Rental block
Basic features of scientific knowledge.
1. The main features of scientific knowledge.
Systematicity. Scientific knowledge is not the sum of isolated pieces of information. Interrelation and unity exist not only within science, but also between sciences.
Possibility of logical proof, accuracy and unambiguity. This is achieved by using a special language that uses special concepts, symbols and rules for their use.
Rationality, science is the creation of the human mind. And in scientific knowledge there cannot be anything inaccessible to human understanding. nothing logical, inexplicable, unreasonable, based only on faith.
Reproducibility and verifiability. If the conditions under which any result is obtained are created, then it is imperative to verify its truth. If it is confirmed in natural conditions, then accept this evidence; if not, refute it.
Objectivity, general validity and impersonality. Scientific knowledge must express objective truth. We must give up all likes, dislikes, prejudices and beliefs.
2.Structure of scientific knowledge.
Scientific knowledge goes through two stages: empirical and theoretical. At each of these stages, with the help of certain cognitive procedures, special forms of knowledge are obtained.
Scientific research begins with empirical research, which involves two methods: observation and experiment. Based on explanation and phenomenon, it is necessary to characterize the essence of some facts, events, and this is done by theoretical knowledge, which includes a hypothesis, a thought and real experiment, a speculative concept, and the creation of a theory.
Empirical research methods:
Method 1: Observation is the perception with the help of the senses, as well as with the help of instruments, of the phenomena being studied in conditions where the researcher does not interfere with the natural course of events.
Scientific observation differs from ordinary sensory cognition:
a) purposefulness;
b) organization.
Scientific observation is associated with solving a problem. Purposefulness is explained by the presence of certain ideas. Observations should collect data that should form the basis for subsequent developments.
Historically, the following forms of observation have developed:
Direct observation, that is, the object directly affects the human senses of the subject.
Indirect observation of the first type, when between the object and the subject we place a device that enhances the subject’s sensory perception (telescope, microscope).
Indirect observation of the second type, when between the object and the subject we place a device that transforms and changes the reflections of the object that are not perceived by the subject (compass).
Thus, the results of observations depend on the observer’s senses, means of observation, that is, instruments and objective properties of the observed phenomena. When analyzing observation results, it is necessary to take into account:
What in the results of observation depends on the object itself, and what on the senses;
What depends on the specifics of the objects used, and what on the object itself;
Consider whether the state and behavior of the object would be realized if there were no observation.
Method 2: Experiment.
There are:
1) direct (full-scale) experiment;
2)model experiment.
In contrast to observation, during a direct experiment the subject influences the object using the means of an experimental setup.
During an experiment, an object is usually isolated from external side non-essential connections and the influence of experimental means on the object is carried out, and then a relationship is established between the existing properties of the objects being studied. In a model experiment, it is not the object that is studied, but its model. An object can be considered a model if:
a) between the model and the original there is a correspondence, similarity, that is, an analogy.
b) the model is a substitute for the object being studied (representation condition).
c) studying the model allows you to obtain information about the original (extrapolation condition).
Conclusion: the objective conditions of the model experiment are the existence of general patterns of organization and functioning of various phenomena.
The immediate goal and result of scientific observations and experiments is the acquisition and accumulation of facts.
1. Scientific fact This is the first reliable phase of scientific research.
2. Comparison of facts.
3. Dependencies of facts empirical laws.
4. Explanation and acquisition of knowledge.
5. Speculation and idealization.
Theoretical research begins with the selection of some of the consistent, meaningful, speculative principles as the initial principles of the new theory. Worldview plays a significant role here. Based on the selected principles, some guess about a possible theoretical law is built. An assumption about the structure of a theoretical law and the derivation of a consequence from it forms a scientific hypothesis.
A hypothesis is knowledge whose truth or falsity has not yet been proven. If the hypothesis is confirmed, that is, it is verified reliability, then it turns into a theory. If the hypothesis is refuted, its falsification occurs, then it is discarded as a false assumption. In the process of substantiating and testing a hypothesis, logical and practical procedures are used:
1) if the consequences of a hypothesis contradict each other, then most likely the initial assumption was incorrect.
2) experiment plays a decisive role. The hypothesis is confirmed in a real experiment.
The last stage is the formation of a theory.
Theory is a system of logically interconnected assumptions that reflect the essential internal connections of a certain subject area. The logical structure of the theory is deductive in nature, that is, from some initial true assumptions, all others are logically deduced.
Main features of the theory:
1) subject matter - the entire set of concepts and judgments of a particular theory must relate to one subject area.
2) adequacy and completeness of description proposal of the theory can describe all existing situations of the subject area of the theory.
3) interpretability all concepts of the theory must be interpreted explained.
4) testability it must be possible to establish the correspondence of the theory to the properties and relationships of objects and its subject area.
Theory has two main functions: explanation and prediction.
Prediction is the derivation from a theory of consequences that complement the possibility of such facts and laws that exist or are not yet known, or of such events that may occur in the future.
3.. The problem of scientific criteria
The problem of scientific criteria was formulated in the philosophy of neopositivism in the 20s and 30s of the 20th century. Until this point, the answer to the question about the criteria for scientificity was limited to the statement that scientific knowledge is knowledge that is logically worked out, clear, distinct and confirmed by experience. The content of these provisions led to an understanding of the non-trivial nature of the problem and the impossibility of discovering unambiguous formal and logical criteria for delimiting scientific knowledge from non-scientific knowledge. The problem of obesity criteria is directly related to the problem of rationality. Finding criteria for scientificity at the same time means determining criteria for scientific rationality.
In the 20s of the XX century. within the framework of neopositivism, a verification concept of scientific knowledge was proposed. Logical positivism reduces philosophy to the logical analysis of scientific statements. The task of philosophy is to develop principles for testing scientific statements for compliance with experience. This principle should be the principle of verifiability, i.e. experimental confirmation. Only those statements have a scientific meaning that can be reduced to sensory experience and are thus verifiable through experience. The confirmation procedure is called verification. Scientific statements are meaningful because they can be verified against experience; unverifiable statements are meaningless. Scientific propositions are better substantiated the more facts confirming these propositions. Based on such an analysis, it was supposed to clear science of all meaningless statements and build its model, ideal from the point of view of logic. Obviously, in such a model, science is reduced to the empirical level, to atomic statements confirmed by experience. Molecular statements can be formed from atomic statements, not directly reducible to experience, but easily decomposed into their component parts.
The verification concept of scientific knowledge was immediately criticized. The essence of the critical provisions boiled down to the following: science cannot develop only on the basis of experience, since it involves obtaining results that are not reducible to experience and cannot be directly deduced from it. In science there are statements about the facts of the past, formulations of general laws that are not atomic or molecular statements and cannot be verified using a verification criterion. In addition, the principle of verifiability itself is not verifiable, i.e. it should be classified as meaningless and subject to elimination. Criticism, thus, discovered the internal contradiction of the principles of logical positivism, the provisions of which were overcome in various post-positivist concepts.
K. Popper, in his concept of critical rationalism, proposed a different principle for distinguishing scientific knowledge from non-scientific knowledge - the principle of falsifiability. The theoretical position of critical rationalism took shape in polemics with logical positivists. K. Popper believes that the scientific attitude is, first of all, a critical attitude. Testing a hypothesis for scientific validity should not consist of searching for confirming facts, but of trying to refute it. Falsifiability is thus equated with empirical falsifiability. From the general provisions of the theory, consequences are derived that can be directly correlated with experience. These implications are then tested. Refuting one of the consequences of a theory falsifies the entire system. “Not verifiability, but the falsifiability of a system should be considered a demarcation criterion. ... From a scientific system ... I demand that it have such a logical form that makes it possible to isolate it in a negative sense: for an empirical scientific system there must be the possibility of being refuted by experience,” states K. Popper.
Thus, K. Popper proposes to analyze science at a theoretical level, i.e. as a complete system, rather than individual atomic or molecular statements. Any theory, if it claims to be scientific, must, in principle, be refutable by experience. “Statements or systems of statements contain information about the empirical world only if they have the ability to collide with experience, or more precisely, if they can be systematically verified, i.e. subject to checks..., the result of which may be their refutation,” writes K. Popper. If a theory is constructed in such a way that it is in principle irrefutable, then it cannot be considered scientific. K. Popper considers Marxism and Freudianism to be theoretical concepts that pretend to be scientific, but in fact are not.
The falsification criterion, in turn, has been criticized. It was argued that the principle of falsifiability is insufficient, since it is not applicable to those provisions of science that cannot be compared with experience.
The very doctrine of critical rationalism, which claims to be scientific, cannot be refuted by experience, therefore it should be discarded as unscientific. In addition, actual scientific practice contradicts the requirement of falsification, since no theory in science is discarded if one empirical fact is discovered that contradicts it. According to M. Poloni, “scientists often ignore data that is incompatible with the accepted system of scientific knowledge, in the hope that, ultimately, these data will turn out to be erroneous or irrelevant... The most stubborn facts will be pushed aside, if there is no place for them in an already formed scientific system.” Refuting a theory is the result not so much of its falsification as of its displacement by another theory that better explains the facts.
Further development of this topic followed the line of criticism of the attitude towards searching for an unambiguous formal-logical criterion for delimiting the scientific from the non-scientific. It was proposed to consider science not only at the empirical and theoretical levels, but also at the metatheoretical level, on which the substantive norms and standards of scientificity are set.
T. Kuhn introduced a new concept of “paradigm” into philosophy to designate the metatheoretical level of science. Paradigm universally recognized scientific achievements that determine models for posing scientific problems and methods for solving them, are the source of methods, problem situations, and standards for solving problems. It is at the paradigm level that the basic norms for distinguishing scientific knowledge from non-scientific knowledge are formed. As a result of a change in paradigms, there is also a change in scientific standards. Theories formulated within the framework of different paradigms cannot be compared because they are based on different standards of science and rationality.
I. Lakatos connects the problem of distinguishing scientific theories from non-scientific ones with the problem of a satisfactory methodology. Each methodological concept has its own theory of scientific rationality. In the history of science, I. Lakatos proposes to distinguish the following types of rational methodology and the corresponding types of scientific character:
inductivism;
conventionalism;
falsificationism;
methodology of research programs (I. Lakatos’s own theory).
According to I. Lakatos, it is his theory that most fully describes the real process of development of science, and therefore is preferable; therefore, the scientific standards set within the framework of the methodology of research programs are more adequate. For logical positivists and K. Popper, the scientific nature of knowledge is determined by experience and logic. According to I. Lakatos, scientificity, in addition to experience and logic, presupposes a number of substantive attitudes that are included in the core of the research program and are preserved using the rules of negative and positive heuristics. Thus, in the concept of I. Lakatos, the concept of scientificity ceases to be associated only with strict, formal-logical standards . The problem of distinguishing scientific knowledge from non-scientific knowledge takes on a new character: to solve it, it is necessary to turn to substantive criteria that are not a priori (pre-experimental) and change along with the development of knowledge.
We have the largest information database in RuNet, so you can always find similar queries
This topic belongs to the section:
Philosophy
This material includes sections:
Philosophy, its subject and role in human life and society
Philosophical study of the nature and essence of the world
Philosophical study of the nature, essence and purpose of man
Philosophical study of the system “man world” and the states in which this system is located
Scientific knowledge is a process, i.e. an integral developing system of a rather complex structure, which expresses the unity of stable relationships between the elements of this system. The structure of scientific knowledge can be presented in various sections and, accordingly, in the totality of its specific elements. Considering the basic structure of scientific knowledge, V.I. Vernadsky noted that “the main, indisputable, eternal skeleton of science (its solid core) includes the following main elements: 1) Mathematical sciences in all their volume. 2) Logical sciences almost entirely. 3) Scientific facts in their system, classifications and empirical generalizations made from them - the scientific apparatus taken as a whole. All these aspects of scientific knowledge - a single science - are in rapid development, and the area covered by them is ever increasing." At the same time, according to Vernadsky, firstly, new sciences are completely imbued with these elements and are created “fully armed with them”; secondly, the scientific apparatus of facts and generalizations as a result of scientific work is growing continuously in geometric progression; thirdly, the living, dynamic process of such an existence of science, connecting the past with the present, is spontaneously reflected in the environment of human life, is an ever-growing geological force that transforms the biosphere into the noosphere - the sphere of reason.
From the point of view of the interaction of the subject and object of scientific knowledge, science includes four necessary components in their unity.
Subject of science- a key element of scientific knowledge - an individual researcher or a scientific community, a team, and ultimately - society as a whole. Subjects of science explore various manifestations, properties, aspects and relationships of material and spiritual objects. At the same time, scientific activity requires special training of the cognitive subject, during which he masters historical and contemporary conceptual material, existing means and methods of scientific research.
Science object- the subject area of scientific knowledge, what exactly a given science or scientific discipline studies, everything that the researcher’s thought is directed at.
Science subject in a broad sense, it is a certain limited integrity, isolated from the world of objects in the process of human activity, or a specific object, a thing in the totality of its aspects, properties and relationships.
System of methods and techniques, characteristic of a given science or scientific discipline and determined by the specifics of their subjects.
Language of science- a specific sign system - both natural and artificial language (signs, symbols, mathematical equations, chemical formulas, etc.).
With a different cut of scientific knowledge, the following elements are distinguished in its structure:
O factual material drawn from empirical experience;
About the results of its initial conceptual generalization in categories;
O fact-based problems and scientific assumptions (hypotheses);
About the laws, principles and theories, pictures of the world derived from them;
O philosophical foundations;
O sociocultural, value and ideological foundations;
About the methods, ideals and norms of scientific knowledge;
About the style of thinking and some other elements, for example non-rational ones.
In addition, in the structure of any scientific knowledge there are elements that do not fit into the traditional concept of scientificity: philosophical, religious ideas; psychological stereotypes, interests and needs; intellectual and sensory skills that are not amenable to verbalization and reflection; contradictions and paradoxes; personal preferences and misconceptions. With similar elements in mind, Vernadsky wrote that “there is one fundamental phenomenon that defines scientific thought and distinguishes scientific results and scientific conclusions clearly and simply from the statements of philosophy and religion - this is the universally binding and indisputable nature of correctly made scientific conclusions, scientific statements, concepts and conclusions."
As a developing system of knowledge, science includes two main levels - empirical and theoretical. They correspond to two interrelated, but at the same time specific types of cognitive activity - empirical (experimental) and theoretical (rational) research - two fundamental forms of scientific knowledge, as well as structural components and levels of scientific knowledge. Both of these types of research are organically interconnected and presuppose each other in the holistic structure of scientific knowledge.
Empirical research is aimed directly at the object and is based on observational and experimental data. At this level, sensory knowledge predominates as living contemplation. The rational element and its forms (concepts, judgments, etc.) are present here, but they have a subordinate position. Therefore, at the empirical level, the object under study is reflected primarily from its external connections and manifestations, accessible to living contemplation. In addition to observation and experiment, empirical research uses such tools as description, comparison, measurement, analysis, and induction. The most important element of empirical research and a form of scientific knowledge is fact.
Fact(from Latin factum - done, accomplished): a) synonymous with the concept of “truth”, a real event, a result - as opposed to a fictitious one; b) a special kind of sentences that capture empirical knowledge, i.e. obtained through observations and experiments. A fact becomes scientific when it is included in the logical structure of a specific system of scientific knowledge. As N. Bohr noted, not a single experimental fact can be formulated apart from a certain system of concepts [1, p. 114]. In modern scientific methodology, there are two polar points of view in understanding the nature of a fact - factualism, which emphasizes the autonomy and independence of facts in relation to various theories, and theoreticism, on the contrary, which asserts that facts are completely dependent on theory and when changing theories, the entire factual basis changes Sciences. The correct solution to the problem is to recognize that a scientific fact, having a theoretical load, is relatively independent of theory, since it is fundamentally determined by material reality. In scientific knowledge, a set of facts forms the empirical basis for putting forward hypotheses and creating theories. The task of a scientific theory is to describe facts, explain them, as well as predict previously unknown ones. Facts play a big role in testing, confirming and refuting theories: compliance with facts is one of the essential requirements for scientific theories. The discrepancy between theory and fact is considered as a significant drawback of the theoretical system of knowledge. At the same time, if a theory contradicts one or more individual facts, there is no reason to consider it refuted, since such a contradiction can be eliminated during the development of the theory or improvement of experimental technology.
Theoretical research is associated with the improvement and development of the conceptual apparatus of science and is aimed at a comprehensive knowledge of reality in its essential connections and patterns. This level of scientific knowledge is characterized by the predominance of rational forms of knowledge - concepts, theories, laws and other forms of thinking. Sensory cognition as living contemplation is not eliminated here, but becomes a subordinate (but very important) aspect of the cognitive process. Theoretical knowledge reflects phenomena and processes from their universal internal connections and patterns, comprehended through rational processing of empirical research data.
Considering theoretical research as the highest and most developed form of scientific knowledge, we can distinguish its following structural components - problem, hypothesis, theory.
Problem - a form of theoretical knowledge, the content of which is something that has not yet been known by man. Since a problem is a question that arises during the cognitive process, it is not a frozen form of scientific knowledge, but a process that includes two main points - formulation and solution. The entire course of development of human cognition can be represented as a transition from the formulation of some problems to their solution, and then to the formulation of new problems.
Hypothesis - a form of theoretical knowledge, a structural element of a scientific theory, containing an assumption formulated on the basis of facts, the true meaning of which is uncertain and requires proof. A scientific hypothesis is always put forward to solve a specific problem in order to explain new experimental data or eliminate contradictions in theory and negative experimental results. The role of hypotheses in scientific knowledge has been noted by many outstanding philosophers and scientists. The prominent British philosopher, logician and mathematician A. Whitehead emphasized that systematic thinking cannot progress without using some general working hypotheses with a special field of application: “A sufficiently developed science progresses in two respects. On the one hand, there is a development of knowledge within the framework of the method prescribed by the dominant working hypothesis; on the other hand, the working hypotheses themselves are corrected.” As a form of theoretical knowledge, the hypothesis put forward must meet the mandatory conditions that are necessary for its emergence and justification: comply with the laws established in science; be consistent with the factual material on the basis of which and for the explanation of which it is put forward; not contain contradictions that are prohibited by the laws of formal logic; be simple and allowing the possibility of its confirmation or refutation.
Theory is the most developed and complex form of scientific knowledge. Other forms of scientific knowledge - laws of science, classifications, typologies, primary explanatory schemes - can genetically precede the theory itself, constituting the basis for its formation. At the same time, they often coexist with theory, interacting with it in the system of science, and even enter the theory as its elements. The specificity of the theory in comparison with other forms of scientific knowledge is that it gives a holistic idea of the patterns and essential connections of a certain area of reality - the object of this theory. Examples of scientific theories are Newton's classical mechanics, Darwin's evolutionary theory, and Einstein's theory of relativity. Any scientific theory, according to Einstein, must meet the following criteria: not contradict experimental data; be verifiable using available experimental material; distinguished by naturalness, logical simplicity; contain the most specific provisions; to be distinguished by grace and beauty, harmony; have a wide scope of application; indicate the way to create a new, more general theory, within the framework of which it itself remains a limiting case. In its structure, a theory is an internally differentiated but integral system of knowledge, which is characterized by the logical dependence of some elements on others, the deducibility of the content of the theory from a certain set of statements and concepts - the initial basis of the theory - according to certain logical and methodological rules.
The theoretical and empirical levels of scientific knowledge, for all their differences, are closely related to each other. Empirical research, revealing new observational and experimental data, stimulates the development of theoretical research and poses new tasks for it. Theoretical research, developing and specifying the theoretical content of science, opens up new perspectives for explaining and predicting facts, orients and directs empirical research. Science as an integral dynamic system of knowledge can develop successfully only by being enriched with new empirical data, generalizing them in a system of theoretical means, forms and methods of cognition. At certain points in the development of science, the empirical turns into the theoretical and vice versa. It is unacceptable to absolutize one of these levels to the detriment of the other.
Obtaining and justifying objectively true knowledge in science occurs with the help of scientific methods.
Method(from the Greek metodos - the path of research or knowledge) - a set of rules, techniques and operations for the practical and theoretical development of reality. The main function of a method in scientific knowledge is the internal organization and regulation of the process of cognition of a particular object.
Methodology is defined as a system of methods and as a doctrine about this system, a general theory of method.
The modern system of scientific methods is as diverse as science itself. The content of objects studied by science serves as a criterion for distinguishing between the methods of natural science and the methods of social sciences and humanities. In turn, the methods of natural sciences are divided into methods for studying inanimate nature and methods for studying living nature. There are also qualitative and quantitative methods, unambiguously deterministic and probabilistic, methods of direct and indirect cognition, original and derivative, etc.
The nature of the method is determined by many factors: the subject of research, the degree of generality of the tasks, accumulated experience, the level of development of scientific knowledge, etc. Methods that are suitable for one area of scientific knowledge are unsuitable for achieving goals in other areas. The methods used at the stage of formation of a scientific discipline give way to more complex and advanced methods at the subsequent stage of its development. At the same time, many outstanding achievements were the result of the transfer of methods that had proven themselves in some sciences to other branches of scientific knowledge. For example, in biology, methods of physics, chemistry, and general systems theory are successfully used. The generalized characteristics of methods developed in thermodynamics, chemistry, and biology gave impetus to the emergence of synergetics. Mathematical methods have proven themselves in a wide variety of sciences. Thus, based on the methods used, opposite processes of differentiation and integration of sciences occur.
In the theory of science and methodology of scientific knowledge, various classifications of methods have been developed. Thus, in the typology of scientific methods proposed by V.A. Kanke, the following are highlighted: the inductive method, which regulates the transfer of knowledge from known objects to unknown ones and is closely related to the problems of scientific discoveries; hypothetico-deductive method, which defines the rules of scientific explanation in natural science and is based on determining the correspondence of scientific concepts to the real situation; axiomatic and constructivist methods that define the rules of logical and mathematical reasoning; a pragmatic method used primarily in social and humanitarian knowledge; a method of understanding (interpreting) phenomena, based on establishing a value relationship between the researcher and the world of culture.
There are also methods:
O general - methods that are used in human cognition in general - analysis, synthesis, abstraction, comparison, induction, deduction, analogy, etc.;
O specific ones - those that science uses: scientific observation, experiment, idealization, formalization, axiomatization, ascent from the abstract to the concrete, etc.;
O practical - applied at the objective-sensory level of scientific knowledge - observation, measurement, practical experiment;
O logical - proof, refutation, confirmation, explanation, deduction of consequences, justification, which are the result of generalization of many times repeated actions.
At the same time, observation, measurement, practical experiment belong to empirical methods, as well as the accompanying proof or derivation of consequences. Methods such as idealization, thought experiment, and ascent from the abstract to the concrete are theoretical. There are methods adapted primarily to substantiate knowledge (experiment, proof, explanation, interpretation), others are aimed at discovery (observation, inductive generalization, analogy, thought experiment). In general, methodological provisions and principles constitute the instrumental, technological basis of modern scientific knowledge.
So, scientific knowledge is a relationship between subject and object; has a specific language and includes various levels, forms and methods: empirical research (scientific fact, observation, measurement, experiment); theoretical research (problem, hypothesis, theory).
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL LIST
- 1. Bor N. Atomic physics and human cognition. M., 1961.
- 2. Vernadsky V.I. About science. Scientific knowledge. Scientific creativity. Scientific thought. T. 1. Dubna, 1997.
- 3. Kanke V.L. Basic philosophical directions and concepts of science. M., 2004.
- 4. Kokhanovsky V.P. The structure of scientific knowledge // Fundamentals of the philosophy of science. Rostov n/d, 2003.
- 5. Sachkov Yu.V. The scientific method: issues and development. M., 2003.
- 6. Whitehead A. Selected works on philosophy. M., 1990.
- 7. Einstein A. Physics and reality. M., 1965.
Scientific knowledge – highest level logical thinking. It is aimed at studying the deep aspects of the essence of the world and man, the laws of reality. Expression scientific knowledge is scientific discovery– discovery of previously unknown essential properties, phenomena, laws or patterns.
Scientific knowledge has 2 levels: empirical and theoretical .
1) Empirical level is related to the subject of scientific research and includes 2 components: sensory experience (sensations, perceptions, ideas) and their primary theoretical understanding , primary conceptual processing.
Empirical cognition uses 2 main forms of research - observation and experiment . The main unit of empirical knowledge is knowledge of scientific fact . Observation and experiment are 2 sources of this knowledge.
Observation- this is a purposeful and organized sensory cognition of reality ( passive gathering facts). It may be free, produced only with the help of human senses, and instrumentation, carried out using instruments.
Experiment– study of objects through their purposeful change ( active intervention in objective processes in order to study the behavior of an object as a result of its change).
The source of scientific knowledge is facts. Fact– this is a real event or phenomenon recorded by our consciousness.
2) Theoretical level consists in further processing of empirical material, derivation of new concepts, ideas, concepts.
Scientific knowledge has 3 main forms: problem, hypothesis, theory .
1) Problem- scientific question. A question is an interrogative judgment and arises only at the level of logical cognition. The problem differs from ordinary questions in its subject– it is the question of complex properties, phenomena, laws of reality, for the knowledge of which special scientific means of cognition are needed - a scientific system of concepts, research methods, technical equipment, etc.
The problem has its own structure: preliminary, partial knowledge about the subject And defined by science ignorance , expressing the main direction of cognitive activity. The problem is the contradictory unity of knowledge and knowledge of ignorance.
2) Hypothesis- a hypothetical solution to the problem. Not a single scientific problem can receive an immediate solution; it requires a long search for such a solution, putting forward hypotheses as various solution options. One of the most important properties of a hypothesis is its plurality : each problem of science gives rise to a number of hypotheses, from which the most probable ones are selected until the final choice of one of them or their synthesis is made.
3) Theory– the highest form of scientific knowledge and a system of concepts that describes and explains a separate area of reality. The theory includes its theoretical grounds(principles, postulates, basic ideas), logic, structure, methods and methodology, empirical basis. The important parts of the theory are its descriptive and explanatory parts. Description– characteristic of the corresponding area of reality. Explanation answers the question why is reality the way it is?
Scientific knowledge has research methods– ways of knowing, approaches to reality: most common method developed by philosophy, general scientific methods, specific specific methods Dept.Sc.
1) Human knowledge must take into account the universal properties, forms, laws of reality, the world and man, i.e. must be based on universal method of knowledge. In modern science this is a dialectical-materialistic method.
2) Towards general scientific methods relate: generalization and abstraction, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction .
Generalization– the process of separating the general from the individual. Logical generalization is based on what is obtained at the representation level and further identifies more and more significant features.
Abstraction– the process of abstracting essential features of things and phenomena from non-essential ones. All human concepts therefore act as abstractions that reflect the essential characteristics of things.
Analysis- mental division of a whole into parts.
Synthesis- mental combination of parts into a single whole. Analysis and synthesis are opposite thought processes. However, analysis is the leading one, since it is aimed at detecting differences and contradictions.
Induction– the movement of thought from the individual to the general.
Deduction– movement of thought from the general to the individual.
3) Each science also has with their own specific methods, which follow from its basic theoretical settings.
Over the 2.5 thousand years of its existence, science has turned into a complex, systematically organized education with a clearly visible structure. The main elements of scientific knowledge are:
firmly established facts;
patterns that generalize groups of facts;
theories, as a rule, representing knowledge of a system of patterns that collectively describe a certain fragment of reality;
scientific pictures of the world, drawing generalized images of reality, in which all theories that allow mutual agreement are brought together into a kind of systemic unity.
The foundation of science is established facts. If they are established correctly (confirmed by numerous evidence of observation, experimentation, testing, etc.), then they are considered indisputable and mandatory. This is the empirical, that is, experimental basis of science. The number of facts accumulated by science is constantly increasing. Naturally, they are subject to primary empirical generalization, systematization and classification. The commonality of facts discovered in experience, their uniformity, indicate that a certain empirical law has been found, a general rule to which directly observed phenomena are subject.
Patterns recorded at the empirical level usually explain little. For example, ancient observers discovered that most luminous objects in the night sky move along clear circular trajectories, and some make some kind of loop-like movements. Therefore, there is a general rule for both, but how can it be explained? This is not easy to do if you don’t know that the former are stars, and the latter are planets, including the Earth, whose “wrong” behavior is caused by rotation around the Sun.
In addition, empirical patterns are usually not very heuristic, that is, they do not open up further directions for scientific research. These problems are solved at a different level of knowledge – theoretical.
The problem of distinguishing between two levels of scientific knowledge – theoretical and empirical (experimental) – arises from the specific features of its organization. The essence of the problem lies in the existence of different types of generalization of the material available for study. Science, after all, establishes laws. And a law is an essential, necessary, stable, repeating connection of phenomena, that is, something common, and, more strictly speaking, something universal for one or another fragment of reality.
The general (or universal) in things is established by abstracting, isolating in them those properties, signs, characteristics that are repeated, similar, identical in many things of the same class. The essence of formal logical generalization lies precisely in identifying such “sameness”, invariance. This method of generalization is called abstract-universal. This is due to the fact that the identified general feature can be taken completely arbitrarily, randomly and in no way express the essence of the phenomenon being studied.
For example, the well-known ancient definition of man as a creature “two-legged and without feathers” is, in principle, applicable to any individual and, therefore, is an abstract and general characteristic of him. But does it give anything to understand the essence of man and his history? The definition that says that a person is a creature that produces tools of labor, on the contrary, is formally inapplicable to most people. However, it is precisely this that allows us to construct a certain theoretical structure that, in general, satisfactorily explains the history of the formation and development of man.
Here we are dealing with a fundamentally different type of generalization, which makes it possible to identify the universal in objects not nominally, but in essence. In this case, the universal is understood not as the simple sameness of objects, the repeated repetition of the same attribute in them, but as a natural connection of many objects, which turns them into moments, aspects of a single integrity, system. Within this system, universality, that is, belonging to the system, includes not only sameness, but also differences, and even opposites. The commonality of objects is realized here not in external similarity, but in the unity of genesis, the general principle of their connection and development.
It is this difference in the methods of finding commonality in things, that is, in establishing patterns, that distinguishes the empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge. At the level of sensory-practical experience (empirical), it is possible to record only external general signs of things and phenomena. Their essential internal signs can only be guessed, “grabbed” by chance. Only the theoretical level of knowledge allows them to be explained and substantiated.
In theory, there is a reorganization or restructuring of the obtained empirical material based on certain initial principles. This can be compared to playing with children's blocks with fragments of different pictures. In order for randomly scattered cubes to form into a single picture, a certain general plan, a principle for their addition, is needed. In a children's game, this principle is given in the form of a ready-made stencil picture. But how such initial principles of organizing the construction of scientific knowledge are found in theory is the great secret of scientific creativity.
Science is considered a complex and creative matter because there is no direct transition from empiricism to theory. Theory is not built by direct inductive generalization of experience. This, of course, does not mean that theory is not connected with experience at all. The initial impetus for the creation of any theoretical construction comes precisely frompractical experience. And the truth of the theoretical conclusions is again verified by thempractical applications. However, the process of constructing a theory and its further development are carried out relatively independently of practice.
So, the problem of the difference between the theoretical and empirical levels of scientific knowledge is rooted in the difference in the ways of ideally reproducing objective reality, in the approaches to building systemic knowledge. This leads to other, derivative differences between these levels. Empirical knowledge, in particular, has historically and logically been assigned the function of collecting, accumulating and primary rational processing of experience data. Its main task is to record facts. Explanation and interpretation of them is a matter of theory.
The levels of cognition under consideration also differ according to the objects of study. At the empirical level, the scientist deals directly with natural and social objects. The theory operates exclusively with idealized objects (material point, ideal gas, absolutely solid body, etc.). All this leads to a significant difference in the research methods used. For the empirical level, methods such as observation, description, measurement, experiment, etc. are common. The theory prefers to use the axiomatic method, systemic, structural-functional analysis, mathematical modeling, etc.
There are, of course, methods used at all levels of scientific knowledge: abstraction, generalization, analogy, analysis and synthesis, etc. But still, the difference in the methods used at the theoretical and empirical levels is not accidental. Moreover, it was precisely the problem of method that was the starting point in the process of understanding the features of theoretical knowledge. In the 17th century, in the era of the birth of classical natural science, F. Bacon And R. Descartes formulated two differently directed methodological programs for the development of science: empirical (inductionist) and rationalistic (deductionist).
The logic of the opposition between empiricism and rationalism regarding the leading method of obtaining new knowledge is, in general, simple.
Empiricism. Real and at least somewhat practical knowledge about the world can only be obtained from experience, that is, on the basis of observations and experiments. And any observation or experiment is isolated. Therefore, the only possible way to understand nature is to move from particular cases to ever broader generalizations, or induction. Another way of finding the laws of nature, when they first build general foundations, and then adapt to them and use them to verify particular conclusions, is, according to F. Bacon, “the mother of errors and the disaster of all sciences.”
Rationalism. Until now, the most reliable and successful sciences have been mathematical sciences. And they became such because, as R. Descartes once noted, they use the most effective and reliable methods of knowledge: intellectual intuition and deduction. Intuition allows us to see in reality such simple and self-evident truths that it is impossible to doubt them. Deduction ensures the derivation of more complex knowledge from these simple truths. And if it is carried out according to strict rules, it will always lead only to truth, and never to error. Inductive reasoning, of course, can also be good, but, according to Descartes, they cannot in any way lead to universal judgments in which laws are expressed.
These methodological programs are now considered outdated and inadequate. Empiricism is insufficient because induction will never actually lead to universal judgments, since in most situations it is fundamentally impossible to cover all the infinite number of particular cases on the basis of which general conclusions are drawn. No major modern theory has been constructed by direct inductive generalization. Rationalism turned out to be exhausted, since science took up such areas of reality (in the micro- and mega-world) in which the required “self-evidence” of simple truths is impossible. And the role of experimental methods of cognition turned out to be underestimated here.
Nevertheless, these methodological programs played an important historical role. First, they stimulated a huge amount of specific scientific research. And secondly, they “struck a spark” of some understanding of the structure of scientific knowledge. It turned out that it was sort of two-story. And although the “upper floor” occupied by theory seems to be built on top of the “lower” (empirics) and without the latter should crumble, for some reason there is no direct and convenient staircase between them. You can get from the “lower floor” to the “upper” only by “leap” in the literal and figurative sense. At the same time, no matter how important the base, the basis (the lower empirical floor of our knowledge) is, the decisions that determine the fate of the building are still made at the top, in the domain of theory. Nowadays standard model of the structure of scientific knowledge looks different (see Fig. 2).
Knowledge begins with the establishment of various facts. Facts are based on direct or indirect observations made using sense organs or instruments such as light or radio telescopes, light and electron microscopes, and oscilloscopes, which act as amplifiers for our senses. All facts related to a particular problem are called data. Observations can be qualitative (that is, describe color, shape, taste, appearance, etc.) or quantitative. Quantitative observations are more accurate. They include measurements of magnitude or quantity, the visual expression of which can be qualitative characteristics.
As a result of observations, the so-called “raw material” is obtained, on the basis of which a hypothesis is formulated (Fig. 2). Hypothesis is an observational hypothesis that can be used to provide a convincing explanation for observed phenomena. Einstein emphasized that a hypothesis has two functions:
it must explain all observed phenomena related to a given problem;
it should lead to the prediction of new knowledge. New observations (facts, data) confirming the hypothesis will help strengthen it, while observations that contradict the hypothesis should lead to its change or even rejection.
To evaluate the validity of a hypothesis, it is necessary to design a series of experiments to obtain new results that confirm or contradict the hypothesis. Most hypotheses discuss a number of factors that could influence the results of scientific observations; these factors are called variables . Hypotheses can be tested objectively in a series of experiments in which hypothesized variables that influence the results of scientific observations are eliminated one by one. This series of experiments is called control . This ensures that the influence of only one variable is tested in each specific case.
The best hypothesis becomes working hypothesis , and if it is able to withstand attempts to refute it and still successfully predicts previously unexplained facts and relationships, then it can become theory .
The general direction of scientific research is to achieve higher levels of predictability (probability). If a theory cannot be changed by any facts, and the deviations encountered from it are regular and predictable, then it can be elevated to the rank of law .
As the body of knowledge increases and research methods improve, hypotheses, even well-established theories, can be challenged, modified, and even rejected. Scientific knowledge is by its nature dynamic and emerges through controversy, and the validity of scientific methods is constantly questioned.
To check the “scientific” or “unscientific” nature of the acquired knowledge, several principles were formulated by different directions of scientific methodology.
One of them was named verification principle : any concept or judgment has meaning if it is reducible to direct experience or statements about it, that is empirically verifiable. If it is not possible to find something empirically fixed for such a judgment, then it is considered that it either represents a tautology or is meaningless. Since the concepts of a developed theory, as a rule, are not reducible to experimental data, a relaxation has been made for them: indirect verification is also possible. For example, it is impossible to indicate an experimental analogue to the concept of “quark” (hypothetical particle). But the quark theory predicts a number of phenomena that can already be recorded experimentally, and thereby indirectly verify the theory itself.
The principle of verification makes it possible, to a first approximation, to distinguish scientific knowledge from clearly extra-scientific knowledge. However, it will not help where the system of ideas is tailored in such a way that absolutely all possible empirical facts can be interpreted in its favor - ideology, religion, astrology, etc. In such cases, it is useful to resort to another principle of distinguishing science and non-science, proposed by the largest philosopher of the 20th century K. Popper, – principle of falsification . It states: the criterion for the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or falsifiability. In other words, only that knowledge can claim the title of “scientific”, which is in principle refutable.
Despite its seemingly paradoxical form (or perhaps because of it), this principle has a simple and deep meaning. K. Popper drew attention to the significant asymmetry in the procedures of confirmation and refutation in cognition. No number of falling apples is sufficient to definitively confirm the truth of the law of universal gravitation. However, it only takes one apple to fly away from the Earth for this law to be recognized as false. Therefore, it is attempts to falsify, that is, refute a theory, that should be most effective in terms of confirming its truth and scientific character.
It can, however, be noted that the consistently applied principle of falsification makes any knowledge hypothetical, that is, it deprives it of completeness, absoluteness, and immutability. But this is probably not a bad thing: it is the constant threat of falsification that keeps science “on its toes” and does not allow it to stagnate and “rest on its laurels.” Criticism is the most important source of the growth of science and an integral feature of its image.
It can be noted that scientists working in science consider the issue of distinguishing between science and non-science not too difficult. They intuitively sense the genuine and pseudoscientific nature of knowledge, since they are guided by certain norms and ideals of scientificity, certain standards of research work. These ideals and norms of science express ideas about the goals of scientific activity and ways to achieve them. Although they are historically changeable, a certain invariant of such norms remains in all eras, due to the unity of the style of thinking formed back in Ancient Greece - this rational thinking style , based essentially on two fundamental ideas:
natural orderliness, that is, the recognition of the existence of universal, natural and accessible to reason causal relationships;
formal proof as the main means of validating knowledge.
Within the framework of the rational style of thinking, scientific knowledge is characterized by the following methodological criteria:
1) universality, that is, the exclusion of any specifics - place, time, subject, etc.;
2) consistency, or consistency, ensured by the deductive method of deploying a knowledge system;
3) simplicity; A good theory is one that explains the widest possible range of phenomena, based on a minimum number of scientific principles;
4) explanatory potential;
5) presence of predictive power.
These general criteria, or scientific norms, are constantly included in the standard of scientific knowledge. More specific norms that determine the patterns of research activity depend on the subject areas of science and on the socio-cultural context of the birth of a particular theory.
Scientific cognition and knowledge is an integral developing system that has a rather complex structure.
According to the subject and method of cognition, one can distinguish the sciences of nature (natural science), society (social studies, social sciences), the spirit (humanities), knowledge and thinking (logic, psychology, etc.). A separate group consists of technical sciences. Mathematics has a special place. In turn, each group of sciences can be subjected to further fragmentation. Thus, the natural sciences include mechanics, physics, chemistry, biology and other sciences, each of which is divided into disciplines - physical chemistry, biophysics, etc. A number of disciplines occupy an intermediate position (for example, economic statistics).
The problematic nature of the orientation of post-non-classical science gave rise to interdisciplinary research conducted through several scientific disciplines. For example, conservation research is at the crossroads of engineering, biological sciences, medical sciences, geosciences, economics, etc.
In direct relation to practice, they distinguish fundamental and applied Sciences. The task of fundamental sciences is to understand the laws governing the behavior and interaction of the basic structures of nature, society, and thinking. These laws are studied without regard to their possible use. The goal of applied sciences is to apply the results of fundamental sciences to solve social and practical problems.
In modern epistemology, there are three levels of scientific knowledge: empirical, theoretical and metatheoretical.
Grounds for distinguishing empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge.
1. In terms of epistemological orientation, these levels differ in that at the empirical level, knowledge is focused on the study of phenomena and superficial connections between them, without delving into the essence of the processes. At the theoretical level of knowledge, the causes and essential connections between phenomena are identified.
2. The main cognitive task of the empirical level of knowledge is description phenomena, and at the theoretical level - explanation the phenomena being studied.
3. The differences between levels of cognition are most clearly manifested in the nature of the results obtained. The main form of knowledge at the empirical level is scientific fact And set of empirical generalizations. At the theoretical level, the acquired knowledge is fixed in the form of laws, principles and scientific theories, which reveal the essence of the phenomena being studied.
4. The methods used to obtain these types of knowledge also differ accordingly. The main methods of the empirical level are observation, experiment, inductive generalization. At the theoretical level, techniques and methods such as analysis and synthesis, idealization, induction and deduction, analogy, hypothesis, etc. are widely used.
Despite the differences, there is no hard boundary between the empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge. Empirical research often gets to the essence of the processes being studied, and theoretical research seeks to confirm the correctness of its results with the help of empirical data. Experiment, being the main method of empirical knowledge, is always theoretically loaded, and any abstract theory must have an empirical interpretation.
The complex scientific-cognitive process is not limited to only the empirical and theoretical levels. It is advisable to highlight a special - metatheoretical level, or foundations of science which represent ideals and norms of scientific research, a picture of the reality under study and philosophical foundations. Ideals and norms of scientific research (INNI) are a set of certain conceptual, value, and methodological attitudes characteristic of science at each specific historical stage of its development. Their main function is the organization and regulation of scientific research, orientation towards more effective ways and means of achieving true results. INNI can be divided into:
a) common to any scientific research; they separate science from other forms of knowledge (ordinary knowledge, magic, astrology, theology);
b) characteristic of a particular stage of development of science. When science moves to a new stage of its development (for example, from classical to non-classical science), the INNIs change radically;
c) ideals and norms of a special subject area (for example, biology cannot do without the idea of development, while physics does not explicitly resort to such attitudes and postulates the immutability of the laws of nature).
The picture of the reality under study (PIR) is a representation of the fundamental objects from which all other objects studied by the corresponding science are assumed to be constructed. The components of CIR include spatiotemporal representations and general patterns of interaction between objects (for example, causality). These views can be described in the system ontological postulates. For example, “the world consists of indivisible atoms, their interaction is carried out as an instantaneous transfer of forces in a straight line; atoms and bodies formed from them move in absolute space and over the course of absolute time.” Such an ontological system of the world and reality developed in the 17th – 18th centuries. and was called the mechanistic picture of the world. The transition from a mechanistic to an electrodynamic (last quarter of the 19th century), and then to a quantum mechanical picture of the reality under study was accompanied by a change in the system of ontological postulates. Breaking the KIR is scientific revolution.
The inclusion of scientific knowledge in culture presupposes its philosophical justification. It is carried out through philosophical ideas and principles that justify INNI and KIR. For example, M. Faraday substantiated the material status of electric and magnetic fields by reference to the fundamental unity of matter and force. Fundamental science deals with extraordinary objects that have not been mastered either by production or by ordinary consciousness, therefore it is necessary to connect these objects with the dominant worldview and culture. This problem is solved with the help of the philosophical foundations of science (FON). Philosophical foundations do not coincide with the entire body of philosophical knowledge, which is much broader and is a reflection not only on science, but on the entire culture. Only part of philosophical knowledge can act as a BACKGROUND. The acceptance and development of many scientific ideas was preceded by their philosophical development. For example, the ideas of atomism, self-regulating systems of Leibniz, self-developing systems of Hegel have found their application in modern science, although they were put forward much earlier in the field of philosophical knowledge.