Any scientific theory must be supported by facts. However, no matter how many supporting facts we find, there can always potentially be a fact that refutes it. But more importantly, if such a fact cannot exist, then the theory is unscientific.
Verification
It would seem obvious that any scientific theory must be confirmed by facts. However, this is obvious to us, people of the 21st century, who, as Newton said about himself, “stand on the shoulders of giants.” We have a science and a philosophy of science created and developed by many generations of scientists. Moreover, education is very widespread in our country, and science itself is often closely intertwined with everyday life.
In fact, only in the first half of the twentieth century, a group of scientists from Vienna proposed to accept empirical confirmation of a theory as the main criterion for the scientific nature of a statement. By introducing this criterion, they sought to distinguish between science and non-science, to make science more pure, consistent and reliable, and to get rid of metaphysics. They hoped to build a new system of sciences based on logic and mathematics (in connection with this, their movement was called logical positivism) and wanted to develop a unified methodology for it, common criteria truth checks.
Members of this “Viennese circle” called this principle verification (from the Latin verus - “true” and facere - “to do”). They believed that any statement can be transformed into a so-called protocol sentence like “so-and-so saw such-and-such a phenomenon at such-and-such a time in such-and-such a place.” Technically, everything that happens in the world can be described using such sentences. Non-protocol sentences must simply be a summary of what the protocol sentences say.
The task of the scientist, in essence, should be reduced to verifying the truth of protocol sentences. According to members of the Vienna Circle, this would make it possible to get rid of unnecessary philosophical disputes and exclude unverifiable statements from science, such as statements that the soul or God exists. It is impossible to find confirmation for such assumptions protocol proposal like “X saw God in such and such a place at two o’clock in the afternoon.” Therefore, there is no need to talk about the truth and scientific nature of such a statement.
Falsification
Logical positivists considered themselves heirs to the ideas of the English philosopher David Hume. However, Hume already drew attention to the following problem. No amount of empirical confirmation of a particular theory guarantees its truth, but a single refutation nullifies the entire theory. If we do not consider all objects and cases in the Universe described by the theory (and this is impossible to do in the overwhelming majority of cases), then we cannot absolute confidence assert that a theory is true because there can always be a fact that refutes it.
Another English philosopher Francis Bacon, even before Hume, drew attention to the fact that people, adhering to the idea that every theory requires confirmation, looked, first of all, for facts that proved their ideas, and did not notice the facts that refuted them. Therefore, he believed that it was necessary to look for those facts that, on the contrary, would refute this or that theory, and, if they were not found, consider it true.
Karl Popper
But the Anglo-Austrian philosopher Karl Popper proposed going even further. His idea was to replace verification, in a sense, with its opposite criterion: falsification. The essence of this criterion is that only an idea can be recognized as scientific if it is theoretically possible to refute it by finding a fact that contradicts it. If a theory is capable of explaining all the facts, then it, in fact, explains nothing.
So, for example, he criticizes psychoanalysis, since with its help it is possible to explain any human behavior. We can imagine a person who wants to push a child into the water and drown him, and a person who is ready to sacrifice his life to save him. Psychoanalysis could explain the actions of both people, even if they had a completely identical biography. Such a situation could be satisfactory from the point of view of the criterion of verifiability, but, from the point of view of the criterion of falsifiability, the ability of psychoanalysis to explain absolutely any choice, regardless of the circumstances, on the contrary, is evidence of its unscientificness, because in this case psychoanalysis, in fact, does not give no new knowledge for us.
The transition from verificationism to falsificationism marks a new view of scientific knowledge. According to this view, scientific knowledge is not at all an absolute, final truth, but, on the contrary, only an intermediate interpretation of it. Science only creates hypotheses that explain certain facts and phenomena, and does not establish immutable laws of the Universe.
Interestingly, from this point of view, logic and mathematics are not sciences, since they are not falsifiable. In this system they are qualified as languages that science uses to describe phenomena. We can always build a mathematical or logical system, based on other axioms. And the mathematics we use (that is, based on Euclidean geometry) often describes unimaginable phenomena.
It is also interesting that from the point of view of the criterion proposed by Popper, his theory must also be falsifiable. However, it is not clear what fact must be found to refute it.
If you find an error, please highlight a piece of text and click Ctrl+Enter.
In our world it is possible to refute, although not everything, but very, very much. And for even the most seemingly unshakable thing to come into question, just one fact refuting this something is enough. This is precisely what the criterion for the scientific nature of an empirical theory, called falsifiability, states.
The presented criterion was formulated in 1935 by the Austrian and British philosopher and sociologist Karl Raymund Popper. Any theory can be falsifiable and thus scientific if it can be refuted through some experiment, even if such an experiment was not carried out.
According to falsifiability, systems of statements or individual statements can contain data about the empirical world only if they have the ability to collide with real experience, that is, if they can be systematically verified, i.e. be subjected to checks, as a result of which they may be refuted. Based on Popper's criterion, no scientific theory can be 100% irrefutable, and based on this, it becomes possible to separate scientific knowledge from non-scientific knowledge. In fact, falsifiability is a necessary condition for the scientific nature of any theory or statement.
This all sounds a little complicated, but let's try to figure out what it all means.
The essence of falsifiability
Any number of facts that confirm the reliability of any statement obtained through reasoning from the particular to the general only indicates that this statement is only very probable, but not reliable. And just one fact capable of disproving it may be enough for the reasoning itself to be discarded as unnecessary. Such qualitative characteristics characteristic of refuting and confirming factors as “role” and “strength” in the process of establishing the truth and meaningfulness of scientific hypotheses and theories are called “cognitive asymmetry”.
This same cognitive asymmetry became the basis for replacing the principle of verification, which is a positively realizable test or, more precisely, in simple words, confirmation. The principle of verification, which was initially proclaimed by logical empiricists, was replaced by the principle of falsification, which, in turn, represents a positively realized refutation. The principle of falsification says that it is necessary to check the scientific meaningfulness and reliability of scientific theories not by searching for evidence-based facts, but by searching for disproving facts.
Falsifiability requires that hypotheses or theories are not fundamentally irrefutable. According to Popper, a theory cannot be considered scientific, guided only by the fact that there is one or many experiments that indicate its reliability. Considering that almost all theories that are created on the basis of experimental data allow for the possibility of further implementation more experiments to confirm, the presence of these confirmations cannot yet be considered an indicator of the scientific nature of the theories.
In addition, according to the philosopher, theories can be different in relation to the possibility of conducting experiments that can, at least theoretically, give results that refute these theories. Theories that suggest that such a possibility may occur are called falsifiable. And theories for which such a possibility does not exist, i.e. theories within which any results of any can be explained are called non-falsifiable.
It would not be superfluous to say that falsifiability is only a criterion that allows a theory to be classified as scientific, but is not a criterion indicating its truth or the possibility of its successful implementation. Popper's criterion and the truth of a theory can be related to each other in different ways. In the case when an experiment refuting a falsified theory, when carried out, produces results that run counter to the theory, the theory can be considered falsified, but this does not mean that it is not falsifiable, i.e. it remains scientific.
Taking into account the fact that a criterion, as a rule, is called a necessary and sufficient condition, falsifiability, despite the fact that it is called a criterion, is only a necessary, but at the same time not a sufficient feature of a scientific theory.
Philosophy of Science and scientific knowledge are based on two fundamental ideas. The first idea says that scientific knowledge can and does provide people with truth, and the second says that scientific knowledge frees people from prejudices and misconceptions. The first of these ideas was discarded by Karl Raymund Popper, and the second became the basis of his entire methodology.
In the 30-50s of the 20th century, Popper made attempts to strictly distinguish between science and metaphysics, taking as a basis the principles of falsifiability, but after some time he somewhat changed his views, recognizing the fact that the difference between science and metaphysics, which he initially proposed , turned out to be formal. But falsifiability still found application in the scientific world.
Application of falsifiability
Today in scientific activity falsifiability as scientific criterion is used quite widely, although not entirely strictly. This mainly happens when it comes to establishing the falsity of any scientific hypothesis or theory. Moreover, there are theories that continue to be used, despite the fact that it was possible to find out the facts refuting them, i.e. falsified theories. They continue to be used if the bulk of the facts regarding them are confirmatory, and more advanced similar theories have not yet been created, or if their other options are inapplicable.
The reasons why this happens are as follows.
Phenomenon scientific knowledge- this is the result various kinds justification procedures. To substantiate ideas means, in many respects, to transfer them into the category of knowledge, to give them the status of scientific nature, to raise them above the arbitrariness of opinion and subjectivity. Science uses a variety of justification procedures - induction and deduction, definition, interpretation, explanation, genetic and systemic justification, testing for consistency and completeness of a theory, translation of the language of one theory into the language of another, already confirmed theory, reductionist (reduction to elements) and holistic (reduction to a position within the whole) justification, etc.
In the development of Western rational thought, the stage of so-called “fundamentalism” has passed, when the structure of justification procedures was thought of as subsuming ideas under some unshakable, once and for all defined “beginnings” of knowledge, which play the role of the foundation of scientific knowledge. After identifying the true principles of knowledge, it must be shown how everything is derived from them majestic building Sciences. Its development was conceived as the addition of more and more new floors, and what was previously created should not be subject to change.
Since the mid-20th century, fundamentalism has been replaced in modern Western philosophy of science by a critical attitude towards any justification procedures - “anti-fundamentalism”. The first blow to fundamentalism was the revolution in physics of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but only the crisis of logical positivism led to the fact that the foundations of fundamentalism really began to shake.
Fundamentalism, which has existed for a long time in the problem of substantiating scientific knowledge, is replaced in the second half of the 20th century by the attitude of anti-fundamentalism. The latter discovers that any grounds can be criticized, i.e. in turn can be subjected to justification procedures. But from this, anti-fundamentalism concludes that it rejects justification procedures in general, thereby implicitly aligning itself with fundamentalism in accepting the fundamentalist image of hierarchical rationality as the ideal of justification. Both fundamentalism and anti-fundamentalism are committed to the same ideal of substantiating scientific knowledge, but the second only reveals the impossibility of realizing this ideal in the reality of scientific knowledge. Laudan's approach turns out to be more radical - and therefore not so antipathetic - here, changing the very ideal of scientific rationality, proposing to consider a “network” model of rationality instead of a hierarchical one. In the “network” model, all foundations lose their unconditional status as just foundations, all principles act as both foundations and the justified, and the phenomenon of “mutual justification” arises. Instead of the image of anti-fundamentalism, so vividly and hopelessly presented by K. Popper in the form of a building on stilts driven into a swamp, an image emerges rather of a clot of living mass, supporting itself in weightlessness and capable of growth in any direction.
Charles Pierce was reproached for mixing the logical and psychological aspects of positivism as a methodology scientific thinking. According to Peirce, knowledge allows one to overcome “the restless and unpleasant state of doubt”, resulting in the achievement of faith, on the basis of which a person can act without doubt or hesitation. He also introduces the idea that scientific knowledge can begin with any hypotheses, including erroneous ones. Emphasizing the conjectural nature of scientific knowledge led C. Pierce to justify fallibilism.
Fallibilism is a methodological position according to which all knowledge is only approximate and probabilistic. Scientific research is a “life process” that takes place in critical debate and testing of assumptions as scientific hypotheses. Positive result Such a process is the adjustment of hypothetical knowledge and increasing the likelihood of it being true knowledge. In the critical realism of K. Popper, the idea of fallibilism is formed taking into account the focus on the role of critical reflection in the construction of objective knowledge and the possibility of assessing the credibility of scientific hypotheses.
The problem of substantiating knowledge began to be developed most deeply and in detail with the advent of natural sciences, since the stated goal of scientists was initially the search for objective truth about the world around us. The problem of scientific knowledge includes two aspects: determining the source of knowledge and determining the truth of knowledge.
All attempts to determine the source human knowledge can be divided into two directions. The first can be designated as the “from within” approach, since it is assumed that all the initial prerequisites for true knowledge are located within a person. It does not matter whether they manifest themselves in the form of divine insight, communication with the “world of ideas” or are innate, the main thing is that to receive them there is no need for external activities, only in internal spiritual work (rational reflection, introspection, meditation or prayer). There are many options within this concept philosophical systems. For the problem of scientific knowledge, the position of rationalism, formulated by Rene Descartes and called Cartesianism, is important. Descartes strives to build a comprehensive picture of the universe, in which the universe appears as separate material bodies, separated by emptiness and acting on each other through a push, like parts of a once-wound clockwork. With regard to knowledge, Descartes believes that, by critically analyzing the content own beliefs and by using intellectual intuition, the individual can approach some indestructible foundation of knowledge, innate ideas. However, this raises the question of the source of the innate ideas themselves. For Descartes, such a source is God. In order for such a system to work, everyone’s innate ideas must be the same, and such as to accurately reflect external world. This is weakness approach “from within” as a whole - the unsolved problem of choosing between theories. If opponents, with the help of intellectual intuition, do not come to unanimous opinion, the choice of position will be purely a matter of taste.
The second direction of searching for a source of knowledge is “external”. A person’s cognition of reality comes exclusively through feelings and experiences. With the advent of natural sciences, this approach takes on a new meaning. In development of these views, the concept of empiricism was formed in England, the importance of which for the development of scientific knowledge cannot be overestimated. In fact, the empirical approach underlies all scientific practice. Its basis is well formulated by Francis Bacon: knowledge is obtained through a gradual ascent from facts to law, through induction. Classical empiricism is characterized by an attitude towards the scientist’s mind as a tabula rasa, clean board, free from prejudices and expectations.
Verification(from the Latin verus - true and facere - to do) is the procedure for establishing the truth of certain judgments, confirming theoretical knowledge by listing the entire class of empirical referents or objects that are covered by a given concept or a given hypothesis. To establish the truth of any statement - for example, that all ravens are black - it is necessary to conduct an observation, a survey, an experiment. In our case, we will have to travel all over Africa, Asia, Europe and Australia. The exception is the Arctic and Antarctica, where crows are not found. If, after examining all the crows, they turn out to be black and not a single white one is found, then your statement will be verified, i.e. its truth will be confirmed by scientific means.
You can take the easy way - go around the places that are accessible to you, and make sure that there are only black crows around. In this case, it cannot be said that all crows are black. We will have to be content with a more modest judgment - for example, “some crows are black.” The value of such a judgment is almost zero, since even without any inspection it is clear that some crows are black. Only judgments with the word (in logic they are called quantifiers) “all” have scientific and educational value.
Yes and for Everyday life such statements are a real treasure. They help to navigate the environment and accept right decisions. People try to get them at any cost, even neglecting scientific methods. The principle of verifiability assumes that a concept or proposition has meaning (meaning) only if it is empirically verifiable.
Verification is a very cumbersome, thankless and labor-intensive procedure: A much more economical method is a sample survey, which is mainly used by sociologists: it is enough to interview not everyone, but only a part of the population in order to find out for whom exactly people will vote in the upcoming elections.
In methodology, such a shortened version of confirming truth is falsification. In ordinary life, this means distortion of the truth. A falsified product means of poor quality. Falsified goods are also called counterfeit products, i.e. inconsistent with the stated fact, contrary to what is said on the title, in the advertisement, on the sign, in its name. In politics, voter votes are falsified, i.e. manipulate them, put them on the list non-existent people, cross out persons who voted for representatives of the hostile party, falsify ballots, etc.
If verification is confirmation of the truth, then falsification is its distortion. Although verification and falsification procedures originated within the framework of natural science, were formed in relation to solving natural scientific problems, and are designed for mathematical apparatus natural sciences, they are successfully applied in sociology. We owe this to American sociologists - representatives quantitative methodology, scientific school which existed in the 20-30s. XX century (P. Lazarsfeld, J. Landberg, etc.).
Science studies only that which exists in itself and independently of the subject. She is not interested in why it is, what could be, what should be, and how good or bad it is. In principle, science can answer these questions, but it ignores them. She does not seek to find absolute truth by answering everything possible questions. You can approach self-restraint in different ways, but the scientific community believes that this style allows you to achieve the most significant results.
Science is based on evidence, so only what can be confirmed or disproved makes sense. Confirmation and refutation are two types of evidence. Confirmation proves truth, and refutation proves falsity. Science strives for universal obligatory nature and universal recognition of the degree of accuracy and objectivity of its statements. Conclusions and statements must be equally convincing for everyone.
Philosophical ideas, unlike scientific knowledge, are closely related to subjective preferences. The materialist considers eternal and infinite matter to be the first principle, and the idealist considers the ideal, spiritual (God, the World Mind, the Absolute Idea, etc.) to be the first principle. These opposing ideas can neither be confirmed nor refuted, so you can only believe one or the other. In general, this is a question of the relationship of consciousness to being.
Today, the scientific community recognizes two criteria on the basis of which it distinguishes scientific knowledge from pseudoscientific
The principle of verification is (from the Latin verus - true and facere - to do), by virtue of which only that knowledge is scientific that can be confirmed (one way or another, directly or indirectly, earlier or later). This principle was proposed by Bertrand Russell.
The principle of falsification is (from the Latin false - lie and facere - to do), by virtue of which only that knowledge is scientific that can (one way or another, directly or indirectly, sooner or later) be refuted. This principle was proposed by Karl Popper.
If the first criterion does not raise questions, then the indisputability of the second is in doubt. Its practical application in relation to science will result in a final disaster, and who can guarantee that one day this will not be done? The criterion must be recognized as unnatural and suicidal. If the principle of verification is aimed at strengthening the system of scientific knowledge, then the principle of falsification is aimed at its destruction. In nature, a system based on such principles would be doomed to destruction.
The principle of falsification violates logic, therefore it must be replaced by a more adequate one. Only that knowledge is scientific that can be changed, that is, either refuted or supplemented. The need for addition follows from the unity of certainty and uncertainty. Scientific knowledge should not be absolute. Even if science does not strive for absolute truth (i.e., complete certainty), but what to do if knowledge needs to be clarified? In the proposed interpretation, the criteria for scientificity become opposites, and this alone makes them natural and invulnerable. They will withstand the most biased criticism.
Totality scientific criteria defines a very specific model of science, which is denoted by the term classical science . The system of selected criteria can be presented in the following way. Firstly, scientific character identified with objectivity. Objectivity is understood as focus on an object, as objectivity. For science, everything is an object comprehended through experience.
The second feature of science - experienced nature of knowledge. Observation, experiment, measurement are the main methods of obtaining and confirming knowledge. In this regard, to scientific experiment demand is made reproducibility And repeatability. The experiment can be repeated at any time and in any place and its result will not change. Scientific result does not depend on who received it.
Finally, scientific knowledge is knowledge aimed at searching for truth. The deep connection between classical science and truth is expressed by the popular statement: to be scientific means to be true. Truth is a litmus test for scientific validity. No other knowledge is assessed for truth: neither poetry, nor musical composition, nor a religious treatise... It is the truth of scientific knowledge that makes it universal and universal, allows it to be embodied and applied in technology, in control systems.
Scientific criteria - objectivity, truth, intersubjectivity, universalism, reproducibility, reliability and experience of knowledge characterize the classical model of science. It's kind of ideal model, which in real story science was unlikely to fully correspond to any theoretical construction. As a rule, textbooks do not provide all of the scientific criteria listed here, but only some of them, for example, experimental nature and reliability scientific statements, or universalism and fundamentalism. The fact is that these criteria represent a system of restrictions that are extremely closely related to each other, in a sense, tautological. Once you give up one, all the others will be impossible to achieve. The system of requirements for knowledge tested for scientific character is far from random, but is determined by the sociocultural situation.
Several are known criteria demarcation scientific and pseudoscientific ideas- This:
The principle is used in the logic and methodology of science to establish the truth of scientific statements as a result of their empirical verification.
Distinguish:
Direct verification - as a direct test of statements formulating observational and experimental data;
Indirect verification - as the establishment of logical relationships between indirectly verifiable statements.
The principle of verification makes it possible, to a first approximation, to limit scientific knowledge from clearly extra-scientific knowledge. However, it cannot help where the system of ideas is tailored in such a way that absolutely all possible empirical facts can be interpreted in its favor - ideology, religion, astrology, etc.
2. The principle of falsification.
Its essence: criterion scientific status theory is its falsifiability, or falsifiability, that is, only knowledge can claim the title of “scientific”, which is, in principle, falsifiable. The principle of falsification makes knowledge relative, depriving it of immutability, absoluteness, and completeness.
Falsifiability (falsifiability, Popper criterion) - scientific criterion empirical theory formulated by K. Popper. A theory satisfies Popper's criterion (is falsifiable) if there is a methodological possibility of refuting it by performing an experiment, even if such an experiment was not performed. Philosophical doctrine according to which the falsifiability of a theory is a necessary condition its scientific nature is called Falsificationism .
The essence of the criterion.
The falsifiability criterion requires that the theory or hypothesis not be fundamentally irrefutable. According to Popper, a theory cannot be considered scientific only on the basis that there are one, several, or indefinitely many experiments that confirm it. Since almost any theory formed on the basis of at least some experimental data allows for a large number of confirmatory experiments, the presence of confirmation cannot be considered a sign of the scientific nature of the theory.
According to Popper, theories differ in relation to the possibility of setting up an experiment that could, at least in principle, give a result that would refute a given theory. A theory for which this possibility exists is called falsifiable. A theory for which such a possibility does not exist, that is, within a framework that can explain any result of any conceivable experiment(in the area that the theory describes) is called unfalsifiable.
Popper's criterion is only a criterion for classifying a theory as scientific, but is not a criterion for its truth or the possibility of its successful application. The relationship between the falsifiability of a theory and its truth may be different. If an experiment that casts doubt on a falsified theory actually produces a result that contradicts this theory, then the theory becomes falsified, that is, false, but this will not cease to be falsifiable, that is, scientific.
“At that time, I was not interested in the question of “when is a theory true?”, and not in the question of “when is a theory acceptable?” I set myself another problem. I wanted to make a distinction between science and pseudoscience, knowing full well that science is often wrong, and that pseudoscience can accidentally stumble upon the truth."
In justifying precisely this criterion of scientificity, Popper cited as an example the difference between such theories as general theory Einstein's relativity, historical Marx's materialism and the theories of psychoanalysis of Freud and Adler. He drew attention to the fact that these theories differ greatly in terms of the possibility of their experimental verification and refutations. Theories of psychoanalysis It is impossible to subject such a test in principle. No matter how a person behaves, his behavior can be explained from the perspective of psychoanalytic theories; there is no behavior that would refute these theories.
Unlike psychoanalysis, general theory of relativity allows for verification. So, according to general relativity, bodies large mass(for example, stars) with their attraction bend the course of light rays. As a result, the light distant star, visible close to the sun, changes direction, and the star appears to be displaced from the place in which it is located when observed far from solar disk. This effect can be observed during full solar eclipse when the light of the Sun does not interfere with seeing stars near it. If, as a result of the check, it turns out that the effect is not observed, its absence will become evidence of the failure of general relativity, i.e. such an experiment, theoretically, could falsify general relativity. Eddington tested this prediction during the eclipse of May 29, 1919, resulting in the previously predicted effect.
“In the example under consideration, the risk that such a prediction is associated with is impressive. If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely not present, then the theory is simply rejected. This theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation - with those results that everyone before Einstein would have expected. This situation is quite different from that previously described, where the corresponding [psychological] theories were found to be compatible with all human behavior, and it was practically impossible to describe any form of human behavior that was not a confirmation of these theories.”
The situation is more complicated With Marxist theory . In its original form, it was completely falsifiable, and therefore scientific. She made predictions that could be verified: she predicted future social revolutions, their timing and the states in which they will occur. However, all these predictions did not come true. Thus, Marxism was falsified, but its supporters, instead of accepting the refutation and recognizing the theory as false, took a different path: they reinterpreted the theory and its predictions so that the conclusions of the theory were in agreement with practice. As a result, they “saved” the theory, but did so at the cost of losing its falsifiability - Marxism turned from a scientific theory into pseudoscience. Subsequently, as K. Eskov noted, “in the USSR, Marxism turned into pure theology, that is, the interpretation of sacred texts.”
The falsifiability criterion does not require that already at the moment the theory is put forward, it is possible to actually set up an experiment to test the theory. It only requires that the possibility of performing such an experiment exists in principle.
“Einstein's theory of gravity obviously satisfies the criterion of falsifiability. Even if during the period of her nomination our measuring instruments It was not yet possible to talk about the results of its tests with complete confidence; the possibility of refuting this theory undoubtedly existed even then.
Astrology is not subject to verification. Astrologers are so mistaken about what they consider to be supporting evidence that they pay no attention to examples that are unfavorable to them. Moreover, by making their interpretations and prophecies vague enough, they are able to explain away everything that might be a refutation of their theory if it and the prophecies that follow from it were more accurate. To avoid falsification, they destroy the testability of their theories. This is the usual trick of all soothsayers: to predict events so vaguely that the predictions always come true, that is, so that they are irrefutable.
The two mentioned earlier psychoanalytic theories belong to a different class. They are simply untestable and irrefutable theories... This does not mean that Freud and Adler did not say anything correct at all... But it does mean that those “clinical observations” that psychoanalysts naively believe confirm their theory do not do so in to a greater extent than the daily confirmations found by astrologers in their practice. As for Freud's description of the I (Ego), the Super-I (Super-Ego) and the Id (Id), it is essentially no more scientific than history Homer about Olympus. The theories under consideration describe some facts, but do so in the form of a myth. They contain very interesting psychological assumptions, but they express them in an untestable form.”
An interesting result of applying Popper's criterion: some provisions can be considered scientific, but their negations cannot, and vice versa. So, for example, the assumption about the existence of God (not a specific god, but God in general) is non-falsifiable, and therefore cannot be accepted as a scientific hypothesis (non-falsifiability is due to the fact that it is impossible to refute the existence of God - any refutation can be rejected by declaring that God is outside physical world, physical laws, beyond logic and so on). At the same time, the assumption of the non-existence of God is falsifiable (to refute it, it is enough to present God and demonstrate his supernatural features), and therefore can be accepted as a scientific hypothesis.
The falsifiability of statements about the existence of anything at all.
If we have an internally consistent idea about some physical object, then we can wonder about its existence anywhere in the universe.
It turns out two theories:
1) does this exist anywhere;
2) this does not exist anywhere in the universe.
From the point of view of the principle of falsifiability, these two theories are fundamentally different.
The theory of non-existence is naturally falsifiable: to refute it, it is enough to present something whose existence is denied. Thus, the theory of the non-existence of anything will always be scientific, regardless of the existence of which is denied.
With the falsifiability of the theory about existence is much more complicated. We need to come up with an experiment to refute it. But all our experiments are always limited both in space and time. Regarding space: in principle, the universe can have infinite extent (if its average density is less than a certain critical one). In this case, at any age of earthly civilization, we will only have final number people (living or living at that moment in time) and, naturally, a finite number of all possible experiments carried out to at this moment time. And since each experiment covers a limited space, then they will all cover a limited space. Well, in the space not covered by our experiments, theoretically there can be anything, including something whose existence is refuted.
Thus, when medium density substance in the universe is less than critical, any theory of existence cannot be refuted at any stage of the development of civilization (i.e. never), and therefore cannot be recognized scientifically as non-falsifiable.
3. Rational principle is the main means of validating knowledge. It acts as a guide to certain norms, scientific ideals, and standards of scientific results.
Within the framework of the rational style of thinking, scientific knowledge is characterized by the following methodological criteria:
Universality, that is, the exclusion of any specifics - place, time, subject, etc.;
Consistency, or consistency, provided deductively deployment of a knowledge system;
Simplicity; A good theory is one that explains the widest range of phenomena based on a minimum number of principles;
Explanatory potential;
Science criteria
There are 6 criteria for scientific knowledge:
1. systematic knowledge - scientific knowledge always has a systematic, ordered nature;
2. target - any scientific knowledge is the result of a set scientific goal;
3. activity-based - scientific knowledge is always the result of the activities of scientists to realize the set scientific goal;
4. rationalistic - scientific knowledge is always based on reason (in the traditions of the East, the priority of intuition as a supersensible perception of reality has been established);
5. experimental - scientific knowledge must be confirmed experimentally;
6. mathematical - mathematical apparatus must be applicable to scientific data.
The knowledge accumulated by people has three levels: ordinary, empirical (experienced) and theoretical (level of scientific knowledge).
The result of scientific activity is scientific knowledge, which, depending on the content and application, is divided into:
1. factual - represent a set of systematized facts of objective reality;
2. theoretical (fundamental) - theories that explain processes occurring in objective reality;
3. technical and applied (technology) - knowledge about practical application acquired knowledge;
4. practically applied (praxeological) - knowledge about the economic effect obtained as a result of the application of scientific achievements.
The forms of scientific knowledge are: scientific concepts, programs, typologies, classifications, hypotheses, theories.
Solution to any scientific problem includes putting forward various guesses and assumptions. Scientific assumption, put forward to eliminate a situation of uncertainty, is called a hypothesis. This is not certain, but probable knowledge. The truth or falsity of such knowledge needs to be verified. The process of establishing the truth of a hypothesis is called verification. A hypothesis confirmed experimentally is called a theory
1. Ideals and norms n. research - a scheme for the development of objects, the characteristics of which are presented in theoretical and empirical form. Ideals and norms express value and target settings science, answering the questions: what are these or those needed for? cognitive activities, what type of product (knowledge) should be obtained as a result of their implementation and in what way to obtain this product.
Highlight:
1) ideals and norms explanations and descriptions;
2) evidence and justification of knowledge;
3) building an organization of knowledge.
It is necessary to distinguish scientific knowledge from non-scientific knowledge. It is also necessary to distinguish scientific knowledge from pre-scientific knowledge.
The problem of demarcation. Demarcation - drawing a dividing line. The problem of demarcation of science consists in the problem of distinguishing lines separating science from non-science. The problem of demarcation leads us to the problem scientific criteria ; the difference between true knowledge and false knowledge.
Basic features of scientific knowledge
The listed signs also act as ideals and norms of science and together form scientific criteria . A criterion is a way to determine what is scientific and what is not.
Scientific norms- these are the requirements that are satisfied by science, scientific knowledge; the requirements have imperativeness.
Since there are many sciences, then various sciences V varying degrees satisfy certain scientific standards.
The norms of scientificity are validity of knowledge, empirical confirmability, logical consistency.
Ideals are not fully achievable. An ideal is that state of scientific knowledge to which science should strive, a certain perfection of science, in truth, the proper state.
Truth is an ideal.
Objectivity - scientific knowledge is objective. Signs of scientific knowledge act as norms and ideals. Norms can act as ideals and vice versa.
Scientific criteria (signs)
1. Presence of the laws of science in scientific knowledge.
Laws are essential and repetitive stable connections between properties and processes, etc.
The laws of science fix effective connections in a special form using the language of science. Science strives to understand the essence of the processes of phenomena being studied. The essence is expressed through the law. Laws are a fundamental component of scientific knowledge. Not all sciences formulate laws. Nomothetic - law-setting. There are nomothetic sciences. For a long time it was believed that the truly mature sciences were the nomothetic sciences. In some sciences, instead of laws, the existence of sustainable trends- development trend.
2. Scientific knowledge.
This is systematically organized built knowledge. System organization scientific knowledge is manifested in various levels. The systems are separate scientific theories and concepts, individual sciences and scientific disciplines strive for consistency, science as a whole strives for consistency. Systematicity requirements are sometimes clarified through the requirement of coherence of scientific knowledge. Coherence is consistency. Scientific knowledge must be self-consistent and internal contradictions are excluded.
3. Empirical validity of scientific knowledge.
Scientific knowledge must be confirmed by experience, i.e., the results of observations and experiments.
Verification(verification from the Latin word truth and do) Verification - to do the truth; Verification is empirical confirmation. Neopositivists of the 20s - 50s of the 20th century formulated the principle of verification, with the help of which, in their opinion, they distinguish scientific knowledge from non-scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is that which can be verified - empirically confirmed. In this way they tried to solve the problem of demarcation. Indeed, the neopositivist approach has demonstrated its limitations. The sharpest criticism was directed against the philosophy of metaphysics.
It turned out that this principle is not fully satisfied by the most important fundamental elements of scientific knowledge itself. The laws of science from a logical point of view represent universal necessary judgments. The wording of laws includes phrases.
In other words, neopositivists underestimated the independence (autonomy) of theoretical knowledge; they absolutized the meaning of empirical knowledge; theory for them is only a convenient form of representing empirical knowledge.
Falsification- the opposite of verification. Falsification - to make false. When the limitations of verifiability became obvious, they began to look for another approach to solving the problem of demarcation of scientific knowledge. This approach was proposed by K. Popper.
Popper formulated the principle of falsifiability - scientific knowledge must be falsifiable - refutable, if some system of knowledge is not falsifiable, it is not scientific.
Popper noticed to fundamental asymmetry, a huge number of confirmations of a certain element of knowledge does not guarantee its truth, at the same time, the only falsification of this element is sufficient to confirm its falsity. Criticism K. Popper directed against Marxism and Freudianism. Popper sought to show that Marxism and Freudianism are not scientific because they do not possess the principle of falsifiability. The essence of Popper's approach is that it denies the existence of universal theories and concepts applicable everywhere; every theory and concept has limited area applicability. In a sense, any statement, any concept can be empirically confirmed; reality is infinitely rich. Facts are theoretically loaded.
4. Logical consistency, validity, evidence of scientific knowledge.
Scientific texts must be compiled taking into account the requirements, rules, laws logical thinking, logic. This feature is especially clearly presented in the logical and mathematical sciences; in general, thinking should be logically consistent in any science. Reality cannot be represented in the form linear system. Albert Schweitzer. Validity of scientific knowledge. Justify - provide appropriate justification. To substantiate some statement that we consider justified.
The most rigorous type of justification is proof, and more or less rigorous proof is found in logical or mathematical disciplines. Some judgments are empirical experimental data on the other hand, more or less theoretical statements. This feature of rational knowledge concentrates
5. Specialization, subjectivity, disciplinarity of scientific knowledge.
Scientific knowledge is knowledge about a certain subject, about a certain subject area, disciplinary organized scientific knowledge. Science exists in the form of many sets of sciences or scientific disciplines. The development of science is accompanied by the differentiation of scientific knowledge and knowledge, that is, the emergence of ever new, highly specialized scientific disciplines. Identifying the subject of science or a scientific discipline is often challenging task. The history of this science is also the history of the subject self-determination of science: the development of science is accompanied by a clarification of the subject area. The subject of science is often created by people, researchers.
6. Objectivity, adequacy, truth, scientific knowledge.
Truth is and greatest value and the greatest problem of both philosophy and science. The complexity of this problem has given rise to a position of both philosophy and science whose representatives call for abandoning the concept of truth.
At a certain stage of his creative path Popper also defended this position. To abandon the concept of a true theory, even if we somehow construct a true theory, we cannot prove that it is true. True knowledge is knowledge corresponding to its subject. In place of the concept of true knowledge, he proposed the concept of plausible knowledge.
Subsequently, when Popper became acquainted with the works, And Tarski created the semantic concept of truth. The problem of meaning and significance. Semiotics is the science of sign systems. Semantics is a branch of semiotics. Objectification is a transition from thoughts, ideas, plans, through activity to an object. Deobjectification is a transition from the logic of objects to the logic of concepts. In real, valid scientific knowledge, elements of objective and subjective are intertwined. Convention. Conventionalism - the importance of agreements in science.
7. The need for methods and means of scientific knowledge.
Diversification is the growth, quantity and rise in cost of methods and means of cognition.
8. Specific language.
Scientific knowledge is expressed in special language. Narrow specialization and manufacturability, the language of science strives for rigor and unambiguity. The language of science is necessary to express the deep properties of the corresponding subject area. To master science, you need to master its language. Not only does each science have its own language, but also each scientific concept. The understanding of the term is determined by the context.
9. Economy of scientific knowledge.
Economy is the desire to make do with a minimum of means (theoretical and linguistic) Occam’s “blade or razor”: do not invent an entity beyond what is necessary. This rule cuts off everything unnecessary - that's why the blade or razor. Minimax - using a minimum of theoretical means to describe, explain, the widest possible area of thinking; this is the beauty of scientific theories.
Science strives to bring unity into diversity.
10. Openness of scientific knowledge to criticism and self-criticism.
By nature adogmatic. In science, any element of knowledge must be criticized. This is true in relation to those elements of knowledge that the subject contributes. Each element of knowledge is included in scientific knowledge if it satisfies the norms and ideals of scientificity that take place in science at a given stage of its development. Any element of knowledge will sooner or later be forced out of science. Categories of what is and what should be. Science must be real and adogmatic. In real science there are both dogmatists and conservatives; criticism and self-criticism of science is carried out in scientific disputes.
Eristic- the art of argument. We must distinguish between discussion and polemics. Controversy comes from other Greek. war. Disputes in science must have a specific goal, a scientific goal, progress towards adequate, objective, true knowledge. Disputes in science should not have false goals. Victory at any cost defense scientific interests of this group. Disputes in science must satisfy the requirements of the ethics of science. Criticism and self-criticism are an integral part. Dogmatists are contrasted with relativists. Dogmatists absolutize certain truths, relativists prove that everything is relative.
11. Cumulativeness of scientific knowledge
Cumulativeness - comes from the word accumulation; in science there is undoubted progress, an expansion of the circle of knowledge, from less detailed to more detailed. The development of science is the growth of the volume of scientific knowledge. True, in the 20th century, in the 2nd half of the 20th century, a movement was formed called anticumulativism, which called into question the movement of science. Anticumulativism, Karl Popper, T. Kuhn, a thesis was put forward about the incommensurability of successive scientific paradigms (theories, concepts) - an exemplary theory. These signs may act as ideals and norms of science . The set or system of these characteristics can act as scientific criterion.
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS OF SCIENTIFICITY
The theory is highest form organization of scientific knowledge that gives a holistic view of significant connections and relationships in any area of reality. The development of a theory is usually accompanied by the introduction of concepts that capture the directly unobservable aspects of objective reality. Therefore, verification of the truth of the theory cannot be directly carried out by direct observation and experiment.
Such a “separation” of theory from directly observable reality gave rise in the 20th century. There are a lot of discussions on the topic of what kind of knowledge can and should be recognized as scientific, and what kind of knowledge should be denied this status. The problem was that the relative independence of theoretical knowledge from its empirical basis, the freedom to construct various theoretical constructs involuntarily create the illusion of the unimaginable ease of inventing universal explanatory schemes and the complete scientific impunity of authors for their stunning ideas.
Well-deserved authority science is often used to give more weight to the revelations of all kinds of prophets, healers, researchers of “astral entities”, traces of extraterrestrial aliens, etc. The external scientific form and the use of semi-scientific terminology create the impression of involvement in the achievements of great science and the still unknown secrets of the Universe at the same time.
Critical remarks about “non-traditional” views are countered in a simple but reliable way: traditional science is by its nature conservative and inclined to persecute everything new and unusual - and Giordano Bruno was burned, and Mendel was not understood, etc. The question arises: “Is it possible Is it possible to clearly distinguish pseudoscientific ideas from the ideas of science itself? Verification principle. For these purposes, different directions of scientific methodology have formulated several principles. One of them is called the principle of verification: any concept or judgment has meaning if it is reducible to direct experience or statements about it, i.e. empirically verifiable.
If you find something empirically fixed for such a judgment fails, then it either represents a tautology or is meaningless. Since concepts developed theory, as a rule, are not reducible to experimental data, then a relaxation has been made for them: indirect verification is also possible. For example, it is impossible to indicate an experimental analogue to the concept of “quark”. But the quark theory predicts a number of phenomena that can already be detected experimentally. And thereby indirectly verify the theory itself. However, in in this case such verification regarding quarks is a fallacy. Between elementary particles and quarks exist next form duality: To understand the essence of this identity, let us consider the relationship between the geocentric and geocentric system of motion of the planets of the Solar system
The theoretical model for describing the motion of planets here can be represented adequately by observations, but physical meaning is diametrically opposed. The principle of verification makes it possible, to a first approximation, to distinguish scientific knowledge from clearly extra-scientific knowledge. However, it cannot help where the system of ideas is tailored in such a way that it can interpret absolutely all possible empirical facts in its favor - ideology, religion, astrology, etc.
In such cases It is useful to resort to another principle of differentiation between science and non-science, proposed by greatest philosopher XX century K. Popper, - the principle of falsification. The principle of falsification states: the criterion for the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability or falsifiability. In other words, only that knowledge can claim the title of “scientific” that is, in principle, refutable. Despite the seemingly paradoxical form, and perhaps because of it, this principle has a simple and deep meaning. K. Popper drew attention to the significant asymmetry in the procedures of confirmation and refutation in cognition.
No number of falling apples is sufficient to conclusively prove the truth of a law. universal gravity. However, just one apple flying away from the Earth is enough for this law to be recognized as false. Therefore, it is precisely attempts to falsify, i.e. to refute a theory should be most effective in terms of confirming its truth and scientific character. A theory that is irrefutable in principle cannot be scientific. The idea of the divine creation of the world is in principle irrefutable. For any attempt to refute it can be presented as the result of the same divine plan, all the complexity and unpredictability of which is simply too much for us to handle.
But since this idea is irrefutable, which means it is outside science. However, it should be noted that the consistently applied principle of falsification makes any knowledge hypothetical, i.e. deprives it of completeness, absoluteness, immutability. Therefore, the constant threat of falsification keeps science “on its toes” and prevents it from stagnating and resting on its laurels. Criticism is the most important source of the growth of science and an integral feature of its image. But criticism is good when it is not about radically changing the existing scientific paradigm. Therefore, criticism of qualitatively new knowledge has always generated (and continues to generate) rejection of the new. Scientists working in science consider the issue of distinguishing between science and non-science not too difficult.
The thing is, that they intuitively feel the genuine and pseudoscientific nature of knowledge, since they are guided by certain norms and ideals of scientificity, certain standards research work. These ideals and norms of science express ideas about the goals of scientific activity and ways to achieve them. And these ideals and norms bear the imprint of the existing scientific paradigm. Suffice it to recall the rejection of cybernetics and genetics and it will become clear to us that the classification of cybernetics and genetics as pseudosciences is not a consequence of a subjective decision of one or another scientific institute. Accepted scientific solutions, as a rule, are objective in nature, but they reflect the essence of the existing scientific paradigm.
Scientists understand well that these ideals and norms of scientificity are historically changeable, but nevertheless, in all eras, a certain invariant of such norms remains, due to the unity of the style of thinking formed back in Ancient Greece. It is usually called rational.
This style of thinking is based essentially on two fundamental ideas:
Natural orderliness, i.e. recognition of the existence of universal, natural and accessible to reason causal connections;
Formal proof as the main means of validating knowledge.
Versatility, i.e. exclusion of any specifics - place, time, subject, etc.;
Explanatory potential;
Availability of predictive power.
These general criteria
The principle of global deductionism. The principle of global deductionism represents a completely different style of thinking. It reflects the essence of new scientific thinking. This principle is a consequence of the consistent multi-level application of simple rules for deriving consequences from causes, in an image and likeness, reflecting the interconnection and complementarity of dual relationships. 
This is how a double chain is formed genetic code systems of any nature. This chain is fully applicable to methods of Cognition, if we replace the abstract dual relation in it with the following identity 
This identity reflects the unity of the methods of deduction and induction at all levels of the hierarchy of scientific knowledge. Modern science uses double chain 
Here, scientific knowledge begins with induction (the numerator on the left side) and ends with deduction (the denominator on the right side of the identity). In this case, deduction plays the role of generalizing the received Particular Knowledge and deducing new knowledge from it, within the framework of this Single, but Particular Knowledge. You should pay attention to next feature scales with two “yokes”. One of them reflects the manifested side of the relationship. This is what an external observer sees: “Induction” - “Deduction”. Other - reflects the inner essence external form: "deduction" - "induction".
Thus, the internal essence of the category "Induction" on the left side of the identity is "deduction", while the internal essence of the category "Deduction" is "induction". Such an interpretation of the essence of “external” and “internal” generally applies to any identity that reflects the relationship of the laws of preserving the symmetry of relations in systems of any nature. But the laws of evolution of the dual relationship give rise to the following identity 
From which follows the paradigm of new thinking 
Therefore, such a double chain will be capable of verifying existing scientific knowledge in any field of scientific activity in the most natural way, cutting off everything from the Knowledge of the One scientific speculation and fabrications, separating truly scientific Knowledge from False Knowledge.
Criteria and norms of scientific character
Theory is the highest form of organization of scientific knowledge, giving a holistic idea of the essential connections and relationships in any area of reality. The development of a theory is usually accompanied by the introduction of concepts that directly capture the unobservable aspects of objective reality. Therefore, verification of the truth of the theory cannot be directly carried out by direct observation and experiment. Such a “separation” of theory from directly observable reality gave rise in the 20th century. There are many discussions on the topic of what kind of knowledge can and should be recognized as scientific. The problem was that the relative independence of theoretical knowledge from its empirical basis, the freedom to construct various theoretical constructs involuntarily create the illusion of the ease of inventing universal explanatory schemes and the scientific impunity of authors for their stunning ideas.
The well-deserved authority of science is often used to give greater weight to the revelations of all kinds of prophets, healers, researchers of “astral entities,” traces of extraterrestrial aliens, etc. In this case, semi-scientific terminology is also used. Criticisms addressed to “non-traditional” views are countered in a simple but reliable way: traditional science is by its nature conservative and tends to persecute everything new and unusual - D. Bruno was burned, Mendel was not understood, etc.
The question arises: Is it possible to clearly distinguish between pseudoscientific ideas and science itself? For these purposes, different directions of scientific methodology have formulated several principles. One of them was named verification principle: any concept or judgment has meaning if it is reducible to direct experience or statements about it, i.e. empirically verifiable. If it is not possible to find something empirically fixed for such a judgment, then it is considered that it either represents a tautology or is meaningless.
Since the concepts of the developed theory, as a rule, are not reducible to experimental data, then a relaxation has been made for them: indirect verification is also possible. Let's say, indicate an experimental analogue to the concept "quark" ( hypothetical particle) impossible. But the quark theory predicts a number of phenomena that can already be detected experimentally. And thereby indirectly verify the theory itself. The principle of verification makes it possible, to a first approximation, to distinguish scientific knowledge from clearly extra-scientific knowledge. However, it will not help where the system of ideas is tailored in such a way that absolutely all possible empirical facts can be interpreted in its favor - ideology, religion, astrology, etc.
In such cases it is useful to resort to another principle of differentiation between science and non-science, proposed by the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. K. Popper, - principle of falsification. It states: the criterion for the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability or falsifiability. In other words, only that knowledge can claim the title of “scientific” that is, in principle, refutable. Despite the seemingly paradoxical form, or perhaps because of it, this principle has a simple and deep meaning. K. Popper drew attention to the significant asymmetry in the procedures of confirmation and refutation in cognition.
No number of falling apples is sufficient to definitively confirm the truth of the law of universal gravitation. However, it only takes one apple to fly away from the Earth for this law to be recognized as false. Therefore, it is precisely attempts to falsify, i.e. to refute a theory should be most effective in terms of confirming its truth and scientific character. It can, however, be noted that the consistently applied principle of falsification makes any knowledge hypothetical, i.e. deprives it of completeness, absoluteness, immutability. But this is probably not a bad thing: it is the constant threat of falsification that keeps science “on its toes” and does not allow it to stagnate, as they say, to rest on its laurels.
Criticism is essential source of the growth of science and an integral feature of its image. It can be noted that scientists working in science consider the issue of distinguishing between science and non-science not too difficult. They intuitively sense the genuine and pseudoscientific nature of knowledge, since they are guided by certain norms and ideals of scientificity, certain standards of research work. These ideals and norms of science express ideas about the goals of scientific activity and ways to achieve them. Although they are historically changeable, a certain invariant of such norms remains in all eras, due to the unity of the style of thinking formed back in Ancient Greece. It is usually called rational. This style of thinking is based, in essence, on two fundamental ideas: - natural orderliness, i.e. recognition of the existence of universal, natural and accessible to reason causal relationships; and formal proof as the main means of validating knowledge.
Within the framework of a rational style of thinking, scientific knowledge is characterized by the following methodological criteria:
- versatility, i.e. exclusion of any specifics - place, time, subject, etc.;
Coherence or consistency provided by the deductive method of unfolding a system of knowledge;
Simplicity; A good theory is one that explains the widest possible range of phenomena, based on a minimum number of scientific principles;
Explanatory potential;
Availability of predictive power.
These general criteria, or scientific norms, are constantly included in the standard of scientific knowledge. More specific norms that define patterns of research activity depend on subject areas science and the socio-cultural context of the birth of a particular theory.