Lavrinenko x. Concepts of modern natural science

CONCEPTS

MODERN

NATURAL SCIENCE

Edited by Professor V.N. Lavrinenko, professors V.P. Ratnikova

Third edition, revised and expanded

UDC 50.001.1(075.8) BBK 20ya73 K65

Reviewers:

Department of Philosophy of the Institute of Youth

(head. Department Dr. Philosopher sciences, prof. V. V. Zhuravlev);

Doctor of Philosophy science prof. G.I. Ikonnikova

And Dr. Tech. science prof. B.C.Toroptsov

Editor-in-chief of the publishing house Doctor of Economic Sciences N.D. Eriashvili

Conceptsmodern natural science: Textbook for universities / Ed. prof. V.N. Lavrinenko, prof. V.P. Ratnikova. - 3rd ed., revised. and additional - M.: UNITY-DANA, 2006. - 317 p.

ISBN 5-238-00530-Х

Previous editions (1st ed. - UNITY, 1997, 2nd ed. - UNITY, 1999) confirmed the relevance of this training course and the possibility of achieving main goal- help university students (economic And gumanitarian) master the modern natural-scientific picture of the world, synthesize the humanitarian and natural science culture, to form a natural-scientific way of thinking among future specialists, holistic worldview.

The textbook is intended to help more effective absorption course and students' awareness of the fundamental principles and patterns of development of nature - from the microcosm to the Universe.

BBK 20ya73

1999, 2003 Reproduction of the entire book or any part thereof is prohibited without the written permission of the publisher

OCR: Ikhtik (Ufa)

ihtik.lib.ru

This textbook has been prepared in accordance with the State educational standard higher vocational education and a program for teaching the discipline “Concepts of modern natural science” developed taking into account his requirements.

The textbook is intended for university students, as well as for everyone interested in issues of modern natural science and the natural scientific picture of the world. Its main goal is to help students, especially economic and humanitarian universities, master a new course for them, master the modern natural-scientific picture of the world, synthesize the so-called humanitarian and natural-scientific cultures into a single whole.

Mastering, even in general terms, the basic principles and research methods used in modern natural science will make it possible for future specialists in the field of social sciences and humanities to form a natural-scientific way of thinking, a holistic worldview, which will help them better master their chosen profession. After all, many studies of modern natural science acquire general scientific significance and are widely used in the social sciences and humanities. Knowledge of the basics of universal evolutionism, system method, synergetics, anthropic and other principles of research will contribute to more effective learning these sciences.

The relevance of the course “Concepts of modern natural science” is also due to the fact that recently in our country various kinds of non-scientific types of knowledge are becoming increasingly widespread, such as astrology, magic, esoteric, mystical and similar teachings, which are gradually being replaced by periphery public consciousness natural scientific picture of the world based on rational ways his explanations. That is why the scientific and pedagogical community should pay special attention to this.

Essentially, for unlimited ideological pluralism. Therefore, today, more than ever, it is important to affirm naturally scientific knowledge and the worldview based on it.

Only people with a scientific worldview can, on the one hand, successfully resist dogmatic thinking, and on the other, what could be called intellectual anarchism. The first is well known from the recent past. The second is gaining strength at the present time and finds its most complete theoretical expression in the philosophical concepts of postmodernism and among some representatives of postpositivist philosophy of science. Thus, one of the prominent representatives of postpositivism, the American philosopher P.K. Feyerabend, defending theoretical and methodological pluralism, evaluates modern science from the standpoint of its “anarchist criticism.” Such criticism is aimed at establishing the so-called anarchist epistemology, one of the central ideas of which is to equate science with religion, myth, magic, etc.

Of course, true science, like all rational knowledge, is incompatible with those pseudoscientific nonsense that constantly influence the consciousness modern man. Ignoring the scientific worldview may entail dangerous consequences, and this danger increases many times when there is a union political power and parascience. Examples include the Inquisition, religious fanaticism and fundamentalism, fascism, persecution of cybernetics, genetics, etc. Therefore, the neutral attitude of supporters of science and the scientific worldview towards pseudoscience is certainly a flawed position, in which we may find ourselves witnessing the victory of superstition over the scientific worldview.

The course “Concepts of modern natural science” should precisely contribute to the formation of a truly scientific worldview in students and their awareness of the immanent principles and patterns of development of nature - from the microcosm to the Universe and Man. It's about mastering basic concepts in physics, chemistry, biology, and more. natural sciences, about obtaining ideas about the most important schools and directions in the development of modern natural science.

During the learning process, students must acquire the ability to substantiate their ideological position in the field of natural science and learn to apply the acquired knowledge in solving professional problems, using modern scientific methods.

The authors sought to subordinate the methodology and methods of presenting the material, the structure of the work, and its content to this understanding of the goals and objectives of the new course.

The methodological core of the course is the evolutionary-synergetic paradigm, which moves to the forefront of science. Its content suggests organic compound principles of universal evolutionism and self-organization when considering certain phenomena and processes material world. Brilliant confirmation of the effectiveness of using this method is given in the works of V.I. Vernadsky, P. Teilhard de Chardin, I.R. Prigogine, G. Haken and other outstanding scientists. It seems that mastering this method will help students the best way comprehend the dialectics of the developing world as a single integrated system.

The authors sought to reveal relevant problems on the basis of a synthesis of natural science, philosophy and social sciences, because only in this way can they show the unity and diversity of the world and contribute to the formation of a holistic worldview among students. If necessary, the authors used general scientific and philosophical approaches to the analysis of the problems under consideration, they tried to show not only the results of their solution, but also the paths in the development of knowledge that led to them.

At the same time, the authors also sought to show the influence of sociocultural conditions on the development of natural sciences, which is very important, in particular, for understanding the relevance of many problems of natural science and the importance of their solution for improving society.

Natural science, like any other science, is largely pluralistic in nature, since seeking final truths and using purely categorical judgments in science is not only useless, but also harmful. Therefore, the authors of the textbook, on the one hand, sought to reflect the objective foundations and patterns of the developing world, and on the other, to show the incompleteness and openness of the process of solving the problems of modern natural science.

In accordance with the noted methodological and methodological principles The content of the course is also revealed. His presentation begins with an explanation of the specificity and unity of natural science and humanitarian cultures as two interrelated components of a single culture.

Next, the scientific method of research is considered, characteristics of modern natural science and the patterns of its development are given. Much attention is devoted to the consideration of the scientific method of cognition, and the emphasis is placed on explaining the fundamental features of the modern natural scientific picture of the world.

Particular attention is paid to the structural levels of the organization of matter. At the same time, the presentation is structured in such a way as to most fully reveal the unity of the micro-, macro- and mega-worlds and thereby emphasize the principle of universal evolutionism operating in the Universe.

A natural scientific picture of the world cannot be imagined without explaining its attributes such as space and time. Dedicated to this special chapter, from which students learn the content scientific concepts"space and time", universal properties and specific qualities of physical space and time at different structural levels organization of matter. It also talks about the features of biological, psychological and social space- time.

The work also examines the chemical and biological forms of organization of matter. Getting to know modern concepts chemistry and biology will help students understand how to simple shapes organizations of matter arise more complex and how, ultimately, life itself arises from nonliving things. Directly related to this is general theory chemical evolution and biogenesis, which helps solve complex issues driving forces and mechanisms of the evolutionary process.

Chapter “Biosphere. Noosphere. Man" is largely general in nature and is intended to reveal the place and role of man in general process universal evolutionism, to show the “human phenomenon” as a result of this process. When considering modern environmental problems, the idea of the unity of Man and the Cosmos is revealed, and natural science and philosophical analyzes are carried out in conjunction.

The logical conclusion of the course presentation is the topic devoted to the consideration of man from the point of view of natural science knowledge. This is one of those topics in which many issues remain controversial today. But the authors do not ignore them and in every specific case express their attitude to the problem under consideration, trying to provide the necessary argumentation pro et contra of a particular point of view.

The third edition of the textbook has been significantly improved. Two new chapters appeared in it: “ Scientific method. Structure scientific knowledge" and "Logic and patterns of development of science. Modern on-

Scientific picture of the world." New material included in the chapters “Structural levels of organization of matter”, “Chemical science about the features of the atomic-molecular level of organization of matter”, “Features of the biological level of organization of matter”, etc. At the same time, it should be noted that work on the textbook will continue so that in each subsequent edition could reflect latest achievements natural sciences.

Doctor of Philosophy sciences, prof. V.N. Lavrinenko(chapter 9)

Doctor of Philosophy sciences, prof. V.P. Ratnikov(introduction, chapter 9)

Cand. Philosopher Sciences, Associate Professor V.F. Pigeon(chapter 6, conclusion)

Cand. Philosopher Sciences, Associate Professor Yu.I. Zelnikov(chapter 8)

Doctor of Philosophy sciences, prof. IN AND. Kolyadko(chapter 5)

Cand. ist. sciences, prof. E.V. Ostrovsky(ch. 7)

Cand. Philosopher sciences, prof. L.G. Titova(chapter 5)

Cand. Philosopher Sciences, Associate Professor L.I. Chernyshova(chapter 4)

Cand. Philosopher Sciences, Associate Professor V.V. Yudin(Ch. 1-3).

NATURAL SCIENTIFIC AND HUMANITARIAN CULTURES

Most of us are already in school years reveal in themselves a certain predisposition, an inclination towards disciplines of either the humanities or the natural sciences. It is curious that we are not talking about individual “favorite items”, but about entire “blocks” academic disciplines. If someone likes history, then one can almost certainly say that literature, languages, and other humanitarian subjects will not be left without attention. As well as vice versa: if a person shows abilities in the field of mathematics, then, as a rule, he will have a good understanding of physics, cosmology, etc.

For individual person the question of distinguishing between humanities and naturalism (from Lat. humanitas - human nature And nature - nature, respectively) turns out to be mainly a problem of choosing an occupation, profession, and the formation of cultural skills and habits. For society as a whole, of course, there is no problem of choice, but there is a problem of combination, mutual consistency and harmony of the values of two types of cultures - natural science and humanitarian. Let's try to understand the content of this problem.

1.1. Specificity and relationship

natural sciences and humanities

types of crops

First, let's define the initial concepts. If soon we'll talk about the types of cultures, then the concept of “culture” itself needs to be defined first of all. Leaving aside discussions about the complexity and ambiguity of this concept, let us dwell on one of its simplest definitions:

Culture- this is the totality of material and spiritual values created by man, as well as the very human ability to produce and use these values.

By using this concept usually emphasize the supernatural, pure social character human existence. Culture is everything that is created by man, as if in addition to

The natural world, although based on the latter. This thesis can be clearly illustrated by a well-known ancient argument about the “nature of things”: if, for example, you plant an olive cutting in the ground, then a new olive will grow from it. And if you bury an olive bench in the ground, then not a bench will grow, but again a new olive tree! That is, only the natural basis of this object will be preserved, and the purely human one will disappear.

However, besides the trivial thought about the fragility of the creatures of our culture, another moral can be drawn from this example. Its essence is that the world of human culture does not exist near with natural, and inside him and therefore inextricably linked with him. Consequently, any cultural object can, in principle, be decomposed into at least two components - natural basis and its social content and design.

It is precisely this duality of the world of culture that is ultimately the basis for the emergence of its two types, which are usually called natural science type And humanitarian. The subject area of the first is purely natural properties, connections and relationships of things “working” in the world of human culture in the form of natural sciences, technical inventions and devices, production technologies etc. The second type of culture - humanitarian - covers the area of phenomena in which the properties, connections and relationships of people themselves as beings are presented. Firstly, social (public), and Secondly, spiritual, endowed with reason. It includes “human sciences” (philosophy, sociology, history, etc.), as well as religion, morality, law, etc.

1.1.1. Origins and subject of the “two cultures” dispute

Availability in a single human culture two heterogeneous types (natural science and humanities) became the subject of philosophical analysis back in the 19th century, at the time of the formation of most sciences about the manifestations of the human spirit (religious studies, aesthetics, theory of state and law). However, in that era, interest in this problem was more of a theoretical, academic nature. In the 20th century this problem has already become practical plane: there was a clear feeling of a growing gap between the natural science and humanities cultures. Simply put, humanists and “naturalists” (technical people) simply stopped understanding each other. And mutual misunderstanding automatically reduces

Interest and respect for each other, which in turn is fraught with open confrontation and hostility.

And these are by no means far-fetched passions, but completely real threat development of culture. After all, culture is, first of all, a system of social values. General recognition of any set of such values consolidates and unites society. Worship of different values, a split in values in culture, is a rather dangerous phenomenon. Let us at least remember the violent denial of religious values by the creators Soviet state in the 20-30s and the practice of destroying churches, dispersing religious communities, etc. How much benefit has such a harsh introduction of anti-religious values brought to our society? Mutual misunderstanding and rejection by people different systems values are always fraught negative consequences. The same applies to disagreements between naturalists and humanists.

Mutual understanding can be achieved by at least starting with an analysis of the causes and conditions for the emergence of mutual misunderstanding. Why, for example, did the confrontation between natural science and humanities cultures escalate precisely in the 20th century, and in its second half? The answer to this question is obvious. This time was marked by tremendous successes in natural science and its practical implementation. Creation of nuclear reactors, television, computers, man's entry into space, decoding genetic code- these and others outstanding achievements natural scientific culture visibly changed the style and way of life of a person. Humanitarian culture, unfortunately, was unable to present anything of equal value. However, she stubbornly refused to accept the standards and patterns of thinking of natural scientists. As a result, humanitarian culture, cultivating its specificity and isolation, increasingly gave the impression of some kind of archaism, having only museum value and suitable only for entertainment and leisure of a bearer of natural science culture tired of practical worries.

This was the starting point of numerous disputes between “physicists” and “lyricists” about the fate of the two cultures, the peak of which occurred in the 60s of our century. The focus was on the status and social significance of two types of sciences: natural and humanities. Of course, the concepts of the corresponding types of cultures are much more extensive and complex. However, ultimately, it is the natural and human sciences that determine their modern appearance and structure. Therefore, to analyze the essence of the discussed pro-

Problems, in principle, are easier and simpler just based on the example of distinguishing between humanitarian and natural science knowledge.

It may, however, seem that there is no problem here. It is clear that the humanities and natural sciences differ in their object. The former study man and society, and the latter study nature. What's problematic here?

However, there is still a problem. It can be caught even in our ordinary usage of words. We are accustomed, for example, to calling sections of natural science “exact sciences.” No one is surprised by the opposition exact sciences humanitarian. But if we are consistent and follow the rules of logic, will it turn out that the humanities are “inexact” sciences? But such things simply cannot exist by definition. This is part of the problem being discussed.

It is intuitively clear that no matter how hard the humanities try, they cannot achieve the accuracy, rigor and evidence of the natural sciences. This situation has long been the main target for the critical arrows of representatives of natural science: what kind of science is this, for example, history, if mutually exclusive assessments of the same events are possible in it?! For some historians, the events of October 1917 in Russia are great revolution and a breakthrough into the future, but for others - banal political coup with tragic consequences. Or, let’s say, any schoolchild knows from literary studies that Shakespeare is a genius. But another literary genius is L.N. Tolstoy denied this fact with incomprehensible persistence, not paying attention to any “scientific” research in this area. He would have tried to deny Euclid's geometry or Newtonian mechanics. And Shakespeare - please. It seems that in humanities it is sometimes impossible to prove anything at all rational arguments. And recognition of any achievements in these areas is only a matter of taste and faith. This is why many representatives of natural science have a slightly disdainful attitude towards the results of the humanities. The knowledge obtained here is portrayed as somehow inferior, not reaching the status of scientific knowledge.

Humanitarians are also not in debt in this debate. Defending themselves against accusations that their conclusions are ambiguous, they mainly appeal to the incredible complexity of the object of research. After all, there is no more in nature complex object for studying,
12

Than a person. Stars, planets, atoms, molecules - ultimately the structures are quite simple, or at least decomposable into more than a hundred chemical elements or a couple of hundred elementary particles. A types fundamental interactions There are only four between them! Yes, and they are about to be reduced to one and only one.

Moreover, the behavior natural objects uniquely determined by the laws of nature and therefore clearly predictable. Planet Earth or any electron does not arbitrarily choose which orbits to move in or which way to rotate. Another thing is a person with free will. There are no laws in nature that would unambiguously prescribe to a person what trajectories he should follow, what type of activity (humanitarian or natural science, for example) to prefer, or how to organize his country. Moreover, even the very fact of a person’s presence in this world can serve as the subject of his own arbitrary choice! What kind of unambiguous predictability of events can we talk about here?

Of course, some parallels and even some kind of unity can be found between the behavior of humans and natural objects. But there is one pure human sphere a reality that has no analogues in the natural world. The fact is that a person lives not only in the world of things, but also in the world of meanings, symbols, signs. For a modern person, a piece of gold is not just a plastic metal, but also an object of desire, passion, a symbol of power and prestige. This meaning governs human behavior no less than natural factors, and maybe even more so, since “people are dying for metal.” And this is a completely different reality, where natural science has no access.

In everything a person does, he needs to clearly see, first of all, the meaning! Pointlessness of activity (Sisyphean labor) is the most terrible punishment. The meaning of the existence of man, society, the Universe is clarified, and sometimes it is created (simply invented) by the humanities.

So they also have something to boast about in relation to natural science: they “humanize”, fill with meaning and value someone who is coldly indifferent to the needs of man. natural world. And in the end, what is more important for a person: to know what cells and tissues he consists of or what is the meaning of his existence? This question may not be entirely correct, because it is clear that it would be good to know

And other. However, it quite clearly highlights the difference in the competence of the natural and human sciences and cultures.

The main problem of distinguishing them, however, is not who is more important or more necessary, but why the standards of scientific nature of natural science are poorly applicable in the humanities and, accordingly, where to direct efforts: whether to continue, alas, so far not very successful attempts introducing natural scientific samples and methods into humanities or focusing on identifying the specifics of the latter and developing special requirements and scientific standards for it?

This question does not currently have a final solution, and the search for an answer to it is being carried out in both designated directions. And yet, to date, a stable tradition has developed of a fairly strict distinction between humanitarian and natural scientific knowledge based on fundamentally irreducible common denominator peculiarities of their objects, methods and examples of scientific character.

1.1.2. "Sciences of nature" and "sciences of spirit"

For the first time, the problem of distinguishing between the “sciences of nature” and the “sciences of the spirit” was posed in the second half of the 19th century. like this philosophical directions, like neo-Kantianism ( Wilhelm Windel-gang, Heinrich Rickert) and "philosophy of life" ( Wilhelm Dilthey). The arguments accumulated since then in favor of separating the two types of scientific knowledge look something like this.

3rd ed., revised. and additional - M.: UNITY-DANA, 2006. - 317 p.

Previous editions (1st ed. - UNITY, 1997, 2nd ed. - UNITY, 1999) confirmed the relevance of this training course and the possibility of achieving the main goal - to help university students (economics and humanities) master the modern natural science picture of the world, to synthesize the humanitarian and natural science cultures into a single whole, to form in future specialists a natural-scientific way of thinking and a holistic worldview.

The textbook is designed to facilitate more effective learning of the course and students' awareness of the fundamental principles and patterns of development of nature - from the microcosm to the Universe.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 3
Chapter 1. Natural science and humanitarian cultures 8
1.1. Specificity and relationship between natural science and humanitarian types of cultures 8
1.1.1. Origins and subject of dispute between two cultures 9
1.1.2. “Sciences of nature” and “sciences of spirit” 13
1.1.3. Unity and interconnection of natural science and humanitarian cultures 21
1.2. Science in the spiritual culture of society 25
1.2.1. Features of scientific knowledge 26
1.2.2. Disciplinary organization of science 27
1.3. Ethics of Science 30
1.3.1. Ethics scientific community - 31
1.3.2. Ethics of science as a social institution 33
Chapter 2. Scientific method. Structure of scientific knowledge 38
2.1. Methods of scientific knowledge 38
2.2. Structure of scientific knowledge 45
2.3. Criteria and norms of scientific character 52
2.4. Limits of the Scientific Method 55
Chapter 3. Logic and patterns of development of science. Modern scientific picture of the world 59
3.1. General models of scientific development 60
3.2. Scientific revolutions 64
3.3. Differentiation and integration of scientific knowledge 70
3.4. Mathematization of natural science 73
3.5. Fundamental features of the modern natural scientific picture of the world 74
3.5.1. Global evolutionism 75
3.5.2. Synergetics - theory of self-organization 79
3.5.3. General contours of the modern natural-scientific picture of the world 84
Chapter 4. Structural levels of organization of matter 89
4.1. Macroworld: concepts of classical natural science 92
4.2. Microworld: concepts modern physics 98
4.2.1. Quantum-mechanical concept of describing the microworld 98
4.2.2. Wave genetics 106
4.2.3. Atomistic concept structure of matter 113
4.2.4. Elementary particles and quark model of the atom 116
4.2.5. Physical vacuum 121
4.3. Megaworld: modern astrophysical and cosmological concepts 126
4.3.1. Modern cosmological models Universe 126
4.3.2. The problem of the origin and evolution of the Universe 129
4.3.3. Structure of the Universe 134
Chapter 5. Space and time in modern scientific picture peace 143
5.1. Development of views on space and time in the history of science 143
5.2. Space and time in the light of A. Einstein’s theory of relativity 150
5.3. Properties of space and time 159
Chapter 6. Chemical science about the features of the atomic-molecular level of organization of matter
6.1. Subject of knowledge chemical science and her problems 170
6.2. Methods and concepts of knowledge in chemistry 172
6.3. The doctrine of the composition of matter 174
6.4. Structural Chemistry Level 177
6.5. The doctrine of chemical processes 179
6.6. Evolutionary Chemistry 180
Chapter 7. Features of the biological level of organization of matter. Problems of genetics 137
7.1. Subject of biology. Its structure and stages of development 187
7.2. The essence of living things, its main features 189
7.3. Origin of life 193
7.4. Structural levels of living things 197
7.5. The cell as the “first brick” of living things, its structure and functioning. Cell control mechanism 199
7.6. Gene and its properties. Genetics and practice 202
7.7. Modern theory biological evolution and her critics 208
7.8. Bioethics 216
Chapter 8. Biosphere. Noosphere. Human
8.1. Biosphere. Teachings of V.I. Vernadsky about the biosphere 224
8.2. Man and the biosphere 227
8.3. System: nature-biosphere-human 228
8.3.1. The influence of nature on humans. Geographical environment 228
8.3.2. Geographical determinism. Geopolitics 230
8.3.3. Environment, its components 233
8.3.4. Human influence on nature. Technosphere 234
8.3.5. Noosphere. Teachings of V.I. Vernadsky about the noosphere 237
8.4. The relationship between space and wildlife 239
8.5. Contradictions in the system: nature - biosphere - man 245
8.5.1. The essence and sources of contradictions 245
8.5.2. Ecology. Global environmental problems and solutions 246
Chapter 9. Man as a subject of natural science. 251
9.1. Man is a child of the Earth 251
9.2. The problem of anthropogenesis 256
9.3. Biological and social in historical development people 263
9.4. Biological and social in human ontogenesis 267
9.5. Sociobiology about human nature 274
9.6. Social and ethical issues genetic engineering person 276
9.7. Unconscious and conscious in man 281
9.8. Man: individual and personality 285
9.9. Ecology and human health 289
Conclusion 296
The most important terms and concepts 300
Name index 310

(Document)

Butman M.F. Concepts of modern natural science. Collection of tests (Document)

Guseikhanov M.K., Radzhabov O.R. Concepts of modern natural science (Document)

Ruzavin G.I. Concepts of modern natural science (Document)

Sadokhin A.P. Concepts of modern natural science (Document)

Gorokhov V.G. Concepts of modern science and technology (Document)

Yulov V.F. Reader for the course Concepts of modern natural science (Document)

Kizhaev F.G. Concepts of modern natural science (Document)

Savchenko V.N. The beginnings of modern natural science: concepts and principles (Document)

Kanke V.A. Concepts of modern natural science (Document)

Baumgarten M.I. Thematic dictionary on the concepts of modern natural science (Document)

n1.doc

CONCEPTS OF MODERN NATURAL SCIENCE
V.N. Lavrinenko
All-Russian Correspondence Institute of Finance and Economics Rector Acad. A.N. Romanov Chairman of the Scientific and Methodological Council prof. D.M. Daintbegs

V.N. Lavrinenko, V.P. Ratnikov, V.F. Golub, Yu.I. Zelnikov, V.I. Kolyadko, N.P. Menkin, E.V. Ostrovsky, L.M. Putilova, L.G. Titova. L.I. Chernysheva, V.V. Yudin

Reviewers:

Department of Philosophy, Institute of Youth, Doctor of Philosophy. science prof. G. I. Ikonnikova and Dr. Tech. science prof. B.C. Toroptsov

Editor-in-chief of the publishing house N.D. Eriashvili

Concepts of modern natural science: Textbook for universities / V.N. Lavrinenko, V.P. Ratnikov, V.F. Dove and others; Ed. prof. V.N. Lavrinenko, prof. V.P. Ratnikova. - M.: Culture and Sports, UNITY, 1997. - 271 p. ISBN 5-85178-045-2.

The relationship between natural science and humanitarian cultures, the history of natural science are revealed, and a panorama of modern natural science and trends in its development are given. Modern ideas about the development of nature from the microworld to the macro- and megaworld, about space and time, the principles of relativity, etc. are presented in an intelligible and popular form.

The characteristics of the structural levels of the organization of matter are given. Particular attention is paid to revealing the principle of universal evolutionism, the development of matter from simple to complex, from chaos to higher order through self-organization material systems. Set forth actual problems modern biology, physics, bioethics. The textbook may also be useful to a wide range of readers.

Introduction

This textbook has been prepared in accordance with the State educational standard for higher professional education and the teaching program for the new discipline “Concepts of modern natural science.”

The work is intended for university students, as well as for everyone interested in issues of modern natural science and the natural scientific picture of the world.

The main goal of the work is to help students of economics and humanities universities master a course that is new to them, master the modern natural science picture of the world, and synthesize the so-called humanitarian and natural science cultures into a single whole.

Mastering, even in general terms, the basic principles and methods of research used in modern natural science will make it possible to form in future specialists in the field of social sciences and humanities a natural-scientific way of thinking, a holistic worldview, which will help to better master their own profession.

After all, many methods of research in modern natural science are acquiring general scientific significance and are widely used in the social sciences and humanities. Studying the foundations of universal evolutionism, the systems method, synergetics, anthropic and other principles of research will contribute to a more effective study of these sciences.

The relevance of the course “The Concept of Modern Natural Science” is also due to the fact that recently in our country various types of non-scientific types of knowledge, such as astrology, magic, esoteric, mystical, etc., have become increasingly widespread. Gradually, but quite definitely, they are displacing the natural scientific picture of the world, based on rational ways of explaining it, to the periphery of public consciousness. It is clear that the scientific and pedagogical community should pay special attention to this.

Representatives of modern parascience persistently call for the use of any teachings, including mysticism, superstition, etc., as long as they have a corresponding impact on society. Many of them believe that the status of the scientific worldview in modern society is no higher than that of any functional myth, and essentially advocate unlimited ideological pluralism. Therefore, today, more than ever, it is important to affirm natural scientific knowledge and the worldview based on it.

Only people with a scientific worldview can, on the one hand, successfully resist dogmatic thinking, and on the other, what could be called intellectual anarchism. The first is well known to all of us from the recent past. The second is gaining increasing strength at the present time and finds its most complete theoretical expression in the philosophical concepts of postmodernism and among some representatives of postpositivist philosophy of science. Thus, one of the prominent representatives of postpositivism, the American philosopher P.K. Feyerabend, defending theoretical and methodological pluralism, evaluates modern science from the standpoint of its “anarchist criticism.” Such criticism is aimed at establishing the so-called anarchist epistemology, one of the central ideas of which is to equate science with religion, myth, magic, etc.

Of course, true science, like all rational knowledge, is incompatible with those pseudoscientific nonsense that continuously influence the consciousness of modern man. Ignoring the scientific worldview can lead to dangerous individual and social consequences. This danger increases many times over when there is a union of political power and parascience. Examples include the Inquisition, religious fanaticism and fundamentalism, fascism, persecution of cybernetics, genetics, etc. Therefore, the neutral attitude of supporters of science and the scientific worldview towards pseudoscience is certainly a flawed position, in which we may find ourselves witnessing the victory of superstition over the scientific worldview .

The course “Concepts of modern natural science” should precisely contribute to the formation of a truly scientific worldview in students and their awareness of the immanent principles and laws of the development of nature - from the microcosm to the Universe and Man. We are talking about mastering the basic concepts in the field of physics, chemistry, biology and other natural sciences, gaining ideas about the most important schools and directions in the development of modern natural science.

The authors sought to subordinate the methodology, methods of presenting the material, and the content of the work to this understanding of the goals and objectives of the new course.

The methodological core of the course is the evolutionary-synergistic paradigm, which moves to the forefront of science. Its content presupposes an organic combination of the principles of universal evolutionism and self-organization when considering certain phenomena and processes of the material world. Brilliant confirmation of the effectiveness of using this method is given in the works of V.I. Vernadsky, P. Teilhard de Chardin, I.R. Prigogine, G. Haken and other outstanding scientists. It seems that mastering this method will help students better understand the dialectics of the developing world as a single integrated system.

The authors sought to reveal relevant problems on the basis of a synthesis of natural science, philosophy and social sciences, because only in this way can they show the unity and diversity of the world and contribute to the formation of a holistic worldview among students. If necessary, the authors used scientific, historical and philosophical approaches to the analysis of the problems under consideration, trying to show not only the results of their solution, but also the paths in the development of knowledge that led to them.

When writing the work, the authors sought to show the influence of sociocultural conditions on the development of natural sciences, which is very important, in particular, for understanding the relevance of many problems of natural science and the importance of their solution for improving society.

Natural science, like any other science, is pluralistic in nature, since seeking final truths and using purely categorical judgments in science is not only useless, but also harmful. Therefore, the authors teaching aid, on the one hand, they sought to reflect the objective foundations and patterns of the developing world, and on the other, to show the incompleteness and openness in solving the problems of modern natural science.

In accordance with the noted methodological and methodological principles, the content of the course is also revealed. His presentation begins with an explanation of the specificity and unity of the natural science and humanitarian cultures as two interrelated components of a single culture.

Next, the scientific method of research is considered, characteristics of modern natural science and the patterns of its development are given. Much attention is paid to the consideration of the scientific method of cognition, and the emphasis is on explaining the fundamental features of the modern natural science picture of the world. Particular attention is paid to the structural levels of organization of matter and the microcosm. At the same time, the presentation is structured in such a way as to most fully reveal the unity of the micro-, macro- and mega-worlds and thereby emphasize the principle of universal evolutionism operating in the Universe.

A natural scientific picture of the world cannot be imagined without explaining its attributes such as space and time. A special section is devoted to this, from which students learn the content of scientific concepts of space and time, universal properties and specific qualities of physical space and time at various structural levels of the organization of matter. It also talks about the specifics of biological, psychological and social space - time.

The work also examines biological and chemical forms of organization of matter. Acquaintance with modern concepts of chemistry and biology will help students understand how more complex forms of organization of matter arise from simple forms, and how life itself ultimately arises from nonliving things. Directly related to this is the general theory of chemical evolution and biogenesis, which helps to solve in a complex manner the issues of the driving forces and mechanisms of the evolutionary process.

The chapter "Biosphere. Noosphere. Man" is largely general in nature and is intended to reveal the place and role of man in the general process of universal evolutionism, to show the "phenomenon of man" as a result of this process. When considering modern environmental problems, the idea of the unity of man and the cosmos is revealed, and natural scientific and philosophical analyzes are carried out in conjunction.

The logical conclusion of the course presentation is the topic devoted to the consideration of man from the point of view of natural science knowledge. This is one of those topics in which many issues remain controversial today. But the authors do not ignore them and in each specific case express their attitude to the problem under consideration, trying to provide the necessary argumentation pro et contra of this or that point of view.

In conclusion, I would like to note that creating a textbook for a new discipline is always quite difficult, because there is still no necessary experience not only in writing it, but also in teaching the discipline itself, the course program has not been established, and discussions are ongoing on its issues.

The textbook was prepared by a team of authors consisting of: Dr. Philosopher, Sciences, Prof. V.N. Lavrinenko (chapter 8), doctor of philosophy, science, prof. V.P. Ratnikova (introduction, chapter 8), Ph.D. philosopher, science, associate professor V.F. Golubya (chapter 5, conclusion), Ph.D. philosopher, science, associate professor Yu.I. Zelnikova (chapter 7), doctor of philosophy, sciences, prof. IN AND. Koladko (chapter 4), Ph.D. philosopher, science, associate professor N.P. Menkina (chapter 1), Ph.D. ist. sciences, prof. E.V. Ostrovsky (chapter 6), Ph.D. philosopher, science, associate professor L.M. Putilova (Chapter 1), Ph.D. philosopher, science, associate professor L.G. Titova (chap. 4), Ph.D. philosopher, science, associate professor L.I. Chernyshova (chapter 3), Ph.D. philosopher, science, associate professor V.V. Yudina (chapter 2).

CONCEPTS

MODERN

NATURAL SCIENCE

Edited by Professor V.N. Lavrinenko, professors V.P. Ratnikova

Third edition, revised and expanded

UDC 50.001.1(075.8)BBK 20ya73 K65

Reviewers:

Department of Philosophy of the Institute of Youth

(Head of the department, Doctor of Philosophy, Prof. V.V. Zhuravlev);

Doctor of Philosophy science prof. G.I. Ikonnikova

and Dr. Tech. science prof. B.C.Toroptsov

Editor-in-chief of the publishing house Doctor of Economic Sciences N.D. Eriashvili

Concepts modern natural science: Textbook for K65 universities / Ed. prof. V.N. Lavrinenko, prof. V.P. Ratnikova. - 3rd ed., revised. and additional - M.: UNITY-DANA, 2006. - 317 p.

ISBN 5-238-00530-Х

Previous editions (1st ed. - UNITY, 1997, 2nd ed. - UNITY, 1999) confirmed the relevance of this training course and the possibility of achieving the main goal - to help university students (economic And gumanitarian) master the modern natural-scientific picture of the world, synthesize the humanitarian and natural-scientific cultures into a single whole, formulate a natural-scientific way of thinking among future specialists, holistic worldview.

BBK 20ya73

1999, 2003 Reproduction of the entire book or any part thereof is prohibited without the written permission of the publisher

OCR: Ikhtik (Ufa)

ihtik.lib.ru

This textbook has been prepared in accordance with the State educational standard of higher professional education and the program for teaching the discipline “Concepts of modern natural science” developed taking into account its requirements.

The textbook is intended for university students, as well as for everyone interested in issues of modern natural science and the natural scientific picture of the world. Its main goal is to help students, primarily from economics and humanities universities, master a new course for them, master the modern natural science picture of the world, and synthesize the so-called humanitarian and natural science cultures into a single whole.

Mastering, even in general terms, the basic principles and research methods used in modern natural science will make it possible for future specialists in the field of social sciences and humanities to form a natural-scientific way of thinking, a holistic worldview, which will help them better master their chosen profession. After all, many studies of modern natural science acquire general scientific significance and are widely used in the social sciences and humanities. Knowledge of the fundamentals of universal evolutionism, the systems method, synergetics, anthropic and other principles of research will contribute to a more effective study of these sciences.

The relevance of the course “Concepts of modern natural science” is also due to the fact that recently in our country various kinds of non-scientific types of knowledge are becoming increasingly widespread, such as astrology, magic, esoteric, mystical and similar teachings, which are gradually being replaced by the periphery of public consciousness - a natural-scientific picture of the world based on rational ways of explaining it. That is why the scientific and pedagogical community should pay special attention to this.

essentially, for unlimited ideological pluralism. Therefore, today, more than ever, it is important to affirm natural scientific knowledge and the worldview based on it.

Of course, true science, like all rational knowledge, is incompatible with those pseudoscientific nonsense that continuously influence the consciousness of modern man. Ignoring the scientific worldview can have dangerous consequences, and this danger increases many times over when there is a union of political power and parascience. Examples include the Inquisition, religious fanaticism and fundamentalism, fascism, persecution of cybernetics, genetics, etc. Therefore, the neutral attitude of supporters of science and the scientific worldview towards pseudoscience is certainly a flawed position, in which we may find ourselves witnessing the victory of superstition over the scientific worldview.

The course “Concepts of modern natural science” should precisely contribute to the formation of a truly scientific worldview in students and their awareness of the immanent principles and patterns of development of nature - from the microcosm to the Universe and Man. We are talking about mastering the basic concepts in the field of physics, chemistry, biology and other natural sciences, about obtaining ideas about the most important schools and directions in the development of modern natural science.

The methodological core of the course is the evolutionary-synergetic paradigm, which moves to the forefront of science. Its content presupposes an organic combination of the principles of universal evolutionism and self-organization when considering certain phenomena and processes of the material world. Brilliant confirmation of the effectiveness of using this method is given in the works of V.I. Vernadsky, P. Teilhard de Chardin, I.R. Prigogine, G. Haken and other outstanding scientists. It seems that mastering this method will help students better understand the dialectics of the developing world as a single integrated system.

The authors sought to reveal relevant problems on the basis of a synthesis of natural science, philosophy and social sciences, because only in this way can they show the unity and diversity of the world and contribute to the formation of a holistic worldview among students. If necessary, the authors used general scientific and philosophical approaches to the analysis of the problems under consideration, trying to show not only the results of their solution, but also the paths in the development of knowledge that led to them.

A natural scientific picture of the world cannot be imagined without explaining its attributes such as space and time. A special chapter is devoted to this, from which students will learn the content of the scientific concepts of “space” and “time”, the universal properties and specific qualities of physical space and time at various structural levels of the organization of matter. It also talks about the features of biological, psychological and social space - time.

The work also examines the chemical and biological forms of organization of matter. Introduction to modern concepts of chemistry and biology will help students understand how simpler forms of matter can evolve into more complex ones and how life itself ultimately emerges from nonliving things. Directly related to this is the general theory of chemical evolution and biogenesis, which helps to solve in a complex manner the issues of the driving forces and mechanisms of the evolutionary process.

Chapter “Biosphere. Noosphere. Man" is largely general in nature and is intended to reveal the place and role of man in the general process of universal evolutionism, to show the "phenomenon of man" as a result of this process. When considering modern environmental problems, the idea of the unity of Man and the Cosmos is revealed, and natural scientific and philosophical analyzes are carried out in conjunction.

The logical conclusion of the course presentation is the topic devoted to the consideration of man from the point of view of natural science knowledge. This is one of those topics in which many issues remain controversial today. But the authors do not ignore them and in each specific case express their attitude to the problem under consideration, trying to provide the necessary argumentation pro et contra of this or that point of view.

The third edition of the textbook has been significantly improved. Two new chapters appeared in it: “Scientific method. The structure of scientific knowledge" and "Logic and patterns of development of science. Modern on-

scientific picture of the world." New material is included in the chapters “Structural levels of organization of matter”, “Chemical science about the features of the atomic-molecular level of organization of matter”, “Features of the biological level of organization of matter”, etc. At the same time, it should be noted that work on the textbook will continue to each subsequent edition could reflect the latest achievements of natural science.

Doctor of Philosophy sciences, prof. V.N. Lavrinenko(chapter 9)

Doctor of Philosophy sciences, prof. V.P. Ratnikov(introduction, chapter 9)

Ph.D. Philosopher Sciences, Associate Professor V.F. Pigeon(chapter 6, conclusion)

Ph.D. Philosopher Sciences, Associate Professor Yu.I. Zelnikov(chapter 8)

Doctor of Philosophy sciences, prof. IN AND. Kolyadko(chapter 5)

Ph.D. ist. sciences, prof. E.V. Ostrovsky(ch. 7)

Ph.D. Philosopher sciences, prof. L.G. Titova(chapter 5)

Ph.D. Philosopher Sciences, Associate Professor L.I. Chernyshova(chapter 4)

Ph.D. Philosopher Sciences, Associate Professor V.V. Yudin(Ch. 1-3).

Chapter 1

NATURAL SCIENCEAND HUMANITARIAN CULTURE

Most of us, already in our school years, discover in ourselves a certain predisposition, an inclination towards disciplines either in the humanities or in the natural sciences. It is curious that we are not talking about individual “favorite subjects”, but about entire “blocks” of academic disciplines. If someone likes history, then one can almost certainly say that literature, languages, and other humanitarian subjects will not be left without attention. As well as vice versa: if a person shows abilities in the field of mathematics, then, as a rule, he will have a good understanding of physics, cosmology, etc.

For an individual, the question of distinguishing between humanities and naturalism (from Lat. humanitas - human nature and nature - nature, accordingly) turns out to be mainly a problem of choosing an occupation, a profession, and the formation of cultural skills and habits. For society as a whole, of course, there is no problem of choice, but there is a problem of combination, mutual consistency and harmony of the values of two types of cultures - natural science and humanities. Let's try to understand the content of this problem.

1.1. Specificity and relationship between natural science and humanitarian types of cultures

First, let's define the initial concepts. Since we are talking about types of cultures, the concept of “culture” itself needs to be defined first of all. Leaving aside discussions about the complexity and ambiguity of this concept, let us dwell on one of its simplest definitions:

Culture- this is the totality of material and spiritual values created by man, as well as the very human ability to produce and use these values.

With the help of this concept, they usually emphasize the supra-natural, purely social nature of human existence. Culture is everything that is created by man, as if in addition to

the natural world, albeit based on the latter. This thesis can be clearly illustrated by a well-known ancient argument about the “nature of things”: if, for example, you plant an olive cutting in the ground, then a new olive will grow from it. And if you bury an olive bench in the ground, then not a bench will grow, but again a new olive tree! That is, only the natural basis of this object will be preserved, and the purely human one will disappear.

It is precisely this duality of the world of culture that is ultimately the basis for the emergence of its two types, which are usually called natural science type And humanitarian. The subject area of the first is purely natural properties, connections and relationships of things that “work” in the world of human culture in the form of natural sciences, technical inventions and devices, production technologies, etc. The second type of culture - humanitarian - covers the area of phenomena in which the properties, connections and relationships of people themselves as beings are presented. Firstly, social (public), and Secondly, spiritual, endowed with reason. It includes “human sciences” (philosophy, sociology, history, etc.), as well as religion, morality, law, etc.

1.1.1. Origins and subject of the “two cultures” dispute

The presence in a single human culture of two heterogeneous types (natural science and humanitarian) became the subject of philosophical analysis back in the 19th century, at the time of the formation of most sciences about the manifestations of the human spirit (religious studies, aesthetics, theory of state and law). However, in that era, interest in this problem was more of a theoretical, academic nature. In the 20th century this problem has already moved to a practical level: a clear feeling has arisen of a growing gap between the natural science and humanitarian cultures. Simply put, humanists and “naturalists” (technical people) simply stopped understanding each other. And mutual misunderstanding automatically reduces

interest and respect for each other, which in turn is fraught with open confrontation and hostility.

And these are not far-fetched passions, but a completely real threat to the development of culture. After all, culture is, first of all, a system of social values. General recognition of any set of such values consolidates and unites society. Worship of different values, a split in values in culture, is a rather dangerous phenomenon. Let us at least recall the fierce denial of religious values by the creators of the Soviet state in the 20-30s and the practice of destroying churches, dispersing religious communities, etc. How much benefit has such a harsh introduction of anti-religious values brought to our society? Mutual misunderstanding and rejection by people of different value systems is always fraught with negative consequences. The same applies to disagreements between naturalists and humanists.

Mutual understanding can be achieved by at least starting with an analysis of the causes and conditions for the emergence of mutual misunderstanding. Why, for example, did the confrontation between natural science and humanities cultures escalate precisely in the 20th century, and in its second half? The answer to this question is obvious. This time was marked by tremendous successes in natural science and its practical implementation. The creation of nuclear reactors, television, computers, man's entry into space, deciphering the genetic code - these and other outstanding achievements of natural science culture visibly changed the style and lifestyle of man. Humanitarian culture, unfortunately, was unable to present anything of equal value. However, she stubbornly refused to accept the standards and patterns of thinking of natural scientists. As a result, humanitarian culture, cultivating its specificity and isolation, increasingly gave the impression of some kind of archaism, having only museum value and suitable only for entertainment and leisure of a bearer of natural science culture tired of practical worries.

Problems in principle are easier and simpler just based on the example of distinguishing between humanities and natural science knowledge.

However, there is still a problem. It can be caught even in our ordinary usage of words. We are accustomed, for example, to calling sections of natural science “exact sciences.” No one is surprised by the contrast between the exact sciences and the humanities. But if we are consistent and follow the rules of logic, will it turn out that the humanities are “inexact” sciences? But such things simply cannot exist by definition. This is part of the problem being discussed.

It is intuitively clear that no matter how hard the humanities try, they cannot achieve the accuracy, rigor and evidence of the natural sciences. This situation has long been the main target for the critical arrows of representatives of natural science: what kind of science is this, for example, history, if mutually exclusive assessments of the same events are possible in it?! For some historians, the events of October 1917 in Russia represent a great revolution and a breakthrough into the future, while for others it is a banal political coup with tragic consequences. Or, let’s say, any schoolchild knows from literary studies that Shakespeare is a genius. But another literary genius is L.N. Tolstoy denied this fact with incomprehensible persistence, not paying attention to any “scientific” research in this area. He would have tried to deny Euclid's geometry or Newtonian mechanics. And Shakespeare - please. It seems that in humanities it is sometimes impossible to prove anything with rational arguments. And recognition of any achievements in these areas is only a matter of taste and faith. This is why many representatives of natural science have a slightly disdainful attitude towards the results of the humanities. The knowledge obtained here is portrayed as somehow inferior, not reaching the status of scientific knowledge.

than a person. Stars, planets, atoms, molecules - ultimately the structures are quite simple, or at least decomposable into more than a hundred chemical elements or a couple of hundred elementary particles. And there are only four types of fundamental interactions between them! Yes, and they are about to be reduced to one and only one.

In addition, the behavior of natural objects is clearly determined by the laws of nature and is therefore clearly predictable. Planet Earth or any electron does not arbitrarily choose which orbits to move in or which way to rotate. Another thing is a person with free will. There are no laws in nature that would unambiguously prescribe to a person what trajectories he should follow, what type of activity (humanitarian or natural science, for example) to prefer, or how to organize his country. Moreover, even the very fact of a person’s presence in this world can serve as the subject of his own arbitrary choice! What kind of unambiguous predictability of events can we talk about here?

Of course, some parallels and even some kind of unity can be found between the behavior of humans and natural objects. But there is one purely human sphere of reality, which has no analogues in the natural world. The fact is that a person lives not only in the world of things, but also in the world of meanings, symbols, signs. For a modern person, a piece of gold is not just a plastic metal, but also an object of desire, passion, a symbol of power and prestige. This meaning controls human behavior no less than natural factors, and perhaps even more so, since “people die for metal.” And this is a completely different reality, where natural science has no access.

So they also have something to boast about in relation to natural science: they “humanize”, fill with meaning and value the natural world, which is coldly indifferent to human needs. And in the end, what is more important for a person: to know what cells and tissues he consists of or what is the meaning of his existence? This question may not be entirely correct, because it is clear that it would be good to know

and other. However, it quite clearly highlights the difference in the competence of the natural and human sciences and cultures.

This question does not currently have a final solution, and the search for an answer to it is being carried out in both designated directions. And yet, to date, a stable tradition has developed of a fairly strict distinction between humanities and natural science knowledge based on the features of their objects, methods and examples of scientificity that are fundamentally irreducible to a common denominator.

1.1.2. "Sciences of nature" and "sciences of spirit"

For the first time, the problem of distinguishing between the “sciences of nature” and the “sciences of the spirit” was posed in the second half of the 19th century. such philosophical trends as neo-Kantianism ( Wilhelm Windel-gang, Heinrich Rickert) and "philosophy of life" ( Wilhelm Dilthey). The arguments accumulated since then in favor of separating the two types of scientific knowledge look something like this.

Explanation - understanding. Nature for us is something external, material, alien. Its phenomena are silent, mute and coldly indifferent towards us. Their study therefore comes down to an equally dispassionate division into causes and effects, general and special, necessary and accidental, etc. Everything in nature is rigidly linked by causality and patterns. And the reduction of natural phenomena to their causes and laws of existence is explanation - the main and defining cognitive procedure in the natural sciences.

The sciences of the spirit, on the contrary, deal with an object not external, but internal to us. The phenomena of the spirit are given to us directly, we experience them as our own, deeply personal. Therefore, human affairs are not so much subject to explanation as understanding, those. such a cognitive procedure in which we can, as it were, put ourselves in the place of another and “from the inside” feel and experience some historical event, religious

new revelation or aesthetic delight. At the same time, human life is not completely reducible to rational principles. There is always a place in it for the irrational - in principle, impulses and movements of the soul that are inexplicable in a cause-and-effect scheme.

This is why truths in the natural sciences are proven: the explanation is the same for everyone and is generally valid. Truths in the sciences of the spirit are only interpreted, interpreted: the measure of understanding, feeling, empathy cannot be the same.

Generalization - individualization. Another significant basis for distinguishing the specifics of the natural sciences and the spiritual sciences is the peculiarities of the research method. The first is characterized by a method generalizing(highlighting what is common in things), for the second - individualizing(emphasizing the uniqueness of the phenomenon).

The goal of the natural sciences is to find commonality in various phenomena and to bring them under a single rule. And the more different objects fall under the found generalization (generalization), the more fundamental this law. An ordinary stone or an entire planet, galaxy or cosmic dust - the differences between objects are insignificant if we're talking about about the formula of the law universal gravity: it is the same for everyone. Approximately 1.5 million species of animals live on our planet, but the mechanism of transmission of hereditary characteristics is the same for all. Natural sciences are oriented towards the search for such universal generalizations. Single objects or individuals have no meaning for them.

Humanitarian science, if it wants to remain precisely a science, is also obliged to look for commonality in the objects of its research and, therefore, establish general rules, laws. She does just that, only in a very unique way. After all, her area of competence is people. And the latter, no matter how simple and wretched it may be, still has more significance for culture than some electron for an experimental physicist or a butterfly for an entomologist. Therefore, one cannot neglect his individuality and differences from other people even when establishing a general rule or law. Of course, there are also similarities in the sphere of humanitarian reality. But it should be presented only in inextricable connection with the individual.

Let us remember, for example, literary heroes. Messrs. Chatsky, Onegin, Chichikov, Bazarov and others are known to us primarily as literary types, those. some generalizations of real traits

many real people. “Typical characters in typical circumstances” is the “super task” of literature and the sciences about it. This means that here too there is an orientation towards highlighting general in the reality under study. However, all these literary types are at the same time bright individuals, unique and inimitable personalities. And without such a strictly individual embodiment, such types simply do not exist.

The same picture emerges in other areas of humanities. Any historical event (revolution, for example) carries, without a doubt, some common features, similarities with other events. 14, if desired, you can even build a certain general model of all events of this kind. But without filling this general structure with purely individual, personal passions, emotions, and ambitions of specific participants, no story will turn out. Only individualization, the embodiment of both the “dark” and progressive forces of history in specific people and their affairs may give the historian a chance to do something valuable in his science.

Thus, the “individualizing” method of the humanities is contrasted with the “generalizing” method of the natural sciences. Let us note in parentheses that the inextricable connection between the general and the individual, emphasized in humanities, is not at all its exclusive property. A similar connection exists everywhere. The general in nature is manifested in the same way only through individual, concrete objects. And probably, any electron in the Universe at its level is as unique and inimitable as a specific person in society. The whole point is that science does not belong to the Universe in general, but to man. Therefore, the individuality of the latter may matter in science, but the individuality of the electron does not.

Attitude to values. The next parameter that separates the humanities and natural sciences on opposite sides of the barricades is their attitude to values. More precisely, the degree of influence of human values on the nature and direction of scientific knowledge.

Under values usually understand the social or personal significance for a person of certain phenomena of natural and social reality. These can be specific items of daily use (food, shelter, prosperity), and high ideals of goodness, justice, beauty, etc. In science, for example, truth can be safely declared to be the highest value.

Values make their contribution to the distinction between the humanities and natural sciences in a scientifically “dubious” way of justifying them. The point is that it is impossible to strictly theoretically justify a person’s choice of certain values (although sometimes one really wants to).

Let us compare two judgments as an example. First: “this chapter of the textbook is smaller in volume than the next one.” Is it possible to establish the truth of this judgment empirically, i.e. in an experienced way? There is nothing simpler - just count the number of pages in both chapters. The conclusion will be unambiguous, and it is unlikely that anyone will think of challenging it.

But here’s another judgment: “this chapter of the textbook is more interesting than the next.” The statement is completely simple, ordinary. But is it possible to give precise empirical confirmation of this conclusion? Hardly. For to unambiguously confirm or refute this judgment there is no objective general norm. However, these are all judgments in which they operate with the concepts of “better”, “prettier”, “fairer”, etc. They are not subject to verification of truth, since they appeal to human values, the wealth of which is infinite, and the choice is largely arbitrary.

Therefore, in one world In humanitarian culture, Christ and Buddha, classics and modernism, etc. can coexist peacefully. Humanities and scientific knowledge cannot avoid value-tinged judgments. No matter how hard the theory of political democracy tries, for example, to rely exclusively on “pure” facts and rational arguments, it cannot hide its original value message: the ineradicable desire of people for freedom and equality. And it is no less irrational than rational: after all, freedom is often much more difficult to endure than lack of freedom (remember “The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor” by F.M. Dostoevsky); and equality taken to its logical conclusion leads to the dominance of “general dullness” (K.N. Leontyev), the absence of creative daring and romantic heroism. But for some reason the attractiveness of freedom and equality does not fade away; on the contrary, it inspires people to new efforts. So the value nature of these concepts is obvious. But this puts political theory in an ambiguous position: it has to select arguments for pre-made choices!

Natural science has always prided itself on the fact that such situations are impossible in it. Natural sciences voluntarily accept the “dictatorship of facts”, which must find their explanation

completely independent of any preferences and priorities of the knowing subject. The ability to analyze the world in its own logic and consistency, to see the world as “as it is in itself” is the most important advantage of natural science. Therefore, it has no doubt that the truths it establishes are objective, universally binding and can be confirmed by experience at any time.

Humanitarian truths, due to their connection with values, have a more complex relationship with experience. After all, they reveal not only what is real in the social world There is, but also what is in it must be! And ideas about what should be (as opposed to ideas about what exists) are often formed despite and even contrary to existing experience. After all, no matter how hopeless and hopeless our life may be, we always retain faith in the best, in the fact that sooner or later the ideals of goodness, justice, and beauty will find their practical embodiment.

Thus, the value component of knowledge turns out to be essential mainly for the humanities. Values were persistently expelled from natural science. But, as the development of events in the 20th century showed, the natural sciences do not have the right to consider themselves completely free of values. Although, of course, the influence of the latter on natural science is much smaller and far from as obvious as in the field of humanities.

Anthropocentrism. Recognition of the value nature of humanitarian knowledge has a number of other important consequences for the problem of distinguishing between the humanities and natural sciences. In particular, natural science has spent a lot of effort to get rid of what was inherent in it at first. anthropocentrism, those. ideas about the central place of man in the universe as a whole. Representing more accurately the real scale and infinite variety of forms of existence of the world as a whole, some modern natural scientists even allow themselves to compare humanity with an accidental growth of mold somewhere on the outskirts of one of the small galaxies, lost in the vastness of the vast Universe. The comparison may be offensive, but with an objective assessment of the scale of human activity in the Universe it may even be honorable.

Against such a background, only the humanities provide humanity with true consolation and the necessary dose of self-respect. In them, the person is still the center of attention, represented

poses itself main value and the most important object of interest. Humanitarian knowledge is anthropocentric by definition.

Ideological neutrality - loaded. Another important consequence of the value deformation of scientific knowledge is its ideological load. The fact is that the value nature of knowledge ultimately means its dependence on the priorities and preferences of the knowing subject. But the latter is not at all an abstract quantity, but a concrete person or group of persons who work in specific historical conditions and, therefore, belong to an equally concrete social stratum, class, nation, etc. Each of these social groups has its own set of economic, political, social and other interests. Therefore, when studying conflicts in social life, the presence of such interests cannot but influence the final conclusions of the researcher, no matter how hard he tries to avoid it.

What for? wise man was an ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, but he, for example, refused to grant farmers and artisans the rights of a citizen, since agriculture and crafts, although necessary for life, were “contrary to virtue.” From his point of view, one can become virtuous only by freeing oneself from worries about essential matters. It is clear that such a conclusion of the great seeker of truth (which is dearer to him than Plato, remember?) is a direct consequence of his own lifestyle, determined by belonging to the privileged strata of society.

Theoretical knowledge in which one or another social group interest is represented is called ideology. Ideology is not identical to science, but partially coincides with it, since it uses knowledge of a theoretical, scientific level. The discrepancy between them lies in the area of goals and objectives: science is looking for the truth ideology seeks to justify and justify any social interest. And since the truth in the field of social science is sought by very specific representatives of certain social groups (nations, classes, etc.), there is an overlap of scientific and ideological aspirations; and the humanities unwittingly find themselves ideologically loaded.

In natural science the picture is different. Its object - the natural world - fortunately, is not a field of conflict of conflicting public interests; and his final conclusions are practically

affect the interests of competing social groups. Therefore, natural sciences are ideologically neutral. And if they represent any social interest, it is probably universal.

Subject-object relationship. Differences in the object of knowledge (the natural world and the human world) are, of course, the main basis for highlighting the specifics of the humanities and natural sciences. But it turns out that in both cases, no less important are regardingnia the object of knowledge and its subject (the one who knows). In the field of natural science, the subject (man) and the object of knowledge (nature) are strictly separated. Man, as it were, observes the natural world “from the outside,” detached. In the humanitarian sphere, the subject (person) and the object of knowledge (society) partially coincide. This is essentially self-knowledge society. This situation leads to very interesting consequences.

If, for example, a physicist fails in an experiment, then the reason for the failure is sought only in the subjective sphere: the theory is incorrect, the methodology is not debugged, etc. In any case, nature (the object of knowledge) cannot be “to blame”! It is much more difficult for a social scientist in this regard. If any “social experiment”—socialism, for example—failed, this does not necessarily mean that the theory is incorrect. The “culprit” of failure may also be the “object” of this theory itself - the people who have not yet “matured”, did not understand, did not appreciate the socialist prospects, or even simply spared efforts for their practical implementation. This is largely why various kinds illusions and misconceptions in the humanities last much stronger and longer than in the natural sciences.

Quantity- quality. The obvious difference in the scope of application of general scientific methods by the natural and humanities branches of scientific knowledge is also significant in the problem under discussion. Natural science, as we know, has become a full-fledged science ever since it was able to rely on experimental and mathematical methods. From the time of G. Galilee representatives of the natural sciences decided to deal only with those characteristics of natural objects that can somehow be measured and expressed quantitatively (size, mass, force, etc.). And if it doesn’t work out right away, then you can and should experiment with them, i.e. artificially create conditions under which the desired quantitative parameters will necessarily manifest themselves. Exactly

the emphasis on a strictly objective quantitative assessment of the objects being studied is what brought natural science the glory of “exact sciences.”

Humanities scholars are less fortunate in this regard. Not only are the phenomena they study difficult to handle mathematically (quantitatively), but also experimental research methods are very difficult due to moral prohibitions. (Of the humanities, psychology has an extensive experimental base.)

Stability is the mobility of an object. Probably, the difference in the degree of sustainability of natural and social objects also deserves mention. Studying the former is an extremely rewarding task. A physicist can be quite sure that some elementary particle or an entire star has remained virtually unchanged since the time of the ancient Greeks. The emergence of a new species of plants or animals also takes hundreds, or even a thousand, years. Compared to the scale human life natural objects are unusually stable.

The constancy of social objects is different. Their dynamics are quite comparable to the length of an individual’s life. Average and older generation Today's Russians, for example, note with some amazement that they live in a completely different country compared to the one in which they spent their youth.

Thus, the separation of the humanities and natural sciences is clearly not accidental. The reasons for their specificity are deep and varied. Since there are quite a lot of them in our presentation, for clarity, let us summarize all the listed criteria for distinguishing between humanitarian and natural science knowledge into a single table.

Table 1.1 Criteria for distinguishing between humanitarian and natural science knowledge

Discrimination criteria

Natural Sciences

Humanitarian sciences

Object of study Leading function

Nature of the methodology

Influence of values Anthropocentrism Ideological load

Explanation (of truth

are proven)

Generalizing

(summarizing)

Subtly, implicitly

Expelled

Ideological neutrality

Man, society Understanding (truths are interpreted) Individualizing

Significantly, openly Inevitable Ideologically loaded

End of table. 1.1


Relationships	Strictly separated	Partially match
subject and object
knowledge
Quantitatively	Predominance	Predominance
quality	quantitative estimates	qualitative assessments
characteristics
Application	Forms the basis	Difficulty
experimental	methodology

Nature of the object	a) material;	a) more ideal,
research	b) relatively	than material;
	stable	b) relatively changeable

So, the humanities and natural sciences, as well as the types of cultures formed on their basis, are separated very fundamentally. But does this mean that they should be considered as antipodes, completely incompatible with each other’s ways of mastering reality? Of course not. The demarcation of the natural scientific and humanitarian types of cultures, although it has taken dramatic forms, still cannot cancel the fact of their original relationship and interdependence. They need each other like our right and left hands, like hearing and vision, etc. They are not so much opposite as, as I would say Niels Bohr, are complementary.

1.1.3. Unity and interconnection of natural science and humanitarian cultures

The introduction of the postulate of the inextricable unity of the humanitarian and natural science cultures (and the corresponding types of sciences) can be justified by several considerations.

(A) Both types of cultures are creations of the mind and hands of man. And man, despite all his isolation from nature, continues to be an integral part of it. He is a biosocial being. This objective duality of human existence in general does not prevent him from being a fairly integral and skillful creature. So why not reproduce such integrity in the natural science and humanitarian types of cultures?

(B) The types of cultures described and the sciences that form their core actively shape the worldview of people (each their own part). In turn, the worldview also has the characteristics

integrity: it is impossible to see one thing with the right eye and something completely different with the left, although, of course, there is a difference. Human worldview (general ideas about how the natural and social world as a whole) cannot be torn or half-hearted. Therefore, humanities and natural sciences forced to coordinate, to mutually agree, no matter how painfully (let us remember the centuries-old war between religion and science) this sometimes happened.

(B) Natural science and humanitarian types of cultures and sciences have a lot of “borderline” problems, the subject area of which is the same for both. Solving such problems forces them to cooperate with each other. These are, for example, problems of ecology, anthroposociogenesis, genetic engineering (as applied to humans), etc.

(D) It is known that the social division of labor increases its efficiency and creates interdependence among people. This “separation” process tightens and consolidates social communities much more strongly than the performance of identical labor functions. Something similar is happening with the demarcation of the humanitarian and natural science cultures. The division of their “labor” gives rise to the need for “exchange of products and services”, and therefore works as a whole for the unity and commonality of human culture.

In particular, natural science needs “humanitarian help” on the following problems:

the intensive development of natural sciences and technologies created on their basis can generate objects that threaten the existence of all humanity ( nuclear weapon, genetically engineered monsters, etc.); Therefore, humanitarian expertise is necessary (testing for compatibility with the main social value - human life), as well as ethical, legal and other restrictions on such scientific expansion;

a completely “legitimate” object of natural science is man himself as an elementary “chemical machine”, biological population or neurophysiological automaton; do without experimental verification Natural sciences cannot put forward hypotheses, but it is better to entrust the humanities to determine the limits of admissibility of such experiments;

the main weapon of the natural sciences lies in their metoduh- methods, rules, techniques of scientific research; the doctrine of the methods of science, as well as their systematic organization is called

there are methodology; paradoxically, the methodology of natural science (analysis of the system of methods used, their evolution, limits of applicability, etc.) is also the subject of humanities science;

The main criterion for the truth of any knowledge is, as is known, practice; however, sometimes it is not enough to confirm a particular hypothesis, and then additional criteria of truth are used: for example, the internal beauty of the theory, its harmony, harmony, etc.; in such cases, natural science willingly uses humanitarian tools;

and, finally, the most important thing: everything that a person does (including in the field of natural science and culture) must be filled with meaning and expediency; and setting goals for the development of natural science culture cannot be carried out within itself; such a task inevitably requires a greater breadth of review, allowing one to take into account basic humanitarian values.

Humanitarian knowledge, for its part, also, to the extent possible, uses the achievements of natural scientific culture:

when discussing, for example, the place of man in the world, is it possible not to take into account natural scientific ideas about what this world is like;

and what would humanitarian knowledge be worth without modern means its dissemination, which are the fruits of the development of natural science branches of knowledge;

achievements of natural science are important for humanists and as an example, a model of rigor, accuracy and evidence of scientific knowledge;

where possible, humanities knowledge is enjoyed with pleasure quantitative methods research; examples - economic sciences, linguistics, logic, etc.;

humanitarian knowledge deals mainly with ideal objects (meanings, goals, meanings, etc.); but the ideal in itself does not exist, it is possible only on some material basis; therefore many features social behavior human beings are inexplicable without recourse to such material basis, and this is the sphere of competence of natural scientific knowledge; after all, even a person’s very inclination towards the humanities or natural sciences is predetermined, in particular, by the functional differences between the right and left hemispheres of his brain!

(D) It is also curious that the unity of both types of cultures and sciences under consideration is manifested not only in the desire for truth, but also in the similarity of misconceptions. Thus, in general, the balanced, static picture of the world of the times of classical natural science, or rather, the “spirit of the era” filled with it, forced even such a humanitarian revolutionary as Karl Marx, proclaim the goal of historical development to be a socially homogeneous, classless society.

(E) No less obvious is the correlation between the radical turns in the destinies of the natural science and humanitarian cultures. Thus, the transition of natural science at the beginning of the 20th century. from the classical to the non-classical stage of its development corresponds to a similar transformation of humanitarian culture. It is no coincidence that modernism as the negation and “overcoming” of classics in art, architecture, religion, and the humanities asserted its rights in the same period. The turn of natural science from a description of reality “as it is” to its “reconstruction” in accordance with the goals and capabilities of the subject of knowledge is remarkably reminiscent of the struggle of avant-gardeism with realism in art, the expansion of relativism and subjectivism into history, sociology, philosophy, etc.

(G) The non-classical stage of development of the natural and human sciences revealed, among other things, relativity criteria for their delimitation. In particular, it turned out that a strict separation of the subject and object of cognition is impossible not only in social science, but also in studies of the microworld (the theoretical description of a quantum object necessarily includes a reference to the observer and means of observation). The indifference of natural science to social values: the increasing role of science in the life of society inevitably draws attention to the issues of its general social conditionality, firstly, and the social consequences of its application, secondly. But both inevitably affect the area of human values.

Consequently, in the arguments listed above, the unity of the natural science and humanitarian cultures appears quite clearly. Their strict demarcation, characteristic of the 19th - first half of the 20th centuries, is increasingly weakening these days. The tendency to overcome the frightening gap between two types of cultures is formed objectively, by the “natural” course of events in the sociocultural sphere.

So, the unity and interconnection of natural science and humanitarian cultures and the corresponding types of sciences is really manifested in the last quarter of the 20th century. in the following:

in the study of complex socio-natural complexes, including humans and society as components, and the formation for this purpose of “symbiotic” types of sciences: ecology, sociobiology, bioethics, etc.;

in realizing the need and real organization of “humanitarian examinations” of natural science programs that provide for the transformation of objects that are of vital importance to humans;

in the formation of a common methodology for the humanities and natural sciences, based on the ideas of evolution, probability and self-organization;

in the humanitarization of natural science and technical education, as well as in the foundation of humanities education by natural science;

in creating a differentiated but unified value systems, which would allow humanity to more clearly define the prospects for its development in the 21st century.

In conclusion, it is worth noting that, despite the undeniable trend of rapprochement between natural science and humanitarian cultures, we are not talking about their complete merger in the foreseeable future. Yes, and there is no particular need for that. Resolving the conflict between them in the spirit of the principle of complementarity is quite sufficient.

3rd ed., revised. and additional - M.: UNITY-DANA, 2006. - 317 pp. Previous editions (1st edition - UNITY, 1997, 2nd edition - UNITY, 1999) confirmed the relevance of this training course and the possibility of achieving the main goal - to help students universities (economics and humanities) to master the modern natural-scientific picture of the world, synthesize the humanitarian and natural-scientific cultures into a single whole, and form in future specialists a natural-scientific way of thinking and a holistic worldview.
The textbook is designed to facilitate more effective learning of the course and students' awareness of the fundamental principles and patterns of development of nature - from the microcosm to the Universe. Introduction.
Natural science and humanitarian cultures.
Specificity and relationship between natural science and humanitarian types of cultures.
Origins and subject of dispute between two cultures.
"Sciences of nature" and "sciences of spirit".
Unity and interconnection of natural science and humanitarian cultures.
Science in the spiritual culture of society.
Features of scientific knowledge.
Disciplinary organization of science.
Ethics of science.
Ethics of the scientific community.
Ethics of science as a social institution. Scientific method. Structure of scientific knowledge.
Methods of scientific knowledge.
The structure of scientific knowledge.
Criteria and norms of scientific character.
Limits of the scientific method. Logic and patterns of development of science.
Modern scientific picture of the world.
General models of science development.
Scientific revolutions.
Differentiation and integration of scientific knowledge.
Mathematization of natural science.
Fundamental features of the modern natural scientific picture of the world.
Global evolutionism.
Synergetics is a theory of self-organization.
General contours of the modern natural-scientific picture of the world. Structural levels of organization of matter.
Macroworld: concepts of classical natural science.
Microworld: concepts of modern physics.
Quantum mechanical concept of describing the microworld.
Wave genetics.
Atomistic concept of the structure of matter.
Elementary particles and the quark model of the atom.
Physical vacuum.
Megaworld: modern astrophysical and cosmological concepts.
Modern cosmological models of the Universe.
The problem of the origin and evolution of the Universe.
Structure of the Universe. Space and time in the modern scientific picture of the world A.
Development of views on space and time in the history of science.
Space and time in the light of A. Einstein's theory of relativity.
Properties of space and time. Chemical science about the features of the atomic-molecular level of organization of matter.
The subject of knowledge of chemical science and its problems.
Methods and concepts of knowledge in chemistry.
The doctrine of the composition of matter.
Level of structural chemistry.
The doctrine of chemical processes.
Evolutionary chemistry. Features of the biological level of organization of matter. Problems of genetics.
Subject of biology. Its structure and stages of development.
The essence of living things, its main characteristics.
Origin of life.
Structural levels of living things.
The cell as the “first brick” of living things, its structure and functioning. Cell control mechanism.
Gene and its properties. Genetics and practice.
Modern theory of biological evolution and its critics
Bioethics. Biosphere. Noosphere. Human
Biosphere. Teachings of V.I. Vernadsky about the biosphere.
Man and the biosphere.
System: nature—biosphere—human.
The influence of nature on humans. Geographical environment.
Geographical determinism. Geopolitics.
Environment, its components.
Human influence on nature. Technosphere.
Noosphere. Teachings of V.I. Vernadsky about the noosphere.
The relationship between space and living nature.
Contradictions in the system: nature - biosphere - man.
The essence and sources of contradictions.
Ecology. Global environmental problems and ways out. Man as a subject of natural scientific knowledge.
Man is a child of the Earth.
The problem of anthropogenesis.
Biological and social in the historical development of man.
Biological and social in human ontogenesis.
Sociobiology about human nature.
Social and ethical problems of human genetic engineering.
Unconscious and conscious in man.
Man: individual and personality.
Ecology and human health.
Conclusion. The most important terms and concepts.
Index of names.