is a system of knowledge obtained as a result of practice, including the study and mastery of processes and phenomena occurring in nature, society and human thinking.
The structure of science consists of the following blocks:
- empirical;
- theoretical;
- philosophical and worldview;
- practical.
Empirical knowledge include information obtained through both ordinary knowledge and experience (through observation and experiment). Theoretical knowledge- this is a level of development of science that allows, on the basis of knowledge of fundamental laws, to bring disparate facts, phenomena, processes and initial conclusions into a certain system.
IN practical The science block includes tools, devices, technologies created and used by man to obtain new knowledge.
The methodology of science is a philosophical doctrine about ways of transforming reality, applying the principles of the scientific worldview to the process of scientific knowledge, creativity and practice.
Means and methods of scientific knowledge
The most important thing in understanding the essence and purpose of science is to clarify the factors that played a decisive role in its emergence. The entire history of human life testifies that to this day the main task of man remains struggle for existence. To be more specific, highlighting only the most essential, then this is the use by man of the natural environment in order to provide himself with the most necessary things: food, heat, housing, leisure; creating more advanced tools to achieve vital goals; and, finally, forecasting, foreseeing natural and social events and, if possible, in the event of consequences unfavorable for humanity, preventing them. In order to cope with the assigned tasks, it is necessary to know the cause-and-effect relationships, or laws, that operate in nature and society. It is out of this need—in combination with human activity—that science emerges. There was no science in primitive society. However, even then a person had certain knowledge that helped him hunt and fish, build and maintain his home. As facts accumulate and tools improve, primitive people begin to form the rudiments of knowledge that they used for practical purposes. For example, the change of seasons and associated climate changes forced primitive man to stock up on warm clothing and the necessary amount of food for the cold period.
In subsequent millennia, one might say, until the 20th century, the practical needs of man remained the main factor in the development of science, the true formation of which, as noted earlier, begins in modern times - with the discovery, first of all, of the laws operating in nature. The growth of scientific knowledge was especially rapid in the 16th-17th centuries; it was based on the increased demands of production, navigation, and trade. The progressive development of large-scale machine industry required an expansion of the sphere of knowledge and conscious use of the laws of nature. Thus, the creation of a steam engine, and then internal combustion engines, became possible as a result of the use of new knowledge in various fields - mechanics, electrical engineering, metal science, which meant a sharp turning point not only in the development of science, but also entailed a change in views on its role in society. One of the distinctive features of the New Age, when it comes to science, is associated with its transition from the pre-scientific to the scientific stage. Since this time, science has become a branch of human activity, with the help of which a person can not only obtain answers to theoretical questions, but also achieve significant success in their practical application. Nevertheless, science remains relatively independent in relation to practical needs.
This manifests itself mainly in the prognostic and problem-posing function. Science not only fulfills the orders of production and society, but also sets itself very specific tasks and goals, models current and possible situations both in nature and society. In this regard, various models of behavior or activity are developed. One of the most important internal sources of the development of science is the struggle of opposing ideas and directions. Scientific discussions and disputes, informed and reasonable criticism are the most important condition creative development science, which does not allow it to ossify in dogmatic schemes and stop there. Finally, one cannot help but say that the progress of science today is only possible if there is a system for training scientific personnel and an extensive complex of research institutes. Science and its practical application are very expensive. Gone are the days when scientific discoveries “lay” on the surface and, by and large, did not require large special expenses. The activities of higher educational and scientific institutions require a lot of funds. However, all this is justified, because The future of humanity and every person largely depends on the development of science, which is increasingly becoming a productive force.
One of the most important principles that cannot be eliminated from scientific activity is compliance with ethical standards. This is due to the special role that science plays in society. We are, of course, not talking about well-known maxims like: “thou shalt not steal,” “thou shalt not lie,” “thou shalt not kill,” etc. In principle, these ethical rules are universal and, according to their creators, people should always be guided by them in their relationships with each other. Consequently, these principles should apply to all spheres of human activity, including scientific ones. From the birth of science to the present day, every real scientist, like a kind of “sword of Damocles”, has been faced with the question of using the results of his activities. It seems that the famous Hippocratic “do no harm” should be fully applied not only to doctors, but also to scientists. The moral aspect in assessing human activity manifests itself already in Socrates, who believed that man by nature strives to do good deeds. If he commits evil, it is only because he does not always know how to distinguish good from evil. The desire to understand this, one of the “eternal” questions, is typical for many creative individuals. History also knows opposing views on science. So, J.-J. Rousseau, warning against excessive optimism associated with the rapid growth of scientific knowledge, believed that the development of science does not lead to an increase in morality in society. The French writer Francois Chateaubriand (1768-1848) expressed his attitude towards science even more sharply.
He stated quite definitely that the idea of destruction is a characteristic feature of science. Concerns about the use of scientific research results and the ethical position of scientists on this issue are not unfounded. Scientists, more than anyone, know the possibilities that science has for both creation and destruction. A particularly alarming situation with the use of scientific research achievements is developing in the 20th century. It is known, for example, that after the possibility of a nuclear reaction was theoretically substantiated, the world's greatest scientists, starting with A. Einstein (1879-1955), deeply realized the tragic consequences that the practical implementation of this discovery could lead to. But, even realizing the possibility of a disastrous outcome and, in principle, opposing it, they nevertheless blessed the US President to create atomic bomb. There is no need to remind you what a threat atomic-hydrogen weapons pose to humanity (we are not talking about its more modern modifications). Essentially, for the first time in history, science has created a weapon that can destroy not only humanity, but also its environment. Meanwhile, science in the second half of the 20th century. made such discoveries in the field of genetic engineering, biotechnology, and the functioning of the body at the cellular level that there was a threat of changing the human gene code, and the prospect of psychotropic effects on Homo sapiens. To put it in simpler terms, with the help of targeted influence on a person’s genes and nervous structures, one can turn him into a biorobot and force him to act in accordance with a given program. As some scientists note, with the help of science it is now possible to create conditions for the emergence of a form of life and a type of biorobot that have never existed before. This could put an end to the long evolutionary stage of life and lead to the extinction of present-day humans and the biosphere.
Some idea of what awaits a person if something like this happens is given by American “horror” films, in which unimaginable vampires and monsters “rule the roost.” The achievements of the human sciences and new discoveries made in this area raise with all urgency the question of freedom of scientific research and the conscious responsibility of scientists for their activities. This task is very, very complex, containing many unknowns. We will point out just a few of them. First of all, not always, due to various reasons, one can fully appreciate the creative results and destructive effects of the discoveries made. Meanwhile, information about the possibility of their harmful consequences becomes the property of many specialists and it becomes impossible to silence or hide them. Secondly, this is the prestige of a scientist. It happens that a researcher has been studying a particular problem for years, or even decades. And so, he receives a significant result, which can immediately put him among the famous scientists, but precisely for moral reasons he must “keep silent”, hide his discovery, including from his colleagues, in order to prevent the spread of the information received. In this case, the scientist finds himself in difficult situation requiring a moral choice. It is aggravated by the possibility that someone else may come to similar scientific results much later, publish them, and thereby declare their scientific priority.
Finally, character cannot be discounted public relations, in which a scientist has to live and work. It is known that in the competition between states or social formations, which in the process of human history sought to subjugate other peoples and even to world domination, to observe moral standards extremely difficult. And yet, despite the complexity of this problem, the extraordinary dynamics of ethical standards and requirements, the priority areas in this regard remain the formation of scientists high feeling personal responsibility, the social need to regulate topics and, accordingly, the depth of development of scientific problems. This approach does not imply any discrimination or restriction of the freedom of creativity of scientists. Society and every scientist are simply offered new rules governing acceptable scientific issues, and an orientation towards the study of scientific problems that would not pose a threat to the existence of mankind.
Scientific knowledge – highest level logical thinking. It is aimed at studying the deep aspects of the essence of the world and man, the laws of reality. Expression scientific knowledge is scientific discovery– discovery of previously unknown essential properties, phenomena, laws or patterns.
Scientific knowledge has 2 levels: empirical and theoretical .
1) Empirical level is related to the subject of scientific research and includes 2 components: sensory experience (sensations, perceptions, ideas) and their primary theoretical understanding , primary conceptual processing.
Empirical cognition uses 2 main forms of research - observation and experiment . The main unit of empirical knowledge is knowledge of scientific fact . Observation and experiment are 2 sources of this knowledge.
Observation- this is a purposeful and organized sensory cognition of reality ( passive gathering facts). It may be free, produced only with the help of human senses, and instrumentation, carried out using instruments.
Experiment– study of objects through their purposeful change ( active intervention in objective processes in order to study the behavior of an object as a result of its change).
The source of scientific knowledge is facts. Fact- this is recorded by our consciousness real event or phenomenon.
2) Theoretical level consists in further processing of empirical material, derivation of new concepts, ideas, concepts.
Scientific knowledge has 3 main forms: problem, hypothesis, theory .
1) Problem- scientific question. A question is an interrogative judgment and arises only at the level of logical cognition. The problem differs from ordinary questions in its subject– it is the question of complex properties, phenomena, laws of reality, for the knowledge of which special scientific means of cognition are needed - scientific system concepts, research methodology, technical equipment, etc.
The problem has its own structure: preliminary, partial knowledge about the subject And defined by science ignorance , expressing the main direction of cognitive activity. The problem is the contradictory unity of knowledge and knowledge of ignorance.
2) Hypothesis- a hypothetical solution to the problem. Not a single scientific problem can receive an immediate solution; it requires a long search for such a solution, putting forward hypotheses as various solution options. One of the most important properties of a hypothesis is its plurality : each problem of science gives rise to a number of hypotheses, from which the most probable ones are selected until the final choice of one of them or their synthesis is made.
3) Theory– the highest form of scientific knowledge and a system of concepts that describes and explains a separate area of reality. The theory includes its theoretical grounds(principles, postulates, basic ideas), logic, structure, methods and methodology, empirical basis. The important parts of the theory are its descriptive and explanatory parts. Description– characteristic of the corresponding area of reality. Explanation answers the question why is reality the way it is?
Scientific knowledge has research methods– ways of knowing, approaches to reality: most general method developed by philosophy, general scientific methods, specific specific methods Dept.Sc.
1) Human knowledge must take into account the universal properties, forms, laws of reality, the world and man, i.e. must be based on universal method of knowledge. In modern science this is a dialectical-materialistic method.
2) Towards general scientific methods relate: generalization and abstraction, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction .
Generalization– the process of separating the general from the individual. Logical generalization is based on what is obtained at the representation level and further identifies more and more significant features.
Abstraction– the process of abstracting essential features of things and phenomena from non-essential ones. All human concepts therefore act as abstractions that reflect the essential characteristics of things.
Analysis- mental division of a whole into parts.
Synthesis- mental combination of parts into a single whole. Analysis and synthesis are opposite thought processes. However, analysis is the leading one, since it is aimed at detecting differences and contradictions.
Induction– the movement of thought from the individual to the general.
Deduction– movement of thought from the general to the individual.
3) Each science also has with their own specific methods, which follow from its basic theoretical settings.
Stages of the cognition process. Forms of sensory and rational knowledge.
The concept of method and methodology. Classification of methods of scientific knowledge.
The universal (dialectical) method of cognition, the principles of the dialectical method and their application in scientific knowledge.
General scientific methods of empirical knowledge.
General scientific methods of theoretical knowledge.
General scientific methods used at the empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge.
Modern science is developing at a very fast pace; currently, the volume of scientific knowledge doubles every 10-15 years. About 90% of all scientists who have ever lived on Earth are our contemporaries. In just 300 years, namely the age of modern science, humanity has made such a huge leap that our ancestors could not even dream of (about 90% of all scientific and technical achievements have been made in our time). The entire world around us shows how much progress humanity has made. It was science that was the main reason for such a rapidly progressing scientific and technological revolution, the transition to a post-industrial society, the widespread introduction of information technology, the emergence of a “new economy” for which the laws of classical economic theory do not apply, the beginning of the transfer of human knowledge into electronic form, so convenient for storage, systematization, search and processing, and many others.
All this convincingly proves that the main form of human knowledge - science today is becoming more and more significant and essential part of reality.
However, science would not be so productive if it did not have such a developed system of methods, principles and imperatives of knowledge. It is the correctly chosen method, along with the scientist’s talent, that helps him to understand the deep connection of phenomena, reveal their essence, discover laws and regularities. The number of methods that science is developing to understand reality is constantly increasing. Their exact number is perhaps difficult to determine. After all, there are about 15,000 sciences in the world and each of them has its own specific methods and subject of research.
At the same time, all these methods are in a dialectical connection with general scientific methods, which they, as a rule, contain in various combinations and with the universal, dialectical method. This circumstance is one of the reasons that determine the importance of any scientist having philosophical knowledge. After all, it is philosophy as a science “about the most general laws of existence and development of the world” that studies trends and ways of development of scientific knowledge, its structure and research methods, considering them through the prism of its categories, laws and principles. In addition to everything, philosophy endows the scientist with that universal method, without which it is impossible to do in any field of scientific knowledge.
Cognition is specific type human activity aimed at understanding the world around us and oneself in this world. “Knowledge is, determined primarily by socio-historical practice, the process of acquiring and developing knowledge, its constant deepening, expansion, and improvement.”
A person comprehends the world around him, masters it in various ways, among which two main ones can be distinguished. First (genetically original) - logistical - production of means of living, labor, practice. Second - spiritual (ideal), within which the cognitive relationship of subject and object is only one of many others. In turn, the process of cognition and the knowledge obtained in it during historical development practice and knowledge itself is increasingly differentiated and embodied in its various forms.
Each form of social consciousness: science, philosophy, mythology, politics, religion, etc. correspond to specific forms of cognition. Usually the following are distinguished: ordinary, playful, mythological, artistic and figurative, philosophical, religious, personal, scientific. The latter, although related, are not identical to one another; each of them has its own specifics.
We will not dwell on the consideration of each of the forms of knowledge. The subject of our research is scientific knowledge. In this regard, it is advisable to consider the features of only the latter.
The main features of scientific knowledge are:
1. The main task of scientific knowledge is the discovery of objective laws of reality - natural, social (public), laws of cognition itself, thinking, etc. Hence the orientation of research mainly on the general, essential properties of an object, its necessary characteristics and their expression in a system of abstractions. “The essence of scientific knowledge lies in the reliable generalization of facts, in the fact that behind the random it finds the necessary, natural, behind the individual - the general, and on this basis carries out the prediction of various phenomena and events.” Scientific knowledge strives to reveal the necessary, objective connections that are recorded as objective laws. If this is not the case, then there is no science, because the very concept of scientificity presupposes the discovery of laws, a deepening into the essence of the phenomena being studied.
2. The immediate goal and highest value of scientific knowledge is objective truth, comprehended primarily by rational means and methods, but, of course, not without the participation of living contemplation. Hence, a characteristic feature of scientific knowledge is objectivity, the elimination, if possible, of subjectivist aspects in many cases in order to realize the “purity” of consideration of one’s subject. Einstein also wrote: “What we call science has its exclusive task of firmly establishing what exists.” Its task is to give a true reflection of processes, an objective picture of what exists. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the activity of the subject is the most important condition and prerequisite for scientific knowledge. The latter is impossible without a constructive-critical attitude to reality, excluding inertia, dogmatism, and apologetics.
3. Science, to a greater extent than other forms of knowledge, is focused on being embodied in practice, being a “guide to action” for changing the surrounding reality and managing real processes. The vital meaning of scientific research can be expressed by the formula: “To know in order to foresee, to foresee in order to practically act” - not only in the present, but also in the future. All progress in scientific knowledge is associated with an increase in the power and range of scientific foresight. It is foresight that makes it possible to control and manage processes. Scientific knowledge opens up the possibility of not only predicting the future, but also consciously shaping it. “The orientation of science towards the study of objects that can be included in activity (either actually or potentially, as possible objects of its future development), and their study as subject to objective laws of functioning and development is one of the most important features of scientific knowledge. This feature distinguishes it from other forms of human cognitive activity.”
An essential feature of modern science is that it has become such a force that predetermines practice. From the daughter of production, science turns into its mother. Many modern production processes born in scientific laboratories. Thus, modern science not only serves the needs of production, but also increasingly acts as a prerequisite for the technical revolution. Great discoveries over the past decades in leading fields of knowledge have led to a scientific and technological revolution that has embraced all elements of the production process: comprehensive automation and mechanization, the development of new types of energy, raw materials and materials, penetration into the microworld and into space. As a result, the prerequisites were created for the gigantic development of the productive forces of society.
4. Scientific knowledge in epistemological terms is a complex contradictory process of reproduction of knowledge that forms an integral developing system of concepts, theories, hypotheses, laws and other ideal forms, enshrined in language - natural or - more characteristically - artificial (mathematical symbolism, chemical formulas, etc.) .P.). Scientific knowledge does not simply record its elements, but continuously reproduces them on its own basis, forms them in accordance with its norms and principles. In the development of scientific knowledge, revolutionary periods alternate, the so-called scientific revolutions, which lead to a change in theories and principles, and evolutionary, quiet periods, during which knowledge deepens and becomes more detailed. The process of continuous self-renewal by science of its conceptual arsenal is an important indicator of scientific character.
5. In the process of scientific knowledge, such specific material means as instruments, instruments, and other so-called “scientific equipment” are used, often very complex and expensive (synchrophasotrons, radio telescopes, rocket and space technology, etc.). In addition, science, to a greater extent than other forms of knowledge, is characterized by the use of ideal (spiritual) means and methods such as modern logic, mathematical methods, dialectics, systemic, hypothetico-deductive and other general scientific techniques to study its objects and itself. and methods (see below for details).
6. Scientific knowledge is characterized by strict evidence, validity of the results obtained, and reliability of the conclusions. At the same time, there are many hypotheses, conjectures, assumptions, probabilistic judgments, etc. That is why the logical and methodological training of researchers, their philosophical culture, constant improvement of their thinking, and the ability to correctly apply its laws and principles are of utmost importance.
In modern methodology, various levels of scientific criteria are distinguished, including, in addition to those mentioned, such as the internal systematicity of knowledge, its formal consistency, experimental verifiability, reproducibility, openness to criticism, freedom from bias, rigor, etc. In other forms of knowledge considered criteria may exist (to varying degrees), but they are not decisive there.
The process of cognition includes the receipt of information through the senses (sensory cognition), the processing of this information by thinking (rational cognition) and the material development of cognizable fragments of reality (social practice). There is a close connection between cognition and practice, during which the materialization (objectification) of people’s creative aspirations occurs, the transformation of their subjective plans, ideas, goals into objectively existing objects and processes.
Sensory and rational cognition are closely related and are the two main aspects cognitive process. Moreover, these aspects of cognition do not exist in isolation either from practice or from each other. The activity of the senses is always controlled by the mind; the mind functions on the basis of the initial information supplied to it by the senses. Since sensory cognition precedes rational cognition, we can, in a certain sense, talk about them as steps, stages in the process of cognition. Each of these two stages of cognition has its own specifics and exists in its own forms.
Sensory cognition is realized in the form of direct receipt of information using the senses, which directly connect us with the outside world. Let us note that such cognition can also be carried out using special technical means (devices) that expand the capabilities of the human senses. The main forms of sensory cognition are: sensation, perception and representation.
Sensations arise in the human brain as a result of the influence of environmental factors on his senses. Each sense organ is complex nervous mechanism, consisting of perceptive receptors, transmitting nerve conductors and the corresponding part of the brain that controls peripheral receptors. For example, the organ of vision is not only the eye, but also the nerves leading from it to the brain and the corresponding section in the central nervous system.
Sensations are mental processes that occur in the brain when the nerve centers that control the receptors are excited. “Sensations are a reflection of individual properties, qualities of objects of the objective world, directly affecting the senses, an elementary, further psychologically indecomposable cognitive phenomenon.” Sensations are specialized. Visual sensations give us information about the shape of objects, their color, and the brightness of light rays. Auditory sensations inform a person about various sound vibrations in the environment. The sense of touch allows us to feel the temperature of the environment, the impact of various material factors on the body, their pressure on it, etc. Finally, the sense of smell and taste provide information about chemical impurities in the environment and the composition of the food we eat.
“The first premise of the theory of knowledge,” wrote V.I. Lenin, “is undoubtedly that the only source of our knowledge is sensations.” Sensation can be considered as the simplest and initial element of sensory cognition and human consciousness in general.
Biological and psycho-physiological disciplines, studying sensation as a unique reaction of the human body, establish various dependencies: for example, the dependence of the reaction, that is, sensation, on the intensity of stimulation of a particular sensory organ. In particular, it has been established that from the point of view of “information ability”, vision and touch come first in a person, and then hearing, taste, and smell.
The capabilities of human senses are limited. They are capable of displaying the surrounding world within certain (and rather limited) ranges of physical and chemical influences. Thus, the organ of vision can display a relatively small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum with wavelengths from 400 to 740 millimicrons. Beyond the boundaries of this interval there are ultraviolet and x-rays in one direction, and infrared radiation and radio waves in the other. Our eyes do not perceive either one or the other. Human hearing allows us to sense sound waves from several tens of hertz to about 20 kilohertz. Our ear is unable to sense vibrations of a higher frequency (ultrasound) or a lower frequency (infrasonic). The same can be said about other senses.
From the facts indicating the limitations of human senses, doubt was born about his ability to understand the world around him. Doubts about a person’s ability to understand the world through their senses turn out in an unexpected way, because these doubts themselves turn out to be evidence in favor of the powerful capabilities of human cognition, including the capabilities of the senses, enhanced, if necessary, by appropriate technical means (microscope, binoculars, telescope, night vision device). visions, etc.).
But most importantly, a person can perceive objects and phenomena that are inaccessible to his senses, thanks to the ability to practically interact with the world around him. A person is able to comprehend and understand the objective connection that exists between phenomena accessible to the senses and phenomena inaccessible to them (between electromagnetic waves and audible sound in a radio receiver, between the movements of electrons and the visible traces that they leave in a cloud chamber, etc. .d.). Understanding this objective connection is the basis for the transition (carried out in our consciousness) from the sensed to the intangible.
In scientific knowledge, when detecting changes that occur without visible reasons in sensually perceived phenomena, the researcher guesses about the existence of non-perceptible phenomena. However, in order to prove their existence, reveal the laws of their action and use these laws, it is necessary that his (the researcher’s) activity turns out to be one of the links and the cause of the chain connecting the observable and the unobservable. Managing this link at your own discretion and calling based on knowledge of the laws unobservable phenomena n observed effects, the researcher thereby proves the truth of knowledge of these laws. For example, the transformation of sounds into electromagnetic waves, and then reverse their transformation into sound vibrations in a radio receiver proves not only the existence of areas of electromagnetic oscillations that are not perceived by our senses, but also the truth of the doctrine of electromagnetism created by Faraday, Maxwell, and Hertz.
Therefore, the senses a person has are quite sufficient to understand the world. “A person has just as many feelings,” wrote L. Feuerbach, “as exactly necessary to perceive the world in its integrity, in its totality.” A person’s lack of any additional sense organ capable of reacting to some environmental factors is fully compensated by his intellectual and practical capabilities. Thus, a person does not have a special sense organ that makes it possible to sense radiation. However, a person turned out to be able to compensate for the absence of such an organ with a special device (dosimeter), warning of radiation danger in visual or audio form. This suggests that the level of knowledge of the surrounding world is determined not simply by the set, “assortment” of sense organs and their biological perfection, but also by the degree of development of social practice.
At the same time, however, we should not forget that sensations have always been and will always be the only source of human knowledge about the world around us. The senses are the only “gates” through which information about the world around us can penetrate into our consciousness. A lack of sensations from the outside world can even lead to mental illness.
The first form of sensory cognition (sensations) is characterized by an analysis of the environment: the senses seem to select quite specific ones from a countless number of environmental factors. But sensory cognition includes not only analysis, but also synthesis, which is carried out in the subsequent form of sensory cognition - in perception.
Perception is a holistic sensory image of an object, formed by the brain from sensations directly received from this object. Perception is based on combinations of different types of sensations. But this is not just their mechanical sum. The sensations that are obtained from various sense organs merge into a single whole in perception, forming a sensory image of an object. So, if we hold an apple in our hand, then visually we receive information about its shape and color, through touch we learn about its weight and temperature, our sense of smell conveys its smell; and if we taste it, we will know whether it is sour or sweet. The purposefulness of cognition is already manifested in perception. We can concentrate our attention on some aspect of an object and it will be “prominent” in perception.
A person’s perceptions developed in the process of his social and labor activities. The latter leads to the creation of more and more new things, thereby increasing the number of perceived objects and improving the perceptions themselves. Therefore, human perceptions are more developed and perfect than the perceptions of animals. As F. Engels noted, an eagle sees much further than a man, but human eye notices much more in things than the eye of an eagle.
Based on sensations and perceptions in the human brain, representation. If sensations and perceptions exist only through direct contact of a person with an object (without this there is neither sensation nor perception), then the idea arises without the direct impact of the object on the senses. Some time after an object has affected us, we can recall its image in our memory (for example, remembering an apple that we held in our hand some time ago and then ate). Moreover, the image of the object recreated by our imagination differs from the image that existed in perception. Firstly, it is poorer, paler, in comparison with the multicolored image that we had when directly perceiving the object. And secondly, this image will necessarily be more general, because in the idea, with even greater force than in perception, the purposefulness of cognition is manifested. In an image recalled from memory, the main thing that interests us will be in the foreground.
At the same time, imagination and fantasy are essential in scientific knowledge. Here performances can acquire a truly creative character. Based on the elements that actually exist, the researcher imagines something new, something that does not currently exist, but which will be either as a result of the development of some natural processes, or as a result of the progress of practice. All kinds of technical innovations, for example, initially exist only in the ideas of their creators (scientists, designers). And only after their implementation in the form of some technical devices, structures, they become objects of people’s sensory perception.
Representation is a big step forward compared to perception, for it contains such a new feature as generalization. The latter already occurs in ideas about specific, individual objects. But to an even greater extent this is manifested in general ideas (i.e., for example, in the idea not only of this particular birch tree growing in front of our house, but also of birch in general). In general ideas, moments of generalization become much more significant than in any idea about a specific, individual object.
Representation still belongs to the first (sensory) stage of cognition, for it has a sensory-visual character. At the same time, it is also a kind of “bridge” leading from sensory to rational knowledge.
In conclusion, we note that the role of the sensory reflection of reality in ensuring all human knowledge is very significant:
The sense organs are the only channel that directly connects a person with the external objective world;
Without sense organs, a person is incapable of either cognition or thinking;
The loss of some sense organs complicates and complicates cognition, but does not block its capabilities (this is explained by the mutual compensation of some sense organs by others, the mobilization of reserves in the existing sense organs, the individual’s ability to concentrate his attention, his will, etc.);
The rational is based on the analysis of the material that the senses give us;
Regulation of objective activity is carried out primarily with the help of information received by the senses;
The sense organs provide that minimum of primary information that turns out to be necessary to comprehensively cognize objects in order to develop scientific knowledge.
Rational knowledge (from lat. ratio - reason) is human thinking, which is a means of penetration into the inner essence of things, a means of knowing the laws that determine their existence. The fact is that the essence of things, their natural connections are inaccessible to sensory knowledge. They are comprehended only with the help of human mental activity.
It is “thinking that organizes the data of sensory perception, but is by no means reduced to this, but gives birth to something new - something that is not given in sensibility. This transition is a leap, a break in gradualism. It has its objective basis in the “split” of an object into internal and external, essence and its manifestation, into separate and general. The external aspects of things and phenomena are reflected primarily with the help of living contemplation, and the essence, the commonality in them is comprehended with the help of thinking. In this process of transition, what is called understanding. To understand means to identify what is essential in a subject. We can also understand what we are not able to perceive... Thinking correlates the readings of the senses with all the already existing knowledge of the individual, moreover, with all the total experience and knowledge of humanity to the extent that they have become the property of a given subject.”
The forms of rational cognition (human thinking) are: concept, judgment and inference. These are the broadest and most general forms of thinking that underlie the entire incalculable wealth of knowledge that humanity has accumulated.
The original form of rational knowledge is concept. “Concepts are products of the socio-historical process of cognition embodied in words, which highlight and record common essential properties; relationships between objects and phenomena, and thanks to this, they simultaneously summarize the most important properties about methods of action with given groups of objects and phenomena.” The concept in its logical content reproduces the dialectical pattern of cognition, the dialectical connection between the individual, the particular and the universal. Concepts can record essential and non-essential features of objects, necessary and accidental, qualitative and quantitative, etc. The emergence of concepts is the most important pattern in the formation and development of human thinking. The objective possibility of the emergence and existence of concepts in our thinking lies in the objective nature of the world around us, that is, the presence in it of many individual objects that have qualitative certainty. Concept formation is a complex dialectical process, including: comparison(mental comparison of one object with another, identifying signs of similarity and difference between them), generalization(mental association of homogeneous objects based on certain common characteristics), abstraction(singling out some features in the subject, the most significant, and abstracting from others, secondary, insignificant). All these logical techniques are closely interconnected in a single process of concept formation.
Concepts express not only objects, but also their properties and relationships between them. Concepts such as hard and soft, big and small, cold and hot, etc. express certain properties of bodies. Concepts such as motion and rest, speed and force, etc. express the interaction of objects and humans with other bodies and processes of nature.
The emergence of new concepts occurs especially intensively in the field of science in connection with the rapid deepening and development of scientific knowledge. The discovery of new aspects, properties, connections, and relationships in objects immediately entails the emergence of new scientific concepts. Each science has its own concepts that form a more or less coherent system called its conceptual apparatus. The conceptual apparatus of physics, for example, includes such concepts as “energy,” “mass,” “charge,” etc. The conceptual apparatus of chemistry includes the concepts “element,” “reaction,” “valence,” etc.
According to the degree of generality, concepts can be different - less general, more general, extremely general. The concepts themselves are subject to generalization. In scientific knowledge, specific scientific, general scientific and universal concepts function (philosophical categories such as quality, quantity, matter, being, etc.).
In modern science, they play an increasingly important role general scientific concepts, which arise at points of contact (so to speak “at the junction”) of various sciences. This often arises when solving some complex or global problems. The interaction of sciences in solving this kind of scientific problems is significantly accelerated precisely through the use of general scientific concepts. A major role in the formation of such concepts is played by the interaction of natural, technical and social sciences, characteristic of our time, which form the main spheres of scientific knowledge.
A more complex form of thinking compared to the concept is judgment. It includes a concept, but is not reduced to it, but represents a qualitatively special form of thinking that fulfills its special functions in thinking. This is explained by the fact that “the universal, the particular and the individual are not directly dissected in the concept and are given as a whole. Their division and correlation is given in the judgment.”
The objective basis of judgment is the connections and relationships between objects. The need for judgments (as well as concepts) is rooted in the practical activities of people. Interacting with nature in the process of work, a person strives not only to distinguish certain objects from others, but also to comprehend their relationships in order to successfully influence them.
Connections and relationships between objects of thought are of the most diverse nature. They can be between two separate objects, between an object and a group of objects, between groups of objects, etc. The variety of such real connections and relationships is reflected in the variety of judgments.
“Judgment is that form of thinking through which the presence or absence of any connections and relationships between objects is revealed (i.e., the presence or absence of something in something is indicated).” Being a relatively complete thought that reflects things, phenomena of the objective world with their properties and relationships, a judgment has a certain structure. In this structure, the concept of the subject of thought is called the subject and is denoted by the Latin letter S ( Subjectum - underlying). The concept of the properties and relationships of the subject of thought is called a predicate and is denoted by the Latin letter P (Predicatum- what was said). The subject and predicate together are called terms of judgment. Moreover, the role of terms in judgment is far from the same. The subject contains already known knowledge, and the predicate carries new knowledge about it. For example, science has established that iron has electrical conductivity. The presence of this connection between iron And its separate property makes it possible to judge: “iron (S) is electrically conductive (P).”
The subject-predicate form of a judgment is associated with its main cognitive function - to reflect real reality in its rich variety of properties and relationships. This reflection can be carried out in the form of individual, particular and general judgments.
A singular judgment is a judgment in which something is affirmed or denied about a separate subject. Judgments of this kind in Russian are expressed by the words “this”, proper names, etc.
Particular judgments are those judgments in which something is affirmed or denied about some part of some group (class) of objects. In Russian, such judgments begin with words such as “some”, “part”, “not all”, etc.
General are judgments in which something is affirmed or denied about the entire group (the entire class) of objects. Moreover, what is affirmed or denied in a general judgment concerns each object of the class under consideration. In Russian, this is expressed by the words “all”, “everyone”, “everyone”, “any” (in affirmative judgments) or “none”, “nobody”, “no one”, etc. (in negative judgments).
General judgments express the general properties of objects, general connections and relationships between them, including objective patterns. It is in the form of general judgments that essentially all scientific positions are formed. The special significance of general judgments in scientific knowledge is determined by the fact that they serve as a mental form in which only the objective laws of the surrounding world, discovered by science, can be expressed. However, this does not mean that only general judgments have cognitive value in science. The laws of science arise as a result of the generalization of many individual and particular phenomena, which are expressed in the form of individual and particular judgments. Even single judgments about individual objects or phenomena (some facts that arose in an experiment, historical events, etc.) can have important cognitive significance.
Being a form of existence and expression of a concept, a separate judgment, however, cannot fully express its content. Only a system of judgments and inferences can serve as such a form. In conclusion, the ability of thinking to indirectly rationally reflect reality is most clearly manifested. The transition to new knowledge is carried out here not by referring to a given sensory experience to the object of knowledge, but on the basis of already existing knowledge.
Inference contains judgments, and therefore concepts), but is not reduced to them, but also presupposes their certain connection. To understand the origin and essence of inference, it is necessary to compare two types of knowledge that a person has and uses in the process of his life. This is direct and indirect knowledge.
Direct knowledge is that which is obtained by a person using the senses: sight, hearing, smell, etc. Such sensory information constitutes a significant part of all human knowledge.
However, not everything in the world can be judged directly. In science they are of great importance mediated knowledge. This is knowledge that is obtained not directly, not directly, but by derivation from other knowledge. The logical form of their acquisition is inference. Inference is understood as a form of thinking through which new knowledge is derived from known knowledge.
Like judgments, inference has its own structure. In the structure of any conclusion, there are: premises (initial judgments), a conclusion (or conclusion) and a certain connection between them. Parcels - this is the initial (and at the same time already known) knowledge that serves as the basis for inference. Conclusion - this is a derivative, moreover new knowledge obtained from premises and serving as their consequence. Finally, connection between the premises and the conclusion there is a necessary relation between them that makes possible the transition from one to the other. In other words, this is a relation of logical consequence. Any conclusion is a logical consequence of one piece of knowledge from another. Depending on the nature of this consequence, the following two fundamental types of inferences are distinguished: inductive and deductive.
Inference is widely used in everyday and scientific knowledge. In science they are used as a way to understand the past, which can no longer be directly observed. It is on the basis of inferences that knowledge is formed about the emergence of the Solar system and the formation of the Earth, about the origin of life on our planet, about the emergence and stages of development of society, etc. But inferences in science are used not only to understand the past. They are also important for understanding the future, which cannot yet be observed. And this requires knowledge about the past, about development trends that are currently in effect and paving the way to the future.
Together with concepts and judgments, inferences overcome the limitations of sensory knowledge. They turn out to be indispensable where the senses are powerless in comprehending the causes and conditions of the emergence of any object or phenomenon, in understanding its essence, forms of existence, patterns of its development, etc.
Concept method (from the Greek word “methodos” - the path to something) means a set of techniques and operations for the practical and theoretical development of reality.
The method equips a person with a system of principles, requirements, rules, guided by which he can achieve the intended goal. Mastery of a method means for a person knowledge of how, in what sequence to perform certain actions to solve certain problems, and the ability to apply this knowledge in practice.
“Thus, the method (in one form or another) comes down to a set of certain rules, techniques, methods, norms of cognition and action. It is a system of instructions, principles, requirements that guide the subject in solving a specific problem, achieving a certain result in a given field of activity. It disciplines the search for truth, allows (if correct) to save energy and time, and move towards the goal in the shortest way. The main function of the method is the regulation of cognitive and other forms of activity.”
The doctrine of method began to develop in modern science. Its representatives considered the correct method to be a guide in the movement towards reliable, true knowledge. Thus, a prominent philosopher of the 17th century. F. Bacon compared the method of cognition to a lantern illuminating the way for a traveler walking in the dark. And another famous scientist and philosopher of the same period, R. Descartes, outlined his understanding of the method as follows: “By method,” he wrote, “I mean precise and simple rules, strict adherence to which... without unnecessary waste of mental strength, but gradually and continuously increasing knowledge, the mind achieves true knowledge of everything that is available to it.”
There is a whole field of knowledge that specifically deals with the study of methods and which is usually called methodology. Methodology literally means “the study of methods” (for this term comes from two Greek words: “methodos” - method and “logos” - doctrine). By studying the patterns of human cognitive activity, the methodology develops on this basis methods for its implementation. The most important task of the methodology is to study the origin, essence, effectiveness and other characteristics of methods of cognition.
Methods of scientific knowledge are usually divided according to the degree of their generality, that is, according to the breadth of applicability in the process of scientific research.
There are two known universal methods in the history of knowledge: dialetic and metaphysical. These are general philosophical methods. From the middle of the 19th century, the metaphysical method began to be more and more displaced from natural science by the dialectical method.
The second group of methods of cognition consists of general scientific methods, which are used in a wide variety of fields of science, that is, they have a very wide, interdisciplinary range of application.
The classification of general scientific methods is closely related to the concept of levels of scientific knowledge.
There are two levels of scientific knowledge: empirical and theoretical..“This difference is based on the dissimilarity, firstly, of the methods (methods) of the cognitive activity itself, and secondly, of the nature of the scientific results achieved.” Some general scientific methods are used only at the empirical level (observation, experiment, measurement), others - only at the theoretical level (idealization, formalization), and some (for example, modeling) - at both the empirical and theoretical levels.
The empirical level of scientific knowledge is characterized by the direct study of really existing, sensory objects. The special role of empirics in science lies in the fact that only at this level of research we deal with the direct interaction of a person with the natural or social objects being studied. Living contemplation (sensory cognition) predominates here; the rational element and its forms (judgments, concepts, etc.) are present here, but have a subordinate significance. Therefore, the object under study is reflected primarily from its external connections and manifestations, accessible to living contemplation and expressing internal relationships. At this level, the process of accumulating information about the objects and phenomena under study is carried out by conducting observations, performing various measurements, and delivering experiments. Here, the primary systematization of the obtained factual data is also carried out in the form of tables, diagrams, graphs, etc. In addition, already at the second level of scientific knowledge - as a consequence of the generalization of scientific facts - it is possible to formulate some empirical patterns.
The theoretical level of scientific knowledge is characterized by the predominance of the rational element - concepts, theories, laws and other forms and “mental operations”. The lack of direct practical interaction with objects determines the peculiarity that an object at a given level of scientific knowledge can only be studied indirectly, in a thought experiment, but not in a real one. However, living contemplation is not eliminated here, but becomes a subordinate (but very important) aspect of the cognitive process.
At this level, the most profound essential aspects, connections, patterns inherent in the objects and phenomena being studied are revealed by processing the data of empirical knowledge. This processing is carried out using systems of “higher order” abstractions - such as concepts, inferences, laws, categories, principles, etc. However, “at the theoretical level we will not find a fixation or abbreviated summary of empirical data; theoretical thinking cannot be reduced to the summation of empirically given material. It turns out that theory does not grow out of empirics, but as if next to it, or rather, above it and in connection with it.”
The theoretical level is a higher level in scientific knowledge. “The theoretical level of knowledge is aimed at the formation of theoretical laws that meet the requirements of universality and necessity, i.e. operate everywhere and always.” The results of theoretical knowledge are hypotheses, theories, laws.
While distinguishing these two different levels in scientific research, one should not, however, separate them from each other and oppose them. After all, the empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge are interconnected. The empirical level acts as the basis, the foundation of the theoretical. Hypotheses and theories are formed in the process of theoretical understanding of scientific facts and statistical data obtained at the empirical level. In addition, theoretical thinking inevitably relies on sensory-visual images (including diagrams, graphs, etc.), with which the empirical level of research deals.
In turn, the empirical level of scientific knowledge cannot exist without achievements at the theoretical level. Empirical research is usually based on a certain theoretical construct, which determines the direction of this research, determines and justifies the methods used.
According to K. Popper, the belief that we can begin scientific research with “pure observations” without having “something resembling a theory” is absurd. Therefore, some conceptual perspective is absolutely necessary. Naive attempts to do without it can, in his opinion, only lead to self-deception and the uncritical use of some unconscious point of view.
The empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge are interconnected, the boundary between them is conditional and fluid. Empirical research, revealing new data through observations and experiments, stimulates theoretical knowledge (which generalizes and explains them), and poses new, more complex tasks. On the other hand, theoretical knowledge, developing and concretizing its own new content on the basis of empirics, opens up new, broader horizons for empirical knowledge, orients and directs it in the search for new facts, contributes to the improvement of its methods and means, etc.
The third group of methods of scientific knowledge includes methods used only within the framework of research into a specific science or a specific phenomenon. Such methods are called private scientific Each special science (biology, chemistry, geology, etc.) has its own specific research methods.
At the same time, private scientific methods, as a rule, contain certain general scientific methods of cognition in various combinations. Particular scientific methods may include observations, measurements, inductive or deductive inferences, etc. The nature of their combination and use depends on the research conditions and the nature of the objects being studied. Thus, specific scientific methods are not divorced from general scientific ones. They are closely related to them and include the specific application of general scientific cognitive techniques for studying a specific area of the objective world. At the same time, particular scientific methods are also connected with the universal, dialectical method, which seems to be refracted through them.
Another group of methods of scientific knowledge consists of the so-called disciplinary methods, which are systems of techniques used in a particular discipline that is part of some branch of science or that arose at the intersection of sciences. Each fundamental science is a complex of disciplines that have their own specific subject and their own unique research methods.
The last, fifth group includes interdisciplinary research methods being a set of a number of synthetic, integrative methods (arising as a result of a combination of elements of various levels of methodology), aimed mainly at the interfaces of scientific disciplines.
Thus, in scientific knowledge there is a complex, dynamic, holistic, subordinated system of diverse methods of different levels, spheres of action, focus, etc., which are always implemented taking into account specific conditions.
It remains to add to what has been said that any method in itself does not predetermine success in understanding certain aspects of material reality. It is also important to be able to correctly apply the scientific method in the process of cognition. If you use figurative comparison Academician P.L. Kapitsa, then the scientific method “is, as it were, a Stradivarius violin, the most perfect of violins, but to play it, you need to be a musician and know music. Without this, it will be as out of tune as an ordinary violin.”
Dialectics (Greek dialektika - having a conversation, arguing) is the doctrine of the most general laws of development of nature, society and knowledge, in which various phenomena are considered in the diversity of their connections, the interaction of opposing forces, tendencies, in the process of change and development. In its internal structure, dialectics as a method consists of a number of principles, the purpose of which is to lead knowledge to the unfolding of development contradictions. The essence of dialectics is precisely the presence of contradictions in development, and the movement towards these contradictions. Let us briefly consider the basic dialectical principles.
The principle of comprehensive consideration of the objects being studied. An integrated approach to cognition.
One of the important requirements of the dialectical method is to study the object of knowledge from all sides, to strive to identify and study as many as possible (out of an infinite set) of its properties, connections, and relationships. Modern research in many fields of science increasingly requires taking into account an increasing number of factual data, parameters, connections, etc. This task is becoming increasingly difficult to solve without involving the information power of the latest computer technology.
The world around us is a single whole, a certain system, where each object, as a unity of diversity, is inextricably linked with other objects and they all constantly interact with each other. From the position of the universal connection and interdependence of all phenomena follows one of the basic principles of materialist dialectics - comprehensiveness of consideration. A correct understanding of any thing is possible only if the entire totality of its internal and external aspects, connections, relationships, etc. is examined. In order to truly understand the subject deep and comprehensively, it is necessary to embrace and study all its sides, all connections and “mediation” in their system, with the identification of the main, decisive side.
The principle of comprehensiveness in modern scientific research is implemented in the form of an integrated approach to the objects of knowledge. The latter makes it possible to take into account the multiplicity of properties, aspects, relationships, etc. of the objects and phenomena being studied. This approach underlies complex, interdisciplinary research, which allows us to “bring together” multilateral research and combine the results obtained by different methods. It was this approach that led to the idea of creating scientific teams consisting of specialists in various fields and implementing the requirement of complexity when solving certain problems.
“Modern complex scientific and technical disciplines and research are the reality of modern science. However, they do not fit into traditional organizational forms and methodological standards. It is in the sphere of these studies and disciplines that practical “internal” interaction of social, natural and technical sciences is now taking place... Such research (which, for example, includes research in the field of artificial intelligence) requires special organizational support and the search for new organizational forms of science. However, Unfortunately, their development is hampered precisely because of their unconventionality and the lack in the mass (and sometimes professional) consciousness of a clear idea of their place in the system of modern science and technology.”
Nowadays, complexity (as one of the important aspects of dialectical methodology) is an integral element of modern global thinking. Based on it, the search for solutions to global problems of our time requires a scientifically based (and politically balanced) comprehensive approach.
The principle of consideration in interrelation. Systemic cognition.
The problem of taking into account the connections of the thing under study with other things occupies an important place in the dialectical method of cognition, distinguishing it from the metaphysical one. The metaphysical thinking of many natural scientists, who ignored in their research the real relationships that exist between objects of the material world, at one time gave rise to many difficulties in scientific knowledge. The revolution that began in the 19th century helped overcome these difficulties. transition from metaphysics to dialectics, “...considering things not in their isolation, but in their mutual connection.”
The progress of scientific knowledge already in the 19th century, and even more so in the 20th century, showed that any scientist - no matter what field of knowledge he works in - will inevitably fail in research if he considers the object under study without connection with other objects, phenomena, or if will ignore the nature of the relationships of its elements. In the latter case, it will be impossible to understand and study the material object in its entirety, as a system.
A system is always a certain integrity representing yourself a set of elements, functional properties and possible states which is determined not only by the composition, structure, etc. of its constituent elements, but also by the nature of their mutual connections.
To study an object as a system, a special, systematic approach to its knowledge is required. The latter must take into account the qualitative uniqueness of the system in relation to its elements (i.e., that it - as an integrity - has properties that its constituent elements do not have).
It should be borne in mind that “... although the properties of the system as a whole cannot be reduced to the properties of the elements, they can be explained in their origin, in their internal mechanism, in the ways of their functioning based on taking into account the properties of the elements of the system and the nature their interconnections and interdependence. This is the methodological essence of the systems approach. Otherwise, if there were no connection between the properties of the elements and the nature of their relationship, on the one hand, and the properties of the whole, on the other hand, there would be no scientific meaning in considering the system precisely as a system, that is, as a collection of elements with certain properties. Then the system would have to be considered simply as a thing that has properties regardless of the properties of the elements and the structure of the system.”
“The principle of systematicity requires the distinction between the external and internal sides of material systems, essence and its manifestations, the discovery of the many different aspects of an object, their unity, the disclosure of form and content, elements and structure, the accidental and the necessary, etc. This principle directs thinking to the transition from phenomena to their essence, to knowledge of the integrity of the system, as well as the necessary connections of the subject under consideration with the processes surrounding it. The principle of systematicity requires the subject to place at the center of cognition the idea of integrity, which is designed to guide cognition from the beginning to the end of the study, no matter how it breaks up into separate, possibly, at first glance, unrelated to each other, cycles or moments; along the entire path of cognition, the idea of integrity will change and be enriched, but it must always be a systemic, holistic idea of the object.”
The principle of systematicity is aimed at comprehensive knowledge of the subject as it exists at one time or another; it is aimed at reproducing its essence, integrative basis, as well as the diversity of its aspects, manifestations of the essence in its interaction with other material systems. Here it is assumed that a given object is delimited from its past, from its previous states; This is done for a more targeted knowledge of its current state. Distraction from history in this case is a legitimate method of cognition.
The spread of the systems approach in science was associated with the complication of research objects and with the transition from metaphysical-mechanistic methodology to dialectical one. Symptoms of the exhaustion of the cognitive potential of metaphysical-mechanistic methodology, which focused on reducing the complex to individual connections and elements, appeared back in the 19th century, and at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. the crisis of such a methodology was revealed quite clearly when common human reason increasingly began to come into contact with objects interacting with other material systems, with consequences that could no longer (without making an obvious mistake) be separated from the causes that gave rise to them.
The principle of determinism.
Determinism - (from lat. determinino - define) is a philosophical doctrine about the objective, natural relationship and interdependence of the phenomena of the material and spiritual world. The basis of this doctrine is the existence of causality, that is, such a connection of phenomena in which one phenomenon (cause), under certain conditions, necessarily gives rise to another phenomenon (effect). Even in the works of Galileo, Bacon, Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza, the position was substantiated that when studying nature one must look for effective causes and that “true knowledge is knowledge through causes” (F. Bacon).
Already at the level of phenomena, determinism makes it possible to distinguish necessary connections from random ones, essential from non-essential ones, to establish certain repetitions, correlative dependencies, etc., i.e., to carry out the advancement of thinking to the essence, to causal connections within the essence. Functional objective dependencies, for example, are connections between two or more consequences of the same cause, and knowledge of regularities at the phenomenological level must be supplemented by knowledge of genetic, productive causal connections. The cognitive process, going from consequences to causes, from the accidental to the necessary and essential, has the goal of revealing the law. The law determines phenomena, and therefore knowledge of the law explains phenomena and changes, movements of the object itself.
Modern determinism presupposes the presence of various objectively existing forms of interconnection between phenomena. But all these forms are ultimately formed on the basis of a universally effective causality, outside of which not a single phenomenon of reality exists.
The principle of learning in development. Historical and logical approach to knowledge.
The principle of studying objects in their development is one of the most important principles of the dialectical method of cognition. This is one of the fundamental differences. dialectical method from metaphysical. We will not receive true knowledge if we study a thing in a dead, frozen state, if we ignore such most important aspect its existence as development. Only by studying the past of the object we are interested in, the history of its origin and formation, can we understand its current state, as well as predict its future.
The principle of studying an object in development can be realized in cognition by two approaches: historical and logical (or, more precisely, logical-historical).
At historical approach, the history of an object is reproduced exactly, in all its versatility, taking into account all the details and events, including all kinds of random deviations, “zigzags” in development. This approach is used in a detailed, thorough study of human history, when observing, for example, the development of some plants, living organisms (with corresponding descriptions of these observations in all details), etc.
At logical The approach also reproduces the history of the object, but at the same time it is subjected to certain logical transformations: it is processed by theoretical thinking with the highlighting of the general, essential and at the same time freed from everything random, unimportant, superficial, interfering with the identification of the pattern of development of the object being studied.
This approach in natural science of the 19th century. was successfully (albeit spontaneously) implemented by Charles Darwin. For the first time, the logical process of cognition of the organic world proceeded from the historical process of development of this world, which made it possible to scientifically resolve the issue of the emergence and evolution of plant and animal species.
The choice of one or another - historical or logical - approach in knowledge is determined by the nature of the object being studied, the goals of the study and other circumstances. At the same time, in the real process of cognition, both of these approaches are closely interrelated. The historical approach cannot do without some kind of logical understanding of the facts of the history of the development of the object being studied. A logical analysis of the development of an object does not contradict its true history, but proceeds from it.
This relationship between the historical and logical approaches to knowledge was especially emphasized by F. Engels. “... Boolean method, - he wrote, - ... in essence is nothing more than the same historical method, only freed from historical form and from interfering accidents. Where history begins, the train of thought must begin with the same thing, and its further movement will be nothing more than a reflection of the historical process in an abstract and theoretically consistent form; a corrected reflection, but corrected in accordance with the laws given by the actual historical process itself...”
The logical-historical approach, based on the power of theoretical thinking, allows the researcher to achieve a logically reconstructed, generalized reflection of the historical development of the object being studied. And this leads to important scientific results.
In addition to the above principles, the dialectical method includes other principles - objectivity, specificity“split of the one” (principle of contradiction) etc. These principles are formulated on the basis of relevant laws and categories, which in their totality reflect the unity and integrity of the objective world in its continuous development.
Scientific observation and description.
Observation is a sensory (mainly visual) reflection of objects and phenomena of the external world. “Observation is a purposeful study of objects, relying mainly on such human sensory abilities as sensation, perception, representation; in the course of observation, we gain knowledge about the external aspects, properties and characteristics of the object under consideration.” This is the initial method of empirical cognition, which allows us to obtain some primary information about the objects of the surrounding reality.
Scientific observation (as opposed to ordinary, everyday observations) is characterized by a number of features:
Purposefulness (observation should be carried out to solve the stated research problem, and the observer’s attention should be fixed only on phenomena related to this task);
Systematic (observation must be carried out strictly according to a plan drawn up based on the research objective);
Activity (the researcher must actively search, highlight the moments he needs in the observed phenomenon, drawing on his knowledge and experience, using various technical means of observation).
Scientific observations are always accompanied description object of knowledge. Empirical description is the recording by means of natural or artificial language of information about objects given in observation. With the help of description, sensory information is translated into the language of concepts, signs, diagrams, drawings, graphs and numbers, thereby taking a form convenient for further rational processing. The latter is necessary to record those properties and aspects of the object being studied that constitute the subject of research. Descriptions of observational results form the empirical basis of science, based on which researchers create empirical generalizations, compare the objects under study according to certain parameters, classify them according to some properties, characteristics, and find out the sequence of stages of their formation and development.
Almost every science goes through this initial, “descriptive” stage of development. At the same time, as emphasized in one of the works concerning this issue, “the main requirements that apply to a scientific description are aimed at ensuring that it is as complete, accurate and objective as possible. The description must give a reliable and adequate picture of the object itself and accurately reflect the phenomena being studied. It is important that the concepts used for description always have a clear and unambiguous meaning. As science develops and its foundations change, the means of description are transformed, and a new system of concepts is often created.”
During observation, there is no activity aimed at transforming or changing the objects of knowledge. This is due to a number of circumstances: the inaccessibility of these objects for practical influence (for example, observation of distant space objects), the undesirability, based on the purposes of the study, of interference in the observed process (phenological, psychological and other observations), the lack of technical, energy, financial and other capabilities setting up experimental studies of objects of knowledge.
According to the method of conducting observations, they can be direct or indirect.
At from direct observations certain properties, aspects of an object are reflected and perceived by human senses. Observations of this kind have yielded a lot of useful information in the history of science. It is known, for example, that observations of the positions of planets and stars in the sky, carried out over more than twenty years by Tycho Brahe with an accuracy unsurpassed by the naked eye, were the empirical basis for Kepler’s discovery of his famous laws.
Although direct observation continues to play an important role in modern science, most often scientific observation occurs indirect, i.e., it is carried out using certain technical means. The emergence and development of such means largely determined the enormous expansion of the capabilities of the observation method that has occurred over the past four centuries.
If, for example, before the beginning of the 17th century. Astronomers observed celestial bodies with the naked eye, then invented by Galileo in 1608 optical telescope raised astronomical observations to a new, much higher level. And the creation today of X-ray telescopes and their launch into outer space on board an orbital station (X-ray telescopes can only operate outside the Earth’s atmosphere) has made it possible to observe such objects of the Universe (pulsars, quasars) that would be impossible to study in any other way.
The development of modern natural science is associated with the increasing role of the so-called indirect observations. Thus, objects and phenomena studied by nuclear physics cannot be directly observed either with the help of human senses or with the help of the most advanced instruments. For example, when studying the properties of charged particles using a cloud chamber, these particles are perceived by the researcher indirectly - by such visible manifestations as the formation tracks, consisting of many droplets of liquid.
Moreover, any scientific observations, although they rely primarily on the work of the senses, at the same time require participation and theoretical thinking. The researcher, relying on his knowledge and experience, must recognize sensory perceptions and express (describe) them either in terms of ordinary language, or - more strictly and abbreviated - in certain scientific terms, in some graphs, tables, drawings, etc. For example, emphasizing the role of theory in the process of indirect observations, A. Einstein, in a conversation with W. Heisenberg, remarked: “Whether a given phenomenon can be observed or not depends on your theory. It is the theory that must establish what can be observed and what cannot.”
Observations can often play an important heuristic role in scientific knowledge. In the process of observations, completely new phenomena can be discovered, allowing one or another scientific hypothesis to be substantiated.
From all of the above, it follows that observation is a very important method of empirical knowledge, ensuring the collection of extensive information about the world around us. As the history of science shows, when correct use This method turns out to be very fruitful.
Experiment.
Experiment is a more complex method of empirical knowledge compared to observation. It involves the active, purposeful and strictly controlled influence of the researcher on the object being studied in order to identify and study certain aspects, properties, and connections. In this case, the experimenter can transform the object under study, create artificial conditions for its study, and interfere with the natural course of processes.
“In the general structure of scientific research, experiment occupies a special place. On the one hand, it is the experiment that is the connecting link between the theoretical and empirical stages and levels of scientific research. By design, an experiment is always mediated by prior theoretical knowledge: it is conceived on the basis of relevant theoretical knowledge and its goal is often to confirm or refute a scientific theory or hypothesis. The experimental results themselves require a certain theoretical interpretation. At the same time, the experimental method, by the nature of the cognitive means used, belongs to the empirical stage of cognition. The result of experimental research is, first of all, the achievement of factual knowledge and the establishment of empirical laws.”
Experimentally oriented scientists argue that a cleverly thought out and “cunningly”, skillfully staged experiment is superior to theory: theory can be completely refuted, but reliably obtained experience cannot!
The experiment includes other methods of empirical research (observation, measurement). At the same time, it has a number of important, unique features.
Firstly, an experiment allows you to study an object in a “purified” form, that is, eliminate all kinds of side factors and layers that complicate the research process.
Secondly, during the experiment, the object can be placed in some artificial, in particular extreme conditions, i.e. studied at ultra-low temperatures, at extremely high pressures or, conversely, in a vacuum, under enormous tensions electromagnetic field etc. In such artificially created conditions, it is possible to discover surprising and sometimes unexpected properties of objects and thereby more deeply comprehend their essence.
Thirdly, when studying a process, an experimenter can intervene in it and actively influence its course. As Academician I.P. Pavlov noted, “experience, as it were, takes phenomena into its own hands and puts into play one thing or another, and thus, in artificial, simplified combinations, determines the true connection between phenomena. In other words, observation collects what nature offers it, while experience takes from nature what it wants.”
Fourth, an important advantage of many experiments is their reproducibility. This means that the experimental conditions, and accordingly the observations and measurements carried out during this process, can be repeated as many times as necessary to obtain reliable results.
Preparing and conducting an experiment requires compliance with a number of conditions. So, a scientific experiment:
Never posed at random, it presupposes the presence of a clearly formulated research goal;
It is not done “blindly”; it is always based on some initial theoretical principles. Without an idea in your head, said I.P. Pavlov, you won’t see a fact at all;
It is not carried out unplanned, chaotically, the researcher first outlines the ways of its implementation;
Requires a certain level of development of technical means of cognition necessary for its implementation;
Must be carried out by people with sufficiently high qualifications.
Only the combination of all these conditions determines success in experimental research.
Depending on the nature of the problems solved during the experiments, the latter are usually divided into research and testing.
Research experiments make it possible to discover new, unknown properties in an object. The result of such an experiment may be conclusions that do not follow from existing knowledge about the object of study. An example is the experiments carried out in the laboratory of E. Rutherford, which led to the discovery of the atomic nucleus, and thereby to the birth of nuclear physics.
Verification experiments serve to test and confirm certain theoretical constructs. Thus, the existence of a number of elementary particles (positron, neutrino, etc.) was first predicted theoretically, and only later were they discovered experimentally.
Based on the methodology and the results obtained, experiments can be divided into qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative experiments are exploratory in nature and do not lead to any quantitative relationships. They only allow us to identify the effect of certain factors on the phenomenon being studied. Quantitative experiments are aimed at establishing precise quantitative relationships in the phenomenon under study. In the actual practice of experimental research, both of these types of experiments are implemented, as a rule, in the form of successive stages of the development of cognition.
As is known, the connection between electrical and magnetic phenomena was first discovered by the Danish physicist Oersted as a result of a purely qualitative experiment (having placed a magnetic compass needle next to a conductor through which an electric current was passed, he discovered that the needle deviates from its original position). After Oersted published his discovery, quantitative experiments by the French scientists Biot and Savart followed, as well as experiments by Ampere, on the basis of which the corresponding mathematical formula was derived.
All these qualitative and quantitative empirical studies laid the foundations for the doctrine of electromagnetism.
Depending on the field of scientific knowledge in which the experimental research method is used, natural science, applied (in technical sciences, agricultural science, etc.) and socio-economic experiments are distinguished.
Measurement and comparison.
Most scientific experiments and observations involve making a variety of measurements. Measurement - This is a process that consists in determining the quantitative values of certain properties, aspects of the object or phenomenon under study with the help of special technical devices.
The enormous importance of measurements for science was noted by many prominent scientists. For example, D.I. Mendeleev emphasized that “science begins as soon as they begin to measure.” And the famous English physicist W. Thomson (Kelvin) pointed out that “every thing is known only to the extent that it can be measured.”
The measurement operation is based on comparison objects by any similar properties or aspects. To make such a comparison, it is necessary to have certain units of measurement, the presence of which makes it possible to express the properties being studied in terms of their quantitative characteristics. In turn, this allows the widespread use of mathematical tools in science and creates the prerequisites for the mathematical expression of empirical dependencies. Comparison is not only used in connection with measurement. In science, comparison acts as a comparative or comparative-historical method. Originally arose in philology and literary criticism, it then began to be successfully applied in law, sociology, history, biology, psychology, history of religion, ethnography and other fields of knowledge. Entire branches of knowledge have emerged that use this method: comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, comparative psychology, etc. Thus, in comparative psychology, the study of the psyche is carried out on the basis of comparing the psyche of an adult with the development of the psyche of a child, as well as animals. In the course of scientific comparison, not arbitrarily chosen properties and connections are compared, but essential ones.
An important aspect of the measurement process is the methodology for carrying it out. It is a set of techniques that use certain principles and means of measurement. Under the measurement principles in in this case This refers to some phenomena that form the basis of measurements (for example, measuring temperature using the thermoelectric effect).
There are several types of measurements. Based on the nature of the dependence of the measured value on time, measurements are divided into static and dynamic. At static measurements the quantity we measure remains constant over time (measuring the size of bodies, constant pressure, etc.). TO dynamic These include measurements during which the measured value changes over time (measurement of vibration, pulsating pressure, etc.).
Based on the method of obtaining results, measurements are distinguished between direct and indirect. IN direct measurements the desired value of the measured quantity is obtained by directly comparing it with the standard or is issued by the measuring device. At indirect measurement the desired value is determined on the basis of a known mathematical relationship between this value and other values obtained by direct measurements (for example, finding the electrical resistivity of a conductor by its resistance, length and cross-sectional area). Indirect measurements are widely used in cases where the desired quantity is impossible or too difficult to measure directly or when direct measurement gives less accurate results.
With the progress of science, measuring technology also advances. Along with the improvement of existing measuring instruments operating on the basis of traditional established principles (replacing the materials from which parts of the device are made, introducing individual changes into its design, etc.), there is a transition to fundamentally new designs of measuring devices, determined by new theoretical prerequisites. In the latter case, instruments are created in which new scientific ones are implemented. achievements. For example, the development of quantum physics has significantly increased the ability to make measurements with a high degree of accuracy. The use of the Mössbauer effect makes it possible to create a device with a resolution of about 10 -13% of the measured value.
Well-developed measuring instrumentation, a variety of methods and high performance measuring instruments contribute to progress in scientific research. In turn, solving scientific problems, as noted above, often opens up new ways to improve the measurements themselves.
Abstraction. Ascent from the abstract to the concrete.
The process of cognition always begins with the consideration of specific, sensory objects and phenomena, their external signs, properties, and connections. Only as a result of studying the sensory-concrete does a person come to some generalized ideas, concepts, to certain theoretical positions, i.e., scientific abstractions. Obtaining these abstractions is associated with the complex abstracting activity of thinking.
In the process of abstraction, there is a departure (ascent) from sensually perceived concrete objects (with all their properties, sides, etc.) to abstract ideas about them reproduced in thinking. At the same time, sensory-concrete perception, as it were, “...evaporates to the level of abstract definition.” Abstraction, Thus, it consists in mental abstraction from some - less significant - properties, aspects, signs of the object being studied with the simultaneous selection and formation of one or more significant aspects, properties, characteristics of this object. The result obtained during the abstraction process is called abstraction(or use the term “abstract” - as opposed to concrete).
In scientific knowledge, for example, abstractions of identification and isolating abstractions are widely used. Abstraction of identification is a concept that is obtained as a result of identifying a certain set of objects (at the same time we are abstracting from a number of individual properties, characteristics of these objects) and combining them into a special group. An example is the grouping of the entire variety of plants and animals living on our planet into special species, genera, orders, etc. Isolating abstraction is obtained by isolating certain properties and relationships that are inextricably linked with objects of the material world into independent entities (“stability”, “solubility”, “electrical conductivity”, etc.).
The transition from the sensory-concrete to the abstract is always associated with a certain simplification of reality. At the same time, ascending from the sensory-concrete to the abstract, theoretical, the researcher gets the opportunity to better understand the object being studied and reveal its essence. In this case, the researcher first finds the main connection (relationship) of the object being studied, and then, step by step, tracing how it changes under different conditions, discovers new connections, establishes their interactions, and in this way reflects in its entirety the essence of the object being studied.
The process of transition from sensory-empirical, visual ideas about the phenomena being studied to the formation of certain abstract, theoretical structures that reflect the essence of these phenomena lies at the basis of the development of any science.
Since the concrete (i.e., real objects, processes of the material world) is a collection of many properties, aspects, internal and external connections and relationships, it is impossible to know it in all its diversity, remaining at the stage of sensory cognition and limiting ourselves to it. Therefore, there is a need for a theoretical understanding of the concrete, that is, an ascent from the sensory-concrete to the abstract.
But the formation of scientific abstractions and general theoretical positions is not the ultimate goal of knowledge, but is only a means of deeper, more versatile knowledge of the concrete. Therefore, further movement (ascent) of knowledge from the achieved abstract back to the concrete is necessary. The knowledge about the concrete obtained at this stage of research will be qualitatively different compared to that which was available at the stage of sensory cognition. In other words, the concrete at the beginning of the cognitive process (sensory-concrete, which is its starting point) and the concrete, comprehended at the end of the cognitive process (it is called logical-concrete, emphasizing the role abstract thinking in its comprehension) are fundamentally different from each other.
The logical-concrete is the concrete, theoretically reproduced in the researcher’s thinking, in all the richness of its content.
It contains within itself not only what is sensually perceived, but also something hidden, inaccessible to sensory perception, something essential, natural, comprehended only with the help of theoretical thinking, with the help of certain abstractions.
The method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete is used in the construction of various scientific theories and can be used in both social and natural sciences. For example, in the theory of gases, having identified the basic laws of an ideal gas - Clapeyron's equations, Avogadro's law, etc., the researcher goes to the specific interactions and properties of real gases, characterizing their essential aspects and properties. As we delve deeper into the concrete, new abstractions are introduced, which act as a deeper reflection of the essence of the object. Thus, in the process of developing the theory of gases, it was found that the ideal gas laws characterize the behavior of real gases only at low pressures. This was due to the fact that the ideal gas abstraction neglects the forces of attraction between molecules. Taking these forces into account led to the formulation of Van der Waals' law. Compared to Clapeyron's law, this law expressed the essence of the behavior of gases more specifically and deeply.
Idealization. Thought experiment.
The mental activity of a researcher in the process of scientific knowledge includes a special type of abstraction, which is called idealization. Idealization represents the mental introduction of certain changes to the object being studied in accordance with the goals of the research.
As a result of such changes, for example, some properties, aspects, or features of objects may be excluded from consideration. Thus, the widespread idealization in mechanics, called a material point, implies a body devoid of any dimensions. Such an abstract object, the dimensions of which are neglected, is convenient when describing the movement of a wide variety of material objects from atoms and molecules to the planets of the solar system.
Changes in an object, achieved in the process of idealization, can also be made by endowing it with some special properties that are not feasible in reality. An example is the abstraction introduced into physics through idealization, known as black body(such a body is endowed with the property, which does not exist in nature, of absorbing absolutely all the radiant energy falling on it, without reflecting anything and without letting anything pass through it).
The advisability of using idealization is determined by the following circumstances:
Firstly, “idealization is appropriate when the real objects to be studied are sufficiently complex for the available means of theoretical, in particular mathematical, analysis, and in relation to the idealized case it is possible, by applying these means, to build and develop a theory that is effective in certain conditions and purposes.” , to describe the properties and behavior of these real objects. The latter, in essence, certifies the fruitfulness of idealization and distinguishes it from fruitless fantasy.”
Secondly, it is advisable to use idealization in cases where it is necessary to exclude certain properties and connections of the object under study, without which it cannot exist, but which obscure the essence of the processes occurring in it. A complex object is presented as if in a “purified” form, which makes it easier to study.
Thirdly, the use of idealization is advisable when the properties, aspects, and connections of the object being studied that are excluded from consideration do not affect its essence within the framework of this study. In this case, the correct choice of the admissibility of such idealization plays a very important role.
It should be noted that the nature of idealization can be very different if there are different theoretical approaches to the study of a phenomenon. As an example, we can point to three different concepts of “ideal gas”, formed under the influence of different theoretical and physical concepts: Maxwell-Boltzmann, Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac. However, all three idealization options obtained in this case turned out to be fruitful in the study of gas states of various natures: the ideal Maxwell-Boltzmann gas became the basis for studies of ordinary molecular rarefied gases located at sufficiently high temperatures. high temperatures; The Bose-Einstein ideal gas was used to study photonic gas, and the Fermi-Dirac ideal gas helped solve a number of electron gas problems.
Being a type of abstraction, idealization allows for an element of sensory clarity (the usual process of abstraction leads to the formation of mental abstractions that do not have any clarity). This feature of idealization is very important for the implementation of such a specific method of theoretical knowledge, which is thought experiment (his also called mental, subjective, imaginary, idealized).
A thought experiment involves operating with an idealized object (replacing a real object in abstraction), which consists in the mental selection of certain positions and situations that make it possible to detect some important features of the object under study. This reveals a certain similarity between a mental (idealized) experiment and a real one. Moreover, every real experiment, before being carried out in practice, is first “played out” by the researcher mentally in the process of thinking and planning. In this case, the thought experiment acts as a preliminary ideal plan for a real experiment.
At the same time, thought experiments also play an independent role in science. At the same time, while maintaining similarities with the real experiment, it is at the same time significantly different from it.
In scientific knowledge, there may be cases when, when studying certain phenomena and situations, conducting real experiments turns out to be completely impossible. This gap in knowledge can only be filled by a thought experiment.
The scientific activity of Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Carnot, Einstein and other scientists who laid the foundations of modern natural science testifies to the significant role of thought experiments in the formation of theoretical ideas. The history of the development of physics is rich in facts about the use of thought experiments. An example is Galileo's thought experiments, which led to the discovery of the law of inertia. “...The law of inertia,” wrote A. Einstein and L. Infeld, “cannot be deduced directly from experiment; it can be deduced speculatively - by thinking associated with observation. This experiment can never be performed in reality, although it leads to a deep understanding of actual experiments.”
A thought experiment can have great heuristic value in helping to interpret new knowledge obtained purely mathematically. This is confirmed by many examples from the history of science.
The idealization method, which turns out to be very fruitful in many cases, at the same time has certain limitations. In addition, any idealization is limited to a specific area of phenomena and serves to solve only certain problems. This can be clearly seen from the example of the above-mentioned “absolutely black body” idealization.
The main positive significance of idealization as a method of scientific knowledge is that the theoretical constructions obtained on its basis then make it possible to effectively study real objects and phenomena. Simplifications achieved through idealization facilitate the creation of a theory that reveals the laws of the studied area of phenomena of the material world. If the theory as a whole correctly describes real phenomena, then the idealizations underlying it are also legitimate.
Formalization.
Under formalization understands a special approach in scientific knowledge, which consists in the use of special symbols, which allows one to escape from the study of real objects, from the content of the theoretical provisions describing them, and to operate instead with a certain set of symbols (signs).
This technique consists in constructing abstract mathematical models that reveal the essence of the processes of reality being studied. When formalizing, reasoning about objects is transferred to the plane of operating with signs (formulas). Relationships of signs replace statements about the properties and relationships of objects. In this way, a generalized sign model of a certain subject area is created, which makes it possible to detect the structure of various phenomena and processes while abstracting from the qualitative characteristics of the latter. The derivation of some formulas from others according to the strict rules of logic and mathematics represents a formal study of the main characteristics of the structure of various, sometimes very distant in nature, phenomena.
A striking example of formalization is the mathematical descriptions of various objects and phenomena widely used in science, based on relevant substantive theories. At the same time, the mathematical symbolism used not only helps to consolidate existing knowledge about the objects and phenomena being studied, but also acts as a kind of tool in the process of further knowledge of them.
To build any formal system it is necessary: a) specifying an alphabet, i.e., a certain set of characters; b) setting the rules by which “words” and “formulas” can be obtained from the initial characters of this alphabet; c) setting rules according to which one can move from some words and formulas of a given system to other words and formulas (the so-called rules of inference).
As a result, a formal sign system is created in the form of a certain artificial language. An important advantage of this system is the possibility of carrying out within its framework the study of any object in a purely formal way (operating with signs) without directly addressing this object.
Another advantage of formalization is to ensure the brevity and clarity of recording scientific information, which opens up great opportunities for operating with it.
Of course, formalized artificial languages do not have the flexibility and richness of natural language. But they lack the polysemy of terms characteristic of natural languages. They are characterized by a precisely constructed syntax (establishing the rules of connection between signs regardless of their content) and unambiguous semantics (the semantic rules of a formalized language quite unambiguously determine the correlation of a sign system with a specific subject area). Thus, a formalized language has the property of being monosemic.
The ability to present certain theoretical positions of science in the form of a formalized sign system is of great importance for knowledge. But it should be borne in mind that the formalization of a particular theory is possible only if its substantive side is taken into account. “Naked Mathematical equation does not yet represent a physical theory, in order to obtain a physical theory, it is necessary to give specific empirical content to mathematical symbols.”
The expanding use of formalization as a method of theoretical knowledge is associated not only with the development of mathematics. In chemistry, for example, the corresponding chemical symbolism, together with the rules for operating it, was one of the options for a formalized artificial language. The method of formalization occupied an increasingly important place in logic as it developed. Leibniz's works laid the foundation for the creation of the method of logical calculus. The latter led to the formation in the middle of the 19th century. mathematical logic, which in the second half of our century played an important role in the development of cybernetics, in the emergence of electronic computers, in solving problems of production automation, etc.
The language of modern science differs significantly from natural human language. It contains many special terms and expressions; it widely uses means of formalization, among which the central place belongs to mathematical formalization. Based on the needs of science, various artificial languages are created to solve certain problems. The entire set of artificial formalized languages created and being created is included in the language of science, forming a powerful means of scientific knowledge.
Axiomatic method.
In the axiomatic construction of theoretical knowledge, a set of initial positions is first specified that do not require proof (at least within the framework of a given knowledge system). These provisions are called axioms, or postulates. Then, according to certain rules, a system of inferential proposals is built from them. The set of initial axioms and propositions derived on their basis forms an axiomatically constructed theory.
Axioms are statements whose truth is not required to be proven. The number of axioms varies widely: from two or three to several dozen. Logical inference allows you to transfer the truth of axioms to the consequences derived from them. At the same time, the requirements of consistency, independence and completeness are imposed on axioms and conclusions from them. Following certain, clearly fixed rules of inference allows you to streamline the reasoning process when deploying an axiomatic system, making this reasoning more rigorous and correct.
To define an axiomatic system, some language is required. In this regard, symbols (icons) are widely used rather than cumbersome verbal expressions. Replacement spoken language logical and mathematical symbols, as stated above, is called formalization . If formalization takes place, then the axiomatic system is formal, and the provisions of the system acquire the character formulas The resulting formulas are called theorems, and the arguments used are evidence theorem. This is the almost universally known structure of the axiomatic method.
Hypothesis method.
In methodology, the term “hypothesis” is used in two senses: as a form of existence of knowledge, characterized by problematic, unreliable, need for proof, and as a method of forming and justifying explanatory proposals, leading to the establishment of laws, principles, theories. Hypothesis in the first sense of the word is included in the method of hypothesis, but can also be used without connection with it.
The best way to understand the hypothesis method is to become familiar with its structure. The first stage of the hypothesis method is familiarization with the empirical material that is subject to theoretical explanation. Initially, they try to explain this material with the help of laws and theories already existing in science. If there are none, the scientist proceeds to the second stage - putting forward a guess or assumption about the causes and patterns of these phenomena. At the same time, he tries to use various techniques research: inductive induction, analogy, modeling, etc. It is quite acceptable that at this stage several explanatory assumptions are put forward that are incompatible with each other.
The third stage is the stage of assessing the seriousness of the assumption and selecting the most probable one from the set of guesses. The hypothesis is checked primarily for logical consistency, especially if it has a complex form and unfolds into a system of assumptions. Next, the hypothesis is tested for compatibility with the fundamental intertheoretical principles of this science.
At the fourth stage, the put forward assumption is unfolded and empirically verifiable consequences are deductively derived from it. At this stage, it is possible to partially rework the hypothesis and introduce clarifying details into it using thought experiments.
At the fifth stage, an experimental verification of the consequences derived from the hypothesis is carried out. The hypothesis either receives empirical confirmation or is refuted as a result of experimental testing. However, empirical confirmation of the consequences of a hypothesis does not guarantee its truth, and the refutation of one of the consequences does not clearly indicate its falsity as a whole. All attempts to build an effective logic for confirming and refuting theoretical explanatory hypotheses have not yet been crowned with success. The status of an explanatory law, principle or theory is given to the best one based on the results of testing of the proposed hypotheses. Such a hypothesis is usually required to have maximum explanatory and predictive power.
Familiarity with the general structure of the hypothesis method allows us to define it as a complex integrated method of cognition, which includes all its diversity and forms and is aimed at establishing laws, principles and theories.
Sometimes the hypothesis method is also called the hypothetico-deductive method, meaning the fact that the formulation of a hypothesis is always accompanied by the deductive derivation of empirically verifiable consequences from it. But deductive reasoning is not the only logical technique used within the hypothesis method. When establishing the degree of empirical confirmation of a hypothesis, elements of inductive logic are used. Induction is also used at the guessing stage. Inference by analogy plays an important role when putting forward a hypothesis. As already noted, at the stage of developing a theoretical hypothesis, a thought experiment can also be used.
An explanatory hypothesis, as an assumption about a law, is not the only type of hypothesis in science. There are also “existential” hypotheses - assumptions about the existence of elementary particles, units of heredity, chemical elements, new biological species, etc., unknown to science. The methods for putting forward and justifying such hypotheses differ from explanatory hypotheses. Along with the main theoretical hypotheses, there may also be auxiliary ones that make it possible to bring the main hypothesis into better agreement with experience. As a rule, such auxiliary hypotheses are later eliminated. There are also so-called working hypotheses that make it possible to better organize the collection of empirical material, but do not claim to explain it.
The most important type of hypothesis method is mathematical hypothesis method, which is typical for sciences with a high degree of mathematization. The hypothesis method described above is the substantive hypothesis method. Within its framework, meaningful assumptions about the laws are first formulated, and then they receive the corresponding mathematical expression. In the method of mathematical hypothesis, thinking takes a different path. First, to explain quantitative dependencies, a suitable equation is selected from related fields of science, which often involves its modification, and then an attempt is made to give this equation a meaningful interpretation.
The scope of application of the mathematical hypothesis method is very limited. It is applicable primarily in those disciplines where a rich arsenal has been accumulated mathematical tools in theoretical research. Such disciplines primarily include modern physics. The method of mathematical hypothesis was used in the discovery of the basic laws of quantum mechanics.
Analysis and synthesis.
Under analysis understand the division of an object (mentally or actually) into its component parts for the purpose of studying them separately. Such parts can be some material elements of the object or its properties, characteristics, relationships, etc.
Analysis is a necessary stage in understanding an object. Since ancient times, analysis has been used, for example, to decompose certain substances into their components. Note that the method of analysis at one time played an important role in the collapse of the phlogiston theory.
Undoubtedly, analysis occupies an important place in the study of objects of the material world. But it constitutes only the first stage of the process of cognition.
To comprehend an object as a whole, one cannot limit oneself to studying only its component parts. In the process of cognition, it is necessary to reveal objectively existing connections between them, to consider them together, in unity. To carry out this second stage in the process of cognition - to move from the study of individual components of an object to the study of it as a single connected whole - is possible only if the method of analysis is complemented by another method - synthesis.
In the process of synthesis, the components (sides, properties, characteristics, etc.) of the object under study, dissected as a result of analysis, are brought together. On this basis, further study of the object takes place, but as a single whole. At the same time, synthesis does not mean a simple mechanical connection of separated elements into unified system. It reveals the place and role of each element in the system of the whole, establishes their interconnection and interdependence, i.e., it allows us to understand the true dialectical unity of the object being studied.
Analysis mainly captures what is specific that distinguishes parts from each other. Synthesis reveals that essential commonality that connects the parts into a single whole. Analysis, which involves the implementation of synthesis, has as its central core the selection of the essential. Then the whole does not look the same as when the mind “first met” it, but much deeper, more meaningful.
Analysis and synthesis are also successfully used in the sphere of human mental activity, that is, in theoretical knowledge. But here, as at the empirical level of knowledge, analysis and synthesis are not two operations separated from each other. In essence, they are like two sides of a single analytical-synthetic method of cognition.
These two interrelated research methods receive their own specification in each branch of science. From a general technique, they can turn into a special method: for example, there are specific methods of mathematical, chemical and social analysis. The analytical method has been developed in some philosophical schools and directions. The same can be said about synthesis.
Induction and deduction.
Induction (from lat. inductio - guidance, motivation) is a formal logical inference that leads to a general conclusion based on particular premises. In other words, this is the movement of our thinking from the particular to the general.
Induction is widely used in scientific knowledge. By discovering similar signs and properties in many objects of a certain class, the researcher concludes that these signs and properties are inherent in all objects of a given class. Along with other methods of cognition, the inductive method played an important role in the discovery of some laws of nature (universal gravity, atmospheric pressure, thermal expansion of bodies, etc.).
Induction used in scientific knowledge (scientific induction) can be implemented in the form of the following methods:
1. Method of single similarity (in all cases of observation of a phenomenon, only one common factor is found, all others are different; therefore, this single similar factor is the cause of this phenomenon).
2. Single difference method (if the circumstances of the occurrence of a phenomenon and the circumstances under which it does not occur are similar in almost all respects and differ only in one factor, present only in the first case, then we can conclude that this factor is the cause of this phenomena).
3. United method of similarity and difference (is a combination of the above two methods).
4. The method of accompanying changes (if certain changes in one phenomenon each time entail certain changes in another phenomenon, then the conclusion about the causal relationship of these phenomena follows).
5. Method of residuals (if a complex phenomenon is caused by a multifactorial cause, and some of these factors are known as the cause of some part of this phenomenon, then the conclusion follows: the cause of another part of the phenomenon is the remaining factors included in common cause this phenomenon).
The founder of the classical inductive method of cognition is F. Bacon. But he interpreted induction extremely broadly, considered it the most important method discovery of new truths in science, the main means of scientific knowledge of nature.
In fact, the above methods of scientific induction serve mainly to find empirical relationships between the experimentally observed properties of objects and phenomena.
Deduction (from lat. deductio - inference) is the obtaining of particular conclusions based on knowledge of some general provisions. In other words, this is the movement of our thinking from the general to the particular, individual.
But the especially great cognitive significance of deduction is manifested in the case when the general premise is not just an inductive generalization, but some kind of hypothetical assumption, for example, a new scientific idea. In this case, deduction is the starting point for the emergence of a new theoretical system. The theoretical knowledge created in this way predetermines the further course of empirical research and guides the construction of new inductive generalizations.
Obtaining new knowledge through deduction exists in all natural sciences, but the deductive method is especially important in mathematics. Operating with mathematical abstractions and basing their reasoning on very general principles, mathematicians are forced most often to use deduction. And mathematics is, perhaps, the only truly deductive science.
In modern science, the prominent mathematician and philosopher R. Descartes was a promoter of the deductive method of cognition.
But, despite attempts in the history of science and philosophy to separate induction from deduction and contrast them in the real process of scientific knowledge, these two methods are not used as isolated, isolated from each other. Each of them is used at the appropriate stage of the cognitive process.
Moreover, in the process of using the inductive method, deduction is often present “in a hidden form.” “By generalizing facts in accordance with some ideas, we thereby indirectly derive the generalizations we receive from these ideas, and we are not always aware of this. It seems that our thought moves directly from facts to generalizations, that is, that there is pure induction here. In fact, in accordance with some ideas, in other words, implicitly guided by them in the process of generalizing facts, our thought indirectly goes from ideas to these generalizations, and, therefore, deduction also takes place here... We can say that in In all cases when we generalize in accordance with any philosophical principles, our conclusions are not only induction, but also hidden deduction.”
Emphasizing the necessary connection between induction and deduction, F. Engels strongly advised scientists: “Induction and deduction are related to each other in the same necessary way as synthesis and analysis. Instead of unilaterally extolling one of them to the skies at the expense of the other, we must try to apply each in its place, and this can only be achieved if we do not lose sight of their connection with each other, their mutual complement to each other.”
Analogy and modeling.
Under analogy refers to the similarity, similarity of some properties, characteristics or relationships of generally different objects. Establishing similarities (or differences) between objects is carried out as a result of their comparison. Thus, comparison is the basis of the analogy method.
If a logical conclusion is made about the presence of any property, sign, relationship in the object under study based on establishing its similarity with other objects, then this conclusion is called an inference by analogy.
The degree of probability of obtaining a correct conclusion by analogy will be the higher: 1) the more common properties of the compared objects are known; 2) the more significant the common properties discovered in them and 3) the more deeply the mutual natural connection of these similar properties is known. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that if an object in respect of which an inference is made by analogy with another object has some property that is incompatible with the property the existence of which should be concluded, then the general similarity of these objects loses all meaning .
The analogy method is used in a variety of fields of science: in mathematics, physics, chemistry, cybernetics, in the humanities, etc. The famous energy scientist V. A. Venikov spoke well about the cognitive value of the analogy method: “Sometimes they say: “Analogy is not proof”... But if you look at it, you can easily understand that scientists do not strive to prove anything only in this way. Is it not enough that a correctly seen similarity gives a powerful impetus to creativity?.. An analogy is capable of leaping thought into new, unexplored orbits, and, of course, it is correct that an analogy, if handled with due care, is the simplest and most a clear path from old to new.”
There are different types of inferences by analogy. But what they have in common is that in all cases one object is directly examined, and a conclusion is drawn about another object. Therefore, inference by analogy in the most general sense can be defined as the transfer of information from one object to another. In this case, the first object, which is actually subject to research, is called model, and another object to which the information obtained as a result of studying the first object (model) is transferred is called original(sometimes - a prototype, sample, etc.). Thus, the model always acts as an analogy, that is, the model and the object (original) displayed with its help are in a certain similarity (similarity).
“...Modeling is understood as the study of a modeled object (original), based on the one-to-one correspondence of a certain part of the properties of the original and the object (model) that replaces it in the study and includes the construction of a model, the study of it and the transfer of the obtained information to the modeled object - the original” .
The use of modeling is dictated by the need to reveal aspects of objects that either cannot be comprehended through direct study, or are unprofitable to study them in this way for purely economic reasons. A person, for example, cannot directly observe the process of natural formation of diamonds, the origin and development of life on Earth, a number of phenomena of the micro- and mega-world. Therefore, we have to resort to artificial reproduction of such phenomena in a form convenient for observation and study. In some cases, it is much more profitable and economical to build and study its model instead of directly experimenting with an object.
Depending on the nature of the models used in scientific research, several types of modeling are distinguished.
1. Mental (ideal) modeling. This type of modeling includes various mental representations in the form of certain imaginary models. It should be noted that mental (ideal) models can often be realized materially in the form of sensory-perceptible physical models.
2. Physical modeling. It is characterized by physical similarity between the model and the original and aims to reproduce in the model the processes characteristic of the original. According to the results of research of certain physical properties Models judge phenomena that occur (or may occur) in so-called “natural conditions.”
Currently, physical modeling is widely used for the development and experimental study of various structures, machines, for a better understanding of some natural phenomena, for studying effective and safe ways conducting mining operations, etc.
3. Symbolic (sign) modeling. It is associated with a conventionally symbolic representation of some properties, relationships of the original object. Symbolic (sign) models include various topological and graph representations (in the form of graphs, nomograms, diagrams, etc.) of the objects under study or, for example, models presented in the form of chemical symbols and reflecting the state or ratio of elements during chemical reactions.
A special and very important type of symbolic (sign) modeling is math modeling. The symbolic language of mathematics makes it possible to express the properties, aspects, relationships of objects and phenomena of a very different nature. The relationships between various quantities that describe the functioning of such an object or phenomenon can be represented by the corresponding equations (differential, integral, integro-differential, algebraic) and their systems.
4. Numerical modeling on a computer. This type of modeling is based on a previously created mathematical model of the object or phenomenon being studied and is used in cases of large volumes of calculations required to study this model.
Numerical modeling is especially important where the physical picture of the phenomenon being studied is not entirely clear and the internal mechanism of interaction is not known. By calculating various options on a computer, facts are accumulated, which makes it possible, ultimately, to select the most realistic and probable situations. The active use of numerical modeling methods can dramatically reduce the time required for scientific and design development.
The modeling method is constantly evolving: some types of models are being replaced by others as science progresses. At the same time, one thing remains unchanged: the importance, relevance, and sometimes irreplaceability of modeling as a method of scientific knowledge.
1. Alekseev P.V., Panin A.V. “Philosophy” M.: Prospekt, 2000
2. Leshkevich T.G. “Philosophy of Science: Traditions and Innovations” M.: PRIOR, 2001
3. Spirkin A.G. “Fundamentals of Philosophy” M.: Politizdat, 1988
4. “Philosophy” under. ed. Kokhanovsky V.P. Rostov-n/D.: Phoenix, 2000
5. Golubintsev V.O., Dantsev A.A., Lyubchenko V.S. “Philosophy for technical universities" Rostov n/d.: Phoenix, 2001
6. Agofonov V.P., Kazakov D.F., Rachinsky D.D. “Philosophy” M.: MSHA, 2000
7. Frolov I.T. “Introduction to Philosophy” Part-2, M.: Politizdat, 1989
8. Ruzavin G.I. “Methodology of scientific research” M.: UNITY-DANA, 1999.
9. Kanke V.A. “Main philosophical directions and concepts of science. Results of the twentieth century.” - M.: Logos, 2000.
If we assume that scientific knowledge is based on rationality, it is necessary to understand that non-scientific or extra-scientific knowledge is not an invention or fiction. Non-scientific knowledge, just like scientific knowledge, is produced in certain intellectual communities in accordance with certain norms and standards. Non-scientific and scientific knowledge have their own means and sources of knowledge. As is known, many forms of non-scientific knowledge are older than knowledge that is recognized as scientific. For example, alchemy is much older than chemistry, and astrology is older than astronomy.
Scientific and non-scientific knowledge have sources. For example, the first is based on the results of experiments and science. Its form can be considered theory. The laws of science result in certain hypotheses. Myths are considered forms of the second, folk wisdom, common sense and practical activities. In some cases, non-scientific knowledge can also be based on feeling, which leads to so-called revelation or metaphysical insight. An example of non-scientific knowledge can be faith. Non-scientific knowledge can be carried out using the means of art, for example, when creating an artistic image.
Differences between scientific and non-scientific knowledge
Firstly, the main difference between scientific knowledge and non-scientific knowledge is the objectivity of the former. A person who adheres to scientific views understands the fact that everything in the world develops regardless of certain desires. This situation cannot be influenced by authorities and private opinions. Otherwise, the world might have been in chaos and would hardly have existed at all.
Secondly, scientific knowledge, unlike non-scientific knowledge, is aimed at results in the future. Scientific fruits, unlike non-scientific fruits, cannot always give quick results. Before discovery, many theories are subject to doubts and persecution from those who do not want to recognize the objectivity of phenomena. A sufficient amount of time may pass until a scientific discovery, as opposed to a non-scientific one, is recognized as having taken place. A striking example would be the discoveries of Galileo Galileo or Copernicus regarding the movement of the Earth and the structure of the solar Galaxy.
Scientific and non-scientific knowledge are always in opposition, which causes another difference. Scientific knowledge always goes through the following stages: observation and classification, experiment and explanation of natural phenomena. All this is not inherent in non-scientific knowledge.
Narrow specialization in science is a relatively young phenomenon by historical standards. Analyzing the history of science since ancient times, it is not difficult to see that all sciences - from physics to psychology - grow from one root, and this root is philosophy.
Speaking of scientists Ancient world, they are most often collectively called philosophers. This does not contradict the fact that their works contain ideas that, from a modern point of view, can be attributed to (Democritus’ idea of atoms), psychology (Aristotle’s treatise (“On the Soul”), etc. - these ideas are in any case distinguished by their universality understanding of the world. This applies even to those ancient scientists for whom a certain scientific specialization is recognized. For example, Pythagoras is spoken of as , but even he looked for the universal laws of the structure of the world in numerical relationships. That is why he was able to so naturally apply mathematical ideas to the field of musicology. Exactly Plato also tried to build a model based on his cosmogonic ideas.
Such extreme generalization has been characteristic of philosophy in all centuries of its existence, including. But if in antiquity it included the beginnings of all future sciences, now these “seeds” have long sprouted and grown into something independent, which forces us to raise the question of the relationship between philosophy and other sciences.
The basis of science is experiment. It is there that objective facts are established. In philosophy, experiment is impossible due to the extreme generality of its subject of research. Studying the most general laws of the existence of the world, a philosopher cannot identify a specific object for experiment, therefore philosophical teaching cannot always be reproduced in practice.
Thus, the similarity between philosophy and science is obvious. Like science, philosophy establishes facts and patterns and systematizes knowledge about the world. The difference lies in the degree of connection between scientific and philosophical theories and specific facts and practice. In philosophy this connection is more indirect than in science.
Sources:
- Philosophy and science
Knowledge of reality can be achieved in several ways. In ordinary life, a person intuitively or consciously uses everyday, artistic or religious forms of understanding the world. There is also a scientific form of knowledge, which has its own set of methods. It is characterized by a conscious division of cognition into stages.
Features of scientific knowledge
Scientific knowledge is very different from everyday knowledge. Science has its own set of objects that need to be studied. Scientific reality is focused not on reflecting the external signs of some phenomenon, but on understanding the deep essence of objects and processes that are the focus of science.
Science has developed its own special language and developed specific methods for studying reality. Cognition here occurs indirectly, through the appropriate tools, which the best way suitable for identifying movement patterns various forms matter. Philosophy is used as the basis for generalizing conclusions in scientific knowledge.
All stages of scientific knowledge are summarized in a system. The study of phenomena observed by scientists in nature and society occurs in science systematically. Conclusions are drawn on the basis of objective and verifiable facts; they are distinguished by logical organization and validity. Scientific knowledge uses its own methods of justifying the reliability of the results and confirming the truth of the acquired knowledge.
Stages of scientific knowledge
Knowledge in science begins with the formulation of a problem. At this stage, the researcher outlines the area of research, identifying already known facts and those aspects of objective reality, knowledge of which is not sufficient. A scientist, posing a problem for himself or the scientific community, usually points to the boundary between the known and the unknown, which must be crossed in the process of cognition.
At the second stage of the cognition process, formulation occurs, which is designed to resolve the situation with insufficient knowledge about the subject. The essence of a hypothesis is to put forward an educated guess based on a certain set of facts that are subject to verification and explanation. One of the main requirements for a hypothesis is that it must be testable by methods accepted in a given branch of knowledge.
At the next stage of cognition, the scientist collects primary data and systematizes them. In science, observation and experiment are widely used for this purpose. Data collection is systematic and is subject to the methodological concept adopted by the researcher. The results of research compiled into a system make it possible to accept or reject a previously put forward hypothesis.
At the final stage of scientific knowledge, a new scientific concept or theory is constructed. The researcher summarizes the results of the work and gives the hypothesis the status of knowledge that has the property of reliability. As a result, a theory is born that describes and explains in a new way a certain set of phenomena previously outlined by the scientist.
The provisions of the theory are justified from the position of logic and brought to a single basis. Sometimes in the course of constructing a theory, a scientist comes across facts that have not received an explanation. They can serve as a starting point for organizing new research work, which allows for continuity in the development of concepts and makes scientific knowledge endless.
Scientific knowledge - This is a type and level of knowledge aimed at producing true knowledge about reality, the discovery of objective laws based on a generalization of real facts. It rises above ordinary cognition, that is, spontaneous cognition associated with the life activity of people and perceiving reality at the level of phenomena.
Epistemology - This is the doctrine of scientific knowledge.
Features of scientific knowledge:
Firstly, its main task is to discover and explain the objective laws of reality - natural, social and thinking. Hence the focus of research on the general, essential properties of an object and their expression in a system of abstraction.
Secondly, the immediate goal and highest value of scientific knowledge is objective truth, comprehended primarily by rational means and methods.
Third, to a greater extent than other types of knowledge, it is oriented towards being embodied in practice.
Fourthly, science has developed a special language, characterized by the accuracy of the use of terms, symbols, and diagrams.
Fifthly, Scientific knowledge is a complex process of reproduction of knowledge that forms an integral, developing system of concepts, theories, hypotheses, and laws.
At sixth, Scientific knowledge is characterized by both strict evidence, validity of the results obtained, reliability of conclusions, and the presence of hypotheses, conjectures, and assumptions.
Seventh, scientific knowledge requires and resorts to special tools (means) of knowledge: scientific equipment, measuring instruments, instruments.
Eighth, scientific knowledge is characterized by processuality. In its development, it goes through two main stages: empirical and theoretical, which are closely related to each other.
Ninth, The field of scientific knowledge consists of verifiable and systematized information about various phenomena of existence.
Levels of scientific knowledge:
Empirical level cognition is a direct experimental, mostly inductive, study of an object. It includes obtaining the necessary initial facts - data about individual aspects and connections of the object, understanding and describing the data obtained in the language of science, and their primary systematization. Cognition at this stage still remains at the level of phenomenon, but the prerequisites for penetrating the essence of the object have already been created.
Theoretical level characterized by deep penetration into the essence of the object being studied, not only identifying, but also explaining the patterns of its development and functioning, constructing a theoretical model of the object and its in-depth analysis.
Forms of scientific knowledge:
scientific fact, scientific problem, scientific hypothesis, proof, scientific theory, paradigm, unified scientific picture of the world.
Scientific fact - this is the initial form of scientific knowledge, in which primary knowledge about an object is recorded; it is a reflection in the consciousness of the subject of a fact of reality. In this case, a scientific fact is only one that can be verified and described in scientific terms.
Scientific problem - it is a contradiction between new facts and existing theoretical knowledge. A scientific problem can also be defined as a kind of knowledge about ignorance, since it arises when the cognizing subject realizes the incompleteness of a particular knowledge about an object and sets the goal of eliminating this gap. The problem includes the problematic issue, the project for solving the problem and its content.
Scientific hypothesis - This is a scientifically based assumption that explains certain parameters of the object being studied and does not contradict known scientific facts. It must satisfactorily explain the object being studied, be verifiable in principle, and answer the questions posed by the scientific problem.
In addition, the main content of the hypothesis should not contradict the laws established in a given system of knowledge. The assumptions that make up the content of the hypothesis must be sufficient so that with their help it is possible to explain all the facts about which the hypothesis is put forward. The assumptions of the hypothesis should not be logically contradictory.
The development of new hypotheses in science is associated with the need for a new vision of the problem and the emergence of problematic situations.
Proof - this is a confirmation of the hypothesis.
Types of evidence:
Practice serving as direct confirmation
Indirect theoretical proof, including confirmation by arguments indicating facts and laws (inductive path), derivation of a hypothesis from other, more general and already proven provisions (deductive path), comparison, analogy, modeling, etc.
The proven hypothesis serves as the basis for constructing a scientific theory.
Scientific theory - this is a form of reliable scientific knowledge about a certain set of objects, which is a system of interconnected statements and evidence and contains methods for explaining, transforming and predicting phenomena in a given object area. In theory, in the form of principles and laws, knowledge about the essential connections that determine the emergence and existence of certain objects is expressed. The main cognitive functions of the theory are: synthesizing, explanatory, methodological, predictive and practical.
All theories develop within certain paradigms.
Paradigm - it is a special way of organizing knowledge and seeing the world, influencing the direction of further research. Paradigm
can be compared to an optical device through which we look at a particular phenomenon.
Many theories are constantly being synthesized into a unified scientific picture of the world, that is, a holistic system of ideas about the general principles and laws of the structure of being.
Methods of scientific knowledge:
Method(from Greek Metodos - path to something) - it is a way of activity in any form.
The method includes techniques that ensure the achievement of goals, regulate human activity and general principles, from which these techniques arise. Methods of cognitive activity form the direction of cognition at a particular stage, the order of cognitive procedures. In their content, the methods are objective, since they are ultimately determined by the nature of the object and the laws of its functioning.
Scientific method - This is a set of rules, techniques and principles that ensure the logical cognition of an object and the receipt of reliable knowledge.
Classification of methods of scientific knowledge can be done for various reasons:
First reason. Based on their nature and role in cognition, they distinguish methods - techniques, which consist of specific rules, techniques and algorithms of action (observation, experiment, etc.) and methods - approaches, which indicate the direction and general method research ( system analysis, functional analysis, diachronic method, etc.).
Second reason. By functional purpose they are distinguished:
a) universal human methods of thinking (analysis, synthesis, comparison, generalization, induction, deduction, etc.);
b) empirical methods (observation, experiment, survey, measurement);
c) theoretical level methods (modelling, thought experiment, analogy, mathematical methods, philosophical methods, induction and deduction).
Third base is the degree of generality. Here the methods are divided into:
a) philosophical methods (dialectical, formal - logical, intuitive, phenomenological, hermeneutic);
b) general scientific methods, that is, methods that guide the course of knowledge in many sciences, but unlike philosophical methods, each general scientific method (observation, experiment, analysis, synthesis, modeling, etc.) solves its own problem, characteristic only for it ;
c) special methods.
Some methods of scientific knowledge:
Observation - this is a purposeful, organized perception of objects and phenomena to collect facts.
Experiment - is an artificial recreation of a cognizable object under controlled and controlled conditions.
Formalization is a reflection of the acquired knowledge in an unambiguous formalized language.
Axiomatic method - this is a way of constructing a scientific theory when it is based on certain axioms, from which all other provisions are logically deduced.
Hypothetico-deductive method - creation of a system of deductively interconnected hypotheses, from which explanations of scientific facts are ultimately derived.
Inductive methods for establishing the causal relationship of phenomena:
similarity method: if two or more cases of the phenomenon being studied have only one previous common circumstance, then this circumstance in which they are similar to each other is probably the cause of the phenomenon being sought;
difference method: if the case in which the phenomenon we are interested in occurs and the case in which it does not occur are similar in everything, with the exception of one circumstance, then this is the only circumstance in which they differ from each other, and is probably the cause of the desired phenomenon;
accompanying change method: if the occurrence or change of a previous phenomenon each time causes the occurrence or change of another phenomenon accompanying it, then the first of them is probably the cause of the second;
residual method: If it is established that the cause of part of a complex phenomenon is not caused by known previous circumstances, except for one of them, then we can assume that this only circumstance is the cause of the part of the phenomenon under study that interests us.
Universal methods of thinking:
- Comparison- establishing the similarities and differences between objects of reality (for example, we compare the characteristics of two engines);
- Analysis- mental dissection of an object as a whole
(we divide each engine into constituent elements characteristics);
- Synthesis- mental unification into a single whole of the elements identified as a result of the analysis (mentally we combine the best characteristics and elements of both engines in one - virtual);
- Abstraction- highlighting some features of an object and distracting from others (for example, we study only the design of the engine and temporarily do not take into account its content and functioning);
- Induction- movement of thought from the particular to the general, from individual data to more general provisions, and ultimately to the essence (we take into account all cases of engine failures of this type and, based on this, we come to conclusions about the prospects for its further operation);
- Deduction- movement of thought from the general to the specific (based on the general patterns of engine operation, we make predictions about the further functioning of a particular engine);
- Modeling- construction mental subject(model) similar to the real one, the study of which will allow us to obtain the information necessary for understanding the real object (creating a model of a more advanced engine);
- Analogy- conclusion about the similarity of objects in some properties, based on similarity in other characteristics (conclusion about engine breakdown based on a characteristic knock);
- Generalization- combining individual objects into a certain concept (for example, creating the concept “engine”).
The science:
- This is a form of spiritual and practical activity of people aimed at achieving objectively true knowledge and its systematization.
Scientific complexes:
A)Natural science is a system of disciplines whose object is nature, that is, a part of existence that exists according to laws not created by human activity.
b)Social science- this is a system of sciences about society, that is, a part of existence that is constantly recreated in the activities of people. Social science includes social sciences (sociology, economic theory, demography, history, etc.) and humanities that study the values of society (ethics, aesthetics, religious studies, philosophy, legal sciences, etc.)
V)Technical science- these are sciences that study the laws and specifics of the creation and functioning of complex technical systems.
G)Anthropological Sciences- this is a set of sciences about man in all his integrity: physical anthropology, philosophical anthropology, medicine, pedagogy, psychology, etc.
In addition, sciences are divided into fundamental, theoretical and applied, which have a direct connection with industrial practice.
Scientific criteria: universality, systematization, relative consistency, relative simplicity (a theory that explains the widest possible range of phenomena based on a minimum number of scientific principles is considered good), explanatory potential, predictive power, completeness for a given level of knowledge.
Scientific truth is characterized by objectivity, evidence, systematicity (orderliness based on certain principles), and verifiability.
Models of science development:
theory of reproduction (proliferation) by P. Feyerabend, which affirms the chaotic origin of concepts, T. Kuhn's paradigm, conventionalism by A. Poincaré, psychophysics by E. Mach, personal knowledge by M. Polanyi, evolutionary epistemology by S. Toulmin, research program by I. Lakatos, thematic analysis of science by J. Holton.
K. Popper, considering knowledge in two aspects: statics and dynamics, developed the concept of the growth of scientific knowledge. In his opinion, growth of scientific knowledge - this is the repeated overthrow of scientific theories and their replacement with better and more perfect ones. The position of T. Kuhn is radically different from this approach. His model includes two main stages: the stage of “normal science” (the dominance of one or another paradigm) and the stage of the “scientific revolution” (the collapse of the old paradigm and the establishment of a new one).
Global scientific revolution - this is a change in the general scientific picture of the world, accompanied by changes in the ideals, norms and philosophical foundations of science.
Within the framework of classical natural science, two revolutions are distinguished. First associated with the formation of classical natural science in the 17th century. Second The revolution dates back to the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries. and marks the transition to disciplinary organized science. Third The global scientific revolution covers the period from the end of the 19th to the mid-20th century. and is associated with the formation of non-classical natural science. At the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century. new radical changes are taking place in the foundations of science, which can be characterized as fourth global revolution. In the course of it, a new post-non-classical science is born.
Three revolutions (out of four) led to the establishment of new types of scientific rationality:
1. Classic type of scientific rationality(XVIII–XIX centuries). At this time, the following ideas about science were established: the value of objective universal true knowledge appeared, science was considered as a reliable and absolutely rational enterprise, with the help of which all problems of humanity can be solved, highest achievement natural scientific knowledge was considered, the object and subject of scientific research were presented in a strict epistemological opposition, explanation was interpreted as a search for mechanical causes and substances. In classical science it was believed that only laws of the dynamic type could be genuine laws.
2. Non-classical type of scientific rationality(XX century). Its features: the coexistence of alternative concepts, the complication of scientific ideas about the world, the assumption of probabilistic, discrete, paradoxical phenomena, reliance on the irreducible presence of the subject in the processes being studied, the assumption of the absence of an unambiguous connection between theory and reality; science begins to determine the development of technology.
3. Post-non-classical type of scientific rationality(end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century). It is characterized by an understanding of the extreme complexity of the processes under study, the emergence of a value-based perspective on the study of problems, and a high degree of use of interdisciplinary approaches.
Science and Society:
Science is closely interconnected with the development of society. This is manifested primarily in the fact that it is ultimately determined, conditioned by social practice and its needs. However, with every decade the reverse influence of science on society increases. The connection and interaction of science, technology and production is becoming increasingly stronger - science is turning into a direct productive force of society. How is it shown?
Firstly, Science is now overtaking the development of technology and is becoming the leading force in the progress of material production.
Secondly, Science permeates all spheres of public life.
Third, Science is increasingly focused not only on technology, but also on man himself, the development of his creative abilities, culture of thinking, and the creation of material and spiritual prerequisites for his holistic development.
Fourthly, the development of science leads to the emergence of parascientific knowledge. This is a collective name for ideological and hypothetical concepts and teachings characterized by an anti-scientist orientation. The term "parascience" refers to statements or theories that deviate to a greater or lesser extent from the standards of science and contain both fundamentally erroneous and possibly true propositions. Concepts most often attributed to parascience: outdated scientific concepts, such as alchemy, astrology, etc., which played a certain historical role in the development of modern science; ethnoscience and other “traditional”, but to a certain extent, teachings that are opposed to modern science; sports, family, culinary, labor, etc. “sciences”, which are examples of systematization of practical experience and applied knowledge, but do not correspond to the definition of science as such.
Approaches to assessing the role of science in the modern world. First approach - scientism asserts that with the help of natural and technical scientific knowledge it is possible to solve all social problems
Second approach - antiscientism, based negative consequences Scientific and technological revolution rejects science and technology, considering them forces hostile to the true essence of man. Socio-historical practice shows that it is equally wrong to exorbitantly absolutize science and to underestimate it.
Functions of modern science:
1. Cognitive;
2. Cultural and worldview (providing society with a scientific worldview);
3. Function of direct productive force;
4. Function of social power (scientific knowledge and methods are widely used in solving all problems of society).
Patterns of development of science: continuity, a complex combination of processes of differentiation and integration of scientific disciplines, deepening and expansion of the processes of mathematization and computerization, theorization and dialectization of modern scientific knowledge, alternation of relatively calm periods of development and periods of “sharp change” (scientific revolutions) of laws and principles.
The formation of modern NCM is largely associated with discoveries in quantum physics.
Science and technology
Technique in the broad sense of the word - it is an artifact, that is, everything artificially created. Artifacts are: material and ideal.
Technique in the narrow sense of the word - this is a set of material, energy and information devices and means created by society to carry out its activities.
The basis for the philosophical analysis of technology was the ancient Greek concept of “techne”, which meant skill, art, and the ability to create something from natural material.
M. Heidegger believed that technology is a person’s way of being, a way of self-regulation. J. Habermas believed that technology unites everything “material” that opposes the world of ideas. O. Toffler substantiated the wave-like nature of the development of technology and its impact on society.
The way technology manifests itself is technology. If what a person influences with is technology, then how he influences is technology.
Technosphere- this is a special part of the Earth’s shell, which is a synthesis of artificial and natural, created by society to satisfy its needs.
Classification of equipment:
By type of activity distinguished: material and production, transport and communications, scientific research, the learning process, medical, sports, household, military.
By type of natural process used There are mechanical, electronic, nuclear, laser and other types of equipment.
By level of structural complexity The following historical forms of technology arose: guns(manual labor, mental labor and human activity), cars And machine guns. The sequence of these forms of technology, in general, corresponds to the historical stages of the development of technology itself.
Trends in technology development at the present stage:
The size of many technical means is constantly growing. So, an excavator bucket in 1930 had a volume of 4 cubic meters, and now it is 170 cubic meters. Transport planes already carry 500 or more passengers, and so on.
A tendency of the opposite nature has emerged, towards a reduction in the size of equipment. For example, the creation of microminiature personal computers, tape recorders without cassettes, etc. has already become a reality.
Increasingly, technical innovations are achieved through the application of scientific knowledge. A striking example of this is space technology, which has become the embodiment of scientific developments of more than two dozen natural and technical sciences. Discoveries in scientific creativity give impetus to technical creativity with its characteristic inventions. The fusion of science and technology into a single system that has radically changed the life of man, society, and the biosphere is called scientific and technological revolution(NTR).
There is an increasingly intensive merging of technical means into complex systems and complexes: factories, power plants, communication systems, ships, etc. The prevalence and scale of these complexes allows us to speak about the existence of a technosphere on our planet.
The information field is becoming an important and constantly growing area of application of modern technology.
Informatization - is the process of production, storage and dissemination of information in society.
Historical forms of informatization: Speaking; writing; typography; electrical - electronic reproductive devices (radio, telephone, television, etc.); Computers (computers).
The widespread use of computers marked a special stage of informatization. Unlike physical resources, information as a resource has a unique property - when used, it does not shrink, but, on the contrary, expands. The inexhaustibility of information resources sharply accelerates the technological cycle “knowledge - production - knowledge”, causes an avalanche-like growth in the number of people involved in the process of obtaining, formalizing and processing knowledge (in the USA, 77% of employees are involved in the field of information activities and services), and has an impact on the prevalence of systems mass media and manipulation of public opinion. Based on these circumstances, many scientists and philosophers (D. Bell, T. Stoneier, Y. Masuda) proclaimed the onset of the information society.
Signs of the information society:
Free access for anyone anywhere, at any time to any information;
The production of information in this society must be carried out in the volumes necessary to ensure the life of the individual and society in all its parts and directions;
Science should occupy a special place in the production of information;
Accelerated automation and operation;
Priority development of the sphere of information activities and services.
Undoubtedly, the information society brings certain advantages and benefits. However, one cannot fail to note its problems: computer theft, the possibility of an information-based computer war, the possibility of establishing an information dictatorship and terror of provider organizations, etc.
Human attitude towards technology:
On the one hand, facts and ideas of mistrust and hostility to technology. In Ancient China, some Taoist sages denied technology, motivating their actions by the fact that when using technology you become dependent on it, you lose freedom of action and you yourself become a mechanism. In the 30s of the twentieth century, O. Spengler, in his book “Man and Technology,” argued that man became a slave to machines and would be driven to death by them.
At the same time, the apparent indispensability of technology in all spheres of human existence sometimes gives rise to an unbridled apology for technology, a kind of ideology of technicalism. How is it shown? Firstly. In exaggerating the role and importance of technology in human life and, secondly, in transferring the characteristics inherent in machines to humanity and personality. Proponents of technocracy see the prospects for progress in concentrating political power in the hands of the technical intelligentsia.
Consequences of the influence of technology on humans:
Beneficial component includes the following:
the widespread use of technology has contributed to an almost doubling of the average human life expectancy;
technology freed man from constraining circumstances and increased his free time;
new information technology has qualitatively expanded the scope and forms of human intellectual activity;
technology has brought progress to the educational process; technology has increased the efficiency of human activity in various spheres of society.
Negative the impact of technology on humans and society is as follows: some of its types of technology pose a danger to the life and health of people, the threat of environmental disaster has increased, the number of occupational diseases has increased;
a person, becoming a particle of some technical system, is deprived of his creative essence; an increasing amount of information causes a decreasing trend in the share of knowledge that one person is able to possess;
the technique can be used as effective remedy suppression, total control and manipulation of personality;
the impact of technology on the human psyche is enormous and through virtual reality, and through the replacement of the “symbol-image” chain with another “image-image”, which leads to a stop in the development of figurative and abstract thinking, as well as the appearance of neuroses and mental illnesses.
Engineer(from French and Latin means “creator”, “creator”, “inventor” in a broad sense) is a person who mentally creates a technical object and controls the process of its production and operation. Engineering activities - This is the activity of mentally creating a technical object and managing the process of its production and operation. Engineering activity emerged from technical activity in the 18th century during the Industrial Revolution.
