The science - field of research activity aimed at producing and applying objectiveknowledge Onature , society Andconsciousness and including all the conditions of this production.

MM. Bakhtin(1895–1973), modern Russian philosopher, emphasizes objectivity scientific knowledge: reality, entering science, throws off all valuable clothing in order to become naked and pure reality knowledge, where only unity is sovereign truth. This definition of the features of scientific knowledge highlights its most important, essential feature as a way of comprehending reality. But it cannot be absolute. Science has a value, ideological, philosophical and worldview meaning; it is determined to a large extent by the morality of the scientist, his responsibility for the fate of the world and humanity.

Science is the most important form of development of knowledge. It is a specialized area of ​​spiritual production, has its own tools of knowledge, its own institutions, experience and traditions of research activities, a system of information and communication, experimental and laboratory equipment, etc. Science refers to both cognitive activity and the results of this expressed in scientific works. activity in the form of a certain set of knowledge available at a given historical moment, forming a scientific picture of the world. Scientific knowledge is carried out on the basis of specially developed means and is objectified in the form of information embodied in written or oral form, in a variety of specialized artificially created signs and iconic systems. This does not mean that the role of the personal factor in scientific knowledge is insignificant; on the contrary, the history of science cannot be imagined without understanding the outstanding contribution of many talented scientists who radically changed the usual knowledge and ensured the progress of knowledge. Nevertheless, scientific knowledge is impossible without the body of knowledge that has been formed throughout the history of science and has become a universal property.

Scientific knowledge requires the conscious application of specially developed methods. Method in general - a way to achieve a goal, a certain ordered activity.Method of scientific knowledge - it is a system of techniques and rulesthinking and practical (subject-sensory) actions, using which researchers obtain new knowledge. The methods of scientific knowledge are its consciously developed techniques. They rely on previous achievements of knowledge. The method of scientific knowledge is an analogue of the modern state of science, it embodies knowledge about the subject of our research: what is the method, such is the knowledge about the subject, what is the knowledge about the subject, such is the method. Each method has a dual nature: it is based on knowledge of the laws of science and at the same time is inseparable from the work of a researcher solving a certain cognitive problem with varying degrees of skill. Not by chance F. Bacon compared the method to a lamp illuminating the way for a traveler in the dark: even a lame man walking along the road is ahead of the one running off-road.

Distinguish private, general And universal methods of cognition.

Private Methods are used by one or more sciences that have a common subject of study (for example, psychology or physics). General scientific methods knowledge is the property of science as a whole. A special place belongs philosophical methods, which are formed as a result of the development of science and are included in the scientific picture of the world. Philosophical methods are an organic part of any philosophical system. Along with all existing knowledge, they play the role of prerequisite knowledge that creates the conditions for the further development of science in specific historical conditions.

Empirical knowledge

In the structure of science there are empirical And theoretical levels and, accordingly, empirical and theoretical methods of organizing scientific knowledge. In each of these interrelated forms of scientific knowledge, the researcher uses the capabilities of both sensory and rational knowledge.

Empirical knowledge represents a collection scientific facts, forming the basis of theoretical knowledge. Researchers obtain empirical knowledge through the use of two main methods: observation and experiment.

Observation - purposeful, intentional perception of the object under study. Setting goals, methods of observation, a plan for monitoring the behavior of the object under study, and the use of instruments - these are the most important features of a specific observation. The observation results give us primary information about reality in the form of scientific facts.

Experiment- such a method of scientific research that involves a corresponding change in an object or its reproduction in specially created conditions. In an experiment, the researcher actively intervenes in the conditions of the scientific research. He can stop the process at any stage, which allows him to study it in more detail. It can place the object under study in various connections with other objects or create conditions in which it has not previously been observed, and thereby establish new ones unknown to science properties. An experiment allows you to reproduce the phenomenon under study artificially and test the results of theoretical or empirical knowledge through practice.

An experiment is always, and especially in modern science, associated with the use of sometimes very complex technical means, i.e. instruments. Device - this is a device or system of devices with specified properties for obtaining information aboutphenomena and properties inaccessible to human senses. Instruments can enhance our senses, measure the intensity of the properties of an object, or establish the traces left in them by the object of study. The widespread use of instruments in scientific research has prompted scientists to think about the question of whether instruments distort real natural processes? M. Born, for example, believed that “observation or measurement does not refer to the phenomenon nature as such, but only to the aspect under which it is considered in the frame of reference, or to projections onto the frame of reference, which, of course, is created by the entire installation applied" . Is Bourne right? After all, the experiment really disrupts the natural course of the process. However, this does not mean that we cognize an object that has been changed in a certain way by human intervention, but not the object as such. Why? Yes, because the presence or absence of certain connections can also become the subject of analysis, which allows comprehensively explore an object, identifying all its new properties.

Depending on the purposes of the study, there are different research experiment(discovery of something new) and check(establishing the truth hypotheses). In an experiment, new properties, qualitative and quantitative characteristics of an object related to the measurement of its properties are discovered and demonstrated. According to the object of study, there are natural And social experiment, and according to methods of implementation - natural and artificial, model and spontaneous, real and mental. There are also scientific And industrial experiment. The production experiment includes varieties industrial or field. Occupies a special place model experiment. There are physical and mathematical modeling. A physical model recreates the known properties of the object under study to establish unknowns (models of airplanes, spaceships or neurons, etc.). The mathematical model is built on the formal (mathematical) similarity of various objects, characterizing their general functional dependence, which also makes it possible to reveal unknown properties of real objects.

Comparison. The most important component of empirical methods of cognition is comparison, i.e. identifying similarities or differences in the properties of the objects under study established in an observation or experiment. A special case of comparison is measurement.

Measurement is the process of determining a value that characterizes the degree of development of the properties of an object. It is made in the form of comparison with another quantity taken as a unit of measurement. The results of observation and experiment have scientific significance only if they are expressed through measurement.

Science facts

Scientific fact - form of existence of empirical knowledge. The concept of fact has different semantic content. Among the many definitions of the term “fact”, the following can be distinguished. Firstly, a fact as a phenomenon of reality, “an incident, a case, an event, a matter, a reality, to be, a given, on which one can base...” These are the so-called facts of life that exist regardless of whether a person is aware of them or not. The facts of life are something real - as opposed to fictional, separate with pronounced features of singularity and uniqueness.

Secondly, the concept “fact” is used to mean conscious events and phenomena of reality. The versatility of our cognitive capabilities is manifested in the fact that one and the same fact of reality can be realized at the everyday or scientific levels knowledge, V art, journalism or legal practice. Therefore, different facts, established in different ways, have varying degrees of reliability. Very often there can be an illusion of the identity of a fact. Sciences and events of reality, which allows some philosophers and scientists to talk about the truth of a fact as absolute truth. This idea does not correspond to the real picture of knowledge; it dogmatizes and simplifies it.

Facts have a complex structure. They include information about reality, interpretation of the fact, method of obtaining and describing it.

The leading side of the fact is reality information, which involves the formation of a visual image of reality or its individual properties. The correspondence of a fact to reality characterizes it as true. Due to these features, facts are the empirical basis of science, the most important way to confirm or refute a theory. Thanks to facts, reality is perceived impartially, in relative independence from theory, if we ignore the so-called theoretical loading of the fact, which imparts to our worldview certain features of the given. Facts make it possible to discover phenomena that do not fit into the framework of the old theory and contradict it.

An important component of the fact is interpretation , which comes in various forms. Is it possible experiment without theory? The answer can only be negative: no, impossible. A scientific fact is mediated by a theory, on the basis of which the tasks of empirical research are determined and its results are interpreted. Interpretation is included in a fact as a theoretical and methodological prerequisite for its formation, a theoretical conclusion from a fact, its scientific explanation, or as an assessment carried out from different ideological, scientific or ideological perspectives.

The fact contains logistical or methodological side, i.e. the method of obtaining it. Its reliability largely depends on the method and means used to obtain it. For example, the election campaign often uses the results of sociological studies showing the rating of candidates and their chances of success. Often the results vary significantly, or even directly contradict each other. If direct distortion is excluded, the reason for the discrepancies may be explained by differences in methods.

The centuries-old history of science is not only the history of discoveries, but also the history of its development. language, without which theoretical abstractions, generalization or systematization of facts are impossible. Therefore, every fact contains a sign-communicative aspect, i.e., the language of science in which it is described. Graphs, diagrams, scientific notations and terms are necessary attributes of the language of science. The perception of a scientific discovery is sometimes delayed for many years if it is not possible to describe it in traditional terms. As the scientific knowledge The semantic inadequacy of natural language to the subject content it expresses became increasingly obvious.

The polysemy of expressions, the fuzzy logical structure of natural language sentences, the changeability of the meanings of language signs under the influence of context, psychological associations - all this hindered the accuracy and transparency of meaning necessary in scientific knowledge. There was a demand to replace natural language with an artificial formalized language. His invention unusually enriched the cognitive means of science and made it possible to solve previously inaccessible problems. Crystallization, reduction, and clarification of the logical structure with the help of artificial symbolism make complex cognitive systems easily observable, contribute to the logical ordering of theories, and the achievement of strict consistency of their elements. It should be emphasized that both the facts of science, and hypotheses, theories, and scientific problems are based on artificial languages ​​​​created in science.

A scientific fact is included in a theoretical system and has two fundamental properties, namely: reliability And invariance. The reliability of a scientific fact is manifested in the fact that it is reproducible and can be obtained through new experiments conducted at different times by researchers. The invariance of a scientific fact lies in the fact that it retains its reliability regardless of diverse interpretations.

The facts of science become the basis of a theory thanks to their generalization . The simplest forms of generalizing facts are systematization And classification carried out on the basis of their analysis, synthesis, typology, use of primary explanatory schemes, etc. It is known that many scientific discoveries (for example, theories of the origin of species C. Darwin , periodic table of elements DI. Mendeleev) would have been impossible without the preliminary work of scientists to systematize and classify facts.

More complex forms of generalizing facts are empirical hypotheses and empirical laws, revealing stable repeatability and connections between the quantitative characteristics of the objects under study, established with the help of scientific facts.

Scientific facts, empirical hypotheses and empirical laws represent knowledge only about How are leaking phenomena and processes, but they do not answer the question, Why phenomena and processes occur in exactly this form, and not in another, and their causes are not explained. The challenge of science - find the causes of phenomena, explain the essence of the processes underlying scientific facts. It is solved within the framework of the highest form of scientific knowledge - theories. Scientific facts perform a dual function in relation to a theory: as for an existing theory, a scientific fact either reinforces it (verifies) or contradicts it and points to its inconsistency (falsifies). But, on the other hand, theory is something more than just a generalization of the sum of scientific facts obtained at the level of empirical research. It itself becomes a source of new scientific facts. Thus, empirical and theoretical knowledge represent the unity of two sides of a single whole - scientific knowledge. The interconnection and movement of these aspects, their correlation in a specific scientific process of cognition determine a consistent series of forms specific to theoretical knowledge.

Basic forms of theoretical knowledge

The main forms of theoretical knowledge are: scientific problem, hypothesis, theory, principles, laws, categories, paradigms.

Scientific problem. In the usual sense, the term “problem” is used as a designation of a difficulty, an obstacle, a task that requires its solution. Problems accompany all forms of human life: they can be utilitarian-practical, moral and political, legal and philosophical, religious and scientific, etc. A scientific problem is awareness of the contradictions that have arisen between the old theory and the new onesscientific facts , which cannot be explained using old theoretical knowledge. A. Einstein wrote that at the origins of scientific thinking lies the “act of surprise” that arises “when perception comes into conflict with a fairly established world of concepts. In cases where such a conflict is experienced sufficiently acutely and intensely, it, in turn, has a strong influence on our mental world" ( Einstein A. Physics and reality. M.: Science. 1965. P. 133). The need to explain new scientific facts creates problematic situation, allowing us to state that we lack some knowledge to solve this problem. A scientific problem is specific knowledge, namely knowledge about ignorance. Correctly formulating and posing a scientific problem is a difficult task, since the process of crystallization of the problem is associated with the preparation of individual components of its solution. Therefore, posing a problem is the first step in the development of our knowledge about the world. When a scientific problem is posed, a scientific search begins, i.e., the organization of scientific research. It uses both empirical and theoretical methods. The most important role in solving a scientific problem belongs to the hypothesis.

Hypothesis - it is an idea containing a reasonable assumption about the existence of a law that explains the essence of new facts. A hypothesis is formed by scientists with the goal of tentatively explaining the scientific facts that led to the formulation of a scientific problem. There are a number of criteria for the validity of the hypothesis:

fundamental verifiability;

generality;

predictive capabilities;

simplicity.

A hypothesis must be testable; it leads to consequences that can be empirically verified. The impossibility of such verification makes the hypothesis scientifically untenable. The hypothesis should not contain formal and logical contradictions and should have internal harmony. One of hypothesis evaluation criteria - its ability to explain the maximum number of scientific facts and consequences derived from it. A hypothesis that explains only those facts that were associated with the formulation of a scientific problem is not scientifically valid.

The predictive power of a hypothesis means that it predicts something generally previously unknown, the emergence of new scientific facts not yet discovered in empirical research. The requirement of simplicity is that the hypothesis explains the maximum of phenomena from a few reasons. It should not include unnecessary assumptions that are not related to the need to explain scientific facts and consequences derived from the hypothesis itself.

No matter how valid a hypothesis is, it does not become a theory. Therefore, the next step in scientific knowledge is to substantiate its truth. This is a multifaceted process and involves the need to confirm as many consequences as possible from a given hypothesis. For this purpose, observations and experiments are carried out, the hypothesis is compared with the new facts obtained and the consequences arising from it. The greater the number of consequences that have been confirmed empirically, the less likely it is that all of them could have been derived from another hypothesis. The most convincing evidence of a hypothesis is the discovery in empirical research of new scientific facts that confirm the consequences predicted by the hypothesis. Thus, a hypothesis, comprehensively tested and confirmed by practice, becomes a theory.

Theory - it is logically sound, tested in practicesystem knowledge about a certain class of phenomena, about the essence and operation of lawsbeing this class of phenomena. It is formed as a result of the discoveries of general laws nature And society, revealing the essence of the phenomena under study. A hypothesis includes a set of ideas aimed at explaining or interpreting any fragment of existence. The structure of a theory includes all the elements that exist as its prerequisites, precede it and determine its emergence. An integral component of the theory is the original theoretical basis, i.e., a set of postulates, axioms, laws, which in their totality constitute a general idea of ​​the object of study, an ideal model of the object. The theoretical model is at the same time a program for further research, based on a system of initial theoretical principles.

The theory fulfills such important functions, How explanatory, predictive, practical and synthesizing. The theory organizes the system of scientific facts, includes them in its structure and derives new facts as consequences from the laws and principles that form it. A well-developed theory carries with it the ability to foresee the existence of things still unknown to science. phenomena And properties. Theory serves as the basis for the practical activities of people, orienting them in the world of natural and social phenomena. Thanks to scientific discoveries, people transform nature, create technology, explore space, etc. The central place in the theory belongs to scientific ideas, i.e. knowledge of the fundamental laws operating within the class of objects that are reflected in it. A scientific idea unites the laws, principles, and concepts that form a given theory into an integral, logically coherent system.

A theory has the ability to penetrate other theories and thereby cause their restructuring. It stimulates the unification of various theories and their transformation into a system that forms the core of the scientific picture of the world. Theory is the soil on which new ideas arise that can determine the style of thinking of an entire era. In the process of its formation, the theory is based on the existing system of principles, categories and laws and opens new ones.

Principles of Science represent fundamental theoretical knowledge, guiding ideas that are the starting point for explaining scientific facts. In particular, axioms can act as principles, postulates, which are neither provable nor requiring proof.

Categories of philosophy- essence extremely general concepts that reflect the most essential aspects, properties, relationships of the real world. The definition of categories of science is similar. But unlike philosophical categories, which have a universal character, the categories of science reflect the properties of a certain fragment of reality, and not reality as a whole.

Laws of Science reveal necessary, essential, stable, repeating connections and relationships between phenomena. These may be the laws of the functioning and development of phenomena. Understanding the laws of nature, society and human thinking is the most important task of science. It goes from revealing the universal and essential aspects of the objects under study, fixed in concepts and categories, to establishing sustainable, recurring, essential and necessary connections. The system of laws and categories of science forms its paradigm.

Paradigm - a set of stable principles, generally valid norms, laws, theories, methods that determine the development of science in a specific period of its history. It is recognized by the entire scientific community as basic models that determine the ways of setting and solving problems that arise at a given level of science. The paradigm guides research activities, organization of scientific experiments and interpretation of their results, providing prediction of new facts and theories. It eliminates concepts that do not agree with it and serves as a model for solving research problems. The concept of paradigm was introduced into the theory of knowledge by the American philosopher T. Kuhn. According to his definition, “normal science” is characterized by the solution of specific problems based on the corresponding scientific paradigm. Normal periods in the development of science are replaced by revolutions. They are associated with the discovery of phenomena that do not fit into the framework of the old paradigm. As a result, a period of crisis begins in science, ending with the breakdown of the old paradigm and the emergence of a new one. The establishment of a new paradigm marks a revolution in science. “...The consistent transition from one paradigm to another through revolution is a common model for the development of mature science,” notes T. Kuhn. (Structure of scientific revolutions. M., 1977. P. 31).

Another modern philosopher I. Lakatos presented the development of science in the form of a series of successive theories based on common methodological principles. This set of theories is called a research program. A natural consequence of many research programs is their competition. A competitive and progressive program is one within which a theory emerges that is capable of predicting new additional facts and explaining old ones that were established but not explained by the previous theory. In this case, the new theory acts as a development of the old one. If the new theory is limited to the interpretation of facts discovered by other research programs and does not predict new ones, then we can assume that the program is degenerating.

Methods of theoretical knowledge

There is a group methods scientific knowledge, which is used both at the empirical and theoretical levels. The specificity of this group of methods is that they are universal in human mental activity, and therefore without them the thought process itself, the movement itself, is impossible knowledge. These methods include: abstraction, generalization, analysis and synthesis, induction, deduction and inference by analogy.

Abstraction is that our thinking follows the path of mental abstraction from unimportant or random properties, connections and relationships of the cognizable object while simultaneously fixing attention on those aspects that are important to us at the moment.

Generalization involves finding common properties, connections and relationships in the objects under study, establishing their similarities, indicating their belonging to a certain class of phenomena. The result of abstraction and generalization is both scientific and everyday concepts(fruit, value, law, animal, etc.).

Analysis- this is the method knowledge, consisting in the mental division of an object into its constituent parts for the purpose of knowledge.

Synthesis involves the mental reunification of the components of the phenomenon being studied. The purpose of the synthesis is to imagine the object of study in the interrelation and interaction of its constituent elements in a holistic system. Analysis and synthesis are interconnected. Synthesis can be defined as a movement of thought enriched by analysis, which is why synthesis is a more complex process than analysis.

Induction- a method of cognition based on inferences from the particular to the general, when the train of thought is directed from establishing the properties of individual objects to identifying the general properties inherent in a whole class of objects. Induction is used both in everyday knowledge and in science. Inductive inference has a probabilistic nature. Scientific induction establishes causal relationships, based on the repetition and interconnection of the essential properties of some objects of a certain class and from them - to the establishment of general causal relationships that are valid for the entire class.

Deduction based on inferences from the general to the specific. Unlike induction, in deductive reasoning the train of thought is aimed at applying general principles to individual phenomena.

Induction and deduction are as closely related to each other as analysis and synthesis. Taken separately and absolutely opposed to each other, they cannot satisfy the requirements of scientific knowledge.

Analogy- similarity of objects in some characteristics. An inference based on the similarity of objects is called an inference by analogy. From the similarity of two objects in some characteristics, a conclusion is drawn about the possibility of their similarity in other characteristics. It is probabilistic in nature and its evidentiary value is low. Nevertheless, the role of analogy in human mental and cognitive activity is very great. Mathematician D. Polya characterizes the role of analogy in cognition as follows: “All of our thinking is permeated by analogy: our everyday speech and trivial conclusions, the language of works of art and the highest scientific achievements. The degree of analogy may vary. People often use vague, ambiguous, incomplete, or unclear analogies, but the analogy can reach a level of mathematical precision. We should not neglect any kind of analogy; each of them can play a role in finding a solution" ( Poya D. How to solve the problem. M., 1959. S. 44–45).

Along with those discussed above, there is a group of methods that are of primary importance for theoretical knowledge. The peculiarity of these methods is that they serve to develop and build theories. These include, in particular: method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, method of historical and logical analysis, method of idealization, axiomatic method etc. Let's consider them in more detail.

Ascent from abstract to concrete. To understand this method, it is necessary to reveal such important concepts as “concrete in reality”, “sensory-concrete”, “abstract”, “mentally-concrete”.

Specific in reality- is any phenomenon being, representing the unity of diverse aspects, properties, connections.

Sensually concrete- the result of living contemplation of a separate object. The sensually concrete reflects the object from its sensual side, as an undifferentiated whole, without revealing its essence.

Abstract, or abstraction, is the result of the mental isolation of individual aspects, properties, connections and relationships of the object being studied and separating it from the totality of other properties, connections and relationships.

Mentally concrete is a system of abstractions that reproduces in our thinking the object of knowledge in the unity of its diverse aspects and connections that express it essence, internal structure and process development. As can be seen already from the definition, the sensory-concrete and abstract one-sidedly reproduce the object: the sensory-concrete does not give us knowledge about the essence of an object, and abstraction reveals the essence one-sidedly. To overcome this limitation, our thinking uses the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, that is, it strives to achieve a synthesis of individual abstractions in the mentally concrete. As a result of such successive steps, a mental-concrete is obtained (a system of interconnected concepts in a certain sequence that transform into each other).

Historical and logical methods of cognition. Each developing object has its own history and objective logic, i.e. the pattern of its development. According to these features of development, cognition uses historical and logical methods.

Historical method cognition is a mental reproduction of the sequence of development of an object in all its concrete diversity and uniqueness.

Boolean method is a mental reproduction of those moments of the development process that are naturally determined. This method is a necessary moment in the process of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, for the mentally concrete must reproduce the development of the object, freed from the historical form and the accidents that violate it. The logical method begins in the same way as the historical one - by considering the beginning of the history of the object itself. In the sequence of transitions from one state to another, the key moments of development and thereby its logic and patterns of development are reproduced. Thus, the logical and historical methods are the same: the logical method is based on knowledge of historical facts. In turn, historical research, in order not to turn into a pile of disparate facts, must be based on knowledge of the laws of development revealed by the logical method.

Idealization method. Feature of this method consists in the fact that in theoretical research the concept of an ideal object is introduced, which does not exist in reality, but which is a tool for constructing a theory. An example of this kind of objects is a point, a line, an ideal gas, a chemically pure substance, an absolutely elastic body, etc. By constructing objects of this kind, a scientist simplifies real objects, deliberately abstracts from certain real properties of the object under study or endows them with properties, which real objects do not have. This mental simplification of reality allows us to more clearly highlight the properties under study and present them in mathematical form. A. Einstein characterized the meaning of idealization in the process as follows knowledge: “The law of inertia is the first great success in physics, in fact its first beginning. It was obtained by thinking about an idealized experiment, about a body constantly moving without friction and without the influence of any other external forces. From this example, and later from many others, we learned the importance of the idealized experiment created by thinking" ( Einstein A. Physics and reality. M., 1964. P. 299). Operating with abstract objects and theoretical schemes creates the prerequisites for their mathematical description. Academician V.S. Stepin emphasizes the connection between abstract objects and natural processes studied in theory: “Equations act in this case as an expression of essential connections between physical phenomena and serve as a formulation of physical laws” (Stepin V.S. Theoretical knowledge. M., 2003. P. 115). In modern science mathematical methods are playing an increasingly important role. They are used in linguistics, sociology, biology, not to mention physics or astronomy.

The use of the mathematical apparatus of probability theory has become especially relevant in the research of quantum mechanics, which discovered the probabilistic nature of the behavior of microparticles with particle-wave properties. The idealization technique is also implemented in the method formalization, or structural method. The essence of the structural method is to identify relationships between parts and elements of an object, regardless of their content. Attitudes are easier to study than the actual components of relationships. For example, the area of ​​a circle and the volume of a ball can be calculated regardless of whether the ball is metal or rubber, whether it is a planet or a soccer ball.

Systems approach. The relationships between the components of the structure can be different. Among the variety of relationships, those that characterize a given set of elements as system. Systems approach allows you to establish patterns of system relationships (regardless of the properties of specific systems) and then apply them to specific systems. The complexity of systems, their reliability, efficiency, development trends, etc. are revealed both in the general theory of systems and in the study of such specific systems as sign systems (they are studied by semiotics); control systems (they are the subject of cybernetics); conflicting systems (theory games and so on.).

Axiomatic method represents such an organization of theoretical knowledge in which the initial judgments accepted without evidence. These initial propositions are called axioms. On the basis of axioms, according to certain logical rules, provisions are derived that form theory. The axiom method is widely used in mathematical sciences. It rests on the accuracy of the definition of initial concepts, on the rigor of reasoning and allows the researcher to protect the theory from internal inconsistency and give it a more precise and rigorous form.

For scientific knowledge, the development of criteria for the scientific nature of theoretical concepts plays a huge role. One of the most important modern criteria for scientificity is the parallel existence and competition of research programs, the advantage of which lies not in criticizing the theory as such, but in the creation of alternative concepts that make it possible to see problems from as many different points of view as possible. Today, such scientific criteria as considerations of simplicity, the search for internal perfection of the organization of knowledge, as well as value-based sociocultural aspects in the development of knowledge come to the fore.

Among the many different cognitive processes, the main types of cognition can be distinguished. There is no consensus in their classification, but most often they talk about everyday (everyday), mythological, religious, artistic, philosophical and scientific knowledge. Let us briefly consider here only two types of knowledge - everyday, which serves as the foundation of human life and any cognitive process, and scientific, which today has a decisive impact on all spheres of human activity.

Ordinary cognition– this is the primary, simplest form of cognitive activity of the subject. It is spontaneously carried out by every person throughout his life, serves to adapt to the real conditions of everyday life and is aimed at acquiring the knowledge and skills that he needs every day and hour. Such knowledge is usually quite superficial, not always substantiated and systematized, and what is reliable in it is closely intertwined with misconceptions and prejudices. At the same time, they embody in the form of so-called common sense real worldly experience, a kind of wisdom that allows a person to behave rationally in a wide variety of everyday situations. Ordinary knowledge, moreover, is constantly open to the results of other types of knowledge - for example, scientific: common sense is able to assimilate the relatively simple truths of science and become increasingly theorized. Unfortunately, this influence of science on everyday consciousness is not as great as we would like; for example, one study showed that half of the US adult population surveyed does not know that the Earth revolves around the Sun in 1 year. In general, ordinary cognition is always limited to a certain framework - only the external properties and connections of objects of everyday experience are accessible to it. To obtain deeper and more significant information about reality, it is necessary to turn to scientific knowledge.

Scientific knowledge fundamentally different from the ordinary. Firstly, it is not available to any person, but only to those who have undergone specialized training (for example, received a higher education), which gave him the knowledge and skills for research activities. Secondly, scientific knowledge is specifically focused on the study of phenomena (and the laws of their existence) unknown to today's common practice. Thirdly, science uses special means, methods and instruments that are not used in traditional production and everyday experience. Fourthly, the knowledge obtained in scientific research has a fundamental novelty, it is justified, systematically organized and expressed using a special, scientific language.

For the emergence and development of scientific knowledge, certain sociocultural conditions are needed. Modern research has shown that scientific knowledge could not arise in the so-called traditional society (such were the civilizations of the Ancient East - China, India, etc.), which is characterized by a slow pace of social change, authoritarian power, the priority of traditions in thinking and activity, and etc. Knowledge here is valued not in itself, but only in its practical application. It is clear that under these conditions a person is more inclined to follow established patterns and norms than to look for unconventional approaches and ways of learning.

Scientific knowledge was destined to develop in a technogenic society, implying high rates of change in all spheres of life, which is impossible without a constant influx of new knowledge. The prerequisites for such a society take shape in the culture of Ancient Greece. Let us remember that the democratic structure of society and the freedom of the citizen contributed to the development of the active work of individuals, their ability to logically justify and defend their position, and propose new approaches to solving the problems under discussion. All this determined the search for innovations in all types of activity, including in knowledge (it is no coincidence that it was in Greece that the first example of theoretical science was born - Euclid's geometry). The cult of the human mind and the idea of ​​its omnipotence then find their development in the culture of the European Renaissance, which contributes to the formation of professional scientific knowledge and the emergence of modern science.

Scientific knowledge is usually carried out at two levels - empirical and theoretical. Empirical(from Greek empeiria- experience) cognition gives us information about the external aspects and connections of the objects under study, records and describes them. It is carried out mainly using observational and experimental methods. Observation– this is a purposeful and systematic perception of the phenomena being studied (for example, the study of the behavior of great apes in the natural conditions of their life). When observing, the scientist tries not to interfere with the natural course of things, so as not to distort it.

Experiment– specially prepared experience. During its course, the object being studied is placed in artificial conditions that can be changed and taken into account. Obviously, this method is characterized by the high activity of the scientist, trying to obtain as much knowledge as possible about the behavior of an object in various situations, and even moreover, to artificially obtain new things and phenomena that do not exist in nature (this is especially typical for chemical research).

Of course, in addition to these methods of cognition, empirical research also uses methods of logical thinking - analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, etc. With the help of the combination of all these methods - both practical and logical - the scientist obtains new empirical knowledge. It is expressed primarily in three main forms:

scientific fact - fixation of a particular property or event (Phenol melts at a temperature of 40.9 ° C; In 1986, the passage of Halley’s comet was observed);

scientific description– fixation of an integral system of properties and parameters of a particular phenomenon or group of phenomena. This kind of knowledge is presented in encyclopedias, scientific reference books, textbooks, etc.;

empirical dependence – knowledge that reflects certain connections inherent in a group of phenomena or events (The planets move around the Sun in elliptical orbits - one of Kepler’s laws; Halley’s Comet orbits the Sun with a period of 75 -76 years).

Theoretical(from Greek theory– consideration, research) cognition reveals the internal connections and relationships of things and phenomena, rationally explains them, reveals the laws of their existence. It is therefore knowledge of a higher order than empirical knowledge - it is no coincidence that, for example, Heidegger defines science itself as “the theory of the real.”

In theoretical knowledge, special mental operations are used that allow, in one way or another, to arrive at new knowledge that explains previously acquired knowledge or develops existing theoretical knowledge. These mental methods are always associated with the use of scientific concepts and so-called ideal objects(remember, for example, the concepts of “material point”, “ideal gas”, “absolute black body”, etc.). Scientists conduct thought experiments with them, use the hypothetico-deductive method (reasoning that allows one to put forward a hypothesis and draw consequences from it that can be tested), the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete (the operation of combining new scientific concepts with existing ones in order to build a more general theory a specific object - for example, an atom), etc. In a word, theoretical knowledge is always a long and complex work of thought, carried out using a variety of methods.

The theoretical knowledge gained from these intellectual operations exists in various forms. The most important of them are:

problem- a question for which there is no answer yet in existing scientific knowledge, a kind of knowledge about ignorance (for example, physicists today, in principle, know what a thermonuclear reaction is, but cannot say how to make it controllable);

hypothesis– a scientific assumption that probabilistically explains a particular problem (for example, various hypotheses about the origin of life on Earth);

theory– reliable knowledge about the essence and laws of existence of a certain class of objects (say, the theory of chemical structure of A. M. Butlerov). There are quite complex relationships between these forms of knowledge, but in general their dynamics can be outlined as follows:

Occurrence of a problem;

Proposing a hypothesis as an attempt to solve this problem;

Testing a hypothesis (for example, using an experiment);

Construction of a new theory (if the hypothesis is somehow confirmed); the emergence of a new problem (since no theory gives us absolutely complete and reliable knowledge) - and then this cognitive cycle repeats.

Science and scientific knowledge

A person embarking on the path of research turns to that vast sphere of human activity called science. Before we move on to talking about research activities, let's look at what constitutes the science at all.

There are many definitions of science, but it should not be argued that only one of them is correct. You need to choose, and the choice of a suitable definition is based on the specifics of the problem that is solved with the help of this definition.

For example, in one paper that examined the differences between religion and science, the latter was defined as “the area of ​​institutionalization of doubt.” Institutionalization means a transfer from the personal sphere to the public sphere. Defending a dissertation, for example, is nothing more than a way to overcome the doubts of the scientific community regarding the competence of the applicant. And the applicant himself questions some established ideas in science. In this case, doubt ceases to be the personal property of everyone and becomes a generalized characteristic of scientific knowledge. Religion excludes doubt. A believer believes, and does not doubt. The author, thus, emphasized the difference between the two spheres of spiritual exploration of the world - science and faith, highlighting the main feature of science: in contrast to religion. Science does not take anything for granted and at the same time is one of the social institutions.

Science is concerned with the analysis of structure, methods and logic scientific knowledge in one of the spheres of human activity - in education, and for this the above, correct, but too narrow, definition is not suitable.

In the most general way, science is defined as the sphere of human activity in which the development and theoretical systematization of objective knowledge about reality occurs. The important thing is that science is not limited to knowledge. This is not just a system of knowledge, as is sometimes claimed, but an activity, work aimed at obtaining knowledge. Activities in the field of science are scientific research, i.e. a special form of the cognition process, such a systematic and purposeful study of objects that uses the means and methods of science and which ends with the formation of knowledge about the objects being studied.

The science- this is not only the sum of knowledge, and especially not only ready-made knowledge, but also activity aimed at achieving knowledge. Knowledge is an imprinted cross-section of a non-stop cognitive process, an ideal cluster of people’s cognitive efforts. Scientific activity generates knowledge, or more precisely, its special type - scientific knowledge. Thanks to this, science is a dynamically functioning organism that exists to generate creativity and produce knowledge. In other words, science should be seen as a special branch of spiritual production - production scientific knowledge.

There is a unity of spiritual and material activity, result and process, knowledge and methods of obtaining it. The main part of the self-awareness of science has become the idea of ​​the nature of the activity aimed at the formation and development of scientific knowledge, and scientific knowledge is always the result of the activity of a cognizing person.

It is customary to distinguish between the object and the subject of science. An object is an area of ​​reality that a given science studies, an object is a way of seeing an object from the perspective of this science. E. G. Yudin identifies the following components of the content of the concept “subject of science”: the object of research as the area of ​​reality to which the researcher’s activity is directed; empirical domain, i.e. a set of various empirical descriptions of the properties and characteristics of an object accumulated by science up to a given time ; research problem; cognitive tools.

None of these components by themselves create an item. As a scientific reality, it is created only by the integrity of all components and characterizes the specifics of a given scientific discipline. Taken as a whole, the subject acts as an intermediary between the subject and the object of research: it is within the framework of the subject that the subject deals with the object.

It can be said more simply: the subject of science is like glasses through which we look at reality, highlighting certain aspects in it in the light of the task that we pose, using concepts characteristic of science to describe the area of ​​reality chosen as the object of study.

In some works on epistemology and methodology of science, three concepts are distinguished: the object of reality, the object of science and the subject of science. Let's show this difference with examples.

X-rays as an object of reality existed not only before the birth of the scientist after whom they were named, but also long before the appearance of man on Earth. X-rays made them a property of science, an object of scientific study. But as they came to the attention of different sciences, the need arose to highlight aspects of this object specific to each of them in accordance with certain tasks. Thus, medicine and physics look at X-rays differently, each of them highlights its own subject. For medicine they are a means of diagnosing diseases, for physics they are one of many types of radiation. It is clear that both the conceptual composition and the means of studying and applying this object in different sciences do not coincide.

Representatives of many scientific disciplines can come to a physics teacher’s lesson. But each of them will see different things and describe what is happening differently than his colleague - a specialist from a different branch of knowledge. The methodologist will think about how consistent the content and methods used by the teacher are with the goals of teaching a given subject at school, the physicist - about the correctness of the presentation of the material of his science, the didactic specialist - about the compliance of the general course of the lesson with the principles of teaching. The psychologist will be primarily interested in the characteristics of students’ learning of the material. For a cybernetics specialist, learning is a control system with direct and feedback feedback.

Science is only one form of social consciousness. Reality can also be reflected in the everyday - spontaneous-empirical process of cognition, and in artistic and figurative form.

With all due respect to science, one cannot assume that it can do everything. It would be rash to claim that scientific or any other form of reflection is better or “superior” than another. To demand that Shakespeare express himself in formulas, and Einstein compose dramas and sonnets, is equally absurd. There are differences in the nature of the use of place and the role of experience: in science, on the one hand, and in artistic creativity, on the other. The scientist proceeds from information already accumulated in this science, from universal human experience. In artistic creativity, in the relationship between universal and personal experience, personal experience is of greater importance. The description of personal experience is combined with its artistic and figurative interpretation in the “Pedagogical Poem” by A. S. Makarenko. This line is continued in the journalistic works of other author-teachers. The difference between the two genres is that if the main form of artistic generalization is typification, then in science the corresponding function is performed by abstract, logical thinking, expressed in concepts, hypotheses, and theories. In artistic creativity, the main tool of typification is the artistic image.

Spontaneous-empirical knowledge, as we have already noted, is also a form of spiritual mastery of reality. Two types of knowledge - scientific and spontaneous-empirical (everyday) - are not distinguished clearly enough; it is believed that a practicing teacher, without setting special scientific goals and without using the means of scientific knowledge, can be in the position of a researcher. They express or imply the idea that scientific knowledge can be obtained in the process of practical pedagogical activity, without bothering oneself with scientific reflections, that pedagogical theory almost “grows” by itself from practice. This is far from true. Scientific knowledge- the process is special. It includes the cognitive activity of people, means of cognition, its objects and knowledge. Ordinary cognition differs significantly from it. Main differences the following:

1. scientific knowledge is carried out by special groups of people, and spontaneous-empirical knowledge is carried out by everyone engaged in practical activities.

2. The source of knowledge in this case is a variety of practical actions. It’s kind of a by-product, not specifically acquired knowledge. In science, cognitive goals are set, and scientific research is systematic and purposeful in nature, it is aimed at solving scientific problems. Its results fill a certain gap in scientific knowledge. During the research, special means of cognition are used: modeling, creating hypotheses, experimenting, etc.

Practical problems should be distinguished from scientific problems. For example, overcoming the educational gap of schoolchildren is a practical task. It can be solved without resorting to scientific research. But it is much better to solve it on a scientific basis. However, the scientific problem does not coincide with the practical problem. In this case, it can be formulated, for example, like this: the problem of developing cognitive independence in students or the problem of developing educational skills in them. One practical problem can be solved based on the results of research into several scientific problems. At the same time, studying one problem can help solve a number of practical problems.

Identifying patterns. Regularity is the most general form of embodiment of theoretical knowledge. It indicates the existence of law. Lawful means carried out on the basis of the law. But is it even legitimate to talk about patterns, i.e. objectively existing, stable, invariant connections in relation to the activities carried out by people? Doesn’t this contradict the recent trend toward the development in sociology of “soft,” cultural approaches to depicting social processes?

There are no contradictions here. Connections and relationships between people participating in the life of society exist objectively and cannot be canceled. Despite all the individual specificity of the manifestations of such relationships in specific cases, they are determined by circumstances that lie beyond personal experience. Thus, the style of oral and written speech may be completely original, inherent only to one speaker or writer, but the words and grammatical structures that he uses do not belong to him personally, but to all speakers of a given language.

Let's imagine a situation of choice when a person can buy some thing, for example a TV, or he may not. If he decides to buy this thing, he will have to join the system of commodity-money relations that exist objectively, act as a law and depend neither on his will nor on the desires of the seller. He would like to pay less, the seller would like to receive more, but they are both forced to obey the laws of the market, which dictate their price. It is clear that these laws will not apply to them if the purchase does not take place. But for other possible participants in the transaction they will not cease to exist. The teacher may not come to school, and then pedagogical patterns in relation to him will not appear. But if he comes to class and starts studying, he inevitably enters into a system of natural pedagogical relations, and it is useless to go against them.

An indicator of the regularity of any relationship is its cause-and-effect nature. This is the connection between the methods used in the educational process and the results obtained, between the degree of complexity of educational material and the quality of its assimilation by schoolchildren, etc.

It is not always possible to successfully identify and formulate patterns. For example, such properties of the pedagogical process as its “integrity and compliance with the age characteristics of students” cannot be considered natural, since they lie not in the realm of what is, but in the realm of what should be. They still need to be installed, provided and purposefully maintained.

Repeatability refers to the ability of a communication to be reproduced in similar situations. The main form of representation of patterns is mainly verbal descriptions.

So, natural connections are the result of scientific research. However, as we know, life is richer than laws. There are accidents in the process that cannot be predicted.

Bibliography

1. Berezhnova E.V., Kraevsky V.V. Fundamentals of educational and research activities of students. Textbook for students. avg. textbook institutions.-3rd ed., ster.-M.: Publishing Center "Academy", 2007.

2. Karmin A.S., Bernatsky G.G. Philosophy. – St. Petersburg, 2001. – Chapter 9. Philosophy and methodology of science. – pp. 391-459.

3. Ruzavin G.I. Methodology of scientific research. – M., 1999.

4. Philosophy and methodology of science / Ed. V.I. Kuptsova. – M., 1996.

Stages of the cognition process. Forms of sensory and rational knowledge.

The concept of method and methodology. Classification of methods of scientific knowledge.

The universal (dialectical) method of cognition, the principles of the dialectical method and their application in scientific knowledge.

General scientific methods of empirical knowledge.

General scientific methods of theoretical knowledge.

General scientific methods used at the empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge.

Modern science is developing at a very fast pace; currently, the volume of scientific knowledge doubles every 10-15 years. About 90% of all scientists who have ever lived on Earth are our contemporaries. In just 300 years, namely the age of modern science, humanity has made such a huge leap that our ancestors could not even dream of (about 90% of all scientific and technical achievements have been made in our time). The entire world around us shows how much progress humanity has made. It was science that was the main reason for such a rapidly progressing scientific and technological revolution, the transition to a post-industrial society, the widespread introduction of information technology, the emergence of a “new economy” for which the laws of classical economic theory do not apply, the beginning of the transfer of human knowledge into electronic form, so convenient for storage, systematization, search and processing, and many others.

All this convincingly proves that the main form of human knowledge - science today is becoming more and more significant and essential part of reality.

However, science would not be so productive if it did not have such a developed system of methods, principles and imperatives of knowledge. It is the correctly chosen method, along with the scientist’s talent, that helps him to understand the deep connection of phenomena, reveal their essence, discover laws and regularities. The number of methods that science is developing to understand reality is constantly increasing. Their exact number is perhaps difficult to determine. After all, there are about 15,000 sciences in the world and each of them has its own specific methods and subject of research.

At the same time, all these methods are in a dialectical connection with general scientific methods, which they, as a rule, contain in various combinations and with the universal, dialectical method. This circumstance is one of the reasons that determine the importance of any scientist having philosophical knowledge. After all, it is philosophy as a science “about the most general laws of existence and development of the world” that studies trends and ways of development of scientific knowledge, its structure and research methods, considering them through the prism of its categories, laws and principles. In addition to everything, philosophy endows the scientist with that universal method, without which it is impossible to do in any field of scientific knowledge.

Cognition is a specific type of human activity aimed at understanding the world around us and oneself in this world. “Knowledge is, determined primarily by socio-historical practice, the process of acquiring and developing knowledge, its constant deepening, expansion, and improvement.”

A person comprehends the world around him, masters it in various ways, among which two main ones can be distinguished. First (genetically original) - logistical - production of means of living, labor, practice. Second - spiritual (ideal), within which the cognitive relationship of subject and object is only one of many others. In turn, the process of cognition and the knowledge obtained in it in the course of the historical development of practice and cognition itself is increasingly differentiated and embodied in its various forms.

Each form of social consciousness: science, philosophy, mythology, politics, religion, etc. correspond to specific forms of cognition. Usually the following are distinguished: ordinary, playful, mythological, artistic and figurative, philosophical, religious, personal, scientific. The latter, although related, are not identical to one another; each of them has its own specifics.

We will not dwell on the consideration of each of the forms of knowledge. The subject of our research is scientific knowledge. In this regard, it is advisable to consider the features of only the latter.

The main features of scientific knowledge are:

1. The main task of scientific knowledge is the discovery of objective laws of reality - natural, social (public), laws of cognition itself, thinking, etc. Hence the orientation of research mainly on the general, essential properties of an object, its necessary characteristics and their expression in a system of abstractions. “The essence of scientific knowledge lies in the reliable generalization of facts, in the fact that behind the random it finds the necessary, natural, behind the individual - the general, and on this basis carries out the prediction of various phenomena and events.” Scientific knowledge strives to reveal the necessary, objective connections that are recorded as objective laws. If this is not the case, then there is no science, because the very concept of scientificity presupposes the discovery of laws, a deepening into the essence of the phenomena being studied.

2. The immediate goal and highest value of scientific knowledge is objective truth, comprehended primarily by rational means and methods, but, of course, not without the participation of living contemplation. Hence, a characteristic feature of scientific knowledge is objectivity, the elimination, if possible, of subjectivist aspects in many cases in order to realize the “purity” of consideration of one’s subject. Einstein also wrote: “What we call science has its exclusive task of firmly establishing what exists.” Its task is to give a true reflection of processes, an objective picture of what exists. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the activity of the subject is the most important condition and prerequisite for scientific knowledge. The latter is impossible without a constructive-critical attitude to reality, excluding inertia, dogmatism, and apologetics.

3. Science, to a greater extent than other forms of knowledge, is focused on being embodied in practice, being a “guide to action” for changing the surrounding reality and managing real processes. The vital meaning of scientific research can be expressed by the formula: “To know in order to foresee, to foresee in order to practically act” - not only in the present, but also in the future. All progress in scientific knowledge is associated with an increase in the power and range of scientific foresight. It is foresight that makes it possible to control and manage processes. Scientific knowledge opens up the possibility of not only predicting the future, but also consciously shaping it. “The orientation of science towards the study of objects that can be included in activity (either actually or potentially, as possible objects of its future development), and their study as subject to objective laws of functioning and development is one of the most important features of scientific knowledge. This feature distinguishes it from other forms of human cognitive activity.”

An essential feature of modern science is that it has become such a force that predetermines practice. From the daughter of production, science turns into its mother. Many modern manufacturing processes were born in scientific laboratories. Thus, modern science not only serves the needs of production, but also increasingly acts as a prerequisite for the technical revolution. Great discoveries over the past decades in leading fields of knowledge have led to a scientific and technological revolution that has embraced all elements of the production process: comprehensive automation and mechanization, the development of new types of energy, raw materials and materials, penetration into the microworld and into space. As a result, the prerequisites were created for the gigantic development of the productive forces of society.

4. Scientific knowledge in epistemological terms is a complex contradictory process of reproduction of knowledge that forms an integral developing system of concepts, theories, hypotheses, laws and other ideal forms, enshrined in language - natural or - more characteristically - artificial (mathematical symbolism, chemical formulas, etc.) .P.). Scientific knowledge does not simply record its elements, but continuously reproduces them on its own basis, forms them in accordance with its norms and principles. In the development of scientific knowledge, revolutionary periods alternate, the so-called scientific revolutions, which lead to a change in theories and principles, and evolutionary, quiet periods, during which knowledge deepens and becomes more detailed. The process of continuous self-renewal by science of its conceptual arsenal is an important indicator of scientific character.

5. In the process of scientific knowledge, such specific material means as instruments, instruments, and other so-called “scientific equipment” are used, often very complex and expensive (synchrophasotrons, radio telescopes, rocket and space technology, etc.). In addition, science, to a greater extent than other forms of knowledge, is characterized by the use of ideal (spiritual) means and methods such as modern logic, mathematical methods, dialectics, systemic, hypothetico-deductive and other general scientific techniques to study its objects and itself. and methods (see below for details).

6. Scientific knowledge is characterized by strict evidence, validity of the results obtained, and reliability of the conclusions. At the same time, there are many hypotheses, conjectures, assumptions, probabilistic judgments, etc. That is why the logical and methodological training of researchers, their philosophical culture, constant improvement of their thinking, and the ability to correctly apply its laws and principles are of utmost importance.

In modern methodology, various levels of scientific criteria are distinguished, including, in addition to those mentioned, such as the internal systematicity of knowledge, its formal consistency, experimental verifiability, reproducibility, openness to criticism, freedom from bias, rigor, etc. In other forms of knowledge considered criteria may exist (to varying degrees), but they are not decisive there.

The process of cognition includes the receipt of information through the senses (sensory cognition), the processing of this information by thinking (rational cognition) and the material development of cognizable fragments of reality (social practice). There is a close connection between cognition and practice, during which the materialization (objectification) of people’s creative aspirations occurs, the transformation of their subjective plans, ideas, goals into objectively existing objects and processes.

Sensory and rational cognition are closely related and are the two main aspects of the cognitive process. Moreover, these aspects of cognition do not exist in isolation either from practice or from each other. The activity of the senses is always controlled by the mind; the mind functions on the basis of the initial information supplied to it by the senses. Since sensory cognition precedes rational cognition, we can, in a certain sense, talk about them as steps, stages in the process of cognition. Each of these two stages of cognition has its own specifics and exists in its own forms.

Sensory cognition is realized in the form of direct receipt of information using the senses, which directly connect us with the outside world. Let us note that such cognition can also be carried out using special technical means (devices) that expand the capabilities of the human senses. The main forms of sensory cognition are: sensation, perception and representation.

Sensations arise in the human brain as a result of the influence of environmental factors on his senses. Each sense organ is a complex nervous mechanism consisting of perceptive receptors, transmitting nerve conductors and a corresponding part of the brain that controls peripheral receptors. For example, the organ of vision is not only the eye, but also the nerves leading from it to the brain and the corresponding section in the central nervous system.

Sensations are mental processes that occur in the brain when the nerve centers that control the receptors are excited. “Sensations are a reflection of individual properties, qualities of objects of the objective world, directly affecting the senses, an elementary, further psychologically indecomposable cognitive phenomenon.” Sensations are specialized. Visual sensations give us information about the shape of objects, their color, and the brightness of light rays. Auditory sensations inform a person about various sound vibrations in the environment. The sense of touch allows us to feel the temperature of the environment, the impact of various material factors on the body, their pressure on it, etc. Finally, the sense of smell and taste provide information about chemical impurities in the environment and the composition of the food we eat.

“The first premise of the theory of knowledge,” wrote V.I. Lenin, “is undoubtedly that the only source of our knowledge is sensations.” Sensation can be considered as the simplest and initial element of sensory cognition and human consciousness in general.

Biological and psycho-physiological disciplines, studying sensation as a unique reaction of the human body, establish various dependencies: for example, the dependence of the reaction, that is, sensation, on the intensity of stimulation of a particular sensory organ. In particular, it has been established that from the point of view of “information ability”, vision and touch come first in a person, and then hearing, taste, and smell.

The capabilities of human senses are limited. They are capable of displaying the surrounding world within certain (and rather limited) ranges of physical and chemical influences. Thus, the organ of vision can display a relatively small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum with wavelengths from 400 to 740 millimicrons. Beyond the boundaries of this interval there are ultraviolet and x-rays in one direction, and infrared radiation and radio waves in the other. Our eyes do not perceive either one or the other. Human hearing allows us to sense sound waves from several tens of hertz to about 20 kilohertz. Our ear is unable to sense vibrations of a higher frequency (ultrasound) or a lower frequency (infrasonic). The same can be said about other senses.

From the facts indicating the limitations of human senses, doubt was born about his ability to understand the world around him. Doubts about a person’s ability to understand the world through their senses turn out in an unexpected way, because these doubts themselves turn out to be evidence in favor of the powerful capabilities of human cognition, including the capabilities of the senses, enhanced, if necessary, by appropriate technical means (microscope, binoculars, telescope, night vision device). visions, etc.).

But most importantly, a person can perceive objects and phenomena that are inaccessible to his senses, thanks to the ability to practically interact with the world around him. A person is able to comprehend and understand the objective connection that exists between phenomena accessible to the senses and phenomena inaccessible to them (between electromagnetic waves and audible sound in a radio receiver, between the movements of electrons and the visible traces that they leave in a cloud chamber, etc. .d.). Understanding this objective connection is the basis for the transition (carried out in our consciousness) from the sensed to the intangible.

In scientific knowledge, when detecting changes that occur for no apparent reason in sensory-perceptible phenomena, the researcher guesses the existence of imperceptible phenomena. However, in order to prove their existence, reveal the laws of their action and use these laws, it is necessary that his (the researcher’s) activity turns out to be one of the links and the cause of the chain connecting the observable and the unobservable. Managing this link at your own discretion and calling based on knowledge of the laws unobservable phenomena n observed effects, the researcher thereby proves the truth of knowledge of these laws. For example, the transformation of sounds into electromagnetic waves occurring in a radio transmitter, and then their reverse transformation into sound vibrations in a radio receiver, proves not only the fact of the existence of a region of electromagnetic oscillations imperceptible to our senses, but also the truth of the doctrine of electromagnetism created by Faraday, Maxwell, and Hertz.

Therefore, the senses a person has are quite sufficient to understand the world. “A person has just as many feelings,” wrote L. Feuerbach, “as exactly necessary to perceive the world in its integrity, in its totality.” A person’s lack of any additional sense organ capable of reacting to some environmental factors is fully compensated by his intellectual and practical capabilities. Thus, a person does not have a special sense organ that makes it possible to sense radiation. However, a person turned out to be able to compensate for the absence of such an organ with a special device (dosimeter), warning of radiation danger in visual or audio form. This suggests that the level of knowledge of the surrounding world is determined not simply by the set, “assortment” of sense organs and their biological perfection, but also by the degree of development of social practice.

At the same time, however, we should not forget that sensations have always been and will always be the only source of human knowledge about the world around us. The senses are the only “gates” through which information about the world around us can penetrate into our consciousness. A lack of sensations from the outside world can even lead to mental illness.

The first form of sensory cognition (sensations) is characterized by an analysis of the environment: the senses seem to select quite specific ones from a countless number of environmental factors. But sensory cognition includes not only analysis, but also synthesis, which is carried out in the subsequent form of sensory cognition - in perception.

Perception is a holistic sensory image of an object, formed by the brain from sensations directly received from this object. Perception is based on combinations of different types of sensations. But this is not just their mechanical sum. The sensations that are obtained from various sense organs merge into a single whole in perception, forming a sensory image of an object. So, if we hold an apple in our hand, then visually we receive information about its shape and color, through touch we learn about its weight and temperature, our sense of smell conveys its smell; and if we taste it, we will know whether it is sour or sweet. The purposefulness of cognition is already manifested in perception. We can concentrate our attention on some aspect of an object and it will be “prominent” in perception.

A person’s perceptions developed in the process of his social and labor activities. The latter leads to the creation of more and more new things, thereby increasing the number of perceived objects and improving the perceptions themselves. Therefore, human perceptions are more developed and perfect than the perceptions of animals. As F. Engels noted, an eagle sees much further than a person, but the human eye notices much more in things than the eye of an eagle.

Based on sensations and perceptions in the human brain, representation. If sensations and perceptions exist only through direct contact of a person with an object (without this there is neither sensation nor perception), then the idea arises without the direct impact of the object on the senses. Some time after an object has affected us, we can recall its image in our memory (for example, remembering an apple that we held in our hand some time ago and then ate). Moreover, the image of the object recreated by our imagination differs from the image that existed in perception. Firstly, it is poorer, paler, in comparison with the multicolored image that we had when directly perceiving the object. And secondly, this image will necessarily be more general, because in the idea, with even greater force than in perception, the purposefulness of cognition is manifested. In an image recalled from memory, the main thing that interests us will be in the foreground.

At the same time, imagination and fantasy are essential in scientific knowledge. Here performances can acquire a truly creative character. Based on the elements that actually exist, the researcher imagines something new, something that does not currently exist, but which will be either as a result of the development of some natural processes, or as a result of the progress of practice. All kinds of technical innovations, for example, initially exist only in the ideas of their creators (scientists, designers). And only after their implementation in the form of some technical devices, structures, they become objects of people’s sensory perception.

Representation is a big step forward compared to perception, for it contains such a new feature as generalization. The latter already occurs in ideas about specific, individual objects. But to an even greater extent this is manifested in general ideas (i.e., for example, in the idea not only of this particular birch tree growing in front of our house, but also of birch in general). In general ideas, moments of generalization become much more significant than in any idea about a specific, individual object.

Representation still belongs to the first (sensory) stage of cognition, for it has a sensory-visual character. At the same time, it is also a kind of “bridge” leading from sensory to rational knowledge.

In conclusion, we note that the role of the sensory reflection of reality in ensuring all human knowledge is very significant:

The sense organs are the only channel that directly connects a person with the external objective world;

Without sense organs, a person is incapable of either cognition or thinking;

The loss of some sense organs complicates and complicates cognition, but does not block its capabilities (this is explained by the mutual compensation of some sense organs by others, the mobilization of reserves in the active sense organs, the individual’s ability to concentrate his attention, his will, etc.);

The rational is based on the analysis of the material that the senses give us;

Regulation of objective activity is carried out primarily with the help of information received by the senses;

The sense organs provide that minimum of primary information that turns out to be necessary to comprehensively cognize objects in order to develop scientific knowledge.

Rational knowledge (from lat. ratio - reason) is human thinking, which is a means of penetration into the inner essence of things, a means of knowing the laws that determine their existence. The fact is that the essence of things, their natural connections are inaccessible to sensory knowledge. They are comprehended only with the help of human mental activity.

It is “thinking that organizes the data of sensory perception, but is by no means reduced to this, but gives birth to something new - something that is not given in sensibility. This transition is a leap, a break in gradualism. It has its objective basis in the “split” of an object into internal and external, essence and its manifestation, into separate and general. The external aspects of things and phenomena are reflected primarily with the help of living contemplation, and the essence, the commonality in them is comprehended with the help of thinking. In this process of transition, what is called understanding. To understand means to identify what is essential in a subject. We can also understand what we are not able to perceive... Thinking correlates the readings of the senses with all the already existing knowledge of the individual, moreover, with all the total experience and knowledge of humanity to the extent that they have become the property of a given subject.”

The forms of rational cognition (human thinking) are: concept, judgment and inference. These are the broadest and most general forms of thinking that underlie the entire incalculable wealth of knowledge that humanity has accumulated.

The original form of rational knowledge is concept. “Concepts are products of the socio-historical process of cognition embodied in words, which highlight and record common essential properties; relationships between objects and phenomena, and thanks to this, they simultaneously summarize the most important properties about methods of action with given groups of objects and phenomena.” The concept in its logical content reproduces the dialectical pattern of cognition, the dialectical connection between the individual, the particular and the universal. Concepts can record essential and non-essential features of objects, necessary and accidental, qualitative and quantitative, etc. The emergence of concepts is the most important pattern in the formation and development of human thinking. The objective possibility of the emergence and existence of concepts in our thinking lies in the objective nature of the world around us, that is, the presence in it of many individual objects that have qualitative certainty. Concept formation is a complex dialectical process, including: comparison(mental comparison of one object with another, identifying signs of similarity and difference between them), generalization(mental association of homogeneous objects based on certain common characteristics), abstraction(singling out some features in the subject, the most significant, and abstracting from others, secondary, insignificant). All these logical techniques are closely interconnected in a single process of concept formation.

Concepts express not only objects, but also their properties and relationships between them. Concepts such as hard and soft, big and small, cold and hot, etc. express certain properties of bodies. Concepts such as motion and rest, speed and force, etc. express the interaction of objects and humans with other bodies and processes of nature.

The emergence of new concepts occurs especially intensively in the field of science in connection with the rapid deepening and development of scientific knowledge. The discovery of new aspects, properties, connections, and relationships in objects immediately entails the emergence of new scientific concepts. Each science has its own concepts that form a more or less coherent system called its conceptual apparatus. The conceptual apparatus of physics, for example, includes such concepts as “energy,” “mass,” “charge,” etc. The conceptual apparatus of chemistry includes the concepts “element,” “reaction,” “valence,” etc.

According to the degree of generality, concepts can be different - less general, more general, extremely general. The concepts themselves are subject to generalization. In scientific knowledge, specific scientific, general scientific and universal concepts function (philosophical categories such as quality, quantity, matter, being, etc.).

In modern science, they play an increasingly important role general scientific concepts, which arise at points of contact (so to speak “at the junction”) of various sciences. This often arises when solving some complex or global problems. The interaction of sciences in solving this kind of scientific problems is significantly accelerated precisely through the use of general scientific concepts. A major role in the formation of such concepts is played by the interaction of natural, technical and social sciences, characteristic of our time, which form the main spheres of scientific knowledge.

A more complex form of thinking compared to the concept is judgment. It includes a concept, but is not reduced to it, but represents a qualitatively special form of thinking that performs its own special functions in thinking. This is explained by the fact that “the universal, the particular and the individual are not directly dissected in the concept and are given as a whole. Their division and correlation is given in the judgment.”

The objective basis of judgment is the connections and relationships between objects. The need for judgments (as well as concepts) is rooted in the practical activities of people. Interacting with nature in the process of work, a person strives not only to distinguish certain objects from others, but also to comprehend their relationships in order to successfully influence them.

Connections and relationships between objects of thought are of the most diverse nature. They can be between two separate objects, between an object and a group of objects, between groups of objects, etc. The variety of such real connections and relationships is reflected in the variety of judgments.

“Judgment is that form of thinking through which the presence or absence of any connections and relationships between objects is revealed (i.e., the presence or absence of something in something is indicated).” Being a relatively complete thought that reflects things, phenomena of the objective world with their properties and relationships, a judgment has a certain structure. In this structure, the concept of the subject of thought is called the subject and is denoted by the Latin letter S ( Subjectum - underlying). The concept of the properties and relationships of the subject of thought is called a predicate and is denoted by the Latin letter P (Predicatum- what was said). The subject and predicate together are called terms of judgment. Moreover, the role of terms in judgment is far from the same. The subject contains already known knowledge, and the predicate carries new knowledge about it. For example, science has established that iron has electrical conductivity. The presence of this connection between iron And its separate property makes it possible to judge: “iron (S) is electrically conductive (P).”

The subject-predicate form of a judgment is associated with its main cognitive function - to reflect real reality in its rich variety of properties and relationships. This reflection can be carried out in the form of individual, particular and general judgments.

A singular judgment is a judgment in which something is affirmed or denied about a separate subject. Judgments of this kind in Russian are expressed by the words “this”, proper names, etc.

Particular judgments are those judgments in which something is affirmed or denied about some part of some group (class) of objects. In Russian, such judgments begin with words such as “some”, “part”, “not all”, etc.

General are judgments in which something is affirmed or denied about the entire group (the entire class) of objects. Moreover, what is affirmed or denied in a general judgment concerns each object of the class under consideration. In Russian, this is expressed by the words “all”, “everyone”, “everyone”, “any” (in affirmative judgments) or “none”, “nobody”, “no one”, etc. (in negative judgments).

General judgments express the general properties of objects, general connections and relationships between them, including objective patterns. It is in the form of general judgments that essentially all scientific positions are formed. The special significance of general judgments in scientific knowledge is determined by the fact that they serve as a mental form in which only the objective laws of the surrounding world, discovered by science, can be expressed. However, this does not mean that only general judgments have cognitive value in science. The laws of science arise as a result of the generalization of many individual and particular phenomena, which are expressed in the form of individual and particular judgments. Even single judgments about individual objects or phenomena (some facts that arose in an experiment, historical events, etc.) can have important cognitive significance.

Being a form of existence and expression of a concept, a separate judgment, however, cannot fully express its content. Only a system of judgments and inferences can serve as such a form. In conclusion, the ability of thinking to indirectly rationally reflect reality is most clearly manifested. The transition to new knowledge is carried out here not by referring to a given sensory experience to the object of knowledge, but on the basis of already existing knowledge.

Inference contains judgments, and therefore concepts), but is not reduced to them, but also presupposes their certain connection. To understand the origin and essence of inference, it is necessary to compare two types of knowledge that a person has and uses in the process of his life. This is direct and indirect knowledge.

Direct knowledge is that which is obtained by a person using the senses: sight, hearing, smell, etc. Such sensory information constitutes a significant part of all human knowledge.

However, not everything in the world can be judged directly. In science they are of great importance mediated knowledge. This is knowledge that is obtained not directly, not directly, but by derivation from other knowledge. The logical form of their acquisition is inference. Inference is understood as a form of thinking through which new knowledge is derived from known knowledge.

Like judgments, inference has its own structure. In the structure of any conclusion, there are: premises (initial judgments), a conclusion (or conclusion) and a certain connection between them. Parcels - this is the initial (and at the same time already known) knowledge that serves as the basis for inference. Conclusion - this is a derivative, moreover new knowledge obtained from premises and serving as their consequence. Finally, connection between the premises and the conclusion there is a necessary relation between them that makes possible the transition from one to the other. In other words, this is a relation of logical consequence. Any conclusion is a logical consequence of one piece of knowledge from another. Depending on the nature of this consequence, the following two fundamental types of inferences are distinguished: inductive and deductive.

Inference is widely used in everyday and scientific knowledge. In science they are used as a way to understand the past, which can no longer be directly observed. It is on the basis of inferences that knowledge is formed about the emergence of the Solar system and the formation of the Earth, about the origin of life on our planet, about the emergence and stages of development of society, etc. But inferences in science are used not only to understand the past. They are also important for understanding the future, which cannot yet be observed. And this requires knowledge about the past, about development trends that are currently in effect and paving the way to the future.

Together with concepts and judgments, inferences overcome the limitations of sensory knowledge. They turn out to be indispensable where the senses are powerless in comprehending the causes and conditions of the emergence of any object or phenomenon, in understanding its essence, forms of existence, patterns of its development, etc.

Concept method (from the Greek word “methodos” - the path to something) means a set of techniques and operations for the practical and theoretical development of reality.

The method equips a person with a system of principles, requirements, rules, guided by which he can achieve the intended goal. Mastery of a method means for a person knowledge of how, in what sequence to perform certain actions to solve certain problems, and the ability to apply this knowledge in practice.

“Thus, the method (in one form or another) comes down to a set of certain rules, techniques, methods, norms of cognition and action. It is a system of instructions, principles, requirements that guide the subject in solving a specific problem, achieving a certain result in a given field of activity. It disciplines the search for truth, allows (if correct) to save energy and time, and move towards the goal in the shortest way. The main function of the method is the regulation of cognitive and other forms of activity.”

The doctrine of method began to develop in modern science. Its representatives considered the correct method to be a guide in the movement towards reliable, true knowledge. Thus, a prominent philosopher of the 17th century. F. Bacon compared the method of cognition to a lantern illuminating the way for a traveler walking in the dark. And another famous scientist and philosopher of the same period, R. Descartes, outlined his understanding of the method as follows: “By method,” he wrote, “I mean precise and simple rules, strict adherence to which... without unnecessary waste of mental strength, but gradually and continuously increasing knowledge, the mind achieves true knowledge of everything that is available to it.”

There is a whole field of knowledge that specifically deals with the study of methods and which is usually called methodology. Methodology literally means “the study of methods” (for this term comes from two Greek words: “methodos” - method and “logos” - doctrine). By studying the patterns of human cognitive activity, the methodology develops on this basis methods for its implementation. The most important task of the methodology is to study the origin, essence, effectiveness and other characteristics of methods of cognition.

Methods of scientific knowledge are usually divided according to the degree of their generality, that is, according to the breadth of applicability in the process of scientific research.

There are two known universal methods in the history of knowledge: dialetic and metaphysical. These are general philosophical methods. From the middle of the 19th century, the metaphysical method began to be more and more displaced from natural science by the dialectical method.

The second group of methods of cognition consists of general scientific methods, which are used in a wide variety of fields of science, that is, they have a very wide, interdisciplinary range of application.

The classification of general scientific methods is closely related to the concept of levels of scientific knowledge.

There are two levels of scientific knowledge: empirical and theoretical..“This difference is based on the dissimilarity, firstly, of the methods (methods) of the cognitive activity itself, and secondly, of the nature of the scientific results achieved.” Some general scientific methods are used only at the empirical level (observation, experiment, measurement), others - only at the theoretical level (idealization, formalization), and some (for example, modeling) - at both the empirical and theoretical levels.

The empirical level of scientific knowledge is characterized by the direct study of really existing, sensory objects. The special role of empirics in science lies in the fact that only at this level of research we deal with the direct interaction of a person with the natural or social objects being studied. Living contemplation (sensory cognition) predominates here; the rational element and its forms (judgments, concepts, etc.) are present here, but have a subordinate meaning. Therefore, the object under study is reflected primarily from its external connections and manifestations, accessible to living contemplation and expressing internal relationships. At this level, the process of accumulating information about the objects and phenomena under study is carried out by conducting observations, performing various measurements, and delivering experiments. Here, the primary systematization of the obtained factual data is also carried out in the form of tables, diagrams, graphs, etc. In addition, already at the second level of scientific knowledge - as a consequence of the generalization of scientific facts - it is possible to formulate some empirical patterns.

The theoretical level of scientific knowledge is characterized by the predominance of the rational element - concepts, theories, laws and other forms and “mental operations”. The lack of direct practical interaction with objects determines the peculiarity that an object at a given level of scientific knowledge can only be studied indirectly, in a thought experiment, but not in a real one. However, living contemplation is not eliminated here, but becomes a subordinate (but very important) aspect of the cognitive process.

At this level, the most profound essential aspects, connections, patterns inherent in the objects and phenomena being studied are revealed by processing the data of empirical knowledge. This processing is carried out using systems of “higher order” abstractions - such as concepts, inferences, laws, categories, principles, etc. However, “at the theoretical level we will not find a fixation or abbreviated summary of empirical data; theoretical thinking cannot be reduced to the summation of empirically given material. It turns out that theory does not grow out of empirics, but as if next to it, or rather, above it and in connection with it.”

The theoretical level is a higher level in scientific knowledge. “The theoretical level of knowledge is aimed at the formation of theoretical laws that meet the requirements of universality and necessity, i.e. operate everywhere and always.” The results of theoretical knowledge are hypotheses, theories, laws.

While distinguishing these two different levels in scientific research, one should not, however, separate them from each other and oppose them. After all, the empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge are interconnected. The empirical level acts as the basis, the foundation of the theoretical. Hypotheses and theories are formed in the process of theoretical understanding of scientific facts and statistical data obtained at the empirical level. In addition, theoretical thinking inevitably relies on sensory-visual images (including diagrams, graphs, etc.), with which the empirical level of research deals.

In turn, the empirical level of scientific knowledge cannot exist without achievements at the theoretical level. Empirical research is usually based on a certain theoretical construct, which determines the direction of this research, determines and justifies the methods used.

According to K. Popper, the belief that we can begin scientific research with “pure observations” without having “something resembling a theory” is absurd. Therefore, some conceptual perspective is absolutely necessary. Naive attempts to do without it can, in his opinion, only lead to self-deception and the uncritical use of some unconscious point of view.

The empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge are interconnected, the boundary between them is conditional and fluid. Empirical research, revealing new data through observations and experiments, stimulates theoretical knowledge (which generalizes and explains them), and poses new, more complex tasks. On the other hand, theoretical knowledge, developing and concretizing its own new content on the basis of empirics, opens up new, broader horizons for empirical knowledge, orients and directs it in the search for new facts, contributes to the improvement of its methods and means, etc.

The third group of methods of scientific knowledge includes methods used only within the framework of research into a specific science or a specific phenomenon. Such methods are called private scientific Each special science (biology, chemistry, geology, etc.) has its own specific research methods.

At the same time, private scientific methods, as a rule, contain certain general scientific methods of cognition in various combinations. Particular scientific methods may include observations, measurements, inductive or deductive inferences, etc. The nature of their combination and use depends on the research conditions and the nature of the objects being studied. Thus, specific scientific methods are not divorced from general scientific ones. They are closely related to them and include the specific application of general scientific cognitive techniques for studying a specific area of ​​the objective world. At the same time, particular scientific methods are also connected with the universal, dialectical method, which seems to be refracted through them.

Another group of methods of scientific knowledge consists of the so-called disciplinary methods, which are systems of techniques used in a particular discipline that is part of some branch of science or that arose at the intersection of sciences. Each fundamental science is a complex of disciplines that have their own specific subject and their own unique research methods.

The last, fifth group includes interdisciplinary research methods being a set of a number of synthetic, integrative methods (arising as a result of a combination of elements of various levels of methodology), aimed mainly at the interfaces of scientific disciplines.

Thus, in scientific knowledge there is a complex, dynamic, holistic, subordinated system of diverse methods of different levels, spheres of action, focus, etc., which are always implemented taking into account specific conditions.

It remains to add to what has been said that any method in itself does not predetermine success in understanding certain aspects of material reality. It is also important to be able to correctly apply the scientific method in the process of cognition. If we use a figurative comparison by Academician P. L. Kapitsa, the scientific method “is, as it were, a Stradivarius violin, the most perfect of violins, but to play it, you need to be a musician and know music. Without this, it will be as out of tune as an ordinary violin.”

Dialectics (Greek dialektika - having a conversation, arguing) is the doctrine of the most general laws of development of nature, society and knowledge, in which various phenomena are considered in the diversity of their connections, the interaction of opposing forces, tendencies, in the process of change and development. In its internal structure, dialectics as a method consists of a number of principles, the purpose of which is to lead knowledge to the unfolding of development contradictions. The essence of dialectics is precisely the presence of contradictions in development, and the movement towards these contradictions. Let us briefly consider the basic dialectical principles.

The principle of comprehensive consideration of the objects being studied. An integrated approach to cognition.

One of the important requirements of the dialectical method is to study the object of knowledge from all sides, to strive to identify and study as many as possible (out of an infinite set) of its properties, connections, and relationships. Modern research in many fields of science increasingly requires taking into account an increasing number of factual data, parameters, connections, etc. This task is becoming increasingly difficult to solve without involving the information power of the latest computer technology.

The world around us is a single whole, a certain system, where each object, as a unity of diversity, is inextricably linked with other objects and they all constantly interact with each other. From the position of the universal connection and interdependence of all phenomena follows one of the basic principles of materialist dialectics - comprehensiveness of consideration. A correct understanding of any thing is possible only if the entire totality of its internal and external aspects, connections, relationships, etc. is examined. In order to truly understand the subject deep and comprehensively, it is necessary to embrace and study all its sides, all connections and “mediation” in their system, with the identification of the main, decisive side.

The principle of comprehensiveness in modern scientific research is implemented in the form of an integrated approach to the objects of knowledge. The latter makes it possible to take into account the multiplicity of properties, aspects, relationships, etc. of the objects and phenomena being studied. This approach underlies complex, interdisciplinary research, which allows us to “bring together” multilateral research and combine the results obtained by different methods. It was this approach that led to the idea of ​​​​creating scientific teams consisting of specialists in various fields and implementing the requirement of complexity when solving certain problems.

“Modern complex scientific and technical disciplines and research are the reality of modern science. However, they do not fit into traditional organizational forms and methodological standards. It is in the sphere of these studies and disciplines that practical “internal” interaction of social, natural and technical sciences is now taking place... Such research (which, for example, includes research in the field of artificial intelligence) requires special organizational support and the search for new organizational forms of science. However, Unfortunately, their development is hampered precisely because of their unconventionality and the lack in the mass (and sometimes professional) consciousness of a clear idea of ​​their place in the system of modern science and technology.”

Nowadays, complexity (as one of the important aspects of dialectical methodology) is an integral element of modern global thinking. Based on it, the search for solutions to global problems of our time requires a scientifically based (and politically balanced) comprehensive approach.

The principle of consideration in interrelation. Systemic cognition.

The problem of taking into account the connections of the thing under study with other things occupies an important place in the dialectical method of cognition, distinguishing it from the metaphysical one. The metaphysical thinking of many natural scientists, who ignored in their research the real relationships that exist between objects of the material world, at one time gave rise to many difficulties in scientific knowledge. The revolution that began in the 19th century helped overcome these difficulties. transition from metaphysics to dialectics, “...considering things not in their isolation, but in their mutual connection.”

The progress of scientific knowledge already in the 19th century, and even more so in the 20th century, showed that any scientist - no matter what field of knowledge he works in - will inevitably fail in research if he considers the object under study without connection with other objects, phenomena, or if will ignore the nature of the relationships of its elements. In the latter case, it will be impossible to understand and study the material object in its entirety, as a system.

A system is always a certain integrity representing yourself a set of elements whose functional properties and possible states are determined not only by the composition, structure, etc. of its constituent elements, but also by the nature of their mutual connections.

To study an object as a system, a special, systematic approach to its knowledge is required. The latter must take into account the qualitative uniqueness of the system in relation to its elements (i.e., that it - as an integrity - has properties that its constituent elements do not have).

It should be borne in mind that “... although the properties of the system as a whole cannot be reduced to the properties of the elements, they can be explained in their origin, in their internal mechanism, in the ways of their functioning based on taking into account the properties of the elements of the system and the nature their interconnections and interdependence. This is the methodological essence of the systems approach. Otherwise, if there were no connection between the properties of the elements and the nature of their relationship, on the one hand, and the properties of the whole, on the other hand, there would be no scientific meaning in considering the system precisely as a system, that is, as a collection of elements with certain properties. Then the system would have to be considered simply as a thing that has properties regardless of the properties of the elements and the structure of the system.”

“The principle of systematicity requires the distinction between the external and internal sides of material systems, essence and its manifestations, the discovery of the many different aspects of an object, their unity, the disclosure of form and content, elements and structure, the accidental and the necessary, etc. This principle directs thinking to the transition from phenomena to their essence, to knowledge of the integrity of the system, as well as the necessary connections of the subject under consideration with the processes surrounding it. The principle of systematicity requires the subject to place at the center of cognition the idea of ​​integrity, which is designed to guide cognition from the beginning to the end of the study, no matter how it breaks up into separate, possibly, at first glance, unrelated to each other, cycles or moments; along the entire path of cognition, the idea of ​​integrity will change and be enriched, but it must always be a systemic, holistic idea of ​​the object.”

The principle of systematicity is aimed at comprehensive knowledge of the subject as it exists at one time or another; it is aimed at reproducing its essence, integrative basis, as well as the diversity of its aspects, manifestations of the essence in its interaction with other material systems. Here it is assumed that a given object is delimited from its past, from its previous states; This is done for a more targeted knowledge of its current state. Distraction from history in this case is a legitimate method of cognition.

The spread of the systems approach in science was associated with the complication of research objects and with the transition from metaphysical-mechanistic methodology to dialectical one. Symptoms of the exhaustion of the cognitive potential of metaphysical-mechanistic methodology, which focused on reducing the complex to individual connections and elements, appeared back in the 19th century, and at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. the crisis of such a methodology was revealed quite clearly when common human reason increasingly began to come into contact with objects interacting with other material systems, with consequences that could no longer (without making an obvious mistake) be separated from the causes that gave rise to them.

The principle of determinism.

Determinism - (from lat. determinino - define) is a philosophical doctrine about the objective, natural relationship and interdependence of the phenomena of the material and spiritual world. The basis of this doctrine is the existence of causality, that is, such a connection of phenomena in which one phenomenon (cause), under certain conditions, necessarily gives rise to another phenomenon (effect). Even in the works of Galileo, Bacon, Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza, the position was substantiated that when studying nature one must look for effective causes and that “true knowledge is knowledge through causes” (F. Bacon).

Already at the level of phenomena, determinism makes it possible to distinguish necessary connections from random ones, essential from non-essential ones, to establish certain repetitions, correlative dependencies, etc., i.e., to carry out the advancement of thinking to the essence, to causal connections within the essence. Functional objective dependencies, for example, are connections between two or more consequences of the same cause, and knowledge of regularities at the phenomenological level must be supplemented by knowledge of genetic, productive causal connections. The cognitive process, going from consequences to causes, from the accidental to the necessary and essential, has the goal of revealing the law. The law determines phenomena, and therefore knowledge of the law explains phenomena and changes, movements of the object itself.

Modern determinism presupposes the presence of various objectively existing forms of interconnection between phenomena. But all these forms are ultimately formed on the basis of a universally effective causality, outside of which not a single phenomenon of reality exists.

The principle of learning in development. Historical and logical approach to knowledge.

The principle of studying objects in their development is one of the most important principles of the dialectical method of cognition. This is one of the fundamental differences. dialectical method from metaphysical. We will not receive true knowledge if we study a thing in a dead, frozen state, if we ignore such an important aspect of its existence as development. Only by studying the past of the object we are interested in, the history of its origin and formation, can we understand its current state, as well as predict its future.

The principle of studying an object in development can be realized in cognition by two approaches: historical and logical (or, more precisely, logical-historical).

At historical approach, the history of an object is reproduced exactly, in all its versatility, taking into account all the details and events, including all kinds of random deviations, “zigzags” in development. This approach is used in a detailed, thorough study of human history, when observing, for example, the development of some plants, living organisms (with corresponding descriptions of these observations in all details), etc.

At logical The approach also reproduces the history of the object, but at the same time it is subjected to certain logical transformations: it is processed by theoretical thinking with the highlighting of the general, essential and at the same time freed from everything random, unimportant, superficial, interfering with the identification of the pattern of development of the object being studied.

This approach in natural science of the 19th century. was successfully (albeit spontaneously) implemented by Charles Darwin. For the first time, the logical process of cognition of the organic world proceeded from the historical process of development of this world, which made it possible to scientifically resolve the issue of the emergence and evolution of plant and animal species.

The choice of one or another - historical or logical - approach in knowledge is determined by the nature of the object being studied, the goals of the study and other circumstances. At the same time, in the real process of cognition, both of these approaches are closely interrelated. The historical approach cannot do without some kind of logical understanding of the facts of the history of the development of the object being studied. A logical analysis of the development of an object does not contradict its true history, but proceeds from it.

This relationship between the historical and logical approaches to knowledge was especially emphasized by F. Engels. “...The logical method,” he wrote, “...in essence is nothing more than the same historical method, only freed from historical form and from interfering accidents. Where history begins, the train of thought must begin with the same thing, and its further movement will be nothing more than a reflection of the historical process in an abstract and theoretically consistent form; a corrected reflection, but corrected in accordance with the laws given by the actual historical process itself...”

The logical-historical approach, based on the power of theoretical thinking, allows the researcher to achieve a logically reconstructed, generalized reflection of the historical development of the object being studied. And this leads to important scientific results.

In addition to the above principles, the dialectical method includes other principles - objectivity, specificity“split of the one” (principle of contradiction) etc. These principles are formulated on the basis of relevant laws and categories, which in their totality reflect the unity and integrity of the objective world in its continuous development.

Scientific observation and description.

Observation is a sensory (mainly visual) reflection of objects and phenomena of the external world. “Observation is a purposeful study of objects, relying mainly on such human sensory abilities as sensation, perception, representation; in the course of observation, we gain knowledge about the external aspects, properties and characteristics of the object under consideration.” This is the initial method of empirical cognition, which allows us to obtain some primary information about the objects of the surrounding reality.

Scientific observation (as opposed to ordinary, everyday observations) is characterized by a number of features:

Purposefulness (observation should be carried out to solve the stated research problem, and the observer’s attention should be fixed only on phenomena related to this task);

Systematic (observation must be carried out strictly according to a plan drawn up based on the research objective);

Activity (the researcher must actively search, highlight the moments he needs in the observed phenomenon, drawing on his knowledge and experience, using various technical means of observation).

Scientific observations are always accompanied description object of knowledge. Empirical description is the recording by means of natural or artificial language of information about objects given in observation. With the help of description, sensory information is translated into the language of concepts, signs, diagrams, drawings, graphs and numbers, thereby taking a form convenient for further rational processing. The latter is necessary to record those properties and aspects of the object being studied that constitute the subject of research. Descriptions of observational results form the empirical basis of science, based on which researchers create empirical generalizations, compare the objects under study according to certain parameters, classify them according to some properties, characteristics, and find out the sequence of stages of their formation and development.

Almost every science goes through this initial, “descriptive” stage of development. At the same time, as emphasized in one of the works concerning this issue, “the main requirements that apply to a scientific description are aimed at ensuring that it is as complete, accurate and objective as possible. The description must give a reliable and adequate picture of the object itself and accurately reflect the phenomena being studied. It is important that the concepts used for description always have a clear and unambiguous meaning. As science develops and its foundations change, the means of description are transformed, and a new system of concepts is often created.”

During observation, there is no activity aimed at transforming or changing the objects of knowledge. This is due to a number of circumstances: the inaccessibility of these objects for practical influence (for example, observation of distant space objects), the undesirability, based on the purposes of the study, of interference in the observed process (phenological, psychological and other observations), the lack of technical, energy, financial and other capabilities setting up experimental studies of objects of knowledge.

According to the method of conducting observations, they can be direct or indirect.

At from direct observations certain properties, aspects of an object are reflected and perceived by human senses. Observations of this kind have yielded a lot of useful information in the history of science. It is known, for example, that observations of the positions of planets and stars in the sky, carried out over more than twenty years by Tycho Brahe with an accuracy unsurpassed by the naked eye, were the empirical basis for Kepler’s discovery of his famous laws.

Although direct observation continues to play an important role in modern science, most often scientific observation occurs indirect, i.e., it is carried out using certain technical means. The emergence and development of such means largely determined the enormous expansion of the capabilities of the observation method that has occurred over the past four centuries.

If, for example, before the beginning of the 17th century. As astronomers observed celestial bodies with the naked eye, Galileo's invention of the optical telescope in 1608 raised astronomical observations to a new, much higher level. And the creation today of X-ray telescopes and their launch into outer space on board an orbital station (X-ray telescopes can only operate outside the Earth’s atmosphere) has made it possible to observe such objects of the Universe (pulsars, quasars) that would be impossible to study in any other way.

The development of modern natural science is associated with the increasing role of the so-called indirect observations. Thus, objects and phenomena studied by nuclear physics cannot be directly observed either with the help of human senses or with the help of the most advanced instruments. For example, when studying the properties of charged particles using a cloud chamber, these particles are perceived by the researcher indirectly - by such visible manifestations as the formation tracks, consisting of many droplets of liquid.

Moreover, any scientific observations, although they rely primarily on the work of the senses, at the same time require participation and theoretical thinking. The researcher, relying on his knowledge and experience, must recognize sensory perceptions and express (describe) them either in terms of ordinary language, or - more strictly and abbreviated - in certain scientific terms, in some graphs, tables, drawings, etc. For example, emphasizing the role of theory in the process of indirect observations, A. Einstein, in a conversation with W. Heisenberg, remarked: “Whether a given phenomenon can be observed or not depends on your theory. It is the theory that must establish what can be observed and what cannot.”

Observations can often play an important heuristic role in scientific knowledge. In the process of observations, completely new phenomena can be discovered, allowing one or another scientific hypothesis to be substantiated.

From all of the above, it follows that observation is a very important method of empirical knowledge, ensuring the collection of extensive information about the world around us. As the history of science shows, when used correctly, this method turns out to be very fruitful.

Experiment.

Experiment is a more complex method of empirical knowledge compared to observation. It involves the active, purposeful and strictly controlled influence of the researcher on the object being studied in order to identify and study certain aspects, properties, and connections. In this case, the experimenter can transform the object under study, create artificial conditions for its study, and interfere with the natural course of processes.

“In the general structure of scientific research, experiment occupies a special place. On the one hand, it is the experiment that is the connecting link between the theoretical and empirical stages and levels of scientific research. By design, an experiment is always mediated by prior theoretical knowledge: it is conceived on the basis of relevant theoretical knowledge and its goal is often to confirm or refute a scientific theory or hypothesis. The experimental results themselves require a certain theoretical interpretation. At the same time, the experimental method, by the nature of the cognitive means used, belongs to the empirical stage of cognition. The result of experimental research is, first of all, the achievement of factual knowledge and the establishment of empirical laws.”

Experimentally oriented scientists argue that a cleverly thought out and “cunningly”, skillfully staged experiment is superior to theory: theory can be completely refuted, but reliably obtained experience cannot!

The experiment includes other methods of empirical research (observation, measurement). At the same time, it has a number of important, unique features.

Firstly, an experiment allows you to study an object in a “purified” form, that is, eliminate all kinds of side factors and layers that complicate the research process.

Secondly, during the experiment, the object can be placed in some artificial, in particular, extreme conditions, i.e., studied at ultra-low temperatures, at extremely high pressures or, conversely, in a vacuum, at enormous electromagnetic field strengths, etc. In such artificially created conditions, it is possible to discover surprising and sometimes unexpected properties of objects and thereby more deeply comprehend their essence.

Thirdly, when studying a process, an experimenter can intervene in it and actively influence its course. As Academician I.P. Pavlov noted, “experience, as it were, takes phenomena into its own hands and puts into play one thing or another, and thus, in artificial, simplified combinations, determines the true connection between phenomena. In other words, observation collects what nature offers it, while experience takes from nature what it wants.”

Fourth, an important advantage of many experiments is their reproducibility. This means that the experimental conditions, and accordingly the observations and measurements carried out during this process, can be repeated as many times as necessary to obtain reliable results.

Preparing and conducting an experiment requires compliance with a number of conditions. So, a scientific experiment:

Never posed at random, it presupposes the presence of a clearly formulated research goal;

It is not done “blindly”; it is always based on some initial theoretical principles. Without an idea in your head, said I.P. Pavlov, you won’t see a fact at all;

It is not carried out unplanned, chaotically, the researcher first outlines the ways of its implementation;

Requires a certain level of development of technical means of cognition necessary for its implementation;

Must be carried out by people with sufficiently high qualifications.

Only the combination of all these conditions determines success in experimental research.

Depending on the nature of the problems solved during the experiments, the latter are usually divided into research and testing.

Research experiments make it possible to discover new, unknown properties in an object. The result of such an experiment may be conclusions that do not follow from existing knowledge about the object of study. An example is the experiments carried out in the laboratory of E. Rutherford, which led to the discovery of the atomic nucleus, and thereby to the birth of nuclear physics.

Verification experiments serve to test and confirm certain theoretical constructs. Thus, the existence of a number of elementary particles (positron, neutrino, etc.) was first predicted theoretically, and only later were they discovered experimentally.

Based on the methodology and the results obtained, experiments can be divided into qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative experiments are exploratory in nature and do not lead to any quantitative relationships. They only allow us to identify the effect of certain factors on the phenomenon being studied. Quantitative experiments are aimed at establishing precise quantitative relationships in the phenomenon under study. In the actual practice of experimental research, both of these types of experiments are implemented, as a rule, in the form of successive stages of the development of cognition.

As is known, the connection between electrical and magnetic phenomena was first discovered by the Danish physicist Oersted as a result of a purely qualitative experiment (having placed a magnetic compass needle next to a conductor through which an electric current was passed, he discovered that the needle deviates from its original position). After Oersted published his discovery, quantitative experiments by the French scientists Biot and Savart followed, as well as experiments by Ampere, on the basis of which the corresponding mathematical formula was derived.

All these qualitative and quantitative empirical studies laid the foundations for the doctrine of electromagnetism.

Depending on the field of scientific knowledge in which the experimental research method is used, natural science, applied (in technical sciences, agricultural science, etc.) and socio-economic experiments are distinguished.

Measurement and comparison.

Most scientific experiments and observations involve making a variety of measurements. Measurement - This is a process that consists in determining the quantitative values ​​of certain properties, aspects of the object or phenomenon under study with the help of special technical devices.

The enormous importance of measurements for science was noted by many prominent scientists. For example, D.I. Mendeleev emphasized that “science begins as soon as they begin to measure.” And the famous English physicist W. Thomson (Kelvin) pointed out that “every thing is known only to the extent that it can be measured.”

The measurement operation is based on comparison objects by any similar properties or aspects. To make such a comparison, it is necessary to have certain units of measurement, the presence of which makes it possible to express the properties being studied in terms of their quantitative characteristics. In turn, this allows the widespread use of mathematical tools in science and creates the prerequisites for the mathematical expression of empirical dependencies. Comparison is not only used in connection with measurement. In science, comparison acts as a comparative or comparative-historical method. Originally arose in philology and literary criticism, it then began to be successfully applied in law, sociology, history, biology, psychology, history of religion, ethnography and other fields of knowledge. Entire branches of knowledge have emerged that use this method: comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, comparative psychology, etc. Thus, in comparative psychology, the study of the psyche is carried out on the basis of comparing the psyche of an adult with the development of the psyche of a child, as well as animals. In the course of scientific comparison, not arbitrarily chosen properties and connections are compared, but essential ones.

An important aspect of the measurement process is the methodology for carrying it out. It is a set of techniques that use certain principles and means of measurement. In this case, the principles of measurements mean some phenomena that form the basis of measurements (for example, measuring temperature using the thermoelectric effect).

There are several types of measurements. Based on the nature of the dependence of the measured value on time, measurements are divided into static and dynamic. At static measurements the quantity we measure remains constant over time (measuring the size of bodies, constant pressure, etc.). TO dynamic These include measurements during which the measured value changes over time (measurement of vibration, pulsating pressure, etc.).

Based on the method of obtaining results, measurements are distinguished between direct and indirect. IN direct measurements the desired value of the measured quantity is obtained by directly comparing it with the standard or is issued by the measuring device. At indirect measurement the desired value is determined on the basis of a known mathematical relationship between this value and other values ​​obtained by direct measurements (for example, finding the electrical resistivity of a conductor by its resistance, length and cross-sectional area). Indirect measurements are widely used in cases where the desired quantity is impossible or too difficult to measure directly, or when direct measurement gives a less accurate result.

With the progress of science, measuring technology also advances. Along with the improvement of existing measuring instruments operating on the basis of traditional established principles (replacing the materials from which parts of the device are made, introducing individual changes into its design, etc.), there is a transition to fundamentally new designs of measuring devices, determined by new theoretical prerequisites. In the latter case, instruments are created in which new scientific ones are implemented. achievements. For example, the development of quantum physics has significantly increased the ability to make measurements with a high degree of accuracy. The use of the Mössbauer effect makes it possible to create a device with a resolution of about 10 -13% of the measured value.

Well-developed measuring instrumentation, a variety of methods and high characteristics of measuring instruments contribute to progress in scientific research. In turn, solving scientific problems, as noted above, often opens up new ways to improve the measurements themselves.

Abstraction. Ascent from the abstract to the concrete.

The process of cognition always begins with the consideration of specific, sensory objects and phenomena, their external signs, properties, and connections. Only as a result of studying the sensory-concrete does a person come to some generalized ideas, concepts, to certain theoretical positions, i.e., scientific abstractions. Obtaining these abstractions is associated with the complex abstracting activity of thinking.

In the process of abstraction, there is a departure (ascent) from sensually perceived concrete objects (with all their properties, sides, etc.) to abstract ideas about them reproduced in thinking. At the same time, sensory-concrete perception, as it were, “...evaporates to the level of abstract definition.” Abstraction, Thus, it consists in mental abstraction from some - less significant - properties, aspects, signs of the object being studied with the simultaneous selection and formation of one or more significant aspects, properties, characteristics of this object. The result obtained during the abstraction process is called abstraction(or use the term “abstract” - as opposed to concrete).

In scientific knowledge, for example, abstractions of identification and isolating abstractions are widely used. Abstraction of identification is a concept that is obtained as a result of identifying a certain set of objects (at the same time we are abstracting from a number of individual properties, characteristics of these objects) and combining them into a special group. An example is the grouping of the entire variety of plants and animals living on our planet into special species, genera, orders, etc. Isolating abstraction is obtained by isolating certain properties and relationships that are inextricably linked with objects of the material world into independent entities (“stability”, “solubility”, “electrical conductivity”, etc.).

The transition from the sensory-concrete to the abstract is always associated with a certain simplification of reality. At the same time, ascending from the sensory-concrete to the abstract, theoretical, the researcher gets the opportunity to better understand the object being studied and reveal its essence. In this case, the researcher first finds the main connection (relationship) of the object being studied, and then, step by step, tracing how it changes under different conditions, discovers new connections, establishes their interactions, and in this way reflects in its entirety the essence of the object being studied.

The process of transition from sensory-empirical, visual ideas about the phenomena being studied to the formation of certain abstract, theoretical structures that reflect the essence of these phenomena lies at the basis of the development of any science.

Since the concrete (i.e., real objects, processes of the material world) is a collection of many properties, aspects, internal and external connections and relationships, it is impossible to know it in all its diversity, remaining at the stage of sensory cognition and limiting ourselves to it. Therefore, there is a need for a theoretical understanding of the concrete, that is, an ascent from the sensory-concrete to the abstract.

But the formation of scientific abstractions and general theoretical positions is not the ultimate goal of knowledge, but is only a means of deeper, more versatile knowledge of the concrete. Therefore, further movement (ascent) of knowledge from the achieved abstract back to the concrete is necessary. The knowledge about the concrete obtained at this stage of research will be qualitatively different compared to that which was available at the stage of sensory cognition. In other words, the concrete at the beginning of the process of cognition (sensory-concrete, which is its starting point) and the concrete, comprehended at the end of the cognitive process (it is called logical-concrete, emphasizing the role of abstract thinking in its comprehension) are fundamentally different from each other.

The logical-concrete is the concrete, theoretically reproduced in the researcher’s thinking, in all the richness of its content.

It contains within itself not only what is sensually perceived, but also something hidden, inaccessible to sensory perception, something essential, natural, comprehended only with the help of theoretical thinking, with the help of certain abstractions.

The method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete is used in the construction of various scientific theories and can be used in both social and natural sciences. For example, in the theory of gases, having identified the basic laws of an ideal gas - Clapeyron's equations, Avogadro's law, etc., the researcher goes to the specific interactions and properties of real gases, characterizing their essential aspects and properties. As we delve deeper into the concrete, new abstractions are introduced, which act as a deeper reflection of the essence of the object. Thus, in the process of developing the theory of gases, it was found that the ideal gas laws characterize the behavior of real gases only at low pressures. This was due to the fact that the ideal gas abstraction neglects the forces of attraction between molecules. Taking these forces into account led to the formulation of Van der Waals' law. Compared to Clapeyron's law, this law expressed the essence of the behavior of gases more specifically and deeply.

Idealization. Thought experiment.

The mental activity of a researcher in the process of scientific knowledge includes a special type of abstraction, which is called idealization. Idealization represents the mental introduction of certain changes to the object being studied in accordance with the goals of the research.

As a result of such changes, for example, some properties, aspects, or features of objects may be excluded from consideration. Thus, the widespread idealization in mechanics, called a material point, implies a body devoid of any dimensions. Such an abstract object, the dimensions of which are neglected, is convenient when describing the movement of a wide variety of material objects from atoms and molecules to the planets of the solar system.

Changes in an object, achieved in the process of idealization, can also be made by endowing it with some special properties that are not feasible in reality. An example is the abstraction introduced into physics through idealization, known as black body(such a body is endowed with the property, which does not exist in nature, of absorbing absolutely all the radiant energy falling on it, without reflecting anything and without letting anything pass through it).

The advisability of using idealization is determined by the following circumstances:

Firstly, “idealization is appropriate when the real objects to be studied are sufficiently complex for the available means of theoretical, in particular mathematical, analysis, and in relation to the idealized case it is possible, by applying these means, to build and develop a theory that is effective in certain conditions and purposes.” , to describe the properties and behavior of these real objects. The latter, in essence, certifies the fruitfulness of idealization and distinguishes it from fruitless fantasy.”

Secondly, it is advisable to use idealization in cases where it is necessary to exclude certain properties and connections of the object under study, without which it cannot exist, but which obscure the essence of the processes occurring in it. A complex object is presented as if in a “purified” form, which makes it easier to study.

Thirdly, the use of idealization is advisable when the properties, aspects, and connections of the object being studied that are excluded from consideration do not affect its essence within the framework of this study. In this case, the correct choice of the admissibility of such idealization plays a very important role.

It should be noted that the nature of idealization can be very different if there are different theoretical approaches to the study of a phenomenon. As an example, we can point to three different concepts of “ideal gas”, formed under the influence of different theoretical and physical concepts: Maxwell-Boltzmann, Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac. However, all three idealization options obtained in this case turned out to be fruitful in the study of gas states of various natures: the Maxwell-Boltzmann ideal gas became the basis for studies of ordinary rarefied molecular gases located at fairly high temperatures; The Bose-Einstein ideal gas was used to study photonic gas, and the Fermi-Dirac ideal gas helped solve a number of electron gas problems.

Being a type of abstraction, idealization allows for an element of sensory clarity (the usual process of abstraction leads to the formation of mental abstractions that do not have any clarity). This feature of idealization is very important for the implementation of such a specific method of theoretical knowledge, which is thought experiment (his also called mental, subjective, imaginary, idealized).

A thought experiment involves operating with an idealized object (replacing a real object in abstraction), which consists in the mental selection of certain positions and situations that make it possible to detect some important features of the object under study. This reveals a certain similarity between a mental (idealized) experiment and a real one. Moreover, every real experiment, before being carried out in practice, is first “played out” by the researcher mentally in the process of thinking and planning. In this case, the thought experiment acts as a preliminary ideal plan for a real experiment.

At the same time, thought experiments also play an independent role in science. At the same time, while maintaining similarities with the real experiment, it is at the same time significantly different from it.

In scientific knowledge, there may be cases when, when studying certain phenomena and situations, conducting real experiments turns out to be completely impossible. This gap in knowledge can only be filled by a thought experiment.

The scientific activity of Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Carnot, Einstein and other scientists who laid the foundations of modern natural science testifies to the significant role of thought experiments in the formation of theoretical ideas. The history of the development of physics is rich in facts about the use of thought experiments. An example is Galileo's thought experiments, which led to the discovery of the law of inertia. “...The law of inertia,” wrote A. Einstein and L. Infeld, “cannot be deduced directly from experiment; it can be deduced speculatively - by thinking associated with observation. This experiment can never be performed in reality, although it leads to a deep understanding of actual experiments.”

A thought experiment can have great heuristic value in helping to interpret new knowledge obtained purely mathematically. This is confirmed by many examples from the history of science.

The idealization method, which turns out to be very fruitful in many cases, at the same time has certain limitations. In addition, any idealization is limited to a specific area of ​​phenomena and serves to solve only certain problems. This can be clearly seen from the example of the above-mentioned “absolutely black body” idealization.

The main positive significance of idealization as a method of scientific knowledge is that the theoretical constructions obtained on its basis then make it possible to effectively study real objects and phenomena. Simplifications achieved through idealization facilitate the creation of a theory that reveals the laws of the studied area of ​​​​phenomena of the material world. If the theory as a whole correctly describes real phenomena, then the idealizations underlying it are also legitimate.

Formalization.

Under formalization understands a special approach in scientific knowledge, which consists in the use of special symbols, which allows one to escape from the study of real objects, from the content of the theoretical provisions describing them, and to operate instead with a certain set of symbols (signs).

This technique consists in constructing abstract mathematical models that reveal the essence of the processes of reality being studied. When formalizing, reasoning about objects is transferred to the plane of operating with signs (formulas). Relationships of signs replace statements about the properties and relationships of objects. In this way, a generalized sign model of a certain subject area is created, which makes it possible to detect the structure of various phenomena and processes while abstracting from the qualitative characteristics of the latter. The derivation of some formulas from others according to the strict rules of logic and mathematics represents a formal study of the main characteristics of the structure of various, sometimes very distant in nature, phenomena.

A striking example of formalization is the mathematical descriptions of various objects and phenomena widely used in science, based on relevant substantive theories. At the same time, the mathematical symbolism used not only helps to consolidate existing knowledge about the objects and phenomena being studied, but also acts as a kind of tool in the process of further knowledge of them.

To build any formal system it is necessary: ​​a) specifying an alphabet, i.e., a certain set of characters; b) setting the rules by which “words” and “formulas” can be obtained from the initial characters of this alphabet; c) setting rules according to which one can move from some words and formulas of a given system to other words and formulas (the so-called rules of inference).

As a result, a formal sign system is created in the form of a certain artificial language. An important advantage of this system is the possibility of carrying out within its framework the study of any object in a purely formal way (operating with signs) without directly addressing this object.

Another advantage of formalization is to ensure the brevity and clarity of recording scientific information, which opens up great opportunities for operating with it.

Of course, formalized artificial languages ​​do not have the flexibility and richness of natural language. But they lack the polysemy of terms characteristic of natural languages. They are characterized by a precisely constructed syntax (establishing the rules of connection between signs regardless of their content) and unambiguous semantics (the semantic rules of a formalized language quite unambiguously determine the correlation of a sign system with a specific subject area). Thus, a formalized language has the property of being monosemic.

The ability to present certain theoretical positions of science in the form of a formalized sign system is of great importance for knowledge. But it should be borne in mind that the formalization of a particular theory is possible only if its substantive side is taken into account. “A bare mathematical equation does not yet represent a physical theory; in order to obtain a physical theory, it is necessary to give mathematical symbols specific empirical content.”

The expanding use of formalization as a method of theoretical knowledge is associated not only with the development of mathematics. In chemistry, for example, the corresponding chemical symbolism, together with the rules for operating it, was one of the options for a formalized artificial language. The method of formalization occupied an increasingly important place in logic as it developed. Leibniz's works laid the foundation for the creation of the method of logical calculus. The latter led to the formation in the middle of the 19th century. mathematical logic, which in the second half of our century played an important role in the development of cybernetics, in the emergence of electronic computers, in solving problems of production automation, etc.

The language of modern science differs significantly from natural human language. It contains many special terms and expressions; it widely uses means of formalization, among which the central place belongs to mathematical formalization. Based on the needs of science, various artificial languages ​​are created to solve certain problems. The entire set of artificial formalized languages ​​created and being created is included in the language of science, forming a powerful means of scientific knowledge.

Axiomatic method.

In the axiomatic construction of theoretical knowledge, a set of initial positions is first specified that do not require proof (at least within the framework of a given knowledge system). These provisions are called axioms, or postulates. Then, according to certain rules, a system of inferential proposals is built from them. The set of initial axioms and propositions derived on their basis forms an axiomatically constructed theory.

Axioms are statements whose truth is not required to be proven. The number of axioms varies widely: from two or three to several dozen. Logical inference allows you to transfer the truth of axioms to the consequences derived from them. At the same time, the requirements of consistency, independence and completeness are imposed on axioms and conclusions from them. Following certain, clearly fixed rules of inference allows you to streamline the reasoning process when deploying an axiomatic system, making this reasoning more rigorous and correct.

To define an axiomatic system, some language is required. In this regard, symbols (icons) are widely used rather than cumbersome verbal expressions. Replacing spoken language with logical and mathematical symbols, as stated above, is called formalization . If formalization takes place, then the axiomatic system is formal, and the provisions of the system acquire the character formulas The resulting formulas are called theorems, and the arguments used are evidence theorem. This is the almost universally known structure of the axiomatic method.

Hypothesis method.

In methodology, the term “hypothesis” is used in two senses: as a form of existence of knowledge, characterized by problematic, unreliable, need for proof, and as a method of forming and justifying explanatory proposals, leading to the establishment of laws, principles, theories. Hypothesis in the first sense of the word is included in the method of hypothesis, but can also be used without connection with it.

The best way to understand the hypothesis method is to become familiar with its structure. The first stage of the hypothesis method is familiarization with the empirical material that is subject to theoretical explanation. Initially, they try to explain this material with the help of laws and theories already existing in science. If there are none, the scientist proceeds to the second stage - putting forward a guess or assumption about the causes and patterns of these phenomena. At the same time, he tries to use various research techniques: inductive guidance, analogy, modeling, etc. It is quite acceptable that at this stage several explanatory assumptions are put forward that are incompatible with each other.

The third stage is the stage of assessing the seriousness of the assumption and selecting the most probable one from the set of guesses. The hypothesis is checked primarily for logical consistency, especially if it has a complex form and unfolds into a system of assumptions. Next, the hypothesis is tested for compatibility with the fundamental intertheoretical principles of this science.

At the fourth stage, the put forward assumption is unfolded and empirically verifiable consequences are deductively derived from it. At this stage, it is possible to partially rework the hypothesis and introduce clarifying details into it using thought experiments.

At the fifth stage, an experimental verification of the consequences derived from the hypothesis is carried out. The hypothesis either receives empirical confirmation or is refuted as a result of experimental testing. However, empirical confirmation of the consequences of a hypothesis does not guarantee its truth, and the refutation of one of the consequences does not clearly indicate its falsity as a whole. All attempts to build an effective logic for confirming and refuting theoretical explanatory hypotheses have not yet been crowned with success. The status of an explanatory law, principle or theory is given to the best one based on the results of testing of the proposed hypotheses. Such a hypothesis is usually required to have maximum explanatory and predictive power.

Familiarity with the general structure of the hypothesis method allows us to define it as a complex integrated method of cognition, which includes all its diversity and forms and is aimed at establishing laws, principles and theories.

Sometimes the hypothesis method is also called the hypothetico-deductive method, meaning the fact that the formulation of a hypothesis is always accompanied by the deductive derivation of empirically verifiable consequences from it. But deductive reasoning is not the only logical technique used within the hypothesis method. When establishing the degree of empirical confirmation of a hypothesis, elements of inductive logic are used. Induction is also used at the guessing stage. Inference by analogy has an essential place when putting forward a hypothesis. As already noted, at the stage of developing a theoretical hypothesis, a thought experiment can also be used.

An explanatory hypothesis as an assumption about a law is not the only type of hypothesis in science. There are also “existential” hypotheses - assumptions about the existence of elementary particles, units of heredity, chemical elements, new biological species, etc., unknown to science. The methods for putting forward and justifying such hypotheses differ from explanatory hypotheses. Along with the main theoretical hypotheses, there may also be auxiliary ones that make it possible to bring the main hypothesis into better agreement with experience. As a rule, such auxiliary hypotheses are later eliminated. There are also so-called working hypotheses that make it possible to better organize the collection of empirical material, but do not claim to explain it.

The most important type of hypothesis method is mathematical hypothesis method, which is typical for sciences with a high degree of mathematization. The hypothesis method described above is the substantive hypothesis method. Within its framework, meaningful assumptions about the laws are first formulated, and then they receive the corresponding mathematical expression. In the method of mathematical hypothesis, thinking takes a different path. First, to explain quantitative dependencies, a suitable equation is selected from related fields of science, which often involves its modification, and then an attempt is made to give this equation a meaningful interpretation.

The scope of application of the mathematical hypothesis method is very limited. It is applicable primarily in those disciplines where a rich arsenal of mathematical tools in theoretical research has been accumulated. Such disciplines primarily include modern physics. The method of mathematical hypothesis was used in the discovery of the basic laws of quantum mechanics.

Analysis and synthesis.

Under analysis understand the division of an object (mentally or actually) into its component parts for the purpose of studying them separately. Such parts can be some material elements of the object or its properties, characteristics, relationships, etc.

Analysis is a necessary stage in understanding an object. Since ancient times, analysis has been used, for example, to decompose certain substances into their components. Note that the method of analysis at one time played an important role in the collapse of the phlogiston theory.

Undoubtedly, analysis occupies an important place in the study of objects of the material world. But it constitutes only the first stage of the process of cognition.

To comprehend an object as a whole, one cannot limit oneself to studying only its component parts. In the process of cognition, it is necessary to reveal objectively existing connections between them, to consider them together, in unity. To carry out this second stage in the process of cognition - to move from the study of individual components of an object to the study of it as a single connected whole - is possible only if the method of analysis is complemented by another method - synthesis.

In the process of synthesis, the components (sides, properties, characteristics, etc.) of the object under study, dissected as a result of analysis, are brought together. On this basis, further study of the object takes place, but as a single whole. At the same time, synthesis does not mean a simple mechanical connection of disconnected elements into a single system. It reveals the place and role of each element in the system of the whole, establishes their interrelation and interdependence, i.e., it allows us to understand the true dialectical unity of the object being studied.

Analysis mainly captures what is specific that distinguishes parts from each other. Synthesis reveals that essential commonality that connects the parts into a single whole. Analysis, which involves the implementation of synthesis, has as its central core the selection of the essential. Then the whole does not look the same as when the mind “first met” it, but much deeper, more meaningful.

Analysis and synthesis are also successfully used in the sphere of human mental activity, that is, in theoretical knowledge. But here, as at the empirical level of knowledge, analysis and synthesis are not two operations separated from each other. In essence, they are like two sides of a single analytical-synthetic method of cognition.

These two interrelated research methods receive their own specification in each branch of science. From a general technique, they can turn into a special method: for example, there are specific methods of mathematical, chemical and social analysis. The analytical method has also been developed in some philosophical schools and directions. The same can be said about synthesis.

Induction and deduction.

Induction (from lat. inductio - guidance, motivation) is a formal logical inference that leads to a general conclusion based on particular premises. In other words, this is the movement of our thinking from the particular to the general.

Induction is widely used in scientific knowledge. By discovering similar signs and properties in many objects of a certain class, the researcher concludes that these signs and properties are inherent in all objects of a given class. Along with other methods of cognition, the inductive method played an important role in the discovery of some laws of nature (gravity, atmospheric pressure, thermal expansion of bodies, etc.).

Induction used in scientific knowledge (scientific induction) can be implemented in the form of the following methods:

1. Method of single similarity (in all cases of observation of a phenomenon, only one common factor is found, all others are different; therefore, this single similar factor is the cause of this phenomenon).

2. Single difference method (if the circumstances of the occurrence of a phenomenon and the circumstances under which it does not occur are similar in almost all respects and differ only in one factor, present only in the first case, then we can conclude that this factor is the cause of this phenomena).

3. United method of similarity and difference (is a combination of the above two methods).

4. The method of accompanying changes (if certain changes in one phenomenon each time entail certain changes in another phenomenon, then the conclusion about the causal relationship of these phenomena follows).

5. Residual method (if a complex phenomenon is caused by a multifactorial cause, and some of these factors are known as the cause of some part of this phenomenon, then the conclusion follows: the cause of another part of the phenomenon is the remaining factors included in the general cause of this phenomenon).

The founder of the classical inductive method of cognition is F. Bacon. But he interpreted induction extremely broadly, considering it the most important method for discovering new truths in science, the main means of scientific knowledge of nature.

In fact, the above methods of scientific induction serve mainly to find empirical relationships between the experimentally observed properties of objects and phenomena.

Deduction (from lat. deductio - inference) is the obtaining of particular conclusions based on knowledge of some general provisions. In other words, this is the movement of our thinking from the general to the particular, individual.

But the especially great cognitive significance of deduction is manifested in the case when the general premise is not just an inductive generalization, but some kind of hypothetical assumption, for example, a new scientific idea. In this case, deduction is the starting point for the emergence of a new theoretical system. The theoretical knowledge created in this way predetermines the further course of empirical research and guides the construction of new inductive generalizations.

Obtaining new knowledge through deduction exists in all natural sciences, but the deductive method is especially important in mathematics. Operating with mathematical abstractions and basing their reasoning on very general principles, mathematicians are forced most often to use deduction. And mathematics is, perhaps, the only truly deductive science.

In modern science, the prominent mathematician and philosopher R. Descartes was a promoter of the deductive method of cognition.

But, despite attempts in the history of science and philosophy to separate induction from deduction and contrast them in the real process of scientific knowledge, these two methods are not used as isolated, isolated from each other. Each of them is used at the appropriate stage of the cognitive process.

Moreover, in the process of using the inductive method, deduction is often present “in a hidden form.” “By generalizing facts in accordance with some ideas, we thereby indirectly derive the generalizations we receive from these ideas, and we are not always aware of this. It seems that our thought moves directly from facts to generalizations, that is, that there is pure induction here. In fact, in accordance with some ideas, in other words, implicitly guided by them in the process of generalizing facts, our thought indirectly goes from ideas to these generalizations, and, therefore, deduction also takes place here... We can say that in In all cases when we generalize in accordance with any philosophical principles, our conclusions are not only induction, but also hidden deduction.”

Emphasizing the necessary connection between induction and deduction, F. Engels strongly advised scientists: “Induction and deduction are related to each other in the same necessary way as synthesis and analysis. Instead of unilaterally extolling one of them to the skies at the expense of the other, we must try to apply each in its place, and this can only be achieved if we do not lose sight of their connection with each other, their mutual complement to each other.”

Analogy and modeling.

Under analogy refers to the similarity, similarity of some properties, characteristics or relationships of generally different objects. Establishing similarities (or differences) between objects is carried out as a result of their comparison. Thus, comparison is the basis of the analogy method.

If a logical conclusion is made about the presence of any property, sign, relationship in the object under study based on establishing its similarity with other objects, then this conclusion is called an inference by analogy.

The degree of probability of obtaining a correct conclusion by analogy will be the higher: 1) the more common properties of the compared objects are known; 2) the more significant the common properties discovered in them and 3) the more deeply the mutual natural connection of these similar properties is known. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that if an object in respect of which an inference is made by analogy with another object has some property that is incompatible with the property the existence of which should be concluded, then the general similarity of these objects loses all meaning .

The analogy method is used in a variety of fields of science: in mathematics, physics, chemistry, cybernetics, in the humanities, etc. The famous energy scientist V. A. Venikov spoke well about the cognitive value of the analogy method: “Sometimes they say: “Analogy is not proof”... But if you look at it, you can easily understand that scientists do not strive to prove anything only in this way. Is it not enough that a correctly seen similarity gives a powerful impetus to creativity?.. An analogy is capable of leaping thought into new, unexplored orbits, and, of course, it is correct that an analogy, if handled with due care, is the simplest and most a clear path from old to new.”

There are different types of inferences by analogy. But what they have in common is that in all cases one object is directly examined, and a conclusion is drawn about another object. Therefore, inference by analogy in the most general sense can be defined as the transfer of information from one object to another. In this case, the first object, which is actually subject to research, is called model, and another object to which the information obtained as a result of studying the first object (model) is transferred is called original(sometimes - a prototype, sample, etc.). Thus, the model always acts as an analogy, that is, the model and the object (original) displayed with its help are in a certain similarity (similarity).

“...Modeling is understood as the study of a modeled object (original), based on the one-to-one correspondence of a certain part of the properties of the original and the object (model) that replaces it in the study and includes the construction of a model, the study of it and the transfer of the obtained information to the modeled object - the original” .

The use of modeling is dictated by the need to reveal aspects of objects that either cannot be comprehended through direct study, or are unprofitable to study them in this way for purely economic reasons. A person, for example, cannot directly observe the process of natural formation of diamonds, the origin and development of life on Earth, a number of phenomena of the micro- and mega-world. Therefore, we have to resort to artificial reproduction of such phenomena in a form convenient for observation and study. In some cases, it is much more profitable and economical to build and study its model instead of directly experimenting with an object.

Depending on the nature of the models used in scientific research, several types of modeling are distinguished.

1. Mental (ideal) modeling. This type of modeling includes various mental representations in the form of certain imaginary models. It should be noted that mental (ideal) models can often be realized materially in the form of sensory-perceptible physical models.

2. Physical modeling. It is characterized by physical similarity between the model and the original and aims to reproduce in the model the processes characteristic of the original. Based on the results of studying certain physical properties of the model, they judge the phenomena that occur (or can occur) in the so-called “natural conditions”.

Currently, physical modeling is widely used for the development and experimental study of various structures, machines, for a better understanding of some natural phenomena, for studying effective and safe methods of mining, etc.

3. Symbolic (sign) modeling. It is associated with a conventionally symbolic representation of some properties, relationships of the original object. Symbolic (sign) models include various topological and graph representations (in the form of graphs, nomograms, diagrams, etc.) of the objects under study or, for example, models presented in the form of chemical symbols and reflecting the state or ratio of elements during chemical reactions.

A special and very important type of symbolic (sign) modeling is math modeling. The symbolic language of mathematics makes it possible to express the properties, aspects, relationships of objects and phenomena of a very different nature. The relationships between various quantities that describe the functioning of such an object or phenomenon can be represented by the corresponding equations (differential, integral, integro-differential, algebraic) and their systems.

4. Numerical modeling on a computer. This type of modeling is based on a previously created mathematical model of the object or phenomenon being studied and is used in cases of large volumes of calculations required to study this model.

Numerical modeling is especially important where the physical picture of the phenomenon being studied is not entirely clear and the internal mechanism of interaction is not known. By calculating various options on a computer, facts are accumulated, which makes it possible, ultimately, to select the most realistic and probable situations. The active use of numerical modeling methods can dramatically reduce the time required for scientific and design development.

The modeling method is constantly evolving: some types of models are being replaced by others as science progresses. At the same time, one thing remains unchanged: the importance, relevance, and sometimes irreplaceability of modeling as a method of scientific knowledge.

1. Alekseev P.V., Panin A.V. “Philosophy” M.: Prospekt, 2000

2. Leshkevich T.G. “Philosophy of Science: Traditions and Innovations” M.: PRIOR, 2001

3. Spirkin A.G. “Fundamentals of Philosophy” M.: Politizdat, 1988

4. “Philosophy” under. ed. Kokhanovsky V.P. Rostov-n/D.: Phoenix, 2000

5. Golubintsev V.O., Dantsev A.A., Lyubchenko V.S. “Philosophy for technical universities.” Rostov n/d.: Phoenix, 2001

6. Agofonov V.P., Kazakov D.F., Rachinsky D.D. “Philosophy” M.: MSHA, 2000

7. Frolov I.T. “Introduction to Philosophy” Part-2, M.: Politizdat, 1989

8. Ruzavin G.I. “Methodology of scientific research” M.: UNITY-DANA, 1999.

9. Kanke V.A. “Main philosophical directions and concepts of science. Results of the twentieth century.” - M.: Logos, 2000.

A person comprehends the world around him, masters it in various ways, among which two main ones can be distinguished. The first (genetically original) is material and technical - the production of means of subsistence, labor, practice. The second is spiritual (ideal), within which the cognitive relationship of subject and object is only one of many others. In turn, the process of cognition and the knowledge obtained in it in the course of the historical development of practice and cognition itself is increasingly differentiated and embodied in its various forms.

The relevance of cognition in the modern world forms the basis of this work, the purpose of which is to reveal the concept of “cognition”, its social and practical importance for humanity, its methods and essence.

What is cognition?

Cognition is defined as the process of obtaining and improving knowledge, the activity of people to discover concepts, patterns, images, concepts that facilitate reproduction and improve their existence and self-preservation. The essence of the cognition process lies in the updating of hereditary information. Knowledge is understood as the result of the cognition process, enshrined in culture and ready for use, which is consistent with the laws of nature.

There is no uniformity in cognitive concepts. Within the framework of the classical image of cognition, various traditions can be distinguished (empiricism and rationalism); the debate is about the criteria of truth, the structure of the cognitive process, and methods of cognition. At the same time, there are a number of features that allow us to talk about a holistic image of cognitive activity, which can be called “classical”. Within the framework of this image of knowledge, this cognitive tradition, the main problems of the theory of knowledge were formulated, the main approaches to their solution, which have a sufficient number of supporters in our time.

First of all, the process of cognition is considered as an interaction between the subject (the one who knows) and the object (that which is known). The sides of this interaction are completely defined, their contours are strictly marked. There are various ways to establish the relationship between subject and object.

In one case, the philosophical tradition initially defines the very object of knowledge. The object itself determines the direction of the search of the cognizing subject, and its characteristics, and the very nature of the cognitive process - the connection between the subject and the object. Thus, in Plato’s doctrine of knowledge, the object of true knowledge, and not “opinion,” was initially given by his own theory - this is the world of ideas, motionless ideal forms. The object determines the characteristics of the subject of cognition - the bearer of the “rational soul”, the inhabitant of the world of ideas. The process of cognition itself is also given, which appears as recognition, the recollection of the soul about contact with the world of ideal forms. In the Hegelian concept of knowledge, the subject is not motionless, and knowledge is not simple recognition-contemplation of an intelligible essence. Cognition is an active process carried out by an active subject. However, his activity is predetermined, set in advance by the object of knowledge - the idea. The subject is internally related, involved in the object, there is no gap between them, they are parts of a single world whole, therefore the process of cognition is at the same time an existential process, one of the ways to establish world integrity. Despite all the differences in the initial worldviews, the concept of the materialist Democritus is based on the same cognitive scheme. Democritus views cognition as the entry into the human senses of a material, immovable copy of an object. The object is related to the subject; they have the same atomic structure. In this tradition, the object itself, as it were, comes to meet the subject halfway; it is open to him, to his cognitive activity. Knowledge becomes possible, the veil of appearance falls, if we realize our kinship with the object.

Another cognitive tradition is associated with the philosophy of modern times. In this case, the theory of knowledge is focused on the subject of cognitive activity. However, this is not an “empirical subject” - a specific person, endowed with the habits of the body, possessing a unique mental structure. This is a “pure subject”, a subject as a bearer of a specially structured cognitive ability, a subject in which there is no other desire than the desire to know, no other abilities worthy of attention other than cognitive abilities. The subject of cognition is also initially “given.” This special cognitive nature of man: the ability to sense, perceive the world and the ability to think. Concentrating on the subject, the classical cognitive paradigm assumes that the main structural formations of the inner world are also the fundamental characteristics of the world as an object. It is the analysis of the subject’s cognitive abilities, and not immersion in the element of experimental knowledge, that will give us the key to the study of the object. “...The only way in which we can hope to achieve success in our philosophical research,” wrote D. Hume, “is this: let us abandon the painful, tedious method that we have hitherto followed, and, instead of time to occupy border castles or villages, we will directly take by storm the capital, or the center of these sciences - human nature itself; Having finally become masters of the latter, we can hope for an easy victory over everything else.” The subject carries the main objective characteristics. Accordingly, the process of cognition is a surprisingly coordinated interaction between subject and object. Everything in the subject is designed to reproduce the universal world order in its structures. The world in its essence is functional-knowledge. A society that has overcome internal antagonisms and is in happy unity with nature also becomes an object of knowledge that is ready to reveal itself, all the richness of its connections, to man. The object of knowledge no longer produces objective grounds for illusory forms of knowledge; it is “transparent” for a developed cognizing subject. In turn, the subject, having overcome class, national and individual limitations, becomes a truly universal subject of knowledge. The “fusion rationality” of the Marxist theory of knowledge still carries within itself the same scheme of a complete object and subject of knowledge, which becomes clear only in an indefinite time projection.

The indicated general features of the classical image of knowledge are the basis of the classical ideal of scientificity. Scientific knowledge naturally becomes the highest form of knowledge; all other types of cognitive activity are assessed from the standpoint of proximity or distance from this most advanced form of cognitive activity.

2. What are the specific signs of scientific knowledge

The main features of scientific knowledge are:

1. The main task of scientific knowledge is the discovery of objective laws of reality - natural, social (public), laws of cognition itself, thinking, etc. Hence the orientation of research mainly on the general, essential properties of an object, its necessary characteristics and their expression in a system of abstractions. “The essence of scientific knowledge lies in the reliable generalization of facts, in the fact that behind the random it finds the necessary, natural, behind the individual - the general and on this basis carries out the prediction of various phenomena and events.” Scientific knowledge strives to reveal the necessary, objective connections that are recorded as objective laws. If this is not the case, then there is no science, because the very concept of scientificity presupposes the discovery of laws, a deepening into the essence of the phenomena being studied.

2. The immediate goal and highest value of scientific knowledge is objective truth, comprehended primarily by rational means and methods, but, of course, not without the participation of living contemplation. Hence, a characteristic feature of scientific knowledge is objectivity, the elimination, if possible, of subjectivist aspects in many cases in order to realize the “purity” of consideration of one’s subject. Einstein also wrote: “What we call science has its exclusive task of firmly establishing what exists.” Its task is to give a true reflection of processes, an objective picture of what exists. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the activity of the subject is the most important condition and prerequisite for scientific knowledge. The latter is impossible without a constructive-critical attitude to reality, excluding inertia, dogmatism, and apologetics.

3. Science, to a greater extent than other forms of knowledge, is focused on being embodied in practice, being a “guide to action” for changing the surrounding reality and managing real processes. The vital meaning of scientific research can be expressed by the formula: “To know in order to foresee, to foresee in order to practically act” - not only in the present, but also in the future. All progress in scientific knowledge is associated with an increase in the power and range of scientific foresight. It is foresight that makes it possible to control and manage processes. Scientific knowledge opens up the possibility of not only predicting the future, but also consciously shaping it. “The orientation of science towards the study of objects that can be included in activity (either actually or potentially, as possible objects of its future development), and their study as subject to objective laws of functioning and development is one of the most important features of scientific knowledge. This feature distinguishes it from other forms of human cognitive activity.”