Two topics that I have addressed more than once in my writings.

Below is a “repetition of the past” with some additions and clarifications.

Philosophy:

In dialectical materialism, the criterion of truth is defined as “social practice” (herd practice, to put it bluntly: If not one herd creature, but many of them, the whole herd is convinced of the correctness of a certain assumption) and then immediately begins to spread porridge on a plate with some conditional reservations: It, this practice, is the criterion of truth as ABSOLUTE and as, at the same time, RELATIVE. That is, deliberate vagueness and ambiguity are immediately introduced into the definition itself.

Omnis determinatio est negatio! Every definition is a negation!
Baruch Spinoza.

That is, if we define something, we thereby negate any other interpretation of this DEFINITION.

So, what is the DEFINITION if the initial “definition” is INDEFINABLE???

Not to mention the fact that it is precisely this very “public practice” that usually creates the SEMBLANCE of truth, the complete and absolute FALSITY of a certain assumption, and not the truth.

A trivial example: Life on Earth has existed for about two billion years, and ALL living beings, not necessarily even sighted, but capable of perceiving the light falling on them from the Sun, receive an undoubtedly true feeling every day for two billion years that the whole world revolves around the Earth, as the Center of the Universe! The social practice is not of humans, but of any creatures susceptible to light, from amoebas and unicellular algae to humans, which is observed throughout their lives. What doubts can there be about the truth of this two-billion-year-old “supersocial practice”?

And it confirms not the TRUTH, but a completely incorrect idea, the opposite of it! ITS VISIBILITY, SEMBLANCE and no more!

The criterion of truth is not just practice (public practice), but a more important and EARLIER, PRECEDING property, the method of its search:

The Initial approach to the search.

If it is based on the desire to understand the secret mechanisms of a phenomenon, to understand its cause or causes, then practice can confirm or refute this approach, and this will be a TRUE criterion of truth, that is, to show that the approach used was correct or incorrect.

If the initial approach to the search for truth, that is, to the search for the cause of a phenomenon, is NOT precisely set by THIS reason, but proceeds from a purely formal approximation of the past and present of this process or phenomenon for the future, then even the EXACT embodiment of this prediction into reality may not be a confirmation of the correctness of the initial assumptions. In this case, the PRACTICAL realization of the prediction IS NOT TRUE!

That is, the exact definition of the criterion of truth should sound like this:

Practice CAN be a Criterion of Truth if it is based on the right approach to the search for this truth, namely, an honest and flawlessly unbiased search for the CAUSE OR CAUSES of a given process or phenomenon!

Practice IS IN NO WAY a criterion of truth if it is based on a formal approximation of the past and present of a certain process or phenomenon to the future, in fact, the main CAUSE of this process or phenomenon, without being interested at all!

Without realizing it, I formulated another criterion a few years ago.: ACI – A priori Criterion of Truth, that is, non-experimental one, untested by any “practice” at all!

For hypotheses.

If a certain hypothesis, invented to explain one very specific phenomenon, suddenly, unexpectedly, even for its creator himself, explains another, often unrelated to the first one. And this is repeated several times, and in relation to a fairly diverse range of phenomena and processes. So, in my opinion, this hypothesis can claim to be a theory. This does not eliminate the need for her to undergo an experimental examination! But it‘s INTUITIVELY already on right way!

(I have repeatedly cited the quantum mechanical model of the Niels Bohr atom as an example. Bohr introduced several famous postulates in 1913 for one purpose: To save Rutherford’s planetary model of the atom from destruction, because it clearly contradicted the laws of electrodynamics.. And suddenly it turned out that Bohr’s hypothesis perfectly EXPLAINS the entire Periodic Table of Elements! And long before any experimental justification.)

Creative thinking:

The Law Of Optimal Knowledge.

What does the word “OPTIMAL” mean? This is the knowledge that is necessary to explain the CAUSE, to “grasp the driving gear” of a process or phenomenon, if it is skillfully used. That is, it may be obviously less than the amount of knowledge that “scientists” usually demand and expect with stupid dogmatism.

Not in the amount of knowledge, but in the ability to use it consistently with the problem, even if it is often small in volume!

Again, to grasp the driving gear of a phenomenon or process, and this is enough to accurately explain it!

27 I 2026