usefulness, and self-interest, accepts interests only in their materialistic form, and moral values ​​are marginalized or completely removed from the scene. In the context of the emergence of negative social phenomena such as homosexuality, lust, suicide, selfishness, obscenity, nudity, the subject of research in the social sciences.

The main problem in the study of the social sciences, which has entered the domestic context from Western society, is man. However, the knowledge of man differs from the knowledge of the phenomenon of man, which exists in the Persian and Tajik civilization. Western researchers in the field of social sciences are a completely different object and subject of research. According to the social doctrine of man, it is known no more than an animal. Based on this thesis - "human-social animal", all the political, social and psychological doctrines were formed. Western anthropology was formed on the basis of Social-Darwinism, and all other schools consolidated their teachings on the basis and pillars of Social-Darwinism.

In the modern context of the social sciences, the main problem is that the scientific works of foreign scientists are translated and accepted without consideration and criticism, and there is no scientific courage to criticize a part of it. In this regard, such a doctrine is accepted, even if it is very difficult. There is a monopoly of science in science, and especially in the social sciences, which belongs to Western science. Various social and political doctrines are accepted without criticism, discussion and debate. There is no other form of vision. The methodology, methods of research, and scientific values ​​are determined and imposed by the monopolists of science, and they do not accept any other argument that is based on facts. Science, and especially the social sciences, are heavily dependent on the new world order, and this new order has created science and a dictatorship of science as a means to promote its values. Depending on the dictatorship of science in modern conditions, there is a bureaucracy in science, which does not recognize any point of view, except for the views that are consistent with the doctrine that dominates science or the dictatorship of science. That is why there are no scientific discoveries or innovations in the social sciences. Also, modern science, and especially the social sciences, do not have the capacity to do so in modern conditions, which is why such teachings are studied in the social sciences. Therefore, if the national school of social sciences is not formed and on the basis of science does not create a new atmosphere in society that will serve the happiness of the nation, we believe that the mission of science is not completed.