Scientific and extra-scientific knowledge. Scientific criteria.
A distinctive feature of scientific knowledge in comparison with other, extra-scientific knowledge is its theoretical nature and direct connection with experience, through which it is tested for truth or falsity. The goal of science is related to obtaining new, reliable knowledge about reality that describes, explains or predicts its processes and phenomena.
Along with scientific knowledge, there is also non-scientific knowledge. These include, for example, everyday knowledge necessary in the everyday world and related to the satisfaction of human natural needs for food, warmth, rest, etc. Aesthetic knowledge differs from scientific knowledge in the lack of argumentation and evidence. Religious, mystical, esoteric knowledge is also not scientific, since it does not have unambiguous empirical confirmation. There is also pseudoscientific knowledge, which includes: alchemy, astrology, spiritualism, ufology, extrasensory perception, etc.
Quite specific is the interaction of scientific and philosophical knowledge, which for a number of reasons are unscientific. Thus, philosophical knowledge is abstract and theoretical; it is not confirmed by experience. The transformation of philosophical knowledge into scientific knowledge was defended by positivists who ignored their ideological functions. The methodological role of philosophy determines its connection with the theoretical problems of the sciences.
Scientific criteria allow us to separate scientific knowledge from non-scientific knowledge. These include: systematicity, theoretical completeness, logical correctness, confirmation by experience, and the use of scientific methods.
Scientific knowledge - This is a type and level of knowledge aimed at producing true knowledge about reality, the discovery of objective laws based on a generalization of real facts. It rises above ordinary cognition, that is, spontaneous cognition associated with the life activity of people and perceiving reality at the level of phenomenon.
Levels of scientific knowledge:
The empirical level of cognition is a direct experimental, mainly inductive, study of an object. It includes obtaining the necessary initial facts - data about individual aspects and connections of the object, understanding and describing the data obtained in the language of science, and their primary systematization. Cognition at this stage still remains at the level of phenomenon, but the prerequisites for penetrating the essence of the object have already been created.
The theoretical level is characterized by deep penetration into the essence of the object being studied, not only identifying, but also explaining the patterns of its development and functioning, constructing a theoretical model of the object and its in-depth analysis.
Forms of scientific knowledge:
scientific fact, scientific problem, scientific hypothesis, proof, scientific theory, paradigm, unified scientific picture of the world.
A scientific fact is the initial form of scientific knowledge, in which primary knowledge about an object is recorded; it is a reflection in the consciousness of the subject of a fact of reality. In this case, a scientific fact is only one that can be verified and described in scientific terms.
A scientific problem is a contradiction between new facts and existing theoretical knowledge. A scientific problem can also be defined as a kind of knowledge about ignorance, since it arises when the cognizing subject realizes the incompleteness of a particular knowledge about an object and sets the goal of eliminating this gap. The problem includes the problematic issue, the project for solving the problem and its content.
A scientific hypothesis is a scientifically based assumption that explains certain parameters of the object being studied and does not contradict known scientific facts. It must satisfactorily explain the object being studied, be verifiable in principle, and answer the questions posed by the scientific problem.
In addition, the main content of the hypothesis should not contradict the laws established in a given system of knowledge. The assumptions that make up the content of the hypothesis must be sufficient so that with their help it is possible to explain all the facts about which the hypothesis is put forward. The assumptions of the hypothesis should not be logically contradictory.
The development of new hypotheses in science is associated with the need for a new vision of the problem and the emergence of problematic situations.
Proof is confirmation of a hypothesis.
Types of evidence:
Practice serving as direct confirmation
Indirect theoretical proof, including confirmation by arguments indicating facts and laws (inductive path), derivation of a hypothesis from other, more general and already proven provisions (deductive path), comparison, analogy, modeling, etc.
The proven hypothesis serves as the basis for constructing a scientific theory.
A scientific theory is a form of reliable scientific knowledge about a certain set of objects, which is a system of interrelated statements and evidence and contains methods for explaining, transforming and predicting phenomena in a given object area. In theory, in the form of principles and laws, knowledge about the essential connections that determine the emergence and existence of certain objects is expressed. The main cognitive functions of the theory are: synthesizing, explanatory, methodological, predictive and practical.
All theories develop within certain paradigms.
A paradigm is a special way of organizing knowledge and seeing the world, influencing the direction of further research. Paradigm
can be compared to an optical device through which we look at a particular phenomenon.
Many theories are constantly synthesized into a single scientific picture of the world, that is, an integral system of ideas about the general principles and laws of the structure of existence.
Methods of scientific knowledge:
Method (from the Greek Metodos - the path to something) is a method of activity in any form.
The method includes techniques that ensure the achievement of goals, regulate human activity and the general principles from which these techniques arise. Methods of cognitive activity form the direction of cognition at a particular stage, the order of cognitive procedures. In their content, the methods are objective, since they are ultimately determined by the nature of the object and the laws of its functioning.
The scientific method is a set of rules, techniques and principles that ensure natural knowledge of an object and obtain reliable knowledge.
Classification of methods of scientific knowledge can be carried out on various grounds:
First reason. According to the nature and role in cognition, methods are distinguished - techniques, which consist of specific rules, techniques and algorithms of action (observation, experiment, etc.) and methods - approaches, which indicate the direction and general method of research (system analysis, functional analysis, diachronic method, etc.).
Second reason. By functional purpose they are distinguished:
a) universal human methods of thinking (analysis, synthesis, comparison, generalization, induction, deduction, etc.);
b) empirical methods (observation, experiment, survey, measurement);
c) theoretical level methods (modelling, thought experiment, analogy, mathematical methods, philosophical methods, induction and deduction).
The third basis is the degree of generality. Here the methods are divided into:
a) philosophical methods (dialectical, formal - logical, intuitive, phenomenological, hermeneutic);
b) general scientific methods, that is, methods that guide the course of knowledge in many sciences, but unlike philosophical methods, each general scientific method (observation, experiment, analysis, synthesis, modeling, etc.) solves its own problem, characteristic only for it ;
c) special methods.
Some methods of scientific knowledge:
Observation is a purposeful, organized perception of objects and phenomena to collect facts.
An experiment is an artificial recreation of a cognizable object under controlled and controlled conditions.
Formalization is the display of acquired knowledge in an unambiguous formalized language.
The axiomatic method is a way of constructing a scientific theory when it is based on certain axioms, from which all other provisions are logically deduced.
The hypothetico-deductive method is the creation of a system of deductively interconnected hypotheses, from which explanations of scientific facts are ultimately derived.
Inductive methods for establishing the causal relationship of phenomena:
Method of similarity: if two or more cases of the phenomenon being studied have only one previous common circumstance, then this circumstance in which they are similar to each other is probably the cause of the phenomenon being sought;
Method of distinction: if the case in which the phenomenon of interest to us occurs and the case in which it does not occur are similar in everything, with the exception of one circumstance, then this is the only circumstance in which they differ from each other, and is probably the reason for the desired phenomena;
Method of accompanying changes: if the occurrence or change of a previous phenomenon each time causes the occurrence or change of another phenomenon accompanying it, then the first of them is probably the cause of the second;
Residual method: if it is established that the cause of part of a complex phenomenon is not known previous circumstances, except for one of them, then we can assume that this only circumstance is the cause of the part of the phenomenon under study that interests us.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
Topic: Methods and forms of scientific knowledge
1. The structure of scientific knowledge, its methods and forms
3. Science and technology
1. The structure of scientific knowledge, its methods and forms
Scientific knowledge is the process of producing new knowledge. In modern society, it is associated with the most developed form of rational activity, distinguished by its systematicity and consistency. Each science has its own object and subject of research, its own methods and its own system of knowledge. The object is understood as the sphere of reality with which a given science deals, and the subject of research is that special side of the object that is studied in this particular science.
Human thinking is a complex cognitive process that includes the use of many interrelated groups - methods and forms of cognition.
Their difference acts as a difference between the way of moving towards solving cognitive problems and the way of organizing the results of such movement. Thus, the methods, as it were, form the path of research, its direction, and the forms of knowledge, recording what is learned at various stages of this path, make it possible to judge the effectiveness of the adopted direction.
A method (from the Greek methods - the path to something) is a way to achieve a certain goal, a set of techniques or operations for the practical or theoretical development of reality.
Aspects of the method of scientific knowledge: subject-substantive, operational, axiological.
The substantive content of the method lies in the fact that it reflects knowledge about the subject of research; the method is based on knowledge, in particular, on theory, which mediates the relationship between method and object. The substantive content of the method indicates that it has an objective basis. The method is meaningful and objective.
The operational aspect indicates the dependence of the method not so much on the object, but on the subject. Here, he is significantly influenced by the level of scientific training of the specialist, his ability to translate ideas about objective laws into cognitive techniques, his experience in using certain techniques in cognition, and the ability to improve them. The method in this regard is subjective.
The axiological aspect of the method is expressed in the degree of its reliability, economy, and efficiency. When a scientist is sometimes faced with the question of choosing one of two or more methods that are similar in nature, considerations related to greater clarity, general intelligibility, or effectiveness of the method may play a decisive role in the choice.
Methods of scientific knowledge can be divided into three groups: special, general scientific and general (universal).
Special methods are applicable only within the framework of certain sciences. The objective basis of such methods are the corresponding special scientific laws and theories. These methods include, for example, various methods of qualitative analysis in chemistry, the method of spectral analysis in physics and chemistry, the Monte Carlo method, the method of statistical modeling in the study of complex systems, etc.
General scientific methods characterize the course of knowledge in all sciences.
Their objective basis is the general methodological laws of cognition, which include epistemological principles. These include: methods of experiment and observation, modeling, formalization, comparison, measurement, analogy, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, ascent from the abstract to the concrete, logical and historical. Some of them (for example, observation, experiment, modeling, mathematization, formalization, measurement) are used primarily in natural science. Others are used in all scientific knowledge.
General (universal) methods characterize human thinking as a whole and are applicable in all spheres of human cognitive activity (taking into account their specificity). Their objective basis is the general philosophical laws of understanding the world around us, man himself, his thinking and the process of cognition and transformation of the world by man. These methods include philosophical methods and principles of thinking, including the principle of dialectical inconsistency, the principle of historicism, etc.
Let us consider in more detail the most important methods of scientific knowledge.
Comparison and comparative-historical method.
Ancient thinkers argued: comparison is the mother of knowledge. The people aptly expressed this in the proverb: “If you don’t know grief, you won’t know joy.” Everything is relative. For example, to find out the weight of a body, it is necessary to compare it with the weight of another body taken as a standard, i.e. for a sample measure. This is done by weighing.
Comparison is the establishment of differences and similarities between objects.
Being a necessary method of cognition, comparison only plays an important role in human practical activity and in scientific research when things that are truly homogeneous or similar in essence are compared. There is no point in comparing pounds with arshins.
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.
The comparative historical method allows us to identify the genetic relationship of certain animals, languages, peoples, religious beliefs, artistic methods, patterns of development of social formations, etc.
The process of cognition is carried out in such a way that we first observe the general picture of the subject being studied, and the particulars remain in the shadows. To know the internal structure and essence, we must dismember it.
Analysis is the mental decomposition of an object into its constituent parts or sides.
It is only one of the moments in the process of cognition. It is impossible to know the essence of an object only by breaking it down into the elements of which it consists.
Each area of knowledge has, as it were, its own limit of division of an object, beyond which we move into another world of properties and patterns. When the particulars have been sufficiently studied through analysis, the next stage of cognition begins - synthesis.
Synthesis is the mental unification into a single whole of elements dissected by analysis.
Analysis mainly captures that specific thing that distinguishes the parts from each other, while synthesis reveals that essentially common thing that connects the parts into a single whole.
A person mentally decomposes an object into its component parts in order to first discover these parts themselves, find out what the whole consists of, and then consider it as consisting of these parts, which have already been examined separately. Analysis and synthesis are in unity; in every movement our thinking is as analytical as it is synthetic. Analysis, which involves the implementation of synthesis, has as its central core the selection of the essential.
Analysis and synthesis originate in practical activities. Constantly dividing various objects into their component parts in his practical activities, man gradually learned to separate objects mentally. Practical activity consisted not only of dismembering objects, but also of reuniting parts into a single whole. On this basis a mental synthesis arose.
Analysis and synthesis are the main methods of thinking, which have their objective basis both in practice and in the logic of things: the processes of connection and separation, creation and destruction form the basis of all processes in the world.
Abstraction, idealization, generalization and limitation.
Abstraction is the mental isolation of an object in abstraction from its connections with other objects, some property of an object in abstraction from its other properties, some relationship of objects in abstraction from the objects themselves.
The question of what in objective reality is highlighted by the abstracting work of thinking and what thinking is distracted from is solved in each specific case in direct dependence, first of all, on the nature of the object being studied and the tasks that are posed to the research. For example, I. Kepler did not care about the color of Mars and the temperature of the Sun to establish the laws of planetary rotation.
Abstraction is the movement of thought into the depths of a subject, highlighting its essential points. For example, in order for a given specific property of an object to be considered as chemical, a distraction, an abstraction, is necessary. In fact, the chemical properties of a substance do not include changes in its shape; Therefore, the chemist studies copper, abstracting from the specific forms of its existence.
As a result of the abstraction process, various concepts about objects appear: “plant”, “animal”, “person”, etc., thoughts about the individual properties of objects and the relationships between them, considered as special “abstract objects”: “whiteness”, “volume”, “length”, “heat capacity”, etc.
Direct impressions of things are transformed into abstract ideas and concepts in complex ways that involve coarsening and ignoring some aspects of reality. This is the one-sidedness of abstractions. But in the living tissue of logical thinking, they make it possible to reproduce a much deeper and more accurate picture of the world than can be done with the help of holistic perceptions.
An important example of scientific knowledge of the world is idealization as a specific type of abstraction. Idealization is the mental formation of abstract objects as a result of abstraction from the fundamental impossibility of realizing them practically. Abstract objects do not exist and are not realizable in reality, but there are prototypes for them in the real world. Idealization is the process of forming concepts, the real prototypes of which can only be indicated with varying degrees of approximation. Examples of concepts that are the result of idealization may be: “point” (an object that has neither length, nor height, nor width); “straight line”, “circle”, “point electric charge”, “absolute black body”, etc.
The task of all knowledge is generalization. Generalization is the process of mental transition from the individual to the general, from the less general to the more general. In the process of generalization, a transition occurs from individual concepts to general ones, from less general concepts to more general ones, from individual judgments to general ones, from judgments of lesser generality to judgments of greater generality, from a less general theory to a more general theory, in relation to which the less general theory is its special case. It is impossible to cope with the abundance of impressions that flood into us hourly, every minute, every second, if they were not continuously united, generalized and recorded by means of language. Scientific generalization is not just the selection and synthesis of similar features, but penetration into the essence of a thing: the discernment of the unified in the diverse, the general in the individual, the natural in the random.
Examples of generalization are the following: mental transition from the concept of “triangle” to the concept of “polygon”, from the concept of “mechanical form of motion of matter” to the concept of “form of motion of matter”, etc.
The mental transition from the more general to the less general is a process of limitation. Without generalization there is no theory. Theory is created in order to apply it in practice to solve specific problems.
For example, to measure objects and create technical structures, a transition from the more general to the less general and individual is always necessary, i.e. a process of limitation is always necessary.
Abstract and concrete.
The concrete as a directly given, sensorily perceived whole is the starting point of knowledge. Thought identifies certain properties and connections, for example, shape, number of objects. In this distraction, visual perception and representation “evaporates” to the level of abstraction, poor in content, since it one-sidedly and incompletely reflects the object.
From individual abstractions, thought constantly returns to the restoration of concreteness, but on a new, higher basis. The concrete now appears before human thought not as directly given to the senses, but as knowledge of the essential properties and connections of an object, the natural tendencies of its development, and its inherent internal contradictions. This is the concreteness of concepts, categories, theories, reflecting unity in diversity, the general in the individual. Thus, thought moves from an abstract, content-poor concept to a concrete, content-rich concept.
Analogy.
In the very nature of the understanding of facts lies an analogy, connecting the threads of the unknown with the known. The new can be comprehended and understood only through the images and concepts of the old, known.
Analogy is a plausible probable conclusion about the similarity of two objects in some characteristic based on their established similarity in other characteristics.
Despite the fact that analogies allow us to draw only probable conclusions, they play a huge role in cognition, as they lead to the formation of hypotheses, i.e. scientific guesses and assumptions, which with additional research and evidence can turn into scientific theories. An analogy with what is already known helps to understand what is unknown. An analogy with what is relatively simple helps to understand what is more complex. For example, by analogy with the artificial selection of the best breeds of domestic animals, Charles Darwin discovered the law of natural selection in the animal and plant world. The most developed area where analogy is often used as a method is the so-called similarity theory, which is widely used in modeling.
Modeling.
One of the characteristic features of modern scientific knowledge is the increasing role of the modeling method.
Modeling is a practical or theoretical operation of an object, in which the subject being studied is replaced by some natural or artificial analogue, through the study of which we penetrate into the subject of knowledge.
Modeling is based on similarity, analogy, common properties of various objects, and on the relative independence of the norm. For example, the interaction of electrostatic charges (Coulomb's law) and the interaction of gravitational masses (Newton's law of universal gravitation) are described by expressions that are identical in their mathematical structure, differing only in the coefficient of proportionality (the Coulomb interaction constant and the gravitational constant). These formally common, identical features and relationships of two or more objects, while they differ in other respects and characteristics, are reflected in the concept of similarity, or analogy, of the phenomena of reality.
Model is an imitation of one or a number of properties of an object with the help of some other objects and phenomena. Therefore, a model can be any object that reproduces the required features of the original. If the model and the original are of the same physical nature, then we are dealing with physical modeling. When a phenomenon is described by the same system of equations as the object being modeled, then such modeling is called mathematical. If some aspects of the modeled object are presented in the form of a formal system using signs, which is then studied in order to transfer the obtained information to the modeled object itself, then we are dealing with logical-sign modeling.
Modeling is always and inevitably associated with some simplification of the modeled object. At the same time, it plays a huge heuristic role, being a prerequisite for a new theory.
Formalization.
A method such as formalization is of significant importance in cognitive activity.
Formalization is a generalization of forms of processes of different content, abstraction of these forms from their content. Any formalization is inevitably associated with some coarsening of the real object.
Formalization is associated not only with mathematics, mathematical logic and cybernetics, it permeates all forms of practical and theoretical human activity, differing only in levels. Historically, it arose along with the emergence of labor, thinking and language.
Certain methods of labor activity, skills, and methods of carrying out labor operations were identified, generalized, recorded, and passed on from older to younger in abstraction from specific actions, objects, and means of labor. The extreme pole of formalization is mathematics and mathematical logic, which studies the form of reasoning, abstracting from the content.
The process of formalizing reasoning is that, 1) there is a distraction from the qualitative characteristics of objects; 2) the logical form of judgments in which statements regarding these objects are recorded is revealed; 3) the reasoning itself is transferred from the plane of considering the connection of the objects of reasoning in thought to the plane of actions with judgments on the basis of formal relations between them. The use of special symbols allows you to eliminate the ambiguity of words in ordinary language. In formalized reasoning, each symbol is strictly unambiguous. Formalization methods are absolutely necessary in the development of such scientific and technical problems and areas as computer translation, problems of information theory, the creation of various kinds of automatic devices for controlling production processes, etc.
Historical and logical.
It is necessary to distinguish between objective logic, the history of the development of an object and methods of cognition of this object - logical and historical.
Objective-logical is a general line, a pattern of development of an object, for example, the development of society from one social formation to another.
The objective-historical is a specific manifestation of a given pattern in all the infinite variety of its special and individual manifestations. In relation, for example, to society, this is the real history of all countries and peoples with all their unique individual destinies.
From these two sides of the objective process follow two methods of cognition - historical and logical.
Any phenomenon can be correctly known only in its emergence, development and death, i.e. in its historical development. To know an object means to reflect the history of its origin and development. It is impossible to understand the result without understanding the path of development that led to this result. History often moves in leaps and zigzags, and if you followed it everywhere, you would not only have to take into account a lot of material of lesser importance, but also often interrupt your train of thought. Therefore, a logical method of research is necessary.
The logical is a generalized reflection of the historical, reflects reality in its natural development, and explains the need for this development. The logical as a whole coincides with the historical: it is historical, cleared of accidents and taken in its essential laws.
By logical they often mean a method of knowing a certain state of an object over a certain period of time in abstraction from its development. This depends on the nature of the object and the objectives of the study. For example, to discover the laws of planetary motion, I. Kepler did not need to study their history.
Induction and deduction.
As research methods, induction and deduction are distinguished.
Induction is the process of deducing a general proposition from a number of particular (less general) statements, from individual facts.
There are usually two main types of induction: complete and incomplete. Complete induction is the conclusion of any general judgment about all objects of a certain set (class) based on consideration of each element of this set.
In practice, forms of induction are most often used, which involve a conclusion about all objects of a class based on knowledge of only part of the objects of a given class. Such conclusions are called conclusions of incomplete induction. They are the closer to reality, the deeper, more significant connections that are revealed. Incomplete induction, based on experimental research and involving theoretical thinking, is capable of producing a reliable conclusion. It is called scientific induction. Great discoveries and leaps of scientific thought are ultimately created by induction - a risky but important creative method.
Deduction is a reasoning process that goes from the general to the particular, less general. In the special sense of the word, the term “deduction” denotes the process of logical inference according to the rules of logic. Unlike induction, deductive inferences provide reliable knowledge provided that such a meaning was contained in the premises. In scientific research, inductive and deductive thinking techniques are organically connected. Induction leads human thought to hypotheses about the causes and general patterns of phenomena; deduction allows one to derive empirically verifiable consequences from general hypotheses and in this way experimentally substantiate or refute them.
An experiment is a scientifically conducted experiment, a purposeful study of a phenomenon caused by us under precisely taken into account conditions, when it is possible to monitor the progress of changes in the phenomenon, actively influence it using a whole complex of various instruments and means, and recreate these phenomena every time the same conditions are present and when there is a need for it.
In the structure of the experiment, the following elements can be distinguished: a) any experiment is based on a certain theoretical concept that sets the program of experimental research, as well as the conditions for studying the object, the principle of creating various devices for experimentation, methods of recording, comparison, and representative classification of the obtained material; b) an integral element of the experiment is the object of research, which can be various objective phenomena; c) a mandatory element of experiments are technical means and various types of devices with the help of which experiments are carried out.
Depending on the sphere in which the object of knowledge is located, experiments are divided into natural science, social, etc. Natural science and social experiments are carried out in logically similar forms. The beginning of the experiment in both cases is the preparation of the state of the object necessary for the study. Next comes the experiment stage. This is followed by registration, description of data, compilation of tables, graphs, and processing of experiment results.
The division of methods into general, general scientific and special methods generally reflects the structure of scientific knowledge that has developed to date, in which, along with philosophical and particular scientific knowledge, there is a vast layer of theoretical knowledge that is as close as possible to philosophy in terms of its degree of generality. In this sense, this classification of methods to a certain extent meets the tasks associated with considering the dialectics of philosophical and general scientific knowledge.
The listed general scientific methods can simultaneously be used at different levels of knowledge - empirical and theoretical.
The decisive criterion for distinguishing methods into empirical and theoretical is the attitude to experience. If the methods focus on the use of material means of research (for example, instruments), on the implementation of influences on the object under study (for example, physical dismemberment), on the artificial reproduction of an object or its parts from another material (for example, when direct physical influence is for some reason impossible), then such methods can be called empirical. This is, first of all, observation, experiment, subject-matter, physical modeling. With the help of these methods, the cognizing subject masters a certain amount of facts that reflect individual aspects of the object being studied. The unity of these facts, established on the basis of empirical methods, does not yet express the depth of the essence of the object. This essence is comprehended at the theoretical level, on the basis of theoretical methods.
The division of methods into philosophical and special, into empirical and theoretical, of course, does not exhaust the problem of classification. It seems possible to divide methods into logical and non-logical. This is advisable, if only because it allows us to relatively independently consider the class of logical methods used (consciously or unconsciously) in solving any cognitive problem.
All logical methods can be divided into dialectical and formal-logical. The first, formulated on the basis of the principles, laws and categories of dialectics, orient the researcher towards a way to identify the substantive side of the goal. In other words, the use of dialectical methods in a certain way directs thought to reveal what is associated with the content of knowledge. The second (formal-logical methods), on the contrary, do not focus the researcher on identifying the nature and content of knowledge. They are, as it were, “responsible” for the means by which the movement towards the content of knowledge is clothed in pure formal logical operations (abstraction, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, etc.).
The formation of a scientific theory is carried out as follows.
The phenomenon being studied appears as concrete, as a unity of the diverse. It is obvious that there is no proper clarity in understanding the specific at the first stages. The path to it begins with analysis, mental or real dismemberment of the whole into parts. Analysis allows the researcher to focus on a part, property, relationship, or element of the whole. It is successful if it allows for synthesis and restoration of the whole.
The analysis is complemented by classification; the features of the phenomena being studied are distributed into classes. Classification is the path to concepts. Classification is impossible without making comparisons, finding analogies, similarities, similarities in phenomena. The researcher’s efforts in this direction create conditions for induction, inference from the particular to some general statement. She is a necessary link on the path to achieving the common. But the researcher is not satisfied with achieving the general. Knowing the general, the researcher seeks to explain the particular. If this fails, then the failure indicates that the induction operation is not genuine. It turns out that induction is verified by deduction. Successful deduction makes it relatively easy to record experimental dependencies and see the general in the particular.
Generalization is associated with the identification of the general, but most often it is not obvious and acts as a kind of scientific secret, the main secrets of which are revealed as a result of idealization, i.e. detecting intervals of abstractions.
Each new success in enriching the theoretical level of research is accompanied by the organization of the material and the identification of subordination relationships. The connection of scientific concepts forms laws. The main laws are often called principles. A theory is not just a system of scientific concepts and laws, but a system of their subordination and coordination.
So, the main moments in the formation of a scientific theory are analysis, induction, generalization, idealization, and the establishment of subordination and coordination connections. The listed operations can find their development in formalization and mathematization.
Movement towards a cognitive goal can lead to various results, which are expressed in specific knowledge. Such forms are, for example, problem and idea, hypothesis and theory.
Types of forms of knowledge.
Methods of scientific knowledge are connected not only with each other, but also with forms of knowledge.
A problem is a question that needs to be studied and resolved. Solving problems requires enormous mental effort and is associated with a radical restructuring of existing knowledge about the object. The initial form of such permission is an idea.
An idea is a form of thinking in which the most essential is captured in the most general form. The information contained in the idea is so significant for a positive solution to a certain range of problems that it seems to contain tension that encourages specification and development.
Solving a problem, like concretizing an idea, can result in the formulation of a hypothesis or the construction of a theory.
A hypothesis is a probable assumption about the cause of any phenomena, the reliability of which in the current state of production and science cannot be verified and proven, but which explains these phenomena, observed without it. Even a science like mathematics cannot do without hypotheses.
A hypothesis tested and proven in practice moves from the category of probable assumptions to the category of reliable truths and becomes a scientific theory.
A scientific theory is understood, first of all, as a set of concepts and judgments regarding a certain subject area, united into a single, true, reliable system of knowledge using certain logical principles.
Scientific theories can be classified on various grounds: by the degree of generality (particular, general), by the nature of the relationship to other theories (equivalent, isomorphic, homomorphic), by the nature of the connection with experience and the type of logical structures (deductive and non-deductive), by the nature of the use of language (qualitative, quantitative). But no matter what form the theory appears today, it is the most significant form of knowledge.
The problem and idea, hypothesis and theory are the essence of the forms in which the effectiveness of the methods used in the process of cognition is crystallized. However, their significance is not only this. They also act as forms of knowledge movement and the basis for the formulation of new methods. Determining each other, acting as complementary means, they (i.e., methods and forms of cognition) in their unity provide the solution to cognitive problems and allow a person to successfully master the world around him.
2. Growth of scientific knowledge. Scientific revolutions and changes in types of rationality
Most often, the development of theoretical research is rapid and unpredictable. In addition, one most important circumstance should be kept in mind: usually the formation of new theoretical knowledge takes place against the background of an already known theory, i.e. there is an increase in theoretical knowledge. Based on this, philosophers often prefer to talk not about the formation of scientific theory, but about the growth of scientific knowledge.
The development of knowledge is a complex dialectical process that has certain qualitatively different stages. Thus, this process can be considered as a movement from myth to logos, from logos to “pre-science”, from “pre-science” to science, from classical science to non-classical and further to post-non-classical, etc., from ignorance to knowledge, from shallow, incomplete to deeper and more perfect knowledge, etc.
In modern Western philosophy, the problem of growth and development of knowledge is central to the philosophy of science, represented especially clearly in such movements as evolutionary (genetic) epistemology and postpositivism.
The problem of growth (development, changes in knowledge) has been developed especially actively since the 60s. XX century, supporters of postpositivism K. Popper, T. Kuhn, I. Lakatos, P. Feyerabend, St. Toulmin and others. The famous book by K. A. Popper is called: “Logic and the growth of scientific knowledge.” The need for growth in scientific knowledge becomes obvious when the use of theory does not give the desired effect.
Real science should not be afraid of refutations: rational criticism and constant correction with facts is the essence of scientific knowledge. Based on these ideas, Popper proposed a very dynamic concept of scientific knowledge as a continuous stream of assumptions (hypotheses) and their refutations. He likened the development of science to Darwin's scheme of biological evolution. Constantly put forward new hypotheses and theories must undergo strict selection in the process of rational criticism and attempts to refute them, which corresponds to the mechanism of natural selection in the biological world. Only the “strongest theories” should survive, but even these cannot be considered absolute truths. All human knowledge is conjectural, any fragment of it can be doubted, and any provisions must be open to criticism.
New theoretical knowledge for the time being fits into the framework of the existing theory. But a stage comes when such inscription is impossible; a scientific revolution is evident; The old theory was replaced by a new one. Some former supporters of the old theory are able to assimilate the new theory. Those who cannot do this remain with their previous theoretical guidelines, but it becomes increasingly difficult for them to find students and new supporters.
T. Kuhn, P. Feyerabend and other representatives of the historical direction of philosophy of science insist on the thesis of incommensurability of theories, according to which successive theories are not rationally comparable. Apparently this opinion is too radical. The practice of scientific research shows that a rational comparison of new and old theories is always carried out, and by no means unsuccessfully.
Long stages of normal science in Kuhn's concept are interrupted by brief, however, full of drama periods of turmoil and revolution in science - periods of paradigm shifts.
A period of crisis in science, heated discussions, and discussions of fundamental problems begins. The scientific community is often stratified during this period; innovators are opposed by conservatives trying to save the old paradigm. During this period, many scientists cease to be “dogmatic”; they are sensitive to new, even immature ideas. They are ready to believe and follow those who, in their opinion, put forward hypotheses and theories that can gradually develop into a new paradigm. Finally, such theories are actually found, the majority of scientists again consolidate around them and begin to enthusiastically engage in “normal science,” especially since the new paradigm immediately opens up a huge field of new unsolved problems.
Thus, the final picture of the development of science, according to Kuhn, takes on the following form: long periods of progressive development and accumulation of knowledge within the framework of one paradigm are replaced by short periods of crisis, breaking the old one and searching for a new paradigm. Kuhn compares the transition from one paradigm to another with the conversion of people to a new religious faith, firstly, because this transition cannot be explained logically and, secondly, because scientists who have accepted the new paradigm perceive the world significantly differently than before - even They see old, familiar phenomena as if with new eyes.
Kuhn believes that the transition of one paradigm and another through a scientific revolution (for example, at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century) is a common development model characteristic of mature science. During the scientific revolution, a process occurs such as a change in the “conceptual grid” through which scientists viewed the world. A change (and a cardinal one) of this “grid” necessitates a change in the methodological rules and regulations.
During the period of the scientific revolution, all sets of methodological rules are abolished, except for one - the one that follows from the new paradigm and is determined by it. However, this abolition should not be a “bare denial”, but a “sublation”, while preserving the positive. To characterize this process, Kuhn himself uses the term “reconstruction of prescriptions.”
Scientific revolutions mark a change in types of scientific rationality. A number of authors (V.S. Stepin, V.V. Ilyin), depending on the relationship between the object and subject of knowledge, identify three main types of scientific rationality and, accordingly, three major stages in the evolution of science:
1) classical (XVII-XIX centuries);
2) non-classical (first half of the 20th century);
3) post-non-classical (modern) science.
Ensuring the growth of theoretical knowledge is not easy. The complexity of research tasks forces a scientist to achieve a deep understanding of his actions and to reflect. Reflection can be carried out alone, and, of course, it is impossible without the researcher conducting independent work. At the same time, reflection is often very successfully carried out in conditions of exchange of opinions between the participants in the discussion, in conditions of dialogue. Modern science has become a matter of creativity among teams, and accordingly, reflection often takes on a group character.
3. Science and technology
Being the most important element of society and having penetrated literally into all its spheres, science (especially starting from the 17th century) was most closely connected with technology. This is especially true for modern science and technology.
The Greek “techne” is translated into Russian as art”, “skill”, “skill”. The concept of technology is found already in Plato and Aristotle in connection with the analysis of artificial tools. Technology, unlike nature, is not a natural formation; it is created. A human-made object is often called an artifact. The Latin "artifactum" literally means "artificially made." Technology is a collection of artifacts.
Along with the phenomenon of technology, the phenomenon of technology requires explanation. It is not enough to define technology simply as a collection of artifacts. The latter are used regularly, systematically, as a result of a sequence of operations. Technology is a set of operations for the purposeful use of technology. It is clear that the effective use of technology requires its inclusion in technological chains. Technology acts as the development of technology, its achievement of the systematic stage.
Initially, at the stage of manual labor, technology had a mainly instrumental meaning; technical tools continued, expanding the capabilities of human natural organs, increasing his physical power. At the stage of mechanization, technology becomes an independent force, labor is mechanized. The technology seems to be separated from the person, who, however, is forced to be near it. Now not only the machine is a continuation of man, but man himself becomes an appendage of the machine, he complements its capabilities. At the third stage of technology development, as a result of the comprehensive development of automation and the transformation of technology into technology, a person acts as its (technology) organizer, creator and controller. It is no longer the physical capabilities of a person that come to the fore, but the power of his intellect, realized through technology. There is a unification of science and technology, the consequence of which is scientific and technological progress, often called the scientific and technological revolution. This refers to a decisive restructuring of the entire technical and technological basis of society. Moreover, the time gap between successive technical and technological changes is becoming smaller and smaller. Moreover, there is a parallel development of various aspects of scientific and technological progress. If the “steam revolution” was separated from the “electricity revolution” by hundreds of years, then modern microelectronics, robotics, computer science, energy, instrument making, and biotechnology complement each other in their development, and there is no longer any time gap between them.
Let us highlight the main philosophical problems of technology.
Let's start by considering the issue of distinguishing between natural and artificial. Technical objects and artifacts, as a rule, are of a physical and chemical nature. The development of biotechnology has shown that artifacts can also have a biological nature, for example, with the special cultivation of colonies of microorganisms for their subsequent use in agriculture. Technical objects considered as physical, chemical, and biological phenomena are, in principle, no different from natural phenomena. However, there is a big “but” here. It is well known that technical objects are the result of the objectification of human activity. In other words, artifacts are symbols of the specifics of human activity. Therefore, they need to be assessed not only from a natural, but also from a social point of view.
Along with the question of distinguishing between the natural and the artificial, the philosophy of technology often discusses the problem of the relationship between technology and science, and, as a rule, science is put in first place, and technology in second. The cliche “scientific and technical” is typical in this regard. Technology is often understood as applied science, primarily as applied natural science. In recent years, the influence of technology on science has been increasingly emphasized. The independent significance of technology is increasingly being appreciated. Philosophy is well aware of this pattern: as it develops, “something” moves from a subordinate position to a more independent stage of its functioning and is constituted as a special institution. This happened with technology, which has long ceased to be just something applied. The technical, engineering approach has not canceled or supplanted scientific approaches. Technicians and engineers use science as a means in their orientation to action. Act is the slogan of the artificial-technological approach. Unlike the scientific approach, it does not hunt for knowledge, but strives to produce apparatus and implement technologies. A nation that has not mastered the artificial-technological approach, suffering from excessive scientific contemplation, looks in the current conditions not at all modern, but rather archaic.
Unfortunately, in a university environment it is always easier to implement a natural-scientific approach than an artificial-technical one. Future engineers carefully study natural science and engineering disciplines, the latter often being modeled after the former. As for the artificial-technological approach itself, its implementation requires a developed material and technical base, which is absent in many Russian universities. A university graduate, a young engineer, brought up primarily in the traditions of the natural science approach, will not properly master the artificial-technological approach. Ineffective cultivation of the engineering and technical approach is one of the main circumstances preventing Russia from rising on par with developed industrial countries. The labor efficiency of a Russian engineer is several times lower than the labor efficiency of his colleagues from the USA, Japan, and Germany.
Another problem of the philosophy of technology is the assessment of technology and the development of certain norms in this regard. Technology assessment was introduced in the late 60s of the 20th century. and is now widely practiced in developed industrial countries. Initially, the big news was the assessment of the social, ethical and other humanitarian consequences of technological development that seemed secondary and tertiary in relation to technical solutions. Nowadays, an increasing number of technology assessment experts point to the need to overcome the paradigms of fragmentation and reductionism in relation to technology. In the first paradigm, the phenomenon of technology is not considered systematically; one of its fragments is singled out. In the second paradigm, technology is reduced, reduced to its natural foundations.
There are many approaches to assessing the phenomenon of technology; let’s look at some of them. According to the naturalistic approach, man, unlike animals, lacks specialized organs, so he is forced to compensate for his shortcomings by creating artifacts. According to the volitional interpretation of technology, a person realizes his will to power through the creation of artifacts and technological chains. This takes place both at the individual and especially at the national, class and state levels. Technology is used by the dominant forces in society, and therefore it is not neutral in political and ideological terms. The natural science approach views technology as an applied science. The rigid logical and mathematical ideals of the natural science approach are softened in the rational approach. Here technology is viewed as a consciously regulated human activity. Rationality is understood as the highest type of organization of technical activity and, if supplemented with humanistic components, is identified with expediency and planning. This means that sociocultural adjustments are being made to the scientific understanding of rationality. Their development leads to the ethical aspects of technical activity.
Questions to reinforce the material
1. Give the concept of the method of scientific knowledge.
2. What is the classification of methods of scientific knowledge?
3. Name the general scientific methods of cognition.
4. What methods are considered universal (universal)?
5. Characterize such methods of scientific knowledge as comparison, analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction.
6. What levels of scientific knowledge do you know?
7. List the types of forms of knowledge.
8. Give the concept of hypothesis, theory.
9. Outline the process of development of a scientific theory.
10. What is the meaning of the growth of scientific knowledge.
11. Give the concept of a scientific revolution, a scientific paradigm.
12. What is the origin of technology?
13. What do you see as the problem of the relationship between science and technology?
knowledge science technology revolution
List of basic literature
1. Alekseev P.V., Panin A.V. Philosophy. - M.: PBOYUL, 2002.
2. Kokhanovsky V.P. Philosophy: Textbook. - Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 2003.
3. Radugin A.A. Philosophy: course of lectures. - M.: Center, 2002.
4. Spirkin A.G. Philosophy: Textbook. - M.: Gardariki, 2003.
5. Philosophy: Textbook. - M.: RDL Publishing House, 2002.
6. Gadamer H.G. Truth and method: foundations of philosophical hermeneutics. - M.: Progress, 1988.
7. Kanke V.A. Ethics. Technique. Symbol. Obninsk, 1996.
8. Kuhn T. Structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed. - Progress, 1974.
9. Kokhanovsky V.P. Philosophy and methodology of science. - Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 1999.
10. Przhilenskaya I.B. Technology and society. - Stavropol: Publishing House of SevKavSTU, 1999.
11. Stepin V.S., Gorokhov V.G., Rozov M.A. Philosophy of science and technology. M.: Contact-Alpha, 1995.
12. Sartre J.-P. Problems of the method. - M.: Progress, 1994.
13. Philosophy: Textbook / Edited by V.D. Gubina, T.Yu. Sidorina, V.P. Filatova. - M.: Russian Word, 1997.
14. Spengler O. Man and technology // Culturology. XX century Anthology. - M.: Lawyer, 1999.
Posted on Allbest.ru
Similar documents
Analysis of the essence and main characteristics of the method of scientific knowledge. The content of its components is synthesis, abstraction, idealization, generalization, induction, deduction, analogy and modeling. Division of scientific methods according to the degree of generality and scope.
test, added 12/16/2014
Specificity and levels of scientific knowledge. Creative activity and human development. Methods of scientific knowledge: empirical and theoretical. Forms of scientific knowledge: problems, hypotheses, theories. The importance of having philosophical knowledge.
abstract, added 11/29/2006
Forms and tasks of scientific knowledge. The process of obtaining objective, true knowledge. Methods applied at the theoretical and empirical level. The essence and scope of formalization, axiomatization, hypothetico-deductive method and idealization.
presentation, added 04/13/2014
test, added 12/30/2010
General characteristics of heuristic methods of scientific knowledge, study of historical examples of their application and analysis of the significance of these methods in theoretical activity. Assessment of the role of analogy, reduction, induction in the theory and practice of scientific knowledge.
course work, added 09/13/2011
Empirical and theoretical levels of scientific knowledge, their unity and difference. The concept of scientific theory. Problem and hypothesis as forms of scientific research. Dynamics of scientific knowledge. Development of science as a unity of processes of differentiation and integration of knowledge.
abstract, added 09/15/2011
Science: concept and social institution. Structure and specificity of scientific knowledge. The concept of method and methodology. Empirical and theoretical research methods. Forms of scientific knowledge. The phenomenon of the scientific revolution. Social responsibility of a scientist.
lecture, added 05/25/2014
The problem of knowledge in philosophy. The concept and essence of everyday knowledge. Rationality of everyday cognition: common sense and reason. Scientific knowledge its structure and features. Methods and forms of scientific knowledge. Basic criteria of scientific knowledge.
abstract, added 06/15/2017
Scientific knowledge and its structure. The term "knowledge". Subject and object of knowledge. Concept of method. General logical methods of cognition. Empirical and theoretical methods of scientific research. Feeling. Perception. Performance. Thinking.
test, added 02/08/2007
Philosophy, its subject, functions and place in modern culture. Cognition as a subject of philosophical analysis. The relationship between knowledge and information. Methods and forms of scientific knowledge. Philosophy of science in the 20th century. Genesis, stages of development and main problems of science.
Structure of scientific knowledge
In modern philosophy, scientific knowledge is viewed as an integral system that has several levels that differ in a number of parameters. In the structure of scientific knowledge, empirical, theoretical and metatheoretical levels are distinguished.
P. Alekseev and A. Panin note that the levels of scientific knowledge are distinguished depending on:
♦ on the epistemological focus of the research, i.e. subject;
♦ the nature and type of knowledge gained;
♦ method and way of knowing;
♦ the relationship between sensitive and rational aspects in cognition.
Yes, on empirical level of cognition is focused on describing phenomena; on the theoretical side, the main task is to reveal the causes and essential connections of phenomena, i.e. explanation. The main form of knowledge at the empirical level is a scientific fact and a set of empirical generalizations expressed in scientific statements. On theoretical level, knowledge is recorded in the form of laws, principles and theories. The main methods of empirical research are observation and experiment; the main theoretical methods are analysis, synthesis, deduction, induction, analogy, comparison, modeling, idealization, etc.). In empirical cognition, the main role is played by the sensitive cognitive ability, in theoretical cognition – by the rational one.
With all the above differences between the empirical and theoretical levels of scientific knowledge, there is no insurmountable boundary; empirical knowledge is always theoretically loaded.
In search of a criterion for scientific character, representatives of the philosophy of science gradually came to the conclusion that, in addition to the empirical and theoretical levels, there is another level in science, within which the basic norms and standards of scientific character are formulated. This level is called metatheoretical. The theoretical level of organization of scientific knowledge is lower than the metatheoretical level. The first concept in which the idea of a new level of knowledge in science was expressed was the concept of a paradigm proposed by T. Kuhn. Scientific theories are created within a certain paradigm and depend on the standards and norms that it sets. This is why scientific theories formulated within different paradigms cannot be compared.
Methods and forms of scientific knowledge
Methodology is the study of methods of cognition and transformation of reality, in which methods of obtaining knowledge are studied, and not knowledge itself. In modern epistemology, the emphasis is largely on methodology. The methodology has descriptive and normative components. In the first part, there is a description of how knowledge functions and is achieved, in the second, rules are prescribed, examples of achieving adequate knowledge, and norms for its design and functioning are set.
Method is a set of mental and practical rules and techniques that allow you to achieve the desired result. The result can be both knowledge about reality and a change in the state of affairs in it. If philosophy uses only mental techniques, then science also uses practical techniques and rules.
The classification of scientific methods is carried out depending on the level of scientific knowledge at which these methods are applied. Thus, the main methods of the empirical level are observation and experiment. Observation- a set of deliberate human actions taken in order to record the manifestation of the essential properties of an object, general and necessary connections that exist in reality. Observation, despite its relative passivity, is nevertheless always planned in advance and carried out in accordance with a predetermined scheme, i.e. purposefully. The results of observation largely depend on how correctly the plan is drawn up and the tasks are formulated. Observation is thus always selective. As K. Popper states, observations not imbued with theory, i.e. theoretically uninterpreted, does not exist.
Or, as A. Einstein said, “only theory determines what can be observed.”
Experiment- a research method with the help of which changes are made in a pre-planned manner in the object under study in order to identify its general and necessary properties and relationships. An experiment, in contrast to observation, presupposes a more active role for a person and is carried out under precisely specified conditions, which can be reproduced by another researcher in order to verify the results obtained. An experiment, in contrast to observation, allows one to identify properties and relationships of an object that remain hidden under natural conditions. The experiment is even more theoretically loaded than observation. It is carried out precisely with the aim of confirming or disproving any theoretical position. The outcome of the experiment depends on how the preliminary plan is drawn up, what goals are formulated by the researcher, what theoretical positions he seeks to confirm or refute. However, it is important to note again that no experiment can definitively confirm or disprove a theory.
A special form of experiment is a thought experiment in which the transformation is carried out in the mental plane over imaginary objects.
As a result of observation and experiment, data are obtained that are then subject to description. Description is another additional empirical method. The description must be as accurate, reliable and complete as possible. Based on descriptions of empirical data, further systematization of knowledge is carried out.
Observation and experiment are characteristic of the empirical level of scientific knowledge, which deals with facts. A fact is understood as any certified state of affairs in reality. At the theoretical level, regular connections between known facts are clarified and new ones are predicted. A fact of reality becomes a scientific fact if it is theoretically interpreted, comprehended in connection with other facts, and included in some rational system.
The methods of the theoretical level of scientific knowledge are deduction, induction, analogy. Deduction- a method of cognition in which the conclusion about the particular is carried out based on the general position, otherwise it is called inference from the general to the particular. Deduction provides reliable knowledge, but its results are largely trivial. Deduction does not provide a significant increase in knowledge. However, this method is effective for clarifying and clarifying certain aspects of already established and generally accepted knowledge.
Induction- a method of cognition in which the derivation of a new general position is carried out based on a set of particulars. Induction is often called deduction from the particular to the general. The result of inductive inference is plausible but not certain. Only the result of complete induction, which is a conclusion about the general based on knowledge of all particular cases within this general, is recognized as reliable. In real practice, it is not always possible to carry out complete induction, since most often we are dealing with infinite sets or with sets where it is impossible to enumerate all the elements. Under these conditions, a general conclusion is made based on knowledge of only part of the elements included in the set. The problems associated with incomplete induction were discussed by modern philosophers, and at the same time the search began for ways to increase the degree of reliability of inductive inference.
Analogy- a method of cognition that allows, based on the similarity of objects according to some characteristics, to draw a conclusion about their similarity according to others. Analogy is called inference from individual to individual, or from particular to particular.
Close to analogy is the comparison method, which allows us to establish not only the similarity, but also the difference between objects and phenomena. Analogy and comparison do not have great explanatory resources, but they help to establish additional connections and relationships of the object. Analogy and comparison allow us to put forward new hypotheses, and thereby contribute to the development of scientific knowledge.
A common method of theoretical level research is modeling. Modeling- this is the operation of an object that is an analogue of another, for some reason inaccessible for manipulation. Thanks to modeling, it is possible to gain insight into the inaccessible properties of an object using its analogue. Based on the knowledge obtained from the model, a conclusion is drawn about the properties of the original. Modeling is based on analogy.
The methods used at the metatheoretical level of scientific knowledge have the form of general logical techniques: analysis and synthesis, abstraction, idealization, etc. (1.3). These techniques are common to both science and philosophy.
Content
Structure of scientific knowledge 3
4
8
Conclusion 13
Bibliography 14
Structure of scientific knowledge
The structure of scientific knowledge consists of the main elements of scientific knowledge, levels, cognition and foundations of science. The elements of scientific knowledge are various forms of organizing scientific information. Thus, scientific identification is manifested in research activities, which include methods of scientific knowledge that allow the study of an object (empirical and theoretical). The structure of scientific knowledge is a complexly organized system that combines forms of scientific knowledge, allowing one to organize and systematize scientific information (hypotheses, principles, problems, scientific programs, concepts, scientific concepts, laws and scientific facts). The central link is theory.
Depending on the need for a more thorough study of emerging processes and phenomena, two levels are distinguished - the empirical level of knowledge and the theoretical. The first begins with the analysis of information obtained during the observation and experiment. This level allows you to get an idea of the object (both the subject and the action). After processing the received information, the information receives the status of a received fact. At this point, at the theoretical level of cognition, the entire process is studied, starting with individual judgments and ending with the construction of theoretical hypotheses (i.e., proposals). The theoretical and empirical levels of knowledge are closely related. This is explained by the fact that theoretical knowledge is based on the empirical material being studied, and empirical research is determined by the tasks and goals set at the theoretical level.
The foundation of science is the third important element of the structure of scientific knowledge. The basis can be:
- Ideal norms or principles for studying an object or an ongoing process are requirements for scientific reality, expressed in scientific provisions and explanations and the organization of knowledge. The most important norm of this basis is considered to be organization and systematicity, i.e. the obtained result necessarily relies on the previous, already proven one. The main principles are: the principle of accuracy, the principle of continuity in the organization and development of a unified system of scientific knowledge, the principle of simplicity and the principle of showing minimal assumptions when constructing a system of theory;
The scientific picture of the whole world is a holistic system of representations of the patterns and properties of nature and society, which arises as a result of the combination of the main achievements and principles of science. This basis of science allows you to perform predictive and heuristic functions, which helps to more successfully solve problems between disciplines, fulfilling the role of a research program;
Philosophical ideas and principles are very important, since philosophy has always set worldview guidelines for science and comprehended its epistemological and methodological problems, thereby allowing science itself to develop.
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 continually 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.”
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.” 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.
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 new content on the basis of empirical knowledge, opens up new, broader horizons for empirical knowledge, orients and directs it in search of new facts, contributes to the improvement of its methods and means, etc. 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.
Forms of scientific knowledge: problems, hypotheses, theories.
Thanks to the new method of constructing knowledge, science has the opportunity to study not only those subject connections that can be found in existing stereotypes of practice, but also to analyze changes in objects that, in principle, a developing civilization could master. From this moment the stage of pre-science ends and science in the proper sense begins. In it, along with empirical rules and dependencies, a special type of knowledge is formed? theory, which makes it possible to obtain empirical dependencies as a consequence of theoretical postulates. Theory - this is reliable (in the dialectical sense) knowledge about a certain area of reality, which is a system of concepts and statements and allows one to explain and predict phenomena from this area, the highest, justified, logically consistent system of scientific knowledge, giving a holistic view of essential properties, patterns, causality investigative connections that determine the nature of the functioning and development of a certain area of reality. And also - the most developed organization of scientific knowledge, which gives a holistic display of the laws of a certain sphere of reality and represents a symbolic model of this sphere. This model is constructed in such a way that some of its characteristics, which are of the most general nature, form its basis, while others are subject to the main ones or are derived from them according to logical rules. For example, the strict construction of Euclid's geometry led to a system of statements (theorems) that were consistently derived from a few definitions of basic concepts and truths accepted without proof (axioms). The peculiarity of the theory is that it has predictive power. In a theory, there are many initial statements from which other statements are derived by logical means, that is, in a theory it is possible to obtain some knowledge from others without directly referring to reality. The theory not only describes a certain range of phenomena, but also gives them an explanation.
Not all philosophers believe that reliability is a necessary feature of a theory. In this regard, there are two approaches. Representatives of the first approach, even if they relate to theories of the concept that may not be reliable, still believe that the task of science is to create true theories. Representatives of another approach believe that theories do not reflect reality. They understand theory as a tool of knowledge. One theory is better than another if it is a more convenient tool for knowledge. By taking certainty as the distinguishing feature of a theory, we distinguish this type of knowledge from a hypothesis. Theory is a means of deductive and inductive systematization of empirical facts. Through theory, certain relationships can be established between statements about facts, laws, etc. in cases where such relationships are not observed outside the framework of theory. I distinguish between descriptive theories, mathematized, interpretive and deductive theories. Revolutions also become turning points in the history of science. A revolution in science is expressed in a qualitative change in its original principles, concepts, categories, laws, theories, i.e. in a change in scientific paradigm. A paradigm is understood as: norms developed and accepted in a given scientific community, samples of empirical and theoretical thinking that have acquired the character of beliefs; a method of selecting an object of study and explaining a certain system of facts in the form of sufficiently substantiated principles and laws form a logically consistent theory. The categorical status of knowledge is also changing - it can no longer be correlated only with past experience, but also with a qualitatively different practice of the future, and therefore is built in the categories of the possible and necessary. Knowledge is no longer formulated only as prescriptions for existing practice, it acts as knowledge about the objects of reality “in itself,” and on their basis a recipe for future practical changes in objects is developed. Problem statement and research program. People strive to know what they do not know. Problem- this is a question with which we turn to nature itself, to life, to practice and theory. Posing a problem is sometimes no less difficult than finding its solution: the correct formulation of a problem to a certain extent directs the search activity of thought, its aspiration.
The transition to science in the proper sense of the word was associated with two turning points in the development of culture and civilization. Firstly, with changes in the culture of the ancient world, which ensured the application of the scientific method in mathematics and identification to the level of theoretical research, and secondly, with changes in European culture that occurred during the Renaissance and the transition to Modern times, when the scientific way of thinking itself became the property of natural science. It is easy to see that we are talking about those mutations in culture that ultimately ensured the formation of technogenic civilization. methodology 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. When a scientist poses a problem and tries to solve it, he inevitably develops a research program and builds a plan for his activities. In doing so, he proceeds from the expected answer to his question. This supposed answer comes in the form of a hypothesis. 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, experimental verification of the consequences derived from the hypothesis is carried out. The hypothesis either receives empirical confirmation or is refuted as a result of experimental testing. However, empirical confirmation of the consequences of a hypothesis does not guarantee its truth, and the refutation of one of the consequences does not clearly indicate its falsity as a whole. All attempts to build an effective logic for confirming and refuting theoretical explanatory hypotheses have not yet been crowned with success. The status of an explanatory law, principle or theory is given to the best one based on the results of testing of the proposed hypotheses. Such a hypothesis is usually required to have maximum explanatory and predictive power. Familiarity with the general structure of the hypothesis method allows us to define it as a complex integrated method of cognition, which includes all its diversity and forms and is aimed at establishing laws, principles and theories. Sometimes the hypothesis method is also called the hypothetico-deductive method, meaning the fact that the formulation of a hypothesis is always accompanied by the deductive derivation of empirically verifiable consequences from it. But deductive reasoning is not the only logical technique used within the hypothesis method. When establishing the degree of empirical confirmation of a hypothesis, elements of inductive logic are used. Induction is also used at the guessing stage. Inference by analogy plays an important role when putting forward a hypothesis. As already noted, at the stage of developing a theoretical hypothesis, a thought experiment can also be used. An explanatory hypothesis, as an assumption about a law, is not the only type of hypothesis in science. There are also “existential” hypotheses - assumptions about the existence of elementary particles, units of heredity, chemical elements, new biological species, etc., unknown to science. The methods for putting forward and justifying such hypotheses differ from explanatory hypotheses. Along with the main theoretical hypotheses, there may also be auxiliary ones that make it possible to bring the main hypothesis into better agreement with experience. As a rule, such auxiliary hypotheses are later eliminated. There are also so-called working hypotheses that make it possible to better organize the collection of empirical material, but do not claim to explain it. The most important type of hypothesis method is mathematical hypothesis method, which is typical for sciences with a high degree of mathematization. The hypothesis method described above is the substantive hypothesis method. Within its framework, meaningful assumptions about the laws are first formulated, and then they receive the corresponding mathematical expression. In the method of mathematical hypothesis, thinking takes a different path. First, to explain quantitative dependencies, a suitable equation is selected from related fields of science, which often involves its modification, and then an attempt is made to give this equation a meaningful interpretation. The scope of application of the mathematical hypothesis method is very limited. It is applicable primarily in those disciplines where a rich arsenal 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.
Conclusion
Everything in the world is in a mutual connection, which generates an active impulse for its self-development. Without communication, self-motion of matter is impossible, without self-motion, development is impossible. Development is driven by various types of communication. etc.................
Experience and observation are the greatest sources of wisdom, access to which is open to every person.
W. Channing
2.1. Structure of scientific knowledge
Scientific knowledge is objectively true knowledge about nature, society and man, obtained as a result of scientific research activities and, as a rule, tested (proven) by practice. Natural scientific knowledge structurally consists of empirical and theoretical directions of scientific research (Fig. 2.1). The starting point of any of these areas of scientific research is to obtain a scientific, empirical fact.
The main thing in the empirical direction of research in some areas of natural science is observation. Observation is a long-term, purposeful and systematic perception of objects and phenomena of the objective world. The next structure of the empirical direction of knowledge is a scientific experiment. An experiment is a scientifically conducted experiment, with the help of which an object is either reproduced artificially or placed under precisely taken into account conditions. A distinctive feature of a scientific experiment is that every researcher can reproduce it at any time. Finding analogies in differences is a necessary stage of scientific research. The experiment can be carried out on
26
models, i.e. on bodies whose dimensions and mass are proportionally changed compared to real bodies. The results of model experiments can be considered proportional to the results of the interaction of real bodies. It is possible to conduct a thought experiment, that is, imagine bodies that do not exist in reality at all, and conduct an experiment on them in the mind. In modern science, it is necessary to conduct idealized experiments, that is, thought experiments using idealizations. Empirical generalizations can be made from empirical studies.
At the theoretical level of knowledge, in addition to empirical facts, concepts are required that are created anew or taken from other branches of science. A concept is a thought that reflects objects and phenomena in their general and essential features, properties in an abbreviated, concentrated manner (for example, matter, movement, mass, speed, energy, plant, animal, human, etc.).
27
An important way of the theoretical level of research is to put forward hypotheses. A hypothesis is a special kind of scientific assumption about directly observable or generally unknown forms of connection between phenomena or the causes that produce these phenomena. A hypothesis as an assumption is put forward to explain facts that do not fit into existing laws and theories. It expresses, first of all, the process of the formation of knowledge, while in theory, the achieved stage in the development of science is recorded to a greater extent. When putting forward any hypothesis, not only its compliance with empirical data is taken into account, but also some methodological principles, called the criteria of simplicity, beauty, economy of thinking, etc. After putting forward a certain hypothesis, the research again returns to the empirical level to test it. The goal is to test the consequences of this hypothesis, about which nothing was known before it was put forward. If a hypothesis passes empirical testing, then it acquires the status of a law of nature; if not, it is considered rejected.
The law of nature is the best expression of the harmony of the world. Law is an internal causal, stable connection between phenomena and properties of various objects, reflecting the relationships between objects. If changes in some objects or phenomena (cause) cause a very definite change in others (effect), then this means the manifestation of the law. For example, D.I. Mendeleev’s periodic law establishes a connection between the charge of the atomic nucleus and the chemical properties of a given chemical element. A set of several laws related to one area of cognition is called a scientific theory.
The principle of falsifiability of scientific propositions, i.e. their property of being refutable in practice, remains indisputable in science. An experiment that is aimed at refuting this hypothesis is called a decisive experiment. Natural science studies the world with the aim of creating laws of its functioning as products of human de-
28
activities reflecting periodically recurring facts of reality.
So, science is built from observations, experiments, hypotheses, theories and argumentation. Science in its content is a set of empirical generalizations and theories confirmed by observation and experiment. Moreover, the creative process of creating theories and arguing in support of them plays no less a role in science than observation and experiment.
2.2. Basic methods of scientific research
Science begins as soon as they begin to measure. Exact science. D. I. Mendeleev
Empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge differ according to the subject, means and results of the study. Knowledge is a practice-tested result of knowledge of reality, a true reflection of reality in human thinking. The difference between the empirical and theoretical levels of research does not coincide with the difference between sensory and rational knowledge, although the empirical level is predominantly sensory, and the theoretical level is rational.
The structure of scientific research that we have described is, in a broad sense, a way of scientific knowledge or the scientific method as such. A method is a set of actions designed to help achieve the desired result. The method not only equalizes the abilities of people, but also makes their activities uniform, which is a prerequisite for obtaining uniform results by all researchers. Empirical and theoretical methods are distinguished (Table 2.1). Empirical methods include:
Observation is a long-term, purposeful and systematic perception of objects and phenomena of the objective world. Two types of observation can be distinguished: direct and with
29
using instruments. When making observations using appropriate devices in the microworld, it is necessary to take into account the properties of the device itself, its working part, and the nature of interaction with the microobject.
Description is the result of observation and experiment, consisting of recording data using certain notation systems accepted in science. Description as a method of scientific research is carried out both through ordinary language and by special means that make up the language of science (symbols, signs, matrices, graphs, etc.). The most important requirements for a scientific description are accuracy, logical rigor and simplicity.
Measurement is a cognitive operation that provides a numerical expression of measured quantities. It is carried out at the empirical level of scientific research and includes quantitative standards and standards (weight, length, coordinates, speed, etc.). The measurement is carried out by the subject both directly and indirectly. In this regard, it is divided into two types: direct and indirect. Direct measurement is a direct comparison of the measured object or phenomenon, property with the corresponding standard; indirect determination of the value of a measured property based on taking into account a certain dependence on others
30
quantities Indirect measurement helps to determine quantities in conditions where direct measurement is difficult or impossible. For example, measuring certain properties of many cosmic objects, galactic microprocesses, etc.
Comparison is a comparison of objects in order to identify signs of similarity or signs of difference between these objects. A well-known aphorism says: “Everything is known by comparison.” In order for the comparison to be objective, it must meet the following requirements:
- it is necessary to compare comparable phenomena and objects (for example, there is no point in comparing a person with a triangle or an animal with a meteorite, etc.);
- comparison should be made based on the most important and significant characteristics, since comparison based on unimportant characteristics can lead to misconceptions.
An experiment is a scientifically conducted experience with the help of which an object is either reproduced artificially or placed in precisely taken into account conditions, which makes it possible to study their influence on the object in its pure form. In contrast to observation, an experiment is characterized by the researcher’s intervention in the position of the objects being studied due to active influence on the subject of research. It is widely used in physics, chemistry, biology, physiology and other natural sciences. Experiments are becoming increasingly important in social research. However, here its significance is limited, firstly, by moral, humanistic considerations, secondly, by the fact that most social phenomena cannot be reproduced in laboratory conditions, and thirdly, by the fact that many social phenomena cannot be repeated many times and isolated from others social phenomena. So, empirical study is the starting point for the formation of scientific laws; at this stage, the object undergoes primary comprehension, its external features and some regularities (empirical laws) are revealed.
31
Modeling is the study of an object by creating and studying its model (copy), replacing the original, from certain aspects that interest the researcher. Depending on the method of reproduction, i.e., on the means by which the model is built, all models can be divided into two types: “active” or material models; "imaginary" or ideal models. Material models include models of a bridge, dam, building, airplane, ship, etc. They can be built from the same material as the object being studied, or based on a purely functional analogy. Ideal models are divided into mental structures (models of an atom, galaxy), theoretical schemes that reproduce in an ideal form the properties and connections of the object under study, and symbolic ones (mathematical formulas, chemical signs and symbols, etc.). Particular attention is paid to cybernetic models that replace control systems that have not yet been sufficiently studied and help to study the laws of operation of a given system (for example, modeling individual functions of the human psyche).
Scientific methods at the theoretical level of research include:
Formalization is the display of the results of thinking in precise concepts or statements, that is, the construction of abstract mathematical models that reveal the essence of the processes of reality being studied. Formalization plays an important role in the analysis, clarification and explication of scientific concepts. It is inextricably linked with the construction of artificial or formalized scientific laws.
Axiomatization is the construction of theories based on axioms-statements, the proof of the truth of which is not required. The truth of all statements of the axiomatic theory is justified as a result of strict adherence to the deductive technique of inference (proof) and finding (or constructing) an interpretation of the formalization of axiomatic systems. During the construction of axiomatics, they proceed from the fact that the accepted axioms are truths.
32
Analysis is the actual or mental division of an integral object into its component parts (sides, features, properties, relationships or connections) with the aim of its comprehensive study. Analysis, decomposing objects into parts and studying each of them, must necessarily consider them not by themselves, but as parts of a single whole.
Synthesis is the actual or mental reunification of a whole from parts, elements, sides and connections identified through analysis. With the help of synthesis, we restore the object as a concrete whole in all the diversity of its manifestations. In the natural sciences, analysis and synthesis are used not only theoretically, but also practically. In socio-economic and humanitarian research, the subject of research is subjected only to mental dismemberment and reunification. Analysis and synthesis as methods of scientific research act in organic unity.
Induction is a method of research and a method of reasoning in which a general conclusion about the properties of objects and phenomena is built on the basis of individual facts or particular premises. For example, the transition from the analysis of facts and phenomena to the synthesis of acquired knowledge is carried out by the method of induction. Using the inductive method, you can obtain knowledge that is not reliable, but probable, with varying degrees of accuracy.
Deduction is the transition from general reasoning or judgment to specific ones. Derivation of new provisions using laws and rules of logic. The deductive method is of paramount importance in theoretical sciences as a tool for their logical ordering and construction, especially when true positions from which logically necessary consequences can be obtained are known.
Generalization is a logical process of transition from individual to general, from less general to more general knowledge, while establishing the general properties and characteristics of the objects under study. Obtaining generalized knowledge means a deeper reflection of reality, penetration into its essence.
33
Analogy is a method of cognition, which is an inference during which, based on the similarity of objects in some properties and connections, a conclusion is drawn about their similarity in other properties and connections. Inference by analogy plays a significant role in the development of scientific knowledge. Many important discoveries in the field of natural science were made by transferring general patterns inherent in one area of phenomena to phenomena in another area. Thus, X. Huygens, based on the analogy between the properties of light and sound, came to the conclusion about the wave nature of light; J.C. Maxwell extended this conclusion to the characteristics of the electromagnetic field. The identification of a certain similarity between the reflective processes of a living organism and some physical processes contributed to the creation of corresponding cybernetic devices.
Mathematization is the penetration of the apparatus of mathematical logic into natural and other sciences. Mathematization of modern scientific knowledge characterizes its theoretical level. With the help of mathematics, the basic patterns of development of natural science theories are formulated. Mathematical methods are widely used in socio-economic sciences. The creation (under the direct influence of practice) of such fields as linear programming, game theory, information theory and the emergence of electronic mathematical machines opens up completely new perspectives.
Abstraction is a method of cognition in which mental distraction occurs and discards those objects, properties and relationships that make it difficult to consider the object of study in the “pure” form necessary at this stage of study. Through the abstracting work of thinking, all concepts and categories of natural and socio-economic sciences arose: matter, motion, mass, energy, space, time, plant, animal, biological species, goods, money, value, etc.
In addition to the empirical and theoretical methods we have considered, there are general scientific research methods, which include the following.
34
Classification is the division of all studied objects into separate groups in accordance with some characteristic important for the researcher.
The hypothetico-deductive method is one of the methods of reasoning based on the derivation (deduction) of conclusions from hypotheses and other premises, the true meaning of which is uncertain. This method has penetrated so deeply into the methodology of modern natural science that its theories are often considered identical to the hypothetico-deductive system. The hypothetico-deductive model describes the formal structure of theories quite well, but it does not take into account a number of other features and functions, and also ignores the genesis of hypotheses and laws that are premises. The result of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is only probable, since its premises are hypotheses, and deduction transfers the probability of their truth to the conclusion.
The logical method is a method of reproducing a complex developmental object in thinking in the form of a specific theory. In the logical study of an object, we are distracted from all accidents, unimportant facts, zigzags, from which the most important, essential thing is isolated, which determines the general course and direction of development.
The historical method is when all the details and facts of a cognizable object are reproduced in all the concrete diversity of historical development. The historical method involves the study of a specific development process, and the logical method involves the study of the general patterns of movement of the object of knowledge.
Statistical methods that make it possible to determine average values characterizing the entire set of subjects being studied have acquired great importance in modern science.
So, at the theoretical level, an explanation of the object is carried out, its internal connections and essential processes (theoretical laws) are revealed. If empirical knowledge is the starting point for the formation of scientific laws, then the theory allows us to explain empirical material. Both of these
35
levels of cognition are closely related. Common to them are the forms in which sensory images (sensations, perceptions, ideas) and rational thinking (concepts, judgments and inferences) are realized.
2.3. Dynamics of science development. Principle of correspondence
Science is the best way to make the human spirit heroic.
D. Bruno
The development of science is determined by external and internal factors (Fig. 2.2). The first includes the influence of the state, economic, cultural, national parameters, and the value systems of scientists. The latter are determined by the internal logic and dynamics of the development of science.
The internal dynamics of the development of science has its own characteristics at each level of research. The empirical level has a generalizing character, since even a negative result of an observation or experiment contributes
36
contribution to the accumulation of knowledge. The theoretical level is characterized by a more spasmodic character, since each new theory represents a qualitative transformation of the knowledge system. The new theory that replaced the old one does not deny it completely (although in the history of science there have been cases when it was necessary to abandon the false concepts of caloric, ether, electric fluid, etc.), but more often it limits the scope of its applicability, which allows us to say about continuity in the development of theoretical knowledge.
The question of changing scientific concepts is one of the most pressing in the methodology of modern science. In the first half of the 20th century. Theory was recognized as the main structural unit of research, and the question of changing it was raised depending on its empirical confirmation or refutation. The main methodological problem was considered to be the problem of reducing the theoretical level of research to the empirical, which ultimately turned out to be impossible. In the early 60s of the 20th century, the American scientist T. Kuhn put forward a concept according to which a theory remains accepted by the scientific community as long as the basic paradigm (attitude, image) of scientific research in a given field is not questioned. A paradigm (from the Greek paradigma - example, sample) is a fundamental theory that explains a wide range of phenomena related to the corresponding field of research. A paradigm is a set of theoretical and methodological premises that define a specific scientific research, which is embodied in scientific practice at this stage. It is the basis for choosing problems, as well as a model, a model for solving research problems. The paradigm allows us to solve difficulties that arise in scientific research, to record changes in the structure of knowledge that occur as a result of the scientific revolution and associated with the accumulation of new empirical data.
From this point of view, the dynamics of the development of science occurs as follows (Fig. 2.3): the old paradigm goes through a normal stage of development, then scientific facts that cannot be explained by this paradigm accumulate in it, a revolution occurs
37
in science, a new paradigm arises that explains all the scientific facts that have arisen. The paradigmatic concept of the development of scientific knowledge was then concretized using the concept of a “research program” as a structural unit of a higher order than a separate theory. As part of the research program, questions about the truth of scientific theories are discussed.
An even higher structural unit is the natural scientific picture of the world, which combines the most significant natural scientific ideas of a given era.
The general dynamics and patterns that characterize the overall process of historical development of natural science are subject to an important methodological principle called the principle of correspondence. The principle of correspondence in its most general form states that theories, the validity of which has been experimentally established for a particular field of natural science, with the advent of new, more general theories are not eliminated as something false, but retain their significance for the previous field of phenomena as a limiting form and partial
38
case of new theories. This principle is one of the most important achievements of natural science of the 20th century. Thanks to him, the history of natural science appears before us not as a chaotic succession of various more or less successful theoretical views, not as a series of their catastrophic collapses, but as a natural and consistent process of development of knowledge, moving towards ever broader generalizations, as a cognitive process, each stage of which has objective value and delivers a particle of absolute truth, the possession of which becomes more and more complete. From this point of view, the process of cognition is understood as a process of movement towards absolute truth through an infinite sequence of relative truths. Moreover, the process of movement towards absolute truth does not occur smoothly, not through a simple accumulation of facts, but dialectically - through revolutionary leaps, in which each time the contradiction between the accumulated facts and the currently dominant paradigm is overcome. The principle of correspondence shows how exactly in natural science absolute truth is composed of an infinite sequence of relative truths.
The principle of correspondence states, firstly, that every natural scientific theory is a relative truth containing an element of absolute truth. Secondly, he argues that the change of natural science theories is not a sequence of destruction of different theories, but a logical process of development of natural science, the movement of the mind through a sequence of relative truths to the absolute. Third, the correspondence principle states that both new and old theories form a unified whole.
Thus, according to the principle of correspondence, the development of natural science is presented as a process of consistent generalization, when the new denies the old, but not just denies, but with the retention of all that positive that was accumulated in the old.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Natural scientific knowledge structurally consists of empirical and theoretical directions of scientific research.
39
dovaniya. The structure of the empirical direction of research is as follows: empirical fact, observations, scientific experiment, empirical generalizations. The structure of the theoretical method is as follows: scientific fact, concepts, hypothesis, law of nature, scientific theory.
- The scientific method is a vivid embodiment of the unity of all forms of knowledge about the world. The fact that knowledge in the natural, technical, social and human sciences as a whole is carried out according to some general rules, principles and methods of activity testifies, on the one hand, to the interconnection and unity of these sciences, and on the other hand, to their common, single source knowledge, which is served by the objective real world around us: nature and society.
- A theory remains accepted by the scientific community as long as the basic paradigm (attitude, image) of scientific research is not questioned. The dynamics of the development of science occurs as follows: the old paradigm - the normal stage of development of science - a revolution in science - a new paradigm.
- The principle of correspondence states that the development of natural science occurs when the new does not simply deny the old, but denies it while retaining everything positive that was accumulated in the old.
Questions to test knowledge
- What is the structure of natural scientific knowledge?
- What difference is there between empirical and theoretical lines of research?
- What is the scientific method and what is it based on?
- What is the unity of the scientific method?
- Give a description of general scientific and specific scientific research methods.
- What are the main methodological concepts for the development of modern natural science?
- What ethical problems are relevant for modern natural science?
- What is called a paradigm in science?
- What conditions are necessary to conduct scientific experiments?
10. How does the language of science differ from ordinary human language?
language?