Philosophy and science as a social institution. Increase in knowledge and technology

philosophy science social scientist

The establishment of science as a social institution occurred in the 17th and early 18th centuries, when the first scientific societies and academies were formed in Europe and the publication of scientific journals began. Before this, the preservation and reproduction of science as an independent social entity was carried out primarily in an informal way - through traditions transmitted through books, teaching, correspondence and personal communication between scientists.

Until the end of the 19th century. science remained “small”, occupying a relatively small number of people in its field. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. A new way of organizing science is emerging - large scientific institutes and laboratories, with a powerful technical base, which brings scientific activity closer to the forms of modern industrial labor. Thus, the transformation of “small” science into “big” occurs. Science includes 15 thousand disciplines and several hundred thousand scientific journals. 20th century called the century of modern science. New energy sources and information technologies are promising areas of modern science. Trends in the internationalization of science are increasing, and science itself is becoming the subject of interdisciplinary comprehensive analysis. Not only scientific studies and philosophy of science, but also sociology, psychology, and history are beginning to study it. Modern science is increasingly connected with all social institutions without exception, permeating not only industrial and agricultural production, but also politics, the administrative and military spheres. In turn, science as a social institution becomes the most important factor in socio-economic potential and requires increasing costs, due to which science policy is turning into one of the leading areas of social management.

With the split of the world into two camps after the Great October Socialist Revolution, science as a social institution began to develop in fundamentally different social conditions. Under capitalism, in conditions of antagonistic social relations, the achievements of science are largely used by monopolies to obtain super-profits, increase the exploitation of workers, and militarize the economy. Under socialism, the development of science is planned on a national scale in the interests of the entire people. The planned development of the economy and the transformation of social relations are carried out on a scientific basis, thanks to which science plays a decisive role both in creating the material and technical basis of communism and in the formation of a new person. A developed socialist society opens up the widest scope for new advances in science in the name of the interests of the working people.

The emergence of “big” science was primarily due to a change in the nature of its connection with technology and production. Until the end of the 19th century. science played a supporting role in relation to production. Then the development of science begins to outstrip the development of technology and production, and a unified system of “science - technology - production” takes shape, in which science plays a leading role. In the era of scientific and technological revolution, science is constantly transforming the structure and content of material activity. The production process increasingly "... appears not as subordinate to the direct skill of the worker, but as a technological application of science."

The role of science in the era of the scientific and technological revolution increased so enormously that a new scale of its internal differentiation was required. And we were no longer talking only about theorists and experimenters. It has become obvious that in “big” science some scientists are more inclined to heuristic search activities - putting forward new ideas, others to analytical and operational ones - substantiating existing ones, others - to testing them, and others - to applying acquired scientific knowledge.

Along with the natural and technical sciences, social sciences are becoming increasingly important in modern society, setting certain guidelines for its development and studying man in all the diversity of his manifestations. On this basis, there is an increasing convergence of natural, technical and social sciences.

In the conditions of modern science, the problems of organizing and managing the development of science become of paramount importance. The concentration and centralization of science gave rise to the emergence of national and international scientific organizations and centers, and the systematic implementation of large international projects. Special scientific management bodies have been formed in the public administration system. On their basis, a scientific policy mechanism is emerging that actively and purposefully influences the development of science. Initially, the organization of science was almost exclusively tied to the system of universities and other higher educational institutions and was built along industry lines. In the 20th century Specialized research institutions are widely developed. The emerging trend towards a decrease in the specific cost efficiency of scientific activity, especially in the field of fundamental research, has given rise to a desire for new forms of organizing science. Such a form of organization of science as scientific centers of an industrial (for example, the Pushchino Center for Biological Research of the USSR Academy of Sciences in the Moscow Region) and complex nature (for example, the Novosibirsk Scientific Center) is being developed. Research units based on problem-based principles are emerging. To solve specific scientific problems, often of an interdisciplinary nature, special creative teams are created, consisting of problem groups and united in projects and programs (for example, a space exploration program). Centralization in the system of scientific management is increasingly combined with decentralization and autonomy in conducting research. Informal problem associations of scientists - the so-called invisible teams - are becoming widespread. Along with them, within the framework of “big” science, such informal formations as scientific directions and scientific schools that arose in the conditions of “small” science continue to exist and develop. In turn, scientific methods are increasingly used as one of the means of organization and management in other areas of activity. The scientific organization of labor (SLO) has become widespread, becoming one of the main levers for increasing the efficiency of social production. Automatic production control systems (APS), created with the help of computers and cybernetics, are being introduced. The human factor, primarily in human-machine systems, is increasingly becoming the object of scientific management. The results of scientific research are used to improve the principles of management of teams, enterprises, the state, and society as a whole. Like all social uses of science, such uses serve opposing ends under capitalism and socialism.

Of great importance for science are the national characteristics of its development, expressed in the distribution of the available staff of scientists in different countries, national and cultural traditions of the development of individual branches of science within the framework of scientific schools and directions, in the relationship between fundamental and applied research on a national scale, in state policy on relation to the development of science (for example, in the size and focus of allocations for science). However, the results of science - scientific knowledge - are international in essence.

The reproduction of science as a social institution is closely connected with the education system and training of scientific personnel. In the conditions of the modern scientific and technological revolution, a certain gap is felt between the historically established tradition of education in secondary and higher schools and the needs of society (including science). In order to eliminate this gap, new teaching methods are being intensively introduced into the education system, using the latest achievements of science - psychology, pedagogy, cybernetics. Education in higher education shows a tendency to move closer to the research practice of science and production. In the field of education, the cognitive function of science is closely related to the task of educating students as full-fledged members of society, developing in them a certain value orientation and moral qualities. The practice of social life and Marxist-Leninist theory have convincingly proven that the Enlightenment ideal, according to which the universal dissemination of scientific knowledge will automatically lead to the education of highly moral individuals and a fair organization of society, is utopian and erroneous. This can only be achieved through a radical change in the social system, replacing capitalism with socialism.

For science as a system of knowledge, the highest value is truth, which in itself is neutral in moral and ethical terms. Moral assessments can relate either to the activity of obtaining knowledge (the professional ethics of a scientist requires intellectual honesty and courage from him in the process of an unstoppable search for truth), or to the activity of applying the results of science, where the problem of the relationship between science and morality arises with particular urgency , specifically speaking in the form of the problem of the moral responsibility of scientists for the social consequences caused by the use of their discoveries. The barbaric use of science by militarists (the Nazi experiments on people, Hiroshima and Nagasaki) caused a number of active social actions by progressive scientists aimed at preventing the anti-humanistic use of science.

The study of various aspects of science is carried out by a number of its specialized branches, which include the history of science, logic of science, sociology of science, psychology of scientific creativity, etc. From the middle of the 20th century. A new, comprehensive approach to the study of science is intensively developing, striving for a synthetic knowledge of all its many aspects - science studies.

Components of science as a social institution. The process of institutionalization.

Science and Economics. Science and power.

Evolution of methods for transmitting scientific knowledge.

Materials for the lecture

Science as a social institution is a special, relatively independent form of social consciousness and sphere of human activity, acting as a historical product of the long development of human civilization, spiritual culture, which has developed its own types of communication, human interaction, forms of division of research labor and norms of consciousness of scientists.

body of knowledge and its carriers;

the presence of specific cognitive goals and objectives;

performing certain functions;

the presence of specific means of knowledge and institutions;

development of forms of control, examination and evaluation of scientific achievements;

the existence of certain sanctions.

The modern institutional approach is characterized by taking into account the applied aspects of science. The normative moment loses its dominant place, and the image of “pure science” gives way to the image of “science put at the service of production.” Modern scientific practice is carried out only within the framework of science, understood as a social institution. Institutionality provides support for those activities and those projects that contribute to the strengthening of a particular value system. One of the unwritten rules of the scientific community is the prohibition of turning to authorities to use mechanisms of coercion and subordination in resolving scientific problems. The requirement of scientific competence becomes the leading one for the scientist. Arbitrators and experts when assessing the results of scientific research can only be professionals or groups of professionals. Science as a social institution takes on the functions of distributing rewards and ensures recognition of the results of scientific activity, thus transferring the personal achievements of the scientist into the collective property.

The sociology of science examines the relationship of the institution of science with the social structure of society, the typology of behavior of scientists in various social systems, the dynamics of group interactions of formal professional and informal communities of scientists, as well as specific sociocultural conditions for the development of science in various types of societies.

The institutionality of modern science dictates the ideal of rationality, which is entirely subordinate to sociocultural and institutional requirements and regulations. The institutionalization process includes the following components:

academic and university science responsible for the production of new knowledge;

concentration of resources necessary for scientific innovations and their implementation,

banking and financing system;

representative and legislative bodies that legitimize innovation, for example, academic councils and higher certification commissions in the process of awarding scientific degrees and titles;

Press Institute;

organizational and management institute;

a judicial institution designed to resolve or end intra-scientific conflicts.

Currently, the institutional approach is one of the dominant mechanisms for the development of science. However, it has disadvantages: exaggeration of the role of formal aspects, insufficient attention to the psychological and sociocultural foundations of human behavior, the rigidly prescriptive nature of scientific activity, and ignoring informal development opportunities.

Science as a social institution is designed to stimulate the growth of scientific knowledge and provide an objective assessment of the contribution of a particular scientist. As a social institution, science is responsible for the use or prohibition of scientific achievements. Members of the scientific community must conform to the norms and values accepted in science, therefore an important characteristic of the institutional understanding of science is the ethos of science. According to R. Merton, the following features of the scientific ethos should be highlighted:

universalism - the objective nature of scientific knowledge, the content of which does not depend on who and when it was received, only the reliability confirmed by accepted scientific procedures is important;

collectivism – the universal nature of scientific work, presupposing the publicity of scientific results, their public domain;

selflessness due to the general goal of science - the comprehension of truth; selflessness in science must prevail over any considerations of prestige, personal gain, mutual responsibility, competition, etc.;

organized skepticism – a critical attitude towards oneself and the work of one’s colleagues; in science nothing is taken for granted, and the moment of denying the results obtained is an irremovable element of scientific research.

Scientific activity cannot proceed in isolation from socio-political processes. The relationship between science and economics, science and government has always been a big problem. Science is not only an energy-intensive, but also a hugely financially expensive enterprise. It requires huge capital investments and is not always profitable.

The problem of preventing the negative consequences of using new technologies is a very pressing one. Economic and technological implementations that ignore humanistic goals and values give rise to numerous consequences that destroy human existence. The lag and delay in awareness of this range of problems is worrying. At the same time, it is a well-founded economic strategy in relation to technical sciences, technological and engineering activities that needs verified and precise guidelines that take into account the full scale and severity of the problem of interaction between the natural and artificial worlds, economics and high-tech technologies, expertise and humanitarian control.

Scientists come to the conclusion that if scientific activity for the production of fundamental knowledge and its application is suspended for at least 50 years, it will never be able to resume, since existing achievements will be subject to corrosion of the past. Another important conclusion concerns the range of problems associated with the relationship between economics and science, and emphasizes the need for investment control.

The modern technical world is complex. Its forecasting is one of the most critical areas associated with the effects of complex systems that cannot be fully controlled either by scientists or by government authorities. Is it right to place all responsibility for the application of scientific discoveries on the intellectual elite? Hardly. In modern forecasting, not just the “technical device - person” system should be considered, but a complex in which environmental parameters, socio-cultural guidelines, the dynamics of market relations and government priorities and, of course, universal human values are stated.

Discussing the relationship between science and power, scientists note that science itself has power functions and can function as a form of power, domination and control.

However, in actual practice, the government either supervises science or dictates its own government priorities to it. There are such concepts as national science, the prestige of the state, strong defense. The concept of “power” is closely related to the concept of the state and its ideology. From the point of view of the state and authorities, science should serve the cause of education, make discoveries and provide prospects for economic growth and development of the well-being of the people. Developed science is an indicator of the strength of the state. The presence of scientific achievements determines the economic and international status of the state; however, the strict dictatorship of the authorities is unacceptable.

The relationship between science and government can be traced through the involvement of leading scientists in the process of justifying important government and management decisions. In a number of European countries and the United States, scientists are involved in government, discussing problems of government and public policy.

At the same time, science has specific goals and objectives, scientists adhere to objective positions, it is not typical for the scientific community as a whole to turn to the arbitration authority of those in power when solving scientific problems, just as it is unacceptable for it to interfere with the authorities in the process of scientific research. In this case, the difference between fundamental and applied sciences should be taken into account, and if fundamental sciences as a whole are aimed at studying the universe, then applied sciences should solve the goals that the production process sets for it, and contribute to changing objects in the direction it needs. Their autonomy and independence is significantly reduced compared to basic sciences, which require huge capital investments and the return on which is possible only after several decades. This is an unprofitable industry associated with a high degree of risk. This raises the problem of determining the highest priority areas of government funding.

The evolution of methods for transmitting scientific knowledge

Human society, throughout its development, needed ways to transfer experience and knowledge from generation to generation. Language as a sign reality or a system of signs serves as a specific means of storing and transmitting information, as well as a means of controlling human behavior. The sign nature of language can be understood from the fact that biological coding is insufficient. Sociality, which manifests itself as the attitude of people about things and the attitude of people about people, is not assimilated by genes. People are forced to use extra-biological means of reproducing their social nature in succession of generations. The sign is a kind of “hereditary essence” of extra-biological social coding, providing the translation of everything that is necessary for society, but cannot be transmitted by biocode. Language acts as a “social” gene.

Language as a social phenomenon is not invented or invented by anyone; it sets and reflects the requirements of sociality. As a product of the creativity of an individual, language is nonsense that has no universality and is therefore perceived as gibberish. “Language is as ancient as consciousness,” “language is the immediate reality of thought,” these are the classical propositions. Differences in the conditions of human life are inevitably reflected in language. Thus, the peoples of the Far North have a specification for the names of snow and do not have one for the names of flowers, which do not have important meaning for them.

Before the advent of writing, knowledge was transmitted through oral speech. Verbal language is the language of words. Writing was defined as a secondary phenomenon, replacing oral speech. At the same time, the more ancient Egyptian civilization knew methods of non-verbal transmission of information.

Writing is an extremely significant way of transmitting knowledge, a form of recording the content expressed in language, which makes it possible to connect the past, present and future development of mankind, making it transtemporal. Writing is an important characteristic of the state and development of society. It is believed that the "savage" society, represented by the social type of the "hunter", invented the pictogram; the “barbarian society” represented by the “shepherd” used an ideo-phonogram; the society of "farmers" created an alphabet. In early types of societies, the function of writing was assigned to special social categories of people - these were priests and scribes. The appearance of writing testified to the transition from barbarism to civilization.

Two types of writing - phonology and hieroglyphics - accompany cultures of different types. The other side of writing is reading, a special type of translational practice. The development of mass education, as well as the development of technical capabilities for reproducing books (the printing press invented by J. Guttenberg in the 15th century) played a revolutionary role.

There are different points of view on the relationship between writing and phonetic language. In antiquity, Plato interpreted writing as a service component, an auxiliary memorization technique. The famous dialogues of Socrates were transmitted by Plato, since Socrates developed his teachings orally.

Since the 17th century, the disposition of signs has become binary, since it is determined by the connection between the signifier and the signified. Language, which exists in a free, original existence as writing, as a mark on things, as a sign of the world, gives rise to two other forms: above the original layer are comments that use existing signs, but in a new use, and below is a text, the primacy of which is assumed by the commentary. Since the 17th century, the problem of connecting a sign with what it means has arisen. The classical era tries to solve this problem by analyzing ideas, and the modern era tries to solve this problem by analyzing meaning and meaning. Thus, language turns out to be nothing more than a special case of representation (for people of the classical era) and meaning (for modern humanity).

The science of writing was formed in the 18th century. Writing is recognized as a necessary condition for scientific objectivity; it is an arena for metaphysical, technical, and economic achievements. An important problem is the unambiguous connection between meaning and meaning. Therefore, positivists justified the need to create a single unified language using the language of physics.

Methods of formalization and methods of interpretation are important for transmitting knowledge. The former are called upon to control every possible language, to curb it through linguistic laws that determine what can be said and how; the second is to force the language to expand its semantic field, to come closer to what is said in English, but without taking into account the actual field of linguistics.

The translation of scientific knowledge places demands on the language for neutrality, lack of individuality and an accurate reflection of existence. The ideal of such a system is enshrined in the positivist dream of language as a copy of the world (such an installation became the main program requirement for the analysis of the language of science of the Vienna Circle). However, the truths of discourse are always captured by mentality. Language forms a repository of traditions, habits, superstitions, the “dark spirit” of the people, and absorbs ancestral memory.

The “language picture” is a reflection of the natural world and the artificial world. This is understandable when a particular language, due to certain historical reasons, becomes widespread in other areas of the globe and is enriched with new concepts and terms.

For example, the linguistic picture that has developed in the Spanish language in the homeland of its speakers, i.e. on the Iberian Peninsula, after the Spanish conquest of America, it began to undergo significant changes. Native speakers of Spanish found themselves in new natural and socio-economic conditions of South America, and the meanings previously recorded in the vocabulary began to be brought into line with them. As a result, significant differences have arisen between the lexical systems of the Spanish language in the Iberian Peninsula and in South America.

Verbalists - supporters of the existence of thinking only on the basis of language - associate thought with its sound complex. However, L. Vygodsky also noted that verbal thinking does not exhaust all forms of thought or all forms of speech. Most of the thinking will not be directly related to verbal thinking (instrumental and technical thinking and, in general, the entire area of the so-called practical intelligence). Researchers highlight non-verbal, visual thinking and show that thinking without words is just as possible as thinking with words. Verbal thinking is only one type of thinking.

The most ancient way of transmitting knowledge is fixed by the theory of the nominal origin of language, which showed that the successful outcome of any difficult situation in life, for example, hunting a wild animal, required a certain division of individuals into groups and assigning private operations to them using a name. In the psyche of primitive man, a strong reflex connection was established between the work situation and a certain sound-name. Where there was no name-address, joint activity was impossible; name-address was a means of distributing and fixing social roles. The name looked like a bearer of sociality, and the person identified in the name became a temporary performer of this social role.

The modern process of transmitting scientific knowledge and human mastery of cultural achievements falls into three types: personal-nominal, professional-nominal and universal-conceptual. According to personal-nominal rules, a person joins social activity through the eternal name - the discriminator.

For example, mother, father, son, daughter, clan elder, Pope - these names force the individual to strictly follow the programs of these social roles. A person identifies himself with previous bearers of a given name and performs those functions and responsibilities that are transferred to him with the name.

Professional-nominal rules include a person in social activities according to the professional component, which he masters by imitating the activities of his elders: teacher, student, military leader, servant, etc.

The universal conceptual type ensures entry into life and social activity according to the universal “civil” component. Based on the universal-conceptual type, a person “disobjectifies” himself, realizes, and gives vent to his personal qualities. Here he can speak on behalf of any profession or any personal name.

G.P. Shchedrovitsky identified three types of communication strategies: presentation, manipulation, convention. The presentation contains a message about the significance of a particular object, process, event; manipulation involves the transfer of an external goal to a selected subject and uses hidden mechanisms of influence; The convention is characterized by agreements in social relations, when subjects are partners, assistants, called moderators of communication. From the point of view of the interpenetration of interests, communication can manifest itself as confrontation, compromise, cooperation, withdrawal, neutrality. Depending on the organizational forms, communication can be business, deliberative, or presentational.

In communication there is no initial tendency towards consensus; it is filled with emissions of energy of varying degrees of intensity and modality and at the same time is open to the emergence of new meanings and new content. In general, communication relies on rationality and understanding, but exceeds their permissive scope. It contains moments of intuitive, improvisational, emotionally spontaneous response, as well as volitional, managerial, role and institutional influences. In modern communication, imitation mechanisms are quite strong, when a person tends to imitate all vital states, a large place belongs to paralinguistic (intonation, facial expressions, gestures), as well as extralinguistic forms (pauses, laughter, crying). Communication is important not only from the point of view of the main evolutionary goal - adaptation and transfer of knowledge, but also for the realization of life values that are significant for the individual.

Considering science as a system of logically verified and practice-tested knowledge and a specific type of activity is not enough. In modern conditions, science is also the most important social institution. Science appeared in this capacity relatively recently. For the first scientists, their work was an expression of curiosity, not a profession. It was carried out by educated and wealthy people, free from the need to think hourly about their daily bread. It is not for nothing that the separation of mental labor from physical labor was one of the social conditions for the formation of science. They published the results of their discoveries in books. In modern times, we exchanged opinions with colleagues in personal correspondence. The language of science was Latin, which limited the circle of communication and the possibility of wide availability of the acquired knowledge. But with the development of scientific knowledge and its differentiation, the practice of personal contacts began to interfere with the progress of science. National scientific communities began to form and journals were published, which significantly expanded the possibility of polemics and scientific discussions of individual problems. Generalist scientists are becoming a thing of the past, and professional scientists have appeared.

As a social institution, science finally took shape in the twentieth century. It represents a certain system of interconnected academic and industry institutions, scientific schools, communities and organizations in which new knowledge is purposefully created and the search for its practical application is conducted. Hundreds of thousands of people work in science as a social institution. Although the profession of a scientist actually appeared in the 19th century, in the 20th century it became quite widespread. Engagement in scientific activities is a priority direction of any civilized state. At the end of the twentieth century, the number of scientists in the world exceeded 5 million people. Science includes about 15 thousand disciplines, it is served by hundreds of thousands of scientific journals published in different countries. In the twentieth century, science itself became the object of scientific research in special disciplines, including scientific studies, logic and methodology of science, philosophy of science, history of science, psychology of scientific creativity, etc.

A feature of the development of modern science as a social institution is its internationalization. There are national schools in science, but there is no national scientific discipline, like, say, French analytical geometry, although analytical geometry itself owes its birth to the Frenchman R. Descartes. Scientists all over the world speak the same language of mathematics, and creative discussions, international conferences and congresses are a form of scientific development. Any isolation interferes with the exchange of information and contributes to stagnation and backwardness in science. This happened in our country with such sciences as genetics and cybernetics, which led to a significant lag of our scientists in these areas.

As a social institution, science is included in numerous relationships, primarily economic ones. Responding to the demands of production in the twentieth century, science turned into a direct productive force and began to act as the most important factor in people’s economic activity. This happened in connection with the scientific and technological revolution of the mid-twentieth century, which raised production to a new level of development. Modern production is complex technical equipment, which is impossible to create without proper scientific developments; it is a knowledge-intensive production. And those countries that do not pay due attention to the modernization of production not only fall hopelessly behind, but also find themselves in the position of outcasts in the modern world.

This situation requires a balanced state policy in the field of science. We must keep in mind the fact that the successes of science cannot be associated with immediate economic benefits and only in this case should we invest money in it. Science should not be left to commercialization. There is a fundamental science that produces knowledge that does not have direct access to practice and only indirectly, after some time, is it capable of giving birth to new technologies and producing tangible results. In science you always have to work with a long-term perspective. As perestroika of the 90s and the subsequent liberalization of the economy in our country showed, so-called market relations had a detrimental effect on the development of domestic science and set the country far back in its economic and social development. Of course, doing science is an expensive business, but that is why we need a well-founded program for its development and guaranteed constant financial support from the state in the required amounts.

Ideological relations in society also influence science. Thus, being an instrument of politics, science works to a greater extent for the military than for the civilian industry, creating more and more sophisticated types of weapons. Official science is always forced to support the fundamental ideological principles of society and in an intellectual way contribute to the preservation of existing power and ideology. Thus, although science strives to be ideologically neutral, it cannot avoid the influence of ideology.

There is a significant difference between science and ideology. Science strives to achieve an adequate reflection of reality and comprehension of objective truth. Therefore, she is not inclined to dogmatize her positions and subjects them to falsification. Ideology, on the contrary, seeks to ensure the status quo and is incapable of reflective analysis and falsification. At the same time, ideology deliberately borrows from science what is beneficial to it, and science is forced to tolerate ideological expansions. This feature of the relationship between ideology and science directly affects the existence of science as a social institution. There are many examples when, for ideological reasons, certain scientific branches and institutes were closed down or, conversely, stimulated. This is confirmed by the recent events of the 90s in our country, when, with the change in economic relations and the introduction of liberal ideology, many industrial research institutes were closed.

In the modern world, the social role of science has grown significantly. Scientists have always borne, and even more so today, the burden of moral responsibility for the results of the application of their technological developments. Today, the world community is concerned about the consequences of cloning animals and especially humans. There are calls to ban research in this area. But the temptation is so great that it is difficult to hope for prohibitive measures. Aristotle also stated: “Whoever moves forward in the sciences, but lags behind in morality, goes backward rather than forward.” Only the moral degradation of humanity can explain the fact of a barbaric attitude towards nature in the name of imaginary values. Consumer ideology has brought the world to the edge of an abyss beyond which there is nothingness. And only on the path of the moral revival of society is further progress of science and, at the same time, prospects for modern civilization possible.

1.3.On the issue of classification of science.

1. Historical options for attempts to classify science.

1. Historical options for attempts to classify science.

Science as a cultural phenomenon has accompanied the development of society since ancient times. We have already identified a number of stages in this process: pre-science (antiquity, the Middle Ages), classical science (17th, 18th, 19th centuries), non-classical science (late 19th - mid-20th century), post-nonclassical science (late 20th century - modernity). It is obvious that at each historical stage science represented a number of coexisting and interacting disciplines. Thus, in the early stages of the development of science, the number of sciences was small - mathematics, astronomy, logic, ethics, politics, philosophy. The latter was understood not only as a kind of independent theoretical science, but also as a synonym for knowledge in general. Gradually the number of sciences increased. We can say that the process of development of science is a process, on the one hand, of differentiation of existing knowledge and the emergence of new independent sciences against this background, and on the other, of integration of scientific knowledge and the formation of sciences at the junction. The stage of pre-science and classical science is characterized mainly by the tendency to differentiate knowledge; integration processes fully manifest themselves in non-classical science.

As science emerged as an expanded system of knowledge, the problem of its classification arose, expressed in the need to show the interconnection and systemic integrity of science. The first attempt to classify sciences was made by Aristotle. He divided sciences into three groups: theoretical, practical and poetic (creative). Theoretical sciences are sciences that lead the search for knowledge for its own sake. These include "first philosophy", physics and mathematics. Aristotle considered ethics and politics to be practical sciences. He called the sphere of art - poetry, drama, tragedy, etc. - poetic sciences. Aristotle considered “first philosophy” to be the highest science, calling it divine science. Later, the publisher of Aristotle's works, Andronicus of Rhodes, called “first philosophy” metaphysics. Its task was to investigate the first causes or “being as such.” All other sciences, according to Aristotle, study “part of existence.” Hence the division of sciences into general (philosophy) and special sciences.

In the Middle Ages, Arab thinkers paid attention to the problem of classification of sciences. Thus, one of the first followers of Aristotle in the Arab Caliphate al-Kindi (800-c. 879) distinguished three stages of scientific knowledge: the first - logic and mathematics, the second - natural sciences, the third - metaphysical problems (philosophy). Noteworthy is the fact that in the proposed classification, philosophy crowns scientific knowledge as “knowledge of everything.”

Another Arab philosopher proposed a more detailed classification of sciences al-Farabi (870-950). His classification of sciences is presented in the form of four sections. The first section is the “science of language,” an analogue of which can be considered grammar. She studies the universal nature of the laws governing the words of language. The second section is presented by logic as the science of correct thinking, which is based on the laws of formal logic of Aristotle. The third section is mathematics, the primary link of which is arithmetic, then geometry, optics and “the science of the stars,” which includes astronomy proper, astrology and the science that we today call physical geography. The third section also included such sciences as the science of music, the science of weights, the science of skillful techniques, or a set of “civil arts” - construction, carpentry, etc. “Civil arts” were based on mathematical calculations presented in the form of algebra . The fourth section in the classification of sciences was “natural science” (or physics) and metaphysics. Physics studies natural and artificial bodies, their matter and forms. Metaphysics studies ontological, epistemological issues, questions of the metatheory of scientific knowledge (methodology). The central problem of metaphysics is the problem of God , or rather Allah, meaningful in a purely philosophical way.

He outlined his vision of medieval science Avicenna (980-1037), known as a philosopher, doctor, politician, astronomer, alchemist, poet. Like Aristotle, he divided all knowledge into theoretical (speculative) and practical. Practical knowledge consists of ethics, politics, economics. Their subject matter is entirely determined by human actions. Theoretical or speculative sciences are not so closely related to human actions. The main speculative science is metaphysics, which for Avicenna is identical to theology. It is “the science of what lies outside nature.” Below it is mathematics, called “middle science,” because its objects can be thought of abstractly from matter. Mathematics itself is represented by a complex of disciplines such as arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, optics and music. In each of these mathematical disciplines, private or applied sciences are formed. Thus, in arithmetic there is algebra and Indian decimal counting, in geometry - measuring the surfaces of various bodies, in astronomy - the art of compiling astronomical tables, in music theory - the design of musical instruments.

The “lowest science” in Avicenna’s classification is physics. It is the science of sensible bodies, in motion and change, and composed of parts. Physics includes teachings about the heavens, about the elements (elements) and their movement, about creation and destruction, about the influence of heaven on the weather (meteorology), about minerals, plants, animals, about the soul and its abilities. Medicine, astrology, the study of talismans, alchemy, dream interpretation and magic are varieties of applied physics.

As we see, while maintaining the structure of the Aristotelian classification of sciences, Avicenna introduces new aspects and sciences into it. This is especially evident in the section of applied sciences, which reflects not only the achievements of science and practice, but also the element of fantasy in the science of the Middle Ages.

During the Middle Ages, Europe developed its own system of sciences, called the “liberal arts.” This included 7 sciences: the first three sciences (“trivium”) - grammar, dialectics, rhetoric - and four sciences (“quadrium”) - arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music. Above them rose the “supreme science” - theology (theology). The medieval education system was built on this division of sciences.

Interest in the classification of sciences began to reappear in modern times. The beginning has been paved F. Bacon (1561-1626), the founder of modern philosophy and all experimental natural science. Bacon took several criteria as the basis for the classification of sciences: first, the object of study - man, nature, God; secondly, human cognitive abilities - memory, reason, imagination and faith. The presence of memory ensured the emergence of history, reason - philosophy, imagination - poetry, faith - theology.

In the 19th century, several attempts were made to classify science. Thus, O Comte (1798-1857) divided all sciences into two groups: theoretical and applied. Theoretical sciences, in turn, he divided into 1) abstract and 2) concrete, or particular, descriptive. Abstract theoretical sciences were a series of sciences, built according to the degree of abstraction and complexity. The philosopher identifies the following sequence of sciences: mathematics, theoretical astronomy (celestial mechanics), physics, chemistry, physiology (biology), sociology, and the construction of the movement of sciences proceeds from simple to complex, from abstract to concrete. In O. Comte's classification, mathematics turns out to be the simplest and at the same time abstract science, and sociology the most complex and concrete science. The list of sciences does not include philosophy. Comte believes that the time of philosophy has passed, now that the private sciences stand firmly on their own soil, philosophy can no longer provide positive knowledge, and its functions should be limited to the task of systematizing the knowledge obtained by individual disciplines. As for sociology, this is the only science that should concentrate all knowledge about society and thereby abolish previously existing sciences about society - ethics, political science, economics, etc.

2.Modern classification of science and problems related to this issue.

The modern classification of science, adopted in Russian philosophy, has as its theoretical source the principles of classification proposed by F. Engels (1820-1895). F. Engels took the forms of motion of matter as the basis for the classification of sciences. According to Engels there are five of them: mechanical, physical, chemical, biological and social. Each form of movement has its own science: mechanical - mechanics, physical - physics, chemical - chemistry, biological - biology, social - social science. In identifying the forms of motion of matter, Engels relied on the following principles:

a) each form of motion of matter has its own material carrier. Thus, the mechanical form of matter movement has a body as a material carrier, the physical form has molecules, the chemical form has atoms, the biological form has protein, the carriers of the social form of matter movement are classes and social communities.

b) The second principle for constructing a classification of forms of motion of matter and, on their basis, classification of sciences, according to Engels, was the position that each higher form of motion of matter is a synthesis of lower ones. Thus, the biological form of the movement of matter is based on chemical and physical laws, and the chemical, in turn, on physical ones. As for a person, he functions as an organism that combines biological and social laws. Consequently, it is the synthesis of all forms of motion of matter. It manifests patterns, both physical and chemical, and biological and social.

c) The third principle of classification, according to Engels, is the proposition that higher forms of movement cannot be reduced to lower ones. In other words, reduction is unacceptable, that is, it is impossible to explain the laws of the chemical form of movement of physical matter, despite the fact that these laws are included in its functioning. All these provisions allowed Engels to build a chain of sciences as independent fields of knowledge that study individual forms of motion of matter and their material carriers.

On the same principles, domestic philosophers B.M. continued to develop a classification of science. Kedrov (1903-1985), A.A. Butakov (1925-1982) and others. They, like most Western methodologists, paid their main attention to the classification of natural sciences. However, they had to take into account all the changes that occurred in science itself. So, for example, in the 20th century it was no longer possible to distinguish mechanics as a special form of movement of matter, existing along with the physical form of movement, since it had already become obvious that mechanical movement is a type of physical form of movement of matter.

B.M. Kedrov proposed that the structure of science, including natural science, should be determined, firstly, by the structure of its subject, object and, secondly, by the structure of the process of reflecting this object in human consciousness, i.e. the process of cognition. From his point of view, science is a complex and branched organism. It can be represented schematically in at least two sections: vertical and horizontal. The horizontal section of science is described by the consistent complication of the object of science, the vertical section by the sequence of development of our knowledge of the same object (nature), the transition from a less complete and less profound knowledge of it to a more complete and profound one in the study of nature in the order of movement from its phenomena to their essence and from a less profound essence to a deeper one.

A horizontal slice can be represented as follows. Let us denote the individual sciences in the sequential order of complexity of their subject by the letters A, B, C, D, E, etc., and the section of the general structure of natural science will be expressed by the following successive series of sciences: A - B - C - D - E, etc. ., i.e. physics – chemistry – biology – geology. However, this is not a single-line, but a branched chain. Thus, between physics and chemistry there are physical chemistry and chemical physics; between chemistry and geology there is geochemistry, between biology and chemistry - biochemistry; between biology and geology - soil science, paleontology; between chemistry, biology and geology - biogeochemistry. There are other sciences at the junction, or as Kedrov called them - intermediate, for example, biophysics, astrophysics. In the second half of the 20th century, such a synthetic science as cybernetics appeared. Thus, the picture of modern natural science is complicated by the presence of not one, but several points of contact between individual sciences, so it does not represent a linear chain.

A vertical section of the analysis of the structure of modern science is represented by sciences that express the stages of ever more complete and profound knowledge of the same subject, starting with a purely empirical description, then moving on to the systematization of facts and ending with the highest sections of a theoretical explanation of its internal essence, i.e., laws. A vertical slice can be schematically represented in the following notation: A – A (1) – A (2) – A (3) – A (4), etc.; B – B (1) – B (2) – B (3) – B (4), etc. etc. Thus, biology consists of descriptive sciences such as botany and zoology and theoretical ones such as plant physiology, morphology, etc. etc. In physics there are mechanics, optics, solid state physics, etc.

This complex structure of the picture of natural sciences allows us to propose a classification according to the forms of motion of matter as follows:

A group of physical sciences that study types of physical movement;

Group of chemical sciences studying varieties of chemical movement;

A group of biological sciences that study the varieties of biological forms of matter movement;

A group of sciences that study the social form of the movement of matter.

The authors of the domestic classification also proposed to identify new forms of movement of matter, in particular, cosmological, geological, geographical, cybernetic and the corresponding sciences - cosmology, geography, geology, cybernetics. As we see, the problem of classification of science was limited to the field of natural science. The issue of classification of social sciences in Russian philosophy has not found serious research.

Understanding of the need to distinguish between natural and social sciences comes in the 19th century. V. Dilthey (1833-1911) proposed dividing all sciences into two large groups: the sciences of nature and the sciences of the spirit, which differ in the objects of research - nature and society. The same goal was pursued by the neo-Kantians W. Windelband (1848-1915) and G. Rickert (1863-1936), who proposed a classification based on research methods. According to this principle, sciences are divided into nomothetic and idiographic. Nomothetic sciences are sciences focused on the discovery of laws, idiographic sciences are aimed at describing events, the former are represented by natural science, the latter by history and the sciences of society. These philosophers will be discussed in more detail in the appropriate section. Here I would like to note that the problem of classifying socio-humanitarian knowledge remains open to this day and requires careful research.

Currently, the more recognized classification of sciences is based on such a criterion as the subject of research. In accordance with the subject of study, it is proposed to distinguish the following groups of sciences:

1) natural sciences – natural science;

2) social sciences – social and humanitarian knowledge;

3) sciences about artificially conscious objects - technical sciences;

4) human health sciences – medical sciences;

5) sciences about quantitative relations of the objective world - mathematical sciences.

The identified groups of sciences differ from each other not only in subject matter, but also in the history of formation, the specificity of research methods, cognitive functions, etc. Each of the named areas of science can itself be specified in individual disciplines. And here, as an addition, classification according to the forms of motion of matter is quite appropriate. All this presupposes the need for further special consideration of individual groups of sciences, which will be done in the further presentation of the problem.

In modern science, the criterion of distance from practice is also used for classification. In this case, all sciences are divided into fundamental and applied. This distinction is made according to goals and functions. For fundamental sciences, the main goal is to comprehend the truth, to achieve adequate knowledge about certain objects and their properties. Applied sciences are aimed at the practical application of knowledge obtained by fundamental sciences. They also form new knowledge, but the value of applied sciences is determined primarily not by the value of the knowledge they receive, but by the possibility of applying this knowledge to solve practical problems.

Modern science is in a state of intensive development, therefore the proposed options for classifying sciences cannot be exhaustive. In this regard, the question of the classification of sciences is not removed, and the problem of the classification of science remains relevant and awaits further research.

1.4. Science and esotericism.

1. Ideals and norms of scientific knowledge and activity.

2. Extra-scientific knowledge and its forms.

1.Ideals and norms of scientific knowledge and activity.

Science does not exhaust all types of cognitive activity. Modern cognition includes a number of types of cognitive activity. First of all, it stands out as the primary and most common ordinary (or everyday) knowledge . It is based on the observation and practical development of nature by each individual person, on the life experience accumulated by many generations. This cognitive activity is carried out by trial and error. Knowledge obtained in this way is not formalized; it is passed on from generation to generation orally. As an example, we can cite information from traditional medicine or folk pedagogy. They contain practically useful, time-tested advice. But this knowledge cannot be called scientific in the strict sense of the word. Art, literature and even religion have significant cognitive potential. However, only science is value-oriented towards knowledge as such. For science, the comprehension of truth is a defining value; all its activities are aimed at its comprehension. The goals and value orientations of science are concretely represented in the ideals and norms of scientific research, which have changed historically.

The ancient Greeks were the first to establish that what distinguishes science from any other knowledge, which they called “opinions,” is evidence . For them, the ideal model of science was the geometry of Euclid, set out in his famous work “Principia”. Here he introduces the concepts of “axiom” as knowledge accepted without proof due to its obviousness, and “theorem” as knowledge obtained logically through deduction. This is how a strict system of logical evidence and the first criteria for the norm of scientific research arose. The process of research itself among the ancient Greeks was contemplative in nature and was assessed as the highest degree of pleasure and pleasure in life. By establishing episteme (demonstrative knowledge), the Greeks made a great discovery and laid a line of demarcation between ancient science and the pre-scientific knowledge of the ancient Babylonians and Egyptians. The latter did not know the principle of evidence, did not know how to formulate general rules for solving specific problems, and made decisions by imitating specific examples, learning by visually perceiving the solution in the drawing and following the instructions: “Look!”, “Do as I do!”

Science discovered a new scientific ideal in the 17th century. This was the experimental method and mathematical processing of the results obtained. Galileo Galilei is rightfully considered the father of this discovery. He was followed by others, including I. Newton, who, in the form of a categorical statement: “I invent no hypotheses,” demonstrated to everyone that Only knowledge that is based on accurate observations and experiments and mathematically adequately described can be recognized as a model of science. . Classical science inspired confidence in the absolute reliability of scientific laws, their comprehensive content, eternity, and the reliability of research methods and their results. This continued until the end of the 19th century, when a revolution took place in natural science, throwing scientists into confusion and upending all previous ideas about the structure of matter and the immutability of the laws of classical mechanics.

With the formation of non-classical science, a new ideal of science arose. Now already truths are considered relative, their transitory nature is revealed, the dependence of scientific discoveries on the technical means used, on the general cultural, political, ideological situation is established . Public opinion is moving from absolute worship of science to indiscriminately blaming it for all the ills of society, and a confrontation between scientism and anti-scientism arises. Science is losing its halo as the only bearer of genuine truth. Religion reclaims its rights to its possession, mystical and near-scientific teachings are revived. Science is finally moving away from the contemplative position; the norm of scientific research is the possibility of using its results in practice; it is becoming more and more utilitarian.

At the end of the twentieth century, science in its development moves into the post-non-classical stage, and at the same time a new ideal of science and norms of scientific research are formed. The ideal of modern science, Firstly, are comprehensive studies that cover the entire aspect of the connections of the phenomenon being studied, including social and humanitarian relations. Secondly, the consideration of the phenomenon being studied in the aspect of its self-organization, evolution and self-development, i.e. in the process of formation, should be considered as a necessary level of the state of research of modern science. As for the norms of scientific research, it seems that, as such, environmental and humanitarian expertise should be considered mandatory for post-non-classical science, since with its research it touches on the global problems of human existence. Third, the ideal of modern science requires the content of the study to include a forecast of the short-term and long-term prospects for the development of the phenomenon being studied.

The four historical ideals of science and norms of research that we have consistently identified do not exclude internal continuity between them. So, let’s say evidence is a condition for the existence of scientific knowledge at any stage of its development, including post-non-classical. It’s just that this trait loses the fundamental and only significance that it had in the eyes of the ancient scientist. The same can be said regarding the empirical basis of scientific research - without it, scientific knowledge is untenable. It is necessary to understand that each ideal of science characterizes its time. But he does not discard the previous signs of the ideal image of science, but includes them as an obligatory element.

Understanding the ideals of science and the norms of scientific research allows us to draw a line between science and that which is not science, but claims to be this status.

100 RUR bonus for first order

Select the type of work Diploma work Course work Abstract Master's thesis Practice report Article Report Review Test work Monograph Problem solving Business plan Answers to questions Creative work Essay Drawing Essays Translation Presentations Typing Other Increasing the uniqueness of the text Master's thesis Laboratory work On-line help

Find out the price

Modern scientific studies do not yet give an unambiguous answer to the question of the emergence of science, because examines science itself from several aspects. According to the main points of view, science is a body of knowledge and the activity of producing this knowledge; form of social consciousness; social institution; the direct productive force of society; system of professional (academic) training and personnel reproduction. Depending on which aspect we take into account, we will get different starting points for the development of science:

Science as a system of personnel training has existed since the mid-19th century;

As a direct productive force - from the second half of the 20th century;

As a social institution - in modern times;

As a form of social consciousness - in Ancient Greece;

Like knowledge and the activity of producing this knowledge - from the beginning of human culture.

Different specific sciences also have different birth times. Thus, antiquity gave the world mathematics, modern times - modern natural science, in the 19th century. society - knowledge appears.

Science is a complex, multifaceted social phenomenon: outside of society, science can neither arise nor develop. But science appears when special objective conditions are created for this: a more or less clear social demand for objective knowledge; the social possibility of identifying a special group of people whose main task is to respond to this request; the division of labor that began within this group; accumulation of knowledge, skills, cognitive techniques, methods of symbolic expression and transmission of information (the presence of writing), which prepare the revolutionary process of the emergence and dissemination of a new type of knowledge - objective, generally valid truths of science.

SOCIAL INSTITUTE is understood in 2 senses:

1) in the broad sense of the word, it is a social subsystem that occupies a certain place in society and performs certain social functions, a form of official consolidation of one or another type of human activity in society;

2) in the narrow sense of the word - a system of institutions (research centers, laboratories) authorized to carry out certain socially regulated activities.

SCIENCE AS A SOCIAL INSTITUTE begins to take shape in the 16th – 17th centuries. and is a process of legislative consolidation of systems of relationships between scientific organizations, members of the scientific community, as well as between the scientific sphere and other social entities (politics, economics, education, etc.). Science as a social institution includes:

1) scientists with their qualifications, experience and knowledge;

2) division and cooperation of scientific work;

3) a well-established and effectively operating system of scientific information;

4) scientific organizations and institutions, scientific schools and communities;

5) laboratory and experimental equipment;

6) forms of control, examination and evaluation of scientific achievements.

Institutionalization presupposes the formalization of all types of relations and the transition from unorganized activities and informal relations such as negotiations to the creation of organized structures that presuppose a hierarchy of regulation and the presence of certain norms.

INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF SCIENCE is the process of organizing science into a stable social structure. The founder of the institutional approach to science is the American sociologist R. Merton. Science emerged as a social institution in the 16th-17th centuries. in connection with the need to service capitalist production, where science as a system of social division of labor must be responsible for the production of theoretical knowledge. In ancient and medieval society, science did not exist as a social institution. Science was not a professional activity for which scientists received remuneration. The professionalization of science is connected with the history of university education. The transformation of science into a professional activity presupposed its regulation and legislative formalization. The complication of organizational forms of professional scientific activity is associated with the process of identifying scientific disciplines as a result of the internal logic of the development of scientific fields (processes of specialization, differentiation, integration) and administrative decisions on the creation of scientific institutions, research centers, departments, etc.

SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY is the totality of all scientists who have ever lived and are currently living, understood as an integral subject of scientific knowledge, i.e. a set of people engaged in science as a professional activity. This issue was introduced into the philosophy of science by postpositivism, which sought to reveal the relationship between the sociocultural and epistemological aspects of scientific knowledge. This concept was developed by the American historian of science T. Kuhn, who called the scientific community researchers who share a common paradigm (a set of fundamental theories, laws and patterns of problem solving). The activities of the scientific community support the research tradition, the norms of scientific rationality, and the growth of scientific knowledge is carried out.

There are two levels of the scientific community: 1) national, existing within one state; 2) international.

They also distinguish: 1) a disciplinary scientific community, limited by a certain field of knowledge (for example, the totality of all physicists); 2) interdisciplinary (for example, a set of energy specialists).

Forms of scientific communities:

1) scientific schools (for example, Aristotle’s Lyceum, Plato’s Academy);

2) scientific institutions (research centers, universities);

3) informal scientific teams. Representatives of scientific communities are carriers of certain paradigms, research programs, and methodological guidelines.

Main characteristics of the scientific community:

a) unity in understanding the goals of science and the tasks of one’s disciplinary field;

b) universalism, when scientists in their research and assessments are guided by general criteria, rules of validity and evidence of knowledge;

c) the collective nature of the accumulation of knowledge, which is based on a system of internal norms and ideals (the ethos of science);

d) commitment to a certain paradigm - a model (sample) for posing and solving scientific problems.

The most popular tips, secrets and recipes from Dimetrius in all spheres of society are presented. You can learn the simplest, and most importantly, effective secrets on how to make dried gingerbread soft, increase the shelf life of dairy products; how to lighten your teeth, stop scabies with one click, or how to treat allergies; how to fix a zipper on clothes, paint shoes without cracking the leather and much, much more. Dimetri Bogdanov

All tips are cataloged by sections, allowing for quick searching. Tips and secrets have been tested by many people, receiving a huge number of positive reviews.

In addition to tips, secrets and recipes in sections, there is also an open blog. You can leave your recipe or write a review in the guest book without registering.

Impulsarizm invites you to the website http://impulsarizm.narod2.ru - new materials will delight everyone. We wish you to be flexible and nimble, pass all exams, defend yourself and be at your best.

The “Teaching” website also works from mobile phones. "Mobile credit" - the best wap site for mobile – http://zachet.kmx.ru/ Mega-dictionary “Pulsar” – http://pulsar.wen.ru and a million words are at your fingertips . Log in from your mobile phone during exams, lessons, tests, and simply for any question.

Contemporary Art Forum

Science as a social institution

Science is a complex, multifaceted socio-historical phenomenon. Representing a specific system (and not a simple sum) of knowledge, it is at the same time a unique form of spiritual production and a specific social institution that has its own organizational forms.

The concept of science as a social institution

Science is not only a form of social consciousness aimed at an objective reflection of the world and providing humanity with an understanding of patterns, but also a social institution. In Western Europe, science as a social institution arose in the 17th century in connection with the need to serve the emerging capitalist production and began to claim a certain autonomy. In the system of social division of labor, science as a social institution has assigned itself specific functions: to bear responsibility for the production, examination and implementation of scientific and theoretical knowledge. As a social institution, science included not only a system of knowledge and scientific activity, but also a system of relations in science, scientific institutions and organizations.

The institution presupposes a set of norms, principles, rules, and models of behavior that regulate human activity and are woven into the functioning of society; This is a phenomenon at the supra-individual level, its norms and values dominate the individuals operating within its framework. The very concept of “social institution” began to come into use thanks to the research of Western sociologists. R. Merton is considered the founder of the institutional approach in science. In Russian philosophy of science, the institutional approach has not been developed for a long time. Institutionalism presupposes the formalization of all types of relations, the transition from unorganized activities and informal relations such as agreements and negotiations to the creation of organized structures involving hierarchy, power regulation and regulations. The concept of “social institution” reflects the degree of consolidation of one or another type of human activity - there are political, social, religious institutions, as well as institutions of family, school, marriage, etc.

The process of institutionalization of science testifies to its independence, the official recognition of the role of science in the system of social division of labor, and the claim of science to participate in the distribution of material and human resources. Science as a social institution has its own ramified structure and uses both cognitive, organizational and moral resources. The development of institutional forms of scientific activity involved clarifying the prerequisites for the process of institutionalization, revealing its content, and analyzing the results of institutionalization. As a social institution, science includes the following components:

The body of knowledge and its carriers;

The presence of specific cognitive goals and objectives;

Perform certain functions;

Availability of specific means of knowledge and institutions;

Development of forms of control, examination and evaluation of scientific achievements;

The existence of certain sanctions.

E. Durkheim especially emphasized the coercive nature of the institutional in relation to an individual subject, its external force, T. Parsons pointed to another important feature of the institution - a stable complex of roles distributed within it. Institutions are called upon to rationally streamline the life activities of the individuals who make up society and ensure the sustainable flow of communication processes between various social structures. M. Weber emphasized that an institution is a form of association of individuals, a way of inclusion in collective activity, participation in social action.

The modern institutional approach is characterized by taking into account the applied aspects of science. The normative moment loses its dominant place, and the image of “pure science” gives way to the image of “science put at the service of production.” The competence of institutionalization includes the problems of the emergence of new areas of scientific research and scientific specialties, the formation of corresponding scientific communities, and the identification of various degrees of institutionalization. There is a desire to distinguish between cognitive and professional institutionalization. Science as a social institution depends on social institutions that provide the necessary material and social conditions for its development. Merton's research revealed the dependence of modern science on the needs of technological development, socio-political structures and the internal values of the scientific community. It was shown that modern scientific practice is carried out only within the framework of science, understood as a social institution. In this regard, restrictions on research activities and freedom of scientific inquiry are possible. Institutionality provides support for those activities and those projects that contribute to the strengthening of a particular value system. The set of basic values varies, but at present no scientific institution will preserve and embody in its structure the principles of dialectical materialism or biblical revelation, as well as the connection of science with parascientific types of knowledge.

The evolution of methods for transmitting scientific knowledge

Human society, throughout its development, needed ways to transfer experience and knowledge from generation to generation. The synchronous method (communication) indicates prompt targeted communication, the possibility of coordinating the activities of individuals in the process of their coexistence and interaction. The diachronic method (translation) is the time-extended transmission of available information, the “sum of knowledge and circumstances” from generation to generation. The difference between communication and broadcast is very significant: the main mode of communication is negative feedback, i.e. correction of programs known to both parties of communication; the main mode of transmission is positive feedback, i.e. transmission of programs known to one side of communication and unknown to the other. Knowledge in the traditional sense is associated with transmission. Both types of communication use language as the main, always accompanying sociality, sign reality.

Language as a sign reality or a system of signs serves as a specific means of storing and transmitting information, as well as a means of controlling human behavior. The sign nature of language can be understood from the fact that biological coding is insufficient. Sociality, which manifests itself as the attitude of people about things and the attitude of people about people, is not assimilated by genes. People are forced to use non-biological means of reproducing their social nature in succession of generations. The sign is a kind of “hereditary essence” of extra-biological social coding, ensuring the transmission of everything that is necessary for society, but cannot be transmitted by biocode. Language acts as a “social” gene.

Writing is an extremely significant way of transmitting knowledge, a form of recording the content expressed in language, which makes it possible to connect the past, present and future development of mankind, making it transtemporal. Writing is an important characteristic of the state and development of society. It is believed that the "savage" society, represented by the social type of the "hunter", invented the pictogram; “barbarian society” represented by “pa stukha” used an ideo-phonogram; the society of "farmers" created an alphabet. In early types of societies, the function of writing was assigned to special social categories of people - these were priests and scribes. The appearance of writing testified to the transition from barbarism to civilization.

Starting from Stoicism, notes M. Foucault, the system of signs was threefold, it distinguished between the signifier, the signified and the “case”. Since the 17th century, the disposition of signs has become binary, since it is determined by the connection between the signifier and the signified. Language, which exists in a free, original existence as writing, as a mark on things, as a sign of the world, gives rise to two other forms: above the original layer are comments that use existing signs, but in a new use, and below is a text, the primacy of which is assumed by the commentary. Since the 17th century, the problem of connecting a sign with what it means has arisen. The classical era tries to solve this problem by analyzing ideas, and the modern era tries to solve this problem by analyzing meaning and meaning. Thus, language turns out to be nothing more than a special case of representation (for people of the classical era) and meaning (for modern humanity).

Natural, oral language is thought of as being closest to the signified. Moreover, words and voice are closer to the mind than a written sign. The Christian truth “In the beginning was the word” connects the power of creation with the word. Writing was thought of as a way of depicting speech and as a way of replacing personal participation: at the same time, it limited free reflection and suspended the flow of thoughts. Borrowed from Byzantine culture, Church Slavonic was the first written language in Rus'. Church Slavonic writing began to perform educational and preaching functions, expressing the spiritual truths of the Orthodox faith. The Church Slavonic language was supplemented by non-verbal linguistic forms: the language of icon painting and temple architecture. Secular Russian culture gravitated not towards the symbolic, but towards the logical-conceptual, rational way of transmitting knowledge.

The doctrine of writing distinguished between expression (as a means of expression) and indication (as a means of designation). The Swiss linguist Saussure, characterizing the two-layer structure of language, points to its objectivity and operationality. Verbal signs fix an object and “dress” thoughts. The function of fixator and operator is common to all types of languages, both natural and artificial.

The translation of scientific knowledge places demands on the language for neutrality, lack of individuality and an accurate reflection of existence. The ideal of such a system is enshrined in the positivist dream of language as a copy of the world (such an installation became the main program requirement for the analysis of the language of science of the Vienna Circle). However, the truths of discourse (reme-thought) always find themselves “captivated” by mentality. Language forms a repository of traditions, habits, superstitions, the “dark spirit” of the people, and absorbs ancestral memory.

For example, the linguistic picture that has developed in the Spanish language in the homeland of its speakers, i.e. on the Iberian Peninsula, after the Spanish conquest of America, it began to undergo significant changes. Native speakers of Spanish found themselves in new natural and socio-economic conditions of South America, and the meanings previously recorded in the vocabulary began to be brought into compliance with them. As a result, significant differences have arisen between the lexical systems of the Spanish language in the Iberian Peninsula and in South America.

Verbalists - supporters of the existence of thinking only on the basis of language - associate thought with its sound complex. However, L. Vygodsky noted that verbal thinking does not exhaust all forms of thought, nor all forms of speech. Most of the thinking will not be directly related to verbal thinking (instrumental and technical thinking and, in general, the entire area of the so-called practical intelligence). Researchers highlight non-verbal, visual thinking and show that thinking without words is just as possible as thinking based on words. Verbal thinking is only one type of thinking.

The modern process of transmitting scientific knowledge and a person’s mastery of cultural achievements falls into three types: personal-nominal, professional-nominal and universal-conceptual. According to personal-nominal rules, a person is introduced to social activity through the eternal name - the distinguisher.

From the point of view of historical age, the most ancient is the personal-nominal type of translation: the professional-nominal type of thinking is a traditional type of culture, more common in the East and supported by such a structure as caste; The universal conceptual method of mastering culture is the youngest, characteristic mainly of the European type of thinking.

The process of transmitting scientific knowledge uses communication technologies - monologue, dialogue, polylogue. Communication involves the circulation of semantic, emotional, verbal and other types of information. There are two types of communication process: directed, when information is addressed to individuals, and retentive, when information is sent to many probabilistic addressees. G.P. Shchedrovitsky identified three types of communication strategies: presentation, manipulation, convention. The presentation contains a message about the significance of a particular object, process, event; manipulation involves the transfer of an external goal to a chosen subject and uses hidden mechanisms of influence, while in the mental agent there is a gap between understanding and goal, a space of incompetence arises; The convention is characterized by agreements in social relations, when subjects are partners, assistants, called moderators of communication. From the point of view of the interpenetration of interests, communication can manifest itself as confrontation, compromise, cooperation, withdrawal, neutrality. Depending on the organizational forms, communication can be business, deliberative, or presentational.

Science as a social institution

A social institution is a historical form of organization and regulation of social life. With the help of social institutions streamline relationships between people, their activities, their behavior in society, ensure the sustainability of social life, integrate the actions and relationships of individuals, achieve social cohesion. groups and layers. Social cultural institutions include science, art, etc.

Science as a social institute is the sphere of people. activities, the purpose of which is the study of objects and processes of nature, society and thinking, their properties, relationships and patterns; one of the forms of common consciousness.

Ordinary everyday experience does not belong to science - knowledge obtained on the basis of simple observation and practical activity, which does not go further than a simple description of facts and processes, identifying their purely external aspects.

Science as a social institution at all its levels (both the collective and the scientific community on a global scale) presupposes the existence of norms and values that are mandatory for people of science (plagiarists are expelled).

Speaking about modern science in its interactions with various spheres of human life and society, we can distinguish three groups of social functions performed by it: 1) cultural and ideological functions, 2) functions of science as a direct productive force and 3) its functions as a social force associated with topics that scientific knowledge and methods are now increasingly used in solving a wide variety of problems arising in the course of social development.

An important aspect of the transformation of science into a productive force was the creation and streamlining of permanent channels for the practical use of scientific knowledge, the emergence of such branches of activity as applied research and development, the creation of networks of scientific and technical information, etc. Moreover, following industry, such channels arise in other sectors of the material production and even beyond. All this entails significant consequences for both science and practice. The functions of science as a social force in solving global problems of our time are important.

The growing role of science in public life has given rise to its special status in modern culture and new features of its interaction with various layers of public consciousness. in this regard, the problem of the characteristics of scientific knowledge and its relationship with other forms of cognitive activity becomes acute. This problem at the same time has great practical significance. Understanding the specifics of science is a necessary prerequisite for the introduction of scientific methods in the management of cultural processes. It is also necessary for constructing a theory of management of science itself in the context of the development of scientific and technological revolution, since elucidation of the laws of scientific knowledge requires an analysis of its social conditionality and its interaction with various phenomena of spiritual and material culture.

The relationship between science as a social institution and society is two-way: science receives support from society and, in turn, gives society what it needs for its progressive development.

Being a form of spiritual activity of people, science is aimed at producing knowledge about nature, society and knowledge itself; its immediate goal is to comprehend the truth and discover the objective laws of the human and natural world based on a generalization of real facts. The sociocultural features of scientific activity are:

Universality (general significance and “general culture”),

Uniqueness (innovative structures created by scientific activity are unique, exceptional, irreproducible),

Non-cost productivity (it is impossible to assign value equivalents to the creative actions of the scientific community),

Personification (like any free spiritual production, scientific activity is always personal, and its methods are individual),

Discipline (scientific activity is regulated and disciplined as scientific research),

Democracy (scientific activity is unthinkable without criticism and free thinking),

Communality (scientific creativity is co-creation, scientific knowledge crystallizes in various contexts of communication - partnership, dialogue, discussion, etc.).

Reflecting the world in its materiality and development, science forms a single, interconnected, developing system of knowledge about its laws. At the same time, science is divided into many branches of knowledge (special sciences), which differ from each other in what aspect of reality they study. By subject and methods of cognition, one can distinguish the sciences of nature (natural sciences - chemistry, physics, biology, etc.), the sciences of society (history, sociology, political science, etc.), and a separate group consists of technical sciences. Depending on the specifics of the object being studied, it is customary to divide sciences into natural, social, humanitarian and technical. Natural sciences reflect nature, social and humanitarian sciences reflect human life, and technical sciences reflect the “artificial world” as a specific result of human influence on nature. It is possible to use other criteria for classifying science (for example, according to their “remoteness” from practical activities, sciences are divided into fundamental, where there is no direct orientation to practice, and applied, directly applying the results of scientific knowledge to solve production and socio-practical problems.) Together However, the boundaries between individual sciences and scientific disciplines are conditional and fluid.

Science as a social institution. Organization and management in science

The emergence of “big” technology was primarily due to a change in the nature of its connection with technology and production. Until the end of the 19th century. N. played a supporting role in relation to production. Then the development of science begins to outstrip the development of technology and production, and a unified system of “science - technology - production” takes shape, in which science plays a leading role. In the era of the scientific and technological revolution, science is constantly transforming the structure and content of material activity. The production process increasingly “... appears not as subordinate to the direct skill of the worker, but as a technological application of science” (Marx K., see Marx K. and Engels F., Works, 2nd ed., vol. 46, part. 2, p. 206).