How technology precedes science (through the example of force plates)

The real newness of scientific research is achieved only by using appropriate technique that is adequate to its goals and objectives. In science as a search for truth and in science as an industry, the sphere of employment, the different attitude can be formed towards the acceptability of a scientific result, its quality. Moreover, the "limited" and "imaginary" newness of the future result characterizes the level of particular scientific field in conjunction with the shortcomings of the most common techniques (for example, research of the regulation of the human’s vertical posture (a fundamental function) has been conducted using force plates since 1991 year). The quality of the scientific results is distorted under the impact of the small group of authors offering their own concepts, views on engineering and methodological solutions which were adopted and disseminated by successful manufacturers of scientific tools in the study period. Upon the availability of technique drawbacks this leads to a large number of low-value, never applied conclusions and inventions. Based on loads of dissertations and patents in this particular field, the article discusses instrumentalism as the dependence of a scientist on a ready-made scientific instrument, the choice between constructivism and realism, and criticism as a necessary condition for choosing technology and planning social consequences.

References
[1] Volkov G.N. Istoki i gorizonty progressa: sotsiologicheskie problemy razvitiya nauki i tekhniki [The origins and horizons of progress: the sociological problems of the science and technology development]. Moscow, Politizdat Publ., 1976, 335 p.
[2] Glozman A.B. Filosofiia i obshchestvo — Philosophy and Society, 2013, no. 3, pp. 105–120.
[3] Kubryak O.V., Bagdasaryan N.G., Glazachev O.S., Korol M.P., Kulyabina E.V., Lebedev G.S., Sidyakina I.V., Silaeva V.L. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: Ekonomicheskie i socialnye peremeny — Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes Journal, 2018, no. 6, pp. 386–406. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2018.6.18
[4] Harre R. Filosofija nauki i tehniki — Philosophy of Science and Technology, 2016, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 55–65.
[5] Kriklenko E.A., Kubryak O.V. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: Ekonomicheskie i social’nye peremeny — Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes Journal, 2018, no. 4, pp. 229–249. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2018.4.12
[6] Galimov E.M., Sidorov Yu.I., Krivtsov A.M., Zabrodin A.V., Legkostupov M.S., Eneev T.M. Geochemistry International, 2005, vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 1045–1055.
[7] Bykhanov E.V. Astronomicheskie predrassudki i materialy dlya sostavleniya novoy teorii obrazovaniya planetnoy sistemy [Astronomical prejudices and materials for a new theory of planetary system formation]. Livny, Tipografiya I.A. Savkova Publ., 1877, 160 p.
[8] Glozman A.B. Filosofiia i obshchestvo — Philosophy and Society, 2010, no.1, pp. 110–123.
[9] Kruchinin P.A. Rossiyskiy zhurnal biomekhaniki — Russian Journal of Biomechanics, 2014, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 184–193.
[10] Kubryak O.V., Krivoshey I.V. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: Ekonomicheskie i social’nye peremeny — Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes Journal, 2016, no. 6, pp. 52‒68. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2016.6.04
[11] Grokhovsky S.S., Kubryak O.V. Biomedical Engineering, 2018, no. 52, рр. 138–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10527-018-9799-7
[12] Knyazeva E.N. Filosofija nauki i tehniki — Philosophy of Science and Technology, 2018, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 5–9. DOI: 10.21146/2413-9084-2018-23-2-5-9
[13] Sheckley R. Ask a Foolish Question. In: Citizen in space. New York, Ballantine Books Publ., 1955, 200 р.