jeudi 28 février 2019

DRAFT UPGRADE PROGRAM ANALYTICAL THINKING


Bulletin de l'Académie Internationale CONCORDE, 2019, N 1, р. 3-16

Dr Alexander M. Voin
International Institute of Philosophy and Society problems
alexvoin@yahoo.com

A level-up program of analytical thinking is proposed in this article. The program is based on the apparatus of the JIPTO mathematical games, developed by Professor G. V. Tomski and on the unified method for substantiating scientific theories, developed by A. M. Voin. The aforementioned
apparatus and method of substantiation are based on the application of an axiomatic approach, the beginnings of which were developed by Euclidean and whose application in the natural sciences, especially in physics, is becoming increasingly popular today. But his educational capabilities to improve analytical skills have so far almost not been used. While the need for this is rapidly increasing, as shown in the article.
The program is designed for inclusion into the system of teaching in universities, and for the development of independent or in organized groups
Keywords: analytical thinking, math games, axiomatic approach, method of substantiation.


Today, the contradiction between the rapid growth of science and the availability of any information via the Internet, on the one hand, and a decrease in the analytical level of thinking of the majority of the population, on the other, is becoming increasingly obvious. The so-called clip thinking flourishes. A person does not try to look for a solution to problems himself, does not try to analyze and compare the proposed solutions. He accepts uncritically either the solution that comes first to him on the Internet, or the solution that lies more to his soul. And he is looking for it not in the primary sources, not in the writings of the authors of scientific and philosophical theories, but in products that can be labeled “for dummies” or in a kind of scientific comics, where the material is extremely compressed and simplified so as not to injure the pristine brains of the reader. On the other hand, there are several fashionable terms from this field and the names of recognized authorities (as Kant said, although Kant, perhaps, did not say this), in order to tickle the ego of the corresponding reader. And then this reader, without any doubt, gets into any scientific or philosophical discussion on the Internet and expounds these truths from such a comics book, discussing some solid article or book that he did not read and responds to the title or, at best, to the annotation.
But not only the number of “sofa thinkers” is growing. Pseudoscience, which claims to be enrolled in real science, flourishes on a massive scale, as RAS academicians trumpet. An academy has even established an office to combat pseudoscience. But even within the academic science itself, especially in the human and social sciences, imitation of science i.e. pseudoscientific speaking in the name of making a scientific career flourishes. As evidenced by the endless attempts at reforming the Academy of Sciences, stories with fake dissertations, etc. That leads to a decrease in the effectiveness of science and the penetration of mediocrity into it, the writings of which litter the information space and through which the real ideas needed by society cannot penetrate.
The decrease in the level of analytical thinking of the population is reflected in all processes occurring in society, and in particular, the quality of power and the decisions it makes. What manifests itself in the low quality and inconsistency of decisions taken by the authorities even in developed countries, not to mention third world countries, and in speeches of their representatives, who then become the object of numerous bullying in the media. This is logical to expect in countries with democratic rule for the lower the level of analytical thinking of voters: the less they are able to choose worthy rulers, the easier they are manipulated by demagogues and populists. Well, and where power is not elected, things are even worse.
The main reason for the decline in the level of analytical thinking is the crisis of the rationalistic worldview, on which Western civilization arose and flourished, which until recently was the engine of progress on the planet [1-6]. As a result of this crisis, the inherent to era of classical rationalism (Descartes, Bacon, Pascal, Newton, etc., up to the appearance of the theory of relativity) belief in the unity of truth has been lost. It is especially lost in the humanities and social sciences. The so-called pluralism has flourished, understood not as the right of everyone to defend his view of what is truth, but as the truth of each. But if everyone has their own truth, then why develop analytical thinking and get to the bottom of a single truth that does not exist? It is enough that I think so, it seems to me and I want. "And if you have another truth, so stand on the other corner and do not compete." As a result, the resolution of political conflicts, and often scientific disputes, occurs not through the proof of the correctness of one of the parties (such proof is possible only if the unity of truth is recognized), but through the use of force, connections and competition of propaganda, whose power is more powerful. And then each of the parties complains that they are not listening to her arguments, as if she is listening to the arguments of the other party and is not engaged in propaganda herself.
The digitization of everything and everyone only aggravated this trend. In addition to the fact that, as mentioned above, the computer and the Internet provided us with an opportunity to quickly find any answer to any question without straining our brains, and thus deprived the average person of the motivation to learn to think, digitalization also provides another kind of demotivator of the ability to think. Digitization, and especially the upcoming artificial intelligence, makes many intellectual professions unnecessary.
Or, at least, greatly reduces the requirements for the intellectual level, the ability to independently think of the average specialist of the relevant profession. Say, about 50 years ago, the designer, designing a machine, one might say, invented it from beginning to end. From the concept, how it will do what it is created for, to the development of all its components and parts with thought-out, how each of these parts can be made, in principle, and even easier and cheaper. And today he climbs into the Internet, finds a similar machine there, borrows knots and parts from it, and only slightly changes something there. Brains for this purpose are required 10 times less, and his productivity is 10 times more than that of the former engineer. As a result, 80% of former engineers of designers become unnecessary, 10% becomes stupid, and only 10% moves to some more intelligent sphere, such as the design of space technology. The same 80%, that have become unnecessary, go to the service, for example, distributors of the same technology, sales managers, etc. As a result, the nation of engineers, doctors who think and not write out prescriptions, which a computer program suggests based on tests, teachers who also think, and not those who can be successfully replaced by a computer program, turns into a nation of distribution managers, waiters and entertainment workers. And if earlier this nation demanded spiritual food in the form of classical and similar to it literature, symphonic music, cinema at the level of Tarkovsky, now it wants only to hang out and tear off with the help of showbiz, preferably with striptease, films with shooters and porn, and worst drug and even more thrill. And then everyone is surprised: here, we change the power in regular and extraordinary elections and in revolutions and in general “we wanted the best, but it turns out as always.” And the economy, which at the current level of science and technology should grow like crazy, grows weakly, and even falls.
This situation is beginning to be gradually realized by a part of thinking people, they begin to talk and write about it and some measures are proposed to prevent this process. Most often these are some changes in educational programs in schools and universities. For example, it is proposed to increase the number of hours of teaching mathematics in schools and universities, as it was in Soviet times.
This is a step in the right direction. Math is really a great gymnastics of the mind. But this is not enough today. Indeed, during the times of the Soviet Union there was still no digitalization of everything and everyone. And the crisis of the rationalistic worldview, although it had already developed throughout the West, but the population of the Union was protected from it by the Marxist doctrine, which was strictly imposed on the population. Marxism, though far from being a true rational science, for which he claimed (“the only scientific doctrine in the world”), by his intentions was certainly rational and instilled in the Union’s population although a simplified and containing certain mistakes, but a rationalistic outlook. In particular, Soviet citizens believed in the unity of truth and did not poison their minds with relativity of all and pluralism. Now, as said, the situation has changed in Russia, not to mention the West, and therefore simply returning to the Soviet education system is not enough. The question is, is it possible to increase the effectiveness of the development of analytical skills based on mathematics, and if so, how?
Improving the development of analytical thinking and creative abilities with the help of mathematics is provided by the JIPTO intellectual, creative and mathematical game developed by Professor GV Tomski [7-10]. The idea here is this. Although the study of mathematics in school with the solution of tasks develops analytical thinking, but much more the work of the mathematician scientist develops it. It is impossible to connect schoolchildren to creative work in the field of mathematics by studying algebra, geometry, trigonometry, started the mat of analysis and solving tasks at school. That is because creativity in mathematics is the creation of new theories, but not the study of already created ones and the mastery of the ability to use them. But the JIPTO game allows even schoolchildren to practice creating mathematical models and theories, starting with the simplest ones with a further increase in complexity.
I will cite, with the permission of G. V. Tomsk
i, extensive quotations from his works:
The most important thing is that the Mathematical Olympiad is a competition for solving problems of heightened difficulty, which, if successfully defined, can be solved in principle within no more than one hour. Real mathematical problems require many months for their solution, sometimes many years of continuous reasoning. Thus, the scientific work in the field of mathematics can be compared with a marathon, and the Olympiad with a run for a hundred meters. Therefore, victories in Olympiads are not evidence of suitability for professional scientific work in the field of mathematics.
The habit of teaching higher mathematics rooted in physical and mathematical schools leaves no time for attempts at independent creativity. In education of children and young people, priority should be given to the ability to use the knowledge gained.
Therefore, we believe that the System of accurate determination of mathematical talents can only be based on testing students' abilities to research unsolved mathematical problems described in the language of school mathematics.
It is hard to disagree with this statement. We worked long and hard to create the sources of such tasks. For this purpose, Elementary pursuit geometry has been developed, which is a new extension of the classical Euclidean geometry, which has unlimited development prospects with the participation of all lovers of mathematics [8].
The Mathematical Theory of JIPTO developed by me and my students gives an inexhaustible number of unsolved mathematical pursuit problems formulated in the language of elementary mathematics [9]. Such problems can be investigated by capable students who know only school geometry. The most gifted of them can prove real mathematical theorems in 15-16 years. There is no doubt that such children will later become good professional mathematicians.
One should listen to the opinion of Singapore’s innovation policy architect, Dr. Philip Yo, who advises: “Actively look for children with mathematical abilities. Mathematics is extremely important. Smart children who understand mathematics can do physics and all other sciences. ” The education of mathematical culture is the basis for training specialists for an innovative economy. In order to do mathematics it is enough to have abilities and incentives, a pencil and paper. Therefore, we describe under what conditions the use of the System of the unmistakable definition of mathematical talents could turn an average or even a small state into a mathematical power and form the basis of a System for searching exceptional talents for countries seriously thinking about their future. ”([7], p. 5) .
“In the elementary geometry of pursuit, the trajectories of“ pursuers ”and“ evaders ”, which are the objects of Euclidean geometry, are considered: broken lines or chains of circles connected to each other. But transformations and other relationships studied in classical geometry (rotation, similarity, etc.) add an infinite number of transformations and relationships generated by different strategies. These strategies are algorithms defined in geometric terms. Further, the results are guaranteed by the studied strategies in accordance with various criteria.
The combination of such problems forms an inexhaustible source for geometric studies. Much of this research can be conducted on the basis of the results of classical elementary geometry without the use of other areas of mathematics.
Thus, elementary pursuit geometry is a new perspective expansion of classical geometry with an infinite number of topics for research, interesting for the purposes of popularizing mathematics and for mathematical education.
Popularization of elementary pursuit geometry is designed to help raise the mathematical culture of teachers and students. It is possible to move from the use of indirect criteria of mathematical giftedness to the testing of capable students on real unsolved mathematical problems and their early initiation (from about 14-16 years old) his first theorem, he can defend his dissertation much earlier than other mathematicians. ”([7], p. 35).
“In 1993, this system was approved by the leadership of the education sector of UNESCO and entered into my official job description (an expert of the highest category P-5 of UNESCO) so that I could begin to popularize it worldwide. "([7], p. 52).
In 1993, UNESCO Deputy Director General for Education, Professor Colin Power came to Yakutsk for a UNESCO conference on education. During this trip, he became acquainted with the JIPTO development game I invented and used in schools as a stimulator of various types of creativity (artistic, literary, etc. [10]). In the same year, at his suggestion, I created in Paris and headed the International Federation for this game - FIDJIP.
FIDJIP is an international scientific, cultural, educational and sports association, working in close liaison with UNESCO. Its activities contribute to the implementation of programs for the development of education and other programs of UNESCO.
As a cultural and sports association FIDJIP develops and promotes the JIPTO Art and organizes the JIPTO Festivals with international tournaments, exhibitions, games, plays and other entertainment events. As an international network of researchers, FIDJIP coordinates mathematical, pedagogical and psychological research on the theory of JIPTO and its implementation in education, conducted in many universities. "([7], p. 41).
As can be seen from the above quotation, the basis of the JIPTO is geometry. Moreover, for preschoolers and junior schoolchildren who still do not know anything about geometry, the JIPTO is just an exciting game, but playing it, they unconsciously get involved in the world of geometry. For those who want to develop their analytical thinking, this game opens the entrance to the world not only of the classical Euclidean geometry, but into the world of its endless extensions due to new possible transformations. Transformations of varying degrees of complexity, but most importantly, those that have not been done by anyone before, which allows independent mathematical creativity, the importance of which is stated above.
Here it is important to emphasize the special role of geometry, which makes it most suitable, in comparison with other branches of mathematics, for the development of rational analytical thinking. It was not by chance that at the entrance to Plato’s academy it was written: "Let no one who does not know geometry do not enter here." The fact is that the geometry from the very beginning, i.e. already in the "Principles" of Euclid was built axiomatically (Euclid was the father of the axiomatic method). Plato could not yet know what role the axiomatic method would play in the development of rational science as a whole, and not only in geometry, in the New Time and in the formation of a rationalistic world view, the role of which in European civilization is mentioned above. But he had a premonition. Today, the axiomatic method is applied not only in geometry and not only in mathematics, but also in physics and a number of other natural sciences. The role of the axiomatic method in rational science and rationalistic worldview is fully revealed in the unified method for substantiating scientific theories developed by the author. For unified method for substantiating scientific theories the axiomatic construction of the theory is one of the two cornerstones on which it stands. Geometry is still the easiest way to assimilate the axiomatic method and its application.
But the study of mathematics and exercises in it develops analytical skills only in a certain direction. The fact is that mathematics, ideally, is not a science that studies reality, but only a great tool for rational science. Ideally, mathematics completely abstracts from reality and deals only with abstractions. Moreover, concrete objects known to us can correspond to these abstractions in real life (for example, the rays of light in geometric optics correspond well to straight lines in Euclidean geometry). But it may be that today there are no known real objects that correspond to the abstractions of a specific mathematical theory, but in principle they can be, which means that this theory may someday be useful to us. And there may be such mathematical theories (calculi), the abstractions of which, in principle, can not correspond to any real objects. (This is called, the theory has no object set, or a set of values).
Of course, mathematics arose from the need to solve specific terrestrial problems, such as measuring the areas of landowners' possessions. And abstract objects of this initial mathematics (rectangles, triangles, etc.) were directly related to real objects. But already at this stage, in the name of efficiency, mathematics was forced to idealize these objects (no real boundary of the land plot was an ideal straight line, corresponding to its definition in Euclidean planimetry). And the further, the more mathematics has abstracted from reality. And it came to the fact that at one time there was even a fashion to build calculus according to such a scheme. Enter the objects that are denoted by the letters of the Latin alphabet: a, b, c ... (you can use the Greek alphabet and even Chinese characters). Above these objects, the actions of addition, multiplication, inversion (and any other that will occur to the creator of calculus) are possible. Further, we postulate axioms: (a + b) + c = a + b + c, etc. And then, on the basis of these axioms, we begin to wind up the theorems and obtain calculus. But the calculus of what it is in real life, and whether there can be anything in real life that you can get into this calculus, does not interest us.
From the foregoing it is clear that a person with brains well-trained in mathematics analyzes the real situations well in case if the problem is either already formalized and you only need to find its solution, or it is easily formalized. Therefore, a good mathematician easily becomes, say, a brilliant financier. Here everything is already formalized: debit, credit, interest, etc. All these concepts are already quite clearly defined and tied to experience and mathematics can only solve the problem, where and how to invest the available money in order to get the maximum profit. And this is exactly the task for the mathematician. But in life there are many problems where the task of formalization: introducing concepts, linking them to experience, i.e. to real objects, the formulation of basic laws is no less, and often more important, than the subsequent solution of specific problems in this area. This is well known to physicists and other natural scientists. For example, when creating the classical electromagnetic field theory, it took decades of brilliant physicists to work for decades, based on experiments in which the deflection of a magnetic needle, charged balls suspended on a string, and similar observable phenomena, appeared, first go to the intermediate concepts of electric current, voltage, resistance, etc., then move on from them to the basic concepts of electric and magnetic field strengths and after all connect these concepts with Maxwell’s equations, which are the electromagnetic field theory. And then, having these equations, they began to solve and still solve various specific problems from this area with the help of mathematics.
It is clear that for the development of analytical skills in this direction, it is useful to study in school, along with mathematics, also physics. And just as in the case of mathematics simply studying physics at school, even with the addition of hours, is not enough today. Here it is possible to increase the efficiency by studying and acquiring the practice of applying the unified method for substantiating scientific theories [4], developed by A. M. Voin on the basis of his theory of knowledge [1]. More precisely, this method was developed in the development of the natural sciences, physics first of all, but so far has not been explicitly presented and existed only at the level of the stereotype of natural scientific thinking, just as the grammar sits in every language before it is written. The author presented this method in an explicit form and showed the possibility of its use with appropriate adaptation in the field of the humanities and social sciences.
The importance of using the method of substantiation in the field of humanities and social sciences is difficult to overestimate. The natural sciences, in which the unified method of substantiation is applied, even at the level of a stereotype of natural scientific thinking, have provided and continue to ensure rapid scientific and technical progress. The latter, in turn, unusually increased both the creative and destructive power of mankind. This creates many problems and threats, including the threat of self-destruction of humanity, and also exacerbates many previously existing problems, such as the problem of mutual understanding between different nations, countries and representatives of different ideologies. These problems can only be partially solved on the basis of the same scientific and technological progress, but, above all, they require the resolution of the philosophical and with the help of other humanities and social sciences. And these sciences, precisely because they do not possess the unified method of substantiation, even at the level of a stereotype of natural scientific thinking, are unable to solve anything. They are divided into many schools, between representatives of which there is no common language (which can only be a unified accepted method of justifying the truth), and therefore they are not able to accept or reject any theory by the whole community.
On this topic, as well as on the application of the unified method of substantiation to solving specific problems, the author made a number of reports at international conferences, forums and congresses. In particular, at the World Philosophical Forum under the auspices of UNESCO in 2010 in Athens, where the author was a member of the Program Committee [12] and at the 5th World Congress of Geoversal Civilization in Nairobi in 2018 [13]
As stated above, one of the cornerstones of a unified method of justification is the axiomatic construction of a theory. Such a construction provides a reliable “prediction of the results of future experiments based on past experiences”, reliable and unambiguous, we note, provided that the basic concepts of the theory are unambiguity, unambiguously binding them to experimental data and consistency of axioms. No other method of constructing a theory, for example the so-called genetic, provides reliability of the conclusions of the theory under any additional conditions. The science, which cannot guarantee the reliability of its conclusions, is no different from the predictions of Nostradamus and even fortune-tellers in the coffee grounds.
The second cornerstone of the unified method of substantiation is the author’s theory of concepts, developed on the basis of his theory of knowledge [1, 4]. The application of this theory ensures the unambiguity of the definitions of basic concepts and the uniqueness of their binding to experience. This is what the head of the sector of philosophy of natural science at the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences prof. E. A. Mamchur, in response to one of the articles of the author on the unified method of justification writes:
"A. M. Voin convincingly shows that if science really follows the unified method of substantiation, then "binding" of concepts to experience denied by Quine (Quine is one of the post positivists relativizing scientific knowledge, in particular denying binding scientific concepts to experience) necessarily exists, and there is no bad infinity in expressing some concepts through others, of which Quine speaks. A. M. Voin believes that supporters of cognitive relativism in the interpretation of scientific knowledge quite accurately recorded the real phenomenon that takes place in the process of changing paradigms of scientific thinking, namely, the phenomenon of changing the meaning of the same fundamental concepts of successively replacing each other fundamental scientific theories. But just this phenomenon from the point of view of the author of the article confirms that the method of substantiation reconstructed by him really works in science. It is this method that ensures the determination of basic concepts through the properties of the objects described by the theory.”
What does the unified method of substantiation give to a person who has mastered him, and to society as a whole? For society as a whole, it is important that the presentation of the unified method for substantiating scientific theories explicitly refutes the notorious pluralism, understood as a denial of the unity of truth. After all, if there is no single method of justification, then it is impossible to agree on a common truth for all, from which the lack of unity of truth follows. And the recognition of the unity of truth and, moreover, the unified method of its establishment, returns society to a rationalistic worldview, the meaning of which, from the point of view of the level of analytical thinking of the population, has been said above. Moreover, the author’s books eliminate the mistakes of classical rationalism, which led to his crisis, and refute the claims of the post-positivists and representatives of other philosophical trends relativizing scientific knowledge, which is also important for the revival of the rationalist worldview.
For society as a whole, it is also important that the unified method of substantiating scientific theories provides objective criteria that separate science from pseudoscience, hypotheses from a proven theory and allows you to set the boundaries applicability of the theory. In the light of what has been said above about the clogging up of pseudoscience in science and the unsuccessful struggle with it (connected, by the way, with the lack of objective criteria separating one from the other), there is no need to explain why this is important.
It is also important for those people who are trying to understand the truth and the scientific nature of ideas, theories, projects and government decisions that affect the state of society and hence their personal destiny. For example, mastering the method helps to sort out all sorts of economic and social projects that the mass media in any country are filled with today. And, at least, to try, if not understand these things is the duty of every citizen. Those who do not want to understand this, in fact, are not citizens, but the population.
Why the study of the unified method of substantiation helps to understand quickly any theories and projects? It is because the mastering of the method quickly finds the axiomatic basis (postulates and definition of basic concepts), which, though implicitly, must be in any worthwhile theory. If this basis does not satisfy the requirements of the method (axioms contradict each other or experience, the concepts are not uniquely defined or are not tied to experience), then it is no sense to waste time studying such a theory. If this basis is more or less satisfactory, then further understanding of the theory is not difficult, since in the system of axioms, as in the embryo sits the whole set of conclusions that it is potentially possible to get from it.
Based on this, the authors of the project are sure that sooner or later the study of the beginning of the unified method of substantiation and the JIPTO will be accepted in all schools and higher educational institutions. So far, those who wish can independently to study the unified method of substantiation for the mentioned books by A. M. Voin and practice the assessment of the degree of science of theories, ideas and projects which now full at academic journals in the humanities and social sciences and especially the Internet. This practice is a creative work that develops analytical thinking in the direction in which it is developing by a work of a theorist physicist. But in order to become a theorist physicist, creating his theories, it is not enough even to finish the physical and mathematical faculty of the university. Only a few who have graduated from such a faculty become real physicists and theorists.
And the basics of the unified method of substantiation can be taught even in high school. And this level will be enough to analyze on the subject of science many simple social and economic projects, walking in the media and the Internet. That will be useful both individually from the point of view of the development of analytical thinking and from a social point of view, allowing you to clear the information space from the mountains of pseudo-theoretical ideological garbage.
The results of such studies can be sent to the authors of the project at the addresses: g.tomski@gmail.com and alexvoin@yahoo.com. The best of these works will be published in the magazines of the CONCORD International Academy [11] and on the website of the International Institute of Philosophy and Problems of the Society www.philprob.narod.ru. On the basis of such studies, candidate and doctoral dissertations in the humanities and social sciences can be defended. Those who wish to master the unified method of substantiation and apply it to assess the degree of scientific nature of various
works, can receive by agreement advice and guidance from the author of the method. It is also possible to create courses of analytical thinking based on the JIPTO (jointly with G.V. Tomski) and the unified method of substantiation (jointly with A.M. Voin).
Such courses can be created at universities with the consent or at the initiative of the university management or at any other organizations interested in this, as well as on the basis of voluntary association of those who wish. Participants in such courses, in addition to learning the basics of the unified method of substantiation, will be trained to find an axiomatic structure in their proposed projects and theories, that means will be trained to find quickly basic positions, postulates, starting from which the authors of a project or theory draw their conclusions. Then check these postulates-axioms for consistency with each other and experience, the uniqueness of the definition of the concepts contained in them and the uniqueness of the binding of these concepts to experience. Having done such an analysis in relation to a popular philosophical or other theory, one can easily defend a dissertation and at the same time benefit society. This will be especially easy for physicists and mathematicians who wish to pursue a professional career in the humanities and social sciences. Today there is a certain trend of such a transition.

But since this is done without using of the unified method of substantiation then, as a rule, although the dissertations are defended successfully, science and society loses from such defenses, since incorrect and fuzzy initial premises are hidden behind mathematics. As a result a society receives science-like hack-work instead really science. And it must be borne in mind that, in addition to dishonesty, one cannot go far on such careless work. Sooner or later, this shop will be covered up and well even if without taking action against those who took advantage of it. And the use of the unified method of substantiation allows physics or mathematics to make a good thesis without much effort. For representatives of other professions, mastering the unified method of substantiation followed by writing a thesis will require some great efforts. But for each participant of the mentioned courses, a training program can be selected, corresponding to his initial level and abilities.

References
1. Voin A.M. Neoracionalizm – duhovniy racionalizm [New rationalism is spiritual rationalism]. - M.: Direct Media, 2014. - 259 p. (In Russian)
2. Voin A.M. Ot Moiseya do postmodernizma. Dvizenie idei [From Moses to postmodernism. Movement of ideas]. - Kiev: Phoenix, 1999. 120 p. (In Russian)
3. Voin A.M. Filosofiya i globalniy krizis: monografiya [Philosophy and the Global Crisis: monograph] - M. - Berlin: Direct Media, 2016. - 544 p. (In Russian) Bulletin de l'Académie Internationale CONCORDE, 2019, N 1
4. Voin A.M. Ediniy metod obosnovaniya nauchnih teoriy [Unified method of substantiation of scientific theories]. - M. - Berlin: Direct Media, 2017. - 268 p. (In Russian)
5. Voin A.M. Filosofiya i deystvitelnost [Philosophy and reality]. Chapters 1-3 // Bulletin d'EUROTALENT-FIDJIP, 2018, N 3, p. 56-111. (In Russian)
6. Voin A.M. Filosofiya i deystvitelnost [Philosophy and reality]. Chapters 4-7. // Bulletin d'EUROTALENT-FIDJIP, 2018, N 4, p. 3-60. (In Russian)
7. Tomski G. Mathematical talents: System for infallible and early detection, 2017 (Amazon Kindle). - 57 p.
8. Tomski G. Elementaty Geometry of Pursuit, 2017 (Amazon Kindle). - 208 p.
9. Tomski G. Mathematics of JIPTO and research topics, 2017 (Amazon Kindle). - 120 p.
10. Tomski G.V.. Sistema poiska iskuchitelnykh talantov [Search system of exceptional talents] // Bulletin de l'Académie Internationale CONCORDE, 2015, N 3, p. 86-110. (In Russian).
11. Tomsky G.V. Mezdunarodnaya Akademiya CONCORD [ CONCORD International Academy] // CONCORDE, 2018, N 4, p. 3-20. (In Russian)
12. Alexander Voin. [The formation of public morality]. http://wpfunesco.org/rus/offpap/top4/avoin2.htm (In Russian)
13. A. Voin. Absoluteness or relative of scientific knowledge //
https://www.academia.edu/37203447/My_speech_at_the_5th_World_Congress_of_Geoversal
_Civilization.doc