The structure of scientific knowledge levels methods. Structure and levels of scientific knowledge
scientific knowledge – highest level logical thinking. It is aimed at studying the deep aspects of the essence of the world and man, the laws of reality. Expression scientific knowledge is scientific discovery- detection of previously unknown essential properties, phenomena, laws or regularities.
Scientific knowledge has 2 levels: empirical and theoretical .
1) Empirical level related to the subject of scientific research and includes 2 components: sensory experience (sensations, perceptions, ideas) and their primary theoretical understanding , primary conceptual processing.
Empirical knowledge uses 2 main forms of study - observation and experiment . The main unit of empirical knowledge is knowledge of scientific fact . Observation and experiment are the 2 sources of this knowledge.
Observation- this is a purposeful and organized sensory cognition of reality ( passive collection of facts). It may be free, produced only with the help of human senses, and instrumentation carried out with the help of instruments.
Experiment- the study of objects through their purposeful change ( active intervention in objective processes in order to study the behavior of an object as a result of its change).
Facts are the source of scientific knowledge. Fact- this is a real event or phenomenon fixed by our consciousness.
2) Theoretical level consists in the further processing of empirical material, the derivation of new concepts, ideas, concepts.
Scientific knowledge has 3 main forms: problem, hypothesis, theory .
1) Problem is a scientific question. The question is a question. Judgment, it arises only at the level of logical knowledge. The problem differs from ordinary questions in its subject- it is the question of complex properties, phenomena, the laws of reality, for the knowledge of which special scientific means of cognition are needed - a scientific system of concepts, research methods, technical equipment, etc.
The problem has its structure: preliminary, partial knowledge about the subject and defined by science ignorance expressing the main direction of cognitive activity. The problem is the contradictory unity of knowledge and knowledge about ignorance.
2) Hypothesis- Proposed solution to the problem. No scientific problem can get an immediate solution, it requires a long search for such a solution, putting forward hypotheses as different solutions. One of the most important properties of a hypothesis is its multiplicity : each problem of science causes the appearance of a number of hypotheses, from which the most probable are selected, until the final choice of one of them or their synthesis is made.
3) Theory- the highest form of scientific knowledge and a system of concepts that describes and explains a separate area of reality. The theory includes its theoretical grounds(principles, postulates, main ideas), logic, structure, methods and methodology, empirical base. Important parts of the theory are its descriptive and explanatory parts. Description- a characteristic of the corresponding area of reality. Explanation answers the question why is reality the way it is?
Scientific knowledge has research methods- ways of cognition, approaches to reality: most general method , developed by philosophy, general scientific methods, specific methods department of sciences
1) Human knowledge must take into account the universal properties, forms, laws of reality, the world and man, i.e. should be based on general method of knowledge. In modern science, this is the dialectical-materialistic method.
2) Towards general scientific methods relate: generalization and abstraction, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction .
Generalization- the process of separating the common from the singular. A logical generalization builds on what has been obtained at the presentation level and further highlights more and more significant features.
abstraction- the process of abstracting the essential features of things and phenomena from the non-essential. All human concepts therefore appear as abstractions, reflecting the essence of things.
Analysis- mental division of the whole into parts.
Synthesis- mental integration of parts into a single whole. Analysis and synthesis are opposite thought processes. However, analysis turns out to be the leading one, since it is aimed at discovering differences and contradictions.
Induction- the movement of thought from the individual to the general.
Deduction- the movement of thought from the general to the individual.
3) Each science also has with their specific methods, which follow from its main theoretical premises.
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, which is distinguished by its consistency 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 to be the sphere of reality with which the 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 movement 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 cognition, fixing what is known at various stages of this path, make it possible to judge the effectiveness of the direction taken.
A method (from the Greek methods - a way to something) is a way to achieve a certain goal, a set of techniques or operations for practical or theoretical mastering of reality.
Aspects of the method of scientific knowledge: subject-content, operational, axiological.
The subject 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 the theory that mediates the relation of the method and the object. The substantive richness of the method indicates that it has an objective basis. The method is meaningful, objective.
The operational aspect indicates the dependence of the method not so much on the object as on the subject. Here, the level of scientific training of a specialist, his ability to translate ideas about objective laws into cognitive techniques, his experience in applying certain techniques in cognition, and his ability to improve them have a significant impact on him. The method in this respect is subjective.
The axiological aspect of the method is expressed in the degree of its reliability, economy, efficiency. When a scientist sometimes faces the question of choosing one of two or more similar methods, 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 individual 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 also 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 patterns 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 either.” Everything is relative. For example, in order 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 the practical activity of a person and in scientific research, when things that are really homogeneous or close in essence are compared. It makes no sense to compare pounds with arshins.
In science, comparison acts as a comparative or comparative-historical method. Initially, it arose in philology, literary criticism, then it began to be successfully applied in jurisprudence, sociology, history, biology, psychology, history of religion, ethnography and other fields of knowledge. Entire branches of knowledge have arisen that use this method: comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, comparative psychology, and so on. So, 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 in 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 makes it possible to reveal 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 of the process of cognition. It is impossible to know the essence of an object only by decomposing it into the elements of which it consists.
In each field of knowledge there is, as it were, its own limit of division of the object, beyond which we pass into a different world of properties and patterns. When, by means of analysis, particulars have been sufficiently studied, the next stage of knowledge begins - synthesis.
Synthesis is a mental union into a single whole of elements dissected by analysis.
Analysis mainly captures the specific that distinguishes the parts from each other, while synthesis reveals the essential general that links 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, already examined separately. Analysis and synthesis are in unity; in every movement our thinking is as analytical as it is synthetic. Analysis, which provides for the implementation of synthesis, has the allocation of the essential as its central core.
Analysis and synthesis originate in practical activities. Constantly dividing various objects into their component parts in his practical activity, a person gradually learned to separate objects mentally as well. Practical activity consisted not only of the dismemberment of objects, but also of the reunification of parts into a single whole. On this basis, a mental synthesis arose.
Analysis and synthesis are the main methods of thinking that have their own 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 selection of an object in abstraction from its connections with other objects, some property of an object in abstraction from its other properties, any relation of objects in abstraction from the objects themselves.
The question of what in objective reality is distinguished by the abstracting work of thinking and from what thinking is distracted, in each specific case is solved in direct dependence, first of all, on the nature of the object under study and the tasks that are put before the study. For example, I. Kepler did not care about the color of Mars and the temperature of the Sun to establish the laws of planetary circulation.
Abstraction is the movement of thought into the depths of the subject, the selection of its essential moments. For example, in order for this particular property of an object to be considered as chemical, a distraction, an abstraction, is necessary. Indeed, 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 process of abstraction, various concepts about objects appear: “plant”, “animal”, “human”, etc., thoughts about the individual properties of objects and the relationships between them, considered as special “abstract objects”: “whiteness”, "volume", "length", "heat capacity", etc.
Immediate impressions of things are transformed into abstract representations and concepts in complex ways, involving coarsening and ignoring some aspects of reality. This is the one-sidedness of abstractions. But in the living fabric 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 integral perceptions.
An important example of scientific knowledge of the world is idealization as a specific kind of abstraction. Idealization is the mental formation of abstract objects as a result of abstraction from the fundamental impossibility of implementing them in practice. 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 can be: "point" (an object that has neither length, nor height, nor width); "straight line", "circle", "point electric charge", "absolutely black body", etc.
The goal of all knowledge is generalization. Generalization is the process of mental transition from the singular to the general, from the less general to the more general. In the process of generalization, a transition is made from single 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 a less general theory is its special case. It is impossible to cope with the abundance of impressions that flood over us every hour, every minute, every second, if they were not continuously combined, generalized and fixed by means of language. Scientific generalization is not just the selection and synthesis of similar features, but the penetration into the essence of a thing: the perception of the single in the diverse, the general in the singular, the regular in the random.
Examples of generalization are as follows: a mental transition from the concept of "triangle" to the concept of "polygon", from the concept of "mechanical form of matter movement" to the concept of "form of matter movement", etc.
The mental transition from the more general to the less general is a process of limitation. There is no theory without generalization. The theory is created in order to apply it in practice to solve specific problems.
For example, to measure objects, create technical structures, it is always necessary to move from the more general to the less general and individual, i.e. there is always a process of limitation.
abstract and concrete.
The concrete as a directly given, sensuously perceived whole is the starting point of cognition. Thought isolates certain properties and connections, for example, the shape, the number of objects. In this abstraction, visual perception and representation "evaporates" to the degree of abstraction, poor in content, since it one-sidedly, 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 sense organs, but as knowledge of the essential properties and connections of the object, the natural tendencies of its development, and its inherent internal contradictions. This is the concreteness of concepts, categories, theories, reflecting the unity in the diverse, the general in the singular. Thus, thought moves from an abstract, content-poor concept to a concrete, richer concept.
Analogy.
In the nature of the very understanding of facts lies an analogy that connects the threads of the unknown with the known. The new can be comprehended, understood only through the images and concepts of the old, known.
An analogy is a plausible probable conclusion about the similarity of two objects in some feature based on their established similarity in other features.
Despite the fact that analogies allow only probable conclusions, they play a huge role in cognition, as they lead to the formation of hypotheses, i.e. scientific conjectures and assumptions that, in the course of additional research and evidence, can turn into scientific theories. An analogy with what is already known helps to understand what is unknown. The 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 object under study 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, commonality of properties of various objects, 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 proportionality coefficient (the Coulomb interaction constant and the gravitational constant). These are formally common, identical features and correlations of two or more objects with their difference in other respects and features are reflected in the concept of similarity, or analogy, of phenomena of reality.
Model - an imitation of one or a number of properties of an object with the help of some other objects and phenomena. Therefore, any object that reproduces the required features of the original can be a model. 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 information obtained to the modeled object itself, then we are dealing with logical-sign modeling.
Modeling is always and inevitably associated with some simplification of the object being modeled. At the same time, it plays a huge heuristic role, being a prerequisite for a new theory.
Formalization.
Such a method as formalization is essential 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, methods of carrying out labor operations were singled out, generalized, fixed and transferred from the elders to the young 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 formalization of reasoning is that, 1) there is a distraction from the qualitative characteristics of objects; 2) the logical form of judgments is revealed, in which statements regarding these subjects are fixed; 3) reasoning itself is transferred from the plane of consideration of the connection of objects of reasoning in thought to the plane of actions with judgments based on formal relations between them. The use of special symbols makes it possible to eliminate the ambiguity of ordinary language words. 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, the 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 - this is a general line, a pattern of development of an object, for example, the development of society from one social formation to another.
Objectively-historical is a concrete manifestation of this regularity in all the infinite variety of its special and individual manifestations. As applied, for example, to society, this is the real history of all countries and peoples with all their unique individual destinies.
Two methods of cognition follow from these two sides of the objective process - historical and logical.
Any phenomenon can be correctly known only in its origin, 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 jumps and zigzags, and if you follow it everywhere, you would not only have to take into account a lot of material of lesser importance, but also often interrupt the train of thought. Therefore, a logical method of research is needed.
The logical is a generalized reflection of the historical, reflects reality in its natural development, explains the need for this development. The logical as a whole coincides with the historical: it is historical, purified from accidents and taken in its essential laws.
By logical, they often mean the method of cognition of a certain state of an object over a certain period of time, abstracted from its development. It depends on the nature of the object and the objectives of the study. For example, in order 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 stand out.
Induction is the process of deriving a general position from a number of particular (less general) statements, from single facts.
There are usually two main types of induction: complete and incomplete. Complete induction - the conclusion of some general judgment about all objects of a certain set (class) based on the 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 the knowledge of only a part of the objects of this class. Such inferences are called inferences of incomplete induction. They are the closer to reality, the deeper, essential connections are revealed. Incomplete induction, based on experimental research and including theoretical thinking, is capable of giving a reliable conclusion. It is called scientific induction. Great discoveries, leaps in scientific thought are ultimately created by induction - a risky but important creative method.
Deduction - the process of reasoning, going 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 reasoning gives reliable knowledge, provided that such a meaning was contained in the premises. In scientific research, inductive and deductive methods of thinking are organically linked. Induction leads human thought to hypotheses about the causes and general patterns of phenomena; deduction allows us to derive empirically verifiable consequences from general hypotheses and in this way to substantiate or refute them experimentally.
An experiment is a scientifically set experiment, a purposeful study of a phenomenon caused by us under precisely taken into account conditions, when it is possible to monitor the course of a change in a phenomenon, actively influence it using a whole range of various instruments and means, and recreate these phenomena every time the same conditions are present. and when it is needed.
The following elements can be distinguished in the structure of the experiment: 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 fixing, comparing, representative classification of the material obtained; b) an integral element of the experiment is the object of study, which can be various objective phenomena; c) an obligatory element of the experiments are technical means and various kinds 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 experimental stage. This is followed by registration, description of the data, compilation of tables, graphs, processing of the results of the experiment.
The division of methods into general, general scientific and special methods as a whole reflects the structure of scientific knowledge that has developed to date, in which, along with philosophical and particular scientific knowledge, an extensive layer of theoretical knowledge stands out as close as possible in terms of generality to philosophy. In this sense, this classification of methods to a certain extent corresponds to the tasks associated with the consideration of the dialectics of philosophical and general scientific knowledge.
The listed general scientific methods can be simultaneously used at different levels of knowledge - at the empirical and theoretical levels.
The decisive criterion for distinguishing between empirical and theoretical methods is the attitude towards experience. If the methods focus on the use of material research tools (for example, instruments), on the implementation of influences on the object under study (for example, physical dismemberment), on the artificial reproduction of the object or its parts from other material (for example, when direct physical impact is somehow impossible), then such methods can be called empirical. This is, first of all, observation, experiment, subject, physical modeling. With the help of these methods, the cognizing subject masters a certain amount of facts that reflect certain 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 ones. This is expedient, if only because it allows one 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, guide the researcher to the way to identify the content side of the goal. In other words, the application of dialectical methods in a certain way directs thought to the disclosure of what is connected with the content of knowledge. The second (formal-logical methods), on the contrary, orient the researcher not to identify the nature, 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 under study appears as a concrete, as a unity of the manifold. Obviously, there is no proper clarity in understanding the concrete 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, relation, element of the whole. It is successful if it allows a synthesis to be carried out, to restore the whole.
The analysis is supplemented by classification, the features of the studied phenomena are distributed by classes. Classification is the way to concepts. Classification is impossible without making comparisons, finding analogies, similar, similar in phenomena. The researcher's efforts in this direction create the conditions for induction, inference from the particular to some general statement. It is a necessary link on the path to achieving the common. But the researcher is not satisfied with the achievement of the general. Knowing the general, the researcher seeks to explain the particular. If this fails, then 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 fix experimental dependencies, to see the general in particular.
Generalization is associated with highlighting 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. detection of abstraction intervals.
Each new success in the enrichment of the theoretical level of research is accompanied by the ordering of the material and the identification of subordinate relationships. The connection of scientific concepts forms laws. The main laws are often called principles. Theory is not just a system of scientific concepts and laws, but a system of their subordination and coordination.
So, the main points of the formation of a scientific theory are analysis, induction, generalization, idealization, the establishment of subordination and coordination links. 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, a problem and an idea, a hypothesis and a theory.
Types of forms of knowledge.
The methods of scientific knowledge are connected not only with each other, but also with the forms of knowledge.
A problem is a question that needs to be studied and resolved. Solving problems requires enormous mental effort, 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 grasped in the most general form. The information embedded in the idea is so significant for a positive solution to a certain range of problems that it contains, as it were, a tension that encourages concretization and deployment.
The solution of the problem, as well as the concretization of the idea, can be completed by putting forward a hypothesis or building 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, which are observable 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, becomes a scientific theory.
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: according to the degree of generality (private, general), according to the nature of the relationship to other theories (equivalent, isomorphic, homomorphic), according to the nature of the connection with experience and the type of logical structures (deductive and non-deductive), according to the nature of the use of language (qualitative, quantitative). But in whatever form the theory appears today, it is the most significant form of knowledge.
The problem and the idea, the hypothesis and the 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 in this. They also act as forms of knowledge movement and the basis for the formulation of new methods. Defining each other, acting as complementary means, they (i.e., methods and forms of cognition) in their unity provide a solution to cognitive problems, allow a person to successfully master the world around him.
2. Growth of scientific knowledge. Scientific revolutions and changes in the types of rationality
Most often, the formation of theoretical research is stormy and unpredictable. In addition, one important circumstance should be borne 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 viewed 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 the growth and development of knowledge is central to the philosophy of science, which is presented especially vividly in such currents as evolutionary (genetic) epistemology and postpositivism.
Especially actively the problem of growth (development, change of knowledge) was developed, starting from the 60s. XX century, supporters of postpositivism K. Popper, T. Kuhn, I. Lakatos, P. Feyerabend, St. Tulmin and others. The well-known book by K. A. Popper is called just that: "Logic and the growth of scientific knowledge." The need for the growth of scientific knowledge becomes apparent when the use of theory does not give the desired effect.
Real science should not be afraid of refutation: 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 refutation. He likened the development of science to the Darwinian scheme of biological evolution. Constantly put forward new hypotheses and theories must undergo strict selection in the process of rational criticism and attempts at refutation, which corresponds to the mechanism of natural selection in the biological world. Only the "strongest theories" should survive, but they cannot be regarded as absolute truths either. All human knowledge is conjectural in nature, any fragment of it can be doubted, and any provisions should be open to criticism.
New theoretical knowledge for the time being fits into the framework of the existing theory. But there comes a stage when such an inscription is impossible, there is a scientific revolution; The old theory has been replaced by a new one. Some of the former supporters of the old theory are able to assimilate the new theory. Those who cannot do this remain with their former 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 trend in the philosophy of science insist on the thesis of the 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.
The long stages of normal science in Kuhn's concept are interrupted by brief, however, dramatic periods of unrest and revolution in science - periods of paradigm shift.
A period begins, a crisis in science, heated discussions, discussions of fundamental problems. The scientific community often stratifies during this period, innovators are opposed by conservatives who are trying to save the old paradigm. During this period, many scientists cease to be "dogmatists", 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 indeed found, most 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 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 and searching for a new paradigm. The transition from one paradigm to another Kuhn compares with the conversion of people to a new religious faith, firstly, because this transition cannot be explained logically and, secondly, because scientists who have adopted a 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 the scientific revolution (for example, in the late 19th - early 20th centuries) is a common developmental model characteristic of a mature science. In the course of the scientific revolution, there is such a process as a change in the "conceptual grid" through which scientists viewed the world. A change (moreover, a cardinal one) of this "grid" makes it necessary to change the methodological rules-prescriptions.
During 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 negation", but a "sublation", with the preservation of the positive. To characterize this process, Kuhn himself uses the term "prescriptive reconstruction".
Scientific revolutions mark a change in the types of scientific rationality. A number of authors (V.S. Stepin, V.V. Ilyin), depending on the relationship between the object and the subject of cognition, distinguish 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 the scientist to achieve a deep understanding of his actions, 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 very often very successfully carried out in the conditions of an exchange of opinions between the participants in the discussion, in the conditions of dialogue. Modern science has become a matter of collective creativity; accordingly, reflection often acquires a group character.
3. Science and technology
Being the most important element of society and having penetrated literally into all its spheres, science (especially since 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 already found 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 referred to as 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 technique merely 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 stage of systemicity.
Initially, at the stage of manual labor, technology was mainly instrumental; technical tools continued, expanding the capabilities of the natural organs of man, increasing his physical strength. At the stage of mechanization, technology becomes an independent force, labor is mechanized. Technique, as it were, is separated from the person, who, however, is forced to be near it. Now not only the machine is a continuation of man, but the man himself becomes an appendage of the machine, he complements its capabilities. At the third stage of technology development, as a result of the complex 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 union of science and technology, the result 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 gap in time between successive technical and technological restructuring is getting 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, instrumentation, biotechnology complement each other in their development, there is no time gap between them at all.
Let us single out the main philosophical problems of technology.
Let us begin by considering the question of the distinction between the natural and the artificial. Technical objects, artifacts, as a rule, have a physical and chemical nature. The development of biotechnology has shown that artifacts can also be of a biological nature, for example, when colonies of microorganisms are specially grown for their subsequent use in agriculture. Considered as physical, chemical, biological phenomena, technical objects do not differ in principle 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 must be evaluated not only from a natural, but also from a social point of view.
Along with the question of distinguishing between natural and artificial in the philosophy of technology, the problem of the relationship between technology and science is often discussed, while, as a rule, science is put in the first place, and technology in the second place. Characteristic in this regard is the cliché "scientific and technical". 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 beginning to be appreciated. Philosophy is well aware of such a pattern: as it develops, “something” from a subordinate position passes into 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 replaced scientific approaches. Technicians, engineers use science as a means in their action orientation. To act is the slogan of the artificial-technological approach. In contrast to the scientific approach, he does not hunt for knowledge, but strives for the production of apparatus and the implementation of technologies. A nation that has not mastered the artificial-technological approach, suffering from excessive scientific contemplation, looks in the current conditions by no means modern, but rather archaic.
Unfortunately, in university conditions it is always easier to implement a natural-science approach than an artificial-technical one. Future engineers carefully study the natural sciences and technical disciplines, and the latter are often built in the image of the former. As for the actual artificial-technological approach, its implementation requires a developed material and technical base, which is absent in many Russian universities. A university graduate, a young engineer, brought up mainly on the traditions of the natural-science approach, will not properly master the artificial-technological approach. The inefficient cultivation of the engineering and technical approach is one of the main circumstances preventing Russia from standing on a par with the developed industrial countries. The labor efficiency of a Russian engineer is several times lower than the labor efficiency of his colleague from the USA, Japan, Germany.
Another problem of the philosophy of technology is the evaluation of technology and the development of certain norms in this regard. Technique valuation was introduced in the late 1960s. and is now widely practiced in the developed industrial powers. Initially, the big news was the assessment of the social, ethical and other humanitarian consequences of the development of technology that seem secondary and tertiary in relation to technical solutions. A growing number of technology evaluators now point to the need to overcome the paradigm of fragmentation and reductionism in technology. In the first paradigm, the phenomenon of technology is not considered systematically, one of its fragments is singled out. In the second paradigm, technique is reduced, reduced to its natural foundations.
There are many approaches to assessing the phenomenon of technology, let's consider 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. Technique is used by the dominant forces in society, and therefore it is not politically and ideologically neutral. The natural science approach considers technology as an applied science. Rigid logical-mathematical ideals of the natural-science approach are softened in the rational approach. Here technology is seen as a consciously regulated human activity. Rationality is understood as the highest type of organization of technical activity, and if it is supplemented with humanistic components, it is identified with expediency and regularity. This means that socio-cultural adjustments are being made to the scientific understanding of rationality. Their development leads to the ethical aspects of technical activity.
Questions to consolidate 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 universal (universal)?
5. Describe 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 a hypothesis, theory.
9. Outline the process of becoming a scientific theory.
10. What is the meaning of the growth of scientific knowledge.
11. Give the concept of scientific revolution, scientific paradigm.
12. What is the origin of technology?
13. What is the problem of the relationship between science and technology?
knowledge science technology revolution
List of main 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: a 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: Fundamentals of Philosophical Hermeneutics. - M.: Progress, 1988.
7. Kanke V.A. Ethics. Technique. Symbol. Obninsk, 1996.
8. Kuhn T. The 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. Technique and society. - Stavropol: Publishing house of SevKavGTU, 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. Filatov. - M.: Russian word, 1997.
14. Spengler O. Man and technology / / Culturology. XX century. Anthology. - M.: Lawyer, 1999.
Hosted on Allbest.ru
Similar Documents
Analysis of the essence and main characteristics of the method of scientific knowledge. The content of its components - synthesis, abstraction, idealization, generalization, induction, deduction, analogy and modeling. Separation of methods of science 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. Essence and scope of formalization, axiomatization, hypothetical-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. Evaluation of the role of analogy, reduction, induction in the theory and practice of scientific knowledge.
term paper, 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. The development of science as a unity of the processes of differentiation and integration of knowledge.
abstract, added 09/15/2011
Science: concept and social institution. Structure and specifics of scientific knowledge. The concept of method and methodology. Empirical and theoretical research methods. Forms of scientific knowledge. The phenomenon of 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 knowledge: 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. The concept of a method. General logical methods of cognition. Empirical and theoretical methods of scientific research. Feeling. Perception. Performance. Thinking.
control work, added 02/08/2007
Philosophy, its subject, functions and place in modern culture. Cognition as a subject of philosophical analysis. Correlation of knowledge and information. Methods and forms of scientific knowledge. Philosophy of science in the XX century. Genesis, stages of development and main problems of science.
Scientific knowledge and knowledge is an integral developing system with a rather complex structure.
According to the subject and method of cognition, one can single out the sciences of nature (natural science), society (social science, social sciences), the spirit (humanities), cognition and thinking (logic, psychology, etc.). A separate group is made up of technical sciences. Mathematics has a special place. In turn, each group of sciences can be further subdivided. So, the natural sciences include mechanics, physics, chemistry, biology and other sciences, each of which is divided into disciplines - physical chemistry, biophysics, etc. A number of disciplines occupy an intermediate position (for example, economic statistics).
The problematic nature of the orientation of post-non-classical science brought to life interdisciplinary research conducted by means of several scientific disciplines. For example, conservation research is at the crossroads of technical, biological, medical, geosciences, economics, and so on.
In direct relation to practice, they distinguish fundamental and applied science. The task of the fundamental sciences is the knowledge of the laws governing the behavior and interaction of the basic structures of nature, society, and thinking. These laws are studied without regard to their possible use. The goal of applied sciences is to apply the results of fundamental sciences to solve social and practical problems.
In modern epistemology, there are three levels of scientific knowledge: empirical, theoretical and metatheoretical.
Grounds for highlighting the empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge.
1. According to the epistemological orientation, these levels differ in that at the empirical level, knowledge is focused on the study of phenomena and superficial connections between them, without delving into the essence of processes. At the theoretical level of knowledge, the causes and essential connections between phenomena are revealed.
2. The main cognitive task of the empirical level of knowledge - description phenomena, and the theoretical level - explanation phenomena being studied.
3. The differences between the levels of cognition are most clearly manifested in the nature of the results obtained. The main form of knowledge of the empirical level is scientific fact and body of empirical generalizations. At the theoretical level, the knowledge gained is fixed in the form of laws, principles and scientific theories in which the essence of the studied phenomena is revealed.
4. Correspondingly, the methods used to obtain these types of knowledge also differ. The main methods of the empirical level are observation, experiment, inductive generalization. At the theoretical level, such techniques and methods as analysis and synthesis, idealization, induction and deduction, analogy, hypothesis, etc. are widely used.
Despite the differences, there is no rigid boundary between the empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge. Empirical studies often go to the essence of the processes under study, while theoretical studies seek to confirm the correctness of their results with the help of empirical data. Experiment, being the main method of empirical knowledge, is always theoretically loaded, and any abstract theory must have an empirical interpretation.
The complex scientific and cognitive process is not limited to the empirical and theoretical levels. It is advisable to single out a special metatheoretical level, or foundations of science, which represent ideals and norms of scientific research, a picture of the reality under study and philosophical foundations. The ideals and norms of scientific research (INNI) are a set of certain conceptual, value, methodological attitudes inherent in science at each specific historical stage of its development. Their main function is the organization and regulation of scientific research, orientation towards more effective ways and means to achieve true results. INNI can be divided into:
a) common to any scientific research; they separate science from other forms of knowledge (ordinary knowledge, magic, astrology, theology);
b) characteristic of a particular stage in the development of science. With the transition of science to a new stage of its development (for example, from classical to non-classical science), INNIs change dramatically;
c) ideals and norms of a special subject area (for example, biology cannot do without the idea of development, while physics does not explicitly resort to such settings and postulates the immutability of the laws of nature).
The picture of the studied reality (CIR) is the representation of the fundamental objects from which all other objects studied by the corresponding science are supposed to be built. The components of the IRC include space-time representations and general patterns of interaction between objects (for example, causality). These representations can be described in the system ontological postulates. For example, “the world consists of indivisible atoms, their interaction is carried out as an instantaneous transfer of forces in a straight line; atoms and the bodies formed from them move in absolute space and with the passage of absolute time. Such an ontological system of the world, of reality, took shape in the 17th-18th centuries. and was called the mechanistic picture of the world. The transition from the mechanistic to the electrodynamic (the last quarter of the 19th century), and then to the quantum mechanical picture of the reality under study was accompanied by a change in the system of ontological postulates. Breaking KIR is scientific revolution.
The inclusion of scientific knowledge in culture presupposes its philosophical justification. It is carried out through the philosophical ideas and principles that substantiate INNI and CIR. For example, M. Faraday substantiated the material status of electric and magnetic fields with references to the fundamental unity of matter and force. Fundamental science deals with extraordinary objects that have not been mastered by either production or ordinary consciousness, therefore it is necessary to connect these objects with the dominant worldview and culture. This problem is solved with the help of the philosophical foundations of science (FON). Philosophical foundations do not coincide with the entire array of philosophical knowledge, which is much broader and is a reflection not only of science, but of the entire culture. Only a part of philosophical knowledge can act as a background. The adoption and development of many scientific ideas was preceded by their philosophical development. For example, the ideas of atomism, self-regulating systems of Leibniz, self-developing systems of Hegel have found their application in modern science, although they were put forward much earlier in the field of philosophical knowledge.
Over the 2.5 thousand years of its existence, science has become a complex, systematically organized education with a clearly visible structure. The main elements of scientific knowledge are:
firmly established facts;
regularities generalizing groups of facts;
theories, as a rule, representing the knowledge of a system of regularities, in the aggregate describing a certain fragment of reality;
scientific pictures of the world, depicting generalized images of reality, in which all theories that allow mutual agreement are brought together into a kind of systemic unity.
The foundation of science is established facts. If they are established correctly (confirmed by numerous evidence of observation, experiments, tests, etc.), then they are considered indisputable and binding. This is the empirical, that is, the experimental basis of science. The number of facts accumulated by science is constantly increasing. Naturally, they are subject to primary empirical generalization, systematization and classification. The generality of facts found in experience, their uniformity, testify to the fact that a certain empirical law has been found, a general rule to which directly observed phenomena are subject.
Patterns fixed at the empirical level usually explain little. For example, ancient observers discovered that most of the luminous objects in the night sky move along clear circular trajectories, and some make some kind of loop-like movements. Therefore, there is a general rule for both, but how to explain it? It is not easy to do this if you do not know that the first are stars, and the second are planets, including the Earth, whose “wrong” behavior is caused by rotation around the Sun.
In addition, empirical patterns are usually not very heuristic, that is, they do not open further directions for scientific research. These tasks are already solved at another level of cognition - the theoretical one.
The problem of distinguishing two levels of scientific knowledge - theoretical and empirical (experimental) - arises from the specific features of its organization. The essence of the problem lies in the existence of various types of generalization of the material available for study. Science makes laws. And the law is an essential, necessary, stable, recurring connection of phenomena, that is, something general, and if it is stricter, then it is also universal for one or another fragment of reality.
The general (or universal) in things is established by abstracting, highlighting in them those properties, features, characteristics that are repeated, are similar, the same in many things of the same class. The essence of the formal-logical generalization lies precisely in the identification of such “sameness”, invariance. This method of generalization is called abstract-universal. This is due to the fact that the distinguished common feature can be taken quite arbitrarily, randomly and in no way express the essence of the phenomenon under study.
For example, the well-known ancient definition of man as a being “two-legged and without feathers” is, in principle, applicable to any individual and, therefore, is an abstract general characteristic of him. But does it give anything for understanding the essence of man and his history? The definition, which says that a person is a creature that produces tools, on the contrary, is formally inapplicable to most people. However, it is precisely this that makes it possible to construct a certain theoretical structure that, in general, satisfactorily explains the history of the formation and development of man.
Here we are already dealing with a fundamentally different type of generalization, which makes it possible to reveal the universal in objects not nominally, but in essence. In this case, the universal is understood not as a simple similarity of objects, repeated repetition of the same feature in them, but as a natural connection of many objects, which turns them into moments, sides of a single integrity, system. Within this system, universality, that is, belonging to the system, includes not only the sameness, but also differences, and even opposites. The commonality of objects is realized here not in external similarity, but in the unity of genesis, the general principle of their connection and development.
It is this difference in the ways of finding common things in things, that is, in establishing patterns, that distinguishes the empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge. At the level of sensory-practical experience (empirical) it is possible to fix only the external common features of things and phenomena. Their essential internal signs here can only be guessed, “grabbed” by chance. Only the theoretical level of knowledge allows explaining and substantiating them.
In theory, there is a reorganization or restructuring of the obtained empirical material on the basis of certain initial principles. This can be compared to a game of children's blocks with fragments of different pictures. In order for the randomly scattered cubes to form a single picture, a certain general idea is needed, the principle of their addition. In a children's game, this principle is set in the form of a ready-made stencil picture. But how such initial principles of organizing the construction of scientific knowledge are found in theory - this is the great secret of scientific creativity.
Science is considered a complex and creative matter because there is no direct transition from empiricism to theory. Theory is not constructed by direct inductive generalization of experience. This, of course, does not mean that theory is not related to experience at all. The initial impetus to the creation of any theoretical construction is given precisely bypractical experience. And the truth of the theoretical conclusions is checked again.practical applications. However, the very process of constructing a theory and its further development are carried out relatively independently of practice.
So, the problem of the difference between the theoretical and empirical levels of scientific knowledge is rooted in the difference in the ways of ideal reproduction of objective reality, approaches to the construction of systemic knowledge. Other derivative differences of these levels follow from this. For empirical knowledge, in particular, the function of collecting, accumulating and primary rational processing of experience data was historically and logically fixed. His main task is to record the facts. Explanation, interpretation of them is a matter of theory.
The considered levels of cognition also differ according to the objects of study. At the empirical level, the scientist deals directly with natural and social objects. The theory operates exclusively with idealized objects (material point, ideal gas, absolutely rigid body, etc.). All this causes a significant difference in the methods of research used. For the empirical level, such methods as observation, description, measurement, experiment, etc. are common. The theory prefers to use the axiomatic method, systemic, structural-functional analysis, mathematical modeling, etc.
There are, of course, methods used at all levels of scientific knowledge: abstraction, generalization, analogy, analysis and synthesis, etc. But still, the difference in the methods used at the theoretical and empirical levels is not accidental. Moreover, it was the problem of the method that was the starting point in the process of understanding the features of theoretical knowledge. In the 17th century, in the era of the birth of classical natural science, F. Bacon and R. Descartes formulated two multidirectional methodological programs for the development of science: empirical (inductionist) and rationalistic (deductionist).
The logic of the confrontation between empiricism and rationalism in the question of the leading method of obtaining new knowledge is, in general, simple.
Empiricism. Real and at least somewhat practical knowledge about the world can be obtained only from experience, that is, on the basis of observations and experiments. And any observation or experiment is single. Therefore, the only possible way of knowing nature is the movement from particular cases to ever broader generalizations, or induction. Another way of finding the laws of nature, when first they build general foundations, and then adapt to them and use them to check private conclusions, is, according to F. Bacon, "the mother of errors and the disaster of all sciences."
Rationalism. Until now, the most reliable and successful were the mathematical sciences. And they became such because, as R. Descartes once noted, they use the most effective and reliable methods of cognition: intellectual intuition and deduction. Intuition allows you to see in reality such simple and self-evident truths that it is impossible to doubt them. Deduction, on the other hand, ensures the derivation of more complex knowledge from these simple truths. And if it is carried out according to strict rules, it will always lead only to the truth, and never to error. Inductive reasoning, of course, is also good, but, according to the same Descartes, they cannot lead to universal judgments in which laws are expressed.
These methodological programs are now considered outdated and inadequate. Empiricism is insufficient because induction will never really lead to universal judgments, since in most situations it is fundamentally impossible to cover all the infinite number of special cases on the basis of which general conclusions are drawn. No major modern theory is constructed by direct inductive generalization. Rationalism, on the other hand, turned out to be exhausted, since science has taken up such areas of reality (in the micro- and mega-world) in which the required “self-evidence” of simple truths is impossible. And the role of experimental methods of cognition turned out to be underestimated here.
Nevertheless, these methodological programs have played their important historical role. First, they have stimulated a vast array of concrete scientific research. And secondly, they “carved a spark” of some understanding of the structure of scientific knowledge. It turned out that it was, as it were, two-story. And although the “upper floor” occupied by theory seems to be built on top of the “lower” (empiric) and without the latter should crumble, but for some reason there is no straight and convenient staircase between them. From the “lower floor” to the “upper” one can only get by “jump” in the literal and figurative sense. At the same time, no matter how important the base, the basis (the lower empirical level of our knowledge), the decisions that determine the fate of the building, are still made at the top, in the realm of theory. Nowadays the standard model of the structure of scientific knowledge looks different (see fig. 2).
Cognition begins with the establishment of various facts. The facts are based on direct or indirect observations made with the help of the sense organs or instruments, such as light or radio telescopes, light and electron microscopes, oscilloscopes, which act as amplifiers of our senses. All facts related to a particular problem are called data. Observations can be qualitative (i.e. describe color, shape, taste, appearance, etc.) or quantitative. Quantitative observations are more accurate. They include measurements of magnitude or quantity, which can be visualized as qualitative features.
As a result of observations, the so-called “raw material” is obtained, on the basis of which a hypothesis is formulated (Fig. 2). Hypothesis is an observational assumption that can be used to provide a convincing explanation for observed phenomena. Einstein emphasized that a hypothesis has two functions:
it should explain all observed phenomena related to the given problem;
It should lead to the prediction of new knowledge. New observations (facts, data) that confirm the hypothesis will help to strengthen it, while observations that contradict the hypothesis should lead to its change or even to its rejection.
In order to assess the validity of the hypothesis, it is necessary to plan a series of experiments in order to obtain new results that confirm or contradict the hypothesis. Most hypotheses discuss a number of factors that could influence the results of scientific observations; these factors are called variables . Hypotheses can be objectively tested in a series of experiments in which putative variables that influence the results of scientific observations are excluded one by one. This series of experiments is called control . This ensures that the influence of only one variable is checked in each particular case.
The most successful hypothesis becomes working hypothesis , and if it is able to resist attempts to refute it and still successfully predicts previously unexplained facts and relationships, then it can become theory .
The general direction of scientific research is to achieve higher levels of predictability (probability). If no facts can change a theory, and deviations from it are regular and predictable, then it can be elevated to the rank law .
As the body of knowledge increases and methods for investigating a hypothesis improve, even well-established theories can be challenged, modified, and even rejected. Scientific knowledge is inherently dynamic and born in the process of controversy, and the reliability of scientific methods is constantly questioned.
To test the "scientific" or "non-scientific" of the acquired knowledge, several principles were formulated by different areas of the methodology of science.
One of them was named verification principle : any concept or judgment has meaning if it is reducible to direct experience or statements about it, that is empirically verifiable. If it is not possible to find something empirically fixable for such a judgment, then it is considered that it either represents a tautology or is meaningless. Since the concepts of a developed theory, as a rule, are not reducible to experimental data, a relaxation has been made for them: indirect verification is also possible. For example, it is impossible to indicate an experimental analogue of the concept of “quark” (a hypothetical particle). But the quark theory predicts a number of phenomena that can already be fixed empirically, experimentally, and thereby indirectly verify the theory itself.
The principle of verification makes it possible, as a first approximation, to delimit scientific knowledge from clearly extra-scientific knowledge. However, it will not help where the system of ideas is tailored in such a way that absolutely all possible empirical facts can be interpreted in its favor - ideology, religion, astrology, etc. In such cases, it is useful to resort to another principle of distinguishing science and non-science, proposed by the largest 20th century philosopher K. Popper, – principle of falsification . It says that the criterion for the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutation. In other words, only that knowledge can claim the title of "scientific", which is refutable in principle.
Despite the outwardly paradoxical form (and, perhaps, thanks to it), this principle has a simple and deep meaning. K. Popper drew attention to the significant asymmetry of the procedures of confirmation and refutation in cognition. No amount of falling apples is sufficient to finally confirm the truth of the law of universal gravitation. However, just one apple is enough to fly away from the Earth in order to recognize this law as false. Therefore, it is precisely attempts to falsify, that is, to refute a theory, that should be most effective in terms of confirming its truth and scientific character.
True, it can be noted that the consistently carried out principle of falsification makes any knowledge hypothetical, that is, deprives it of completeness, absoluteness, and immutability. But this is probably not bad: it is the constant threat of falsification that keeps science “in good shape”, does not allow it to stagnate, “rest on its laurels”. Criticism is the most important source of the growth of science and an integral feature of its image.
At the same time, it can be noted that scientists working in science consider the issue of distinguishing between science and non-science not too complicated. They intuitively feel the true and pseudo-scientific nature of knowledge, as they are guided by certain norms and ideals of scientific character, 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 is preserved in all epochs, due to the unity of the style of thinking formed back in Ancient Greece - this rational thinking style based essentially on two fundamental ideas:
natural order, that is, the recognition of the existence of universal, regular and accessible to the mind causal relationships;
formal proof as the main means of knowledge validity.
Within the rational style of thinking, scientific knowledge is characterized by the following methodological criteria:
1) universality, that is, the exclusion of any specifics - place, time, subject, etc.;
2) consistency, or consistency, provided by the deductive way of deploying the knowledge system;
3) simplicity; a theory that explains the widest possible range of phenomena, based on the minimum number of scientific principles, is considered good;
4) explanatory potential;
5) the presence of predictive power.
These general criteria, or norms of scientific character, are constantly included in the standard of scientific knowledge. More specific norms that determine the schemes of research activity depend on the subject areas of science and on the socio-cultural context of the birth of a particular theory.
Experience and observation are the greatest sources of wisdom to which every person has access.
W. Channing
2.1. The structure of scientific knowledge
Scientific knowledge is objectively true knowledge about nature, society and man, obtained as a result of research activities and, as a rule, tested (proven) by practice. Natural science knowledge structurally consists of empirical and theoretical areas of scientific research (Fig. 2.1). The starting point of any of these lines of scientific research is the acquisition of scientific, empirical fact.
The main 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 posed 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 is able to 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, i.e. imagine bodies that do not exist in reality at all, and conduct an experiment on them in the mind. In modern science, it is also necessary to carry out idealized experiments, i.e., mental experiments using idealizations. Based on empirical research, empirical generalizations can be made.
At the theoretical level of knowledge, in addition to empirical facts, concepts are required that are created anew or taken from other sections of science. A concept is a thought that reflects objects and phenomena in their general and essential features, properties in short, concentrated form (for example, matter, motion, mass, speed, energy, plant, animal, person, etc.).
27
An important method of the theoretical level of research is 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 the 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 fixed to a greater extent. When a hypothesis is put forward, not only its correspondence with empirical data is taken into account, but also some methodological principles, which are called the criteria of simplicity, beauty, economy of thought, etc. After a certain hypothesis is put forward, the study 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 the hypothesis withstands 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 relationship between objects. If changes in some objects or phenomena (cause) causes a well-defined change in others (consequence), then this means the manifestation of the operation of the law. For example, the periodic law of D. I. Mendeleev establishes a relationship between the charge of the atomic nucleus and the chemical properties of a given chemical element. The totality of several laws related to the same field of knowledge is called a scientific theory.
The principle of falsifiability of scientific propositions, i.e., their ability to be refuted in practice, remains indisputable in science. An experiment aimed at refuting this hypothesis is called a decisive experiment. Natural science studies the world with the aim of creating the laws of its functioning, as products of human de-
28
activities reflecting periodically repeating facts of reality.
So, science is built from observations, experiments, hypotheses, theories and arguments. Science in terms of content is a set of empirical generalizations and theories, confirmed by observation and experiment. Moreover, the creative process of creating a theory and argumentation in support of it plays no less a role in science than observation and experiment.
2.2. Basic methods of scientific research
Science begins as soon as one begins to measure. Exact science. D. I. Mendeleev
Empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge differ in the subject, means and results of the study. Knowledge is a practice-tested result of cognition 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 cognition, although the empirical level is predominantly sensory, while the theoretical is rational.
The structure of scientific research that we have described is, in a broad sense, a method of scientific knowledge or a scientific method as such. A method is a set of actions designed to help achieve a 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
29
using instruments. When carrying out observations with the help of appropriate instruments in the microcosm, it is necessary to take into account the properties of the instrument itself, its working part, and the nature of interaction with the micro-object.
Description is the result of observation and experiment, consisting in fixing data using certain notation systems adopted in science. Description as a method of scientific research is carried out both by ordinary language and by special means that make up the language of science (symbols, signs, matrices, graphs, etc.). The most important requirements for scientific description are accuracy, logical rigor and simplicity.
Measurement is a cognitive operation that provides a numerical expression of the measured values. It is carried out at the empirical level of scientific research and includes quantitative standards and standards (weight, length, coordinates, speed, etc.). 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 complicated or impossible. For example, the measurement of certain properties of many space 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 in 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, it makes no sense to compare a person with a triangle or an animal with a meteorite, etc.);
- comparison should be carried out according to the most important and essential features, since comparison by non-essential features can also lead to confusion.
An experiment is a scientifically set experiment, 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 purest form. Unlike observation, the experiment is characterized by the intervention of the researcher in the position of the objects under study due to the active influence on the subject of research. It is widely used in physics, chemistry, biology, physiology and other natural sciences. The experiment is gaining in importance 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, isolated from others. social phenomena. So, empirical study is the starting point for the formation of scientific laws, at this stage the object is subjected to 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), which replaces the original, from certain aspects that are of interest to the researcher. Depending on the method of reproduction, that is, on the means by which the model is built, all models can be divided into two types: "acting", or material models; "imaginary" or ideal models. Material models include models of a bridge, dam, building, aircraft, ship, etc. They can be built from the same material as the object under study, or on the basis of a purely functional analogy. Ideal models are subdivided into mental constructions (models of an atom, galaxy), theoretical schemes that reproduce in an ideal form the properties and relationships of the object under study, and symbolic ones (mathematical formulas, chemical signs and symbols, etc.). Cybernetic models stand out in particular, which replace still insufficiently studied control systems, help to investigate the laws of functioning of a given system (for example, modeling of individual functions of the human psyche).
The scientific methods of the theoretical level of research include:
Formalization is a reflection of the results of thinking in precise concepts or statements, i.e., the construction of abstract mathematical models that reveal the essence of the studied processes of reality. 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 which is not required. The truth of all statements of the axiomatic theory is substantiated 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. In the very construction of axiomatics, they proceed from the fact that the accepted axioms are true.
32
Analysis is the actual or mental division of an integral subject into its constituent 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 in themselves, but as parts of a single whole.
Synthesis is the actual or mental reunification of a whole from parts, elements, aspects and relationships identified through analysis. With the help of synthesis, we restore the object as a concrete whole in all the variety of its manifestations. In the natural sciences, analysis and synthesis are applied 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 an 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. So, for example, the transition from the analysis of facts, phenomena to the synthesis of the acquired knowledge is carried out by the method of induction. With the help of the inductive method, one can obtain knowledge not reliable, but probable, and with varying degrees of accuracy.
Deduction is the transition from general reasoning or judgments to particular ones. Derivation of new provisions with the help of laws and rules of logic. The deductive method is of paramount importance in the theoretical sciences as a tool for their logical ordering and construction, especially when the true propositions are known, from which logically necessary consequences can be obtained.
Generalization is a logical process of transition from a single to a 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 a conclusion, during which, on the basis of the similarity of objects in some properties, relationships, a conclusion is made about their similarity in other properties, relationships. Inference by analogy plays an essential role in the development of scientific knowledge. Many important discoveries in the field of natural science were made by transferring the general patterns inherent in one area of phenomena to phenomena in another area. So, X. Huygens, based on the analogy of the properties of light and sound, came to the conclusion about the wave nature of light; J.K. 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 the corresponding cybernetic devices.
Mathematization is the penetration of the apparatus of mathematical logic into the natural and other sciences. Mathematization of modern scientific knowledge characterizes its theoretical level. Mathematics is used to formulate the main laws governing the development of natural science theories. Mathematical methods are also widely used in the socio-economic sciences. The creation (under the direct influence of practice) of such branches 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 there is a mental distraction and rejection of those objects, properties and relationships that make it difficult to consider the object of study in a "pure" form, which is necessary at this stage of study. Through the abstracting work of thinking, all concepts, categories of natural and socio-economic sciences arose: matter, movement, mass, energy, space, time, plant, animal, species, commodity, 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 subjects into separate groups in accordance with some feature important for the researcher.
The hypothetical-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 often its theories are considered as identical with the hypothetical-deductive system. The hypothetical-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 hypothetical-deductive reasoning is only probable, since hypotheses serve as its premises, and deduction transfers the probability of their truth to the conclusion.
The logical method is a method of reproducing in thinking a complex developing object in the form of a certain theory. In the logical study of an object, we abstract from all accidents, insignificant facts, zigzags, from which the most important, essential, determining the general course and direction of development, is singled out.
The historical method is when all the details, the facts of a cognizable object are reproduced in all the concrete diversity of historical development. The historical method involves the study of a specific process of development, and the logical method - the study of the general patterns of movement of the object of knowledge.
Of great importance in modern science have acquired statistical methods that allow you to determine the average values that characterize the entire set of subjects studied.
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 makes it possible to explain the empirical material. Both of these
35
levels of knowledge are closely related. Common to them are those forms in which sensory images (sensations, perceptions, representations) and rational thinking (concepts, judgments and inferences) are realized.
2.3. Dynamics of the development of science. Conformity principle
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 former include the influence of the state, economic, cultural, national parameters, values 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 of the levels of research. The empirical level is characterized by a generalizing character, since even a negative result of an observation or experiment introduces its own
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 completely deny it (although there have been cases in the history of science when it was necessary to abandon the false concepts of caloric, ether, electric fluid, etc.), but more often 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 urgent in the methodology of modern science. In the first half of the XX 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 one, which ultimately turned out to be impossible. In the early 60s of the XX century, the American scientist T. Kuhn put forward the concept, according to which the theory remains accepted by the scientific community until the main paradigm (attitude, image) of scientific research in this area is questioned. Paradigm (from the Greek paradigma - example, sample) - a fundamental theory that explains a wide range of phenomena related to the relevant field of study. A paradigm is a set of theoretical and methodological prerequisites that determine a specific scientific research, which is embodied in scientific practice at this stage. It is the basis for the choice of problems, as well as a model, a model for solving research problems. The paradigm allows solving the difficulties that arise in scientific research, fixing changes in the structure of knowledge that occur as a result of the scientific revolution and are associated with the accumulation of new empirical data.
From this point of view, the dynamics of the development of science is as follows (Fig. 2.3): the old paradigm goes through a normal stage of development, then scientific facts accumulate in it that cannot be explained by this paradigm, a revolution occurs
37
in science, a new paradigm arises that explains all the scientific facts that have arisen. The paradigm concept of the development of scientific knowledge was then concretized with the help of the concept of "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 this era.
The general dynamics and pattern characterizing the whole process of the historical development of natural science is 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 one or another field of natural science, with the advent of new, more general theories, are not eliminated as something false, but retain their significance for the former field of phenomena as an ultimate form and partial
38
case of new theories. This principle is one of the most important achievements of natural science in the 20th century. Thanks to him, the history of natural science appears to 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 regular and consistent process of the development of knowledge, going to ever broader generalizations, as a cognitive process, each step of which has objective value and provides 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 the contradiction between the accumulated facts and the currently dominant paradigm is overcome every time. The principle of correspondence shows exactly how in natural science absolute truth is made up of an infinite sequence of relative truths.
The Correspondence Principle states, firstly, that every theory of natural science is a relative truth containing an element of absolute truth. Secondly, he argues that the change of natural scientific theories is not a sequence of destruction of different theories, but a logical process of the development of natural science, the movement of the mind through a sequence of relative truths to absolute ones. Third, the correspondence principle states that both new and old theories form a single 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 the positive that was accumulated in the old.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Natural science knowledge structurally consists of empirical and theoretical areas 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 has the following scheme: 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 humanitarian sciences as a whole is carried out according to certain 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.
- The theory remains accepted by the scientific community until the main paradigm (attitude, image) of scientific research is questioned. The dynamics of the development of science is as follows: the old paradigm - the normal stage of the development of science - the revolution in science - the new paradigm.
- The principle of correspondence states that the development of natural science occurs when the new does not simply negate the old, but denies with the retention of all the positive that was accumulated in the old.
Questions for knowledge control
- What is the structure of natural science knowledge?
- What is the difference 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 methods of research.
- What are the main methodological concepts of the development of modern natural science?
- What ethical problems are relevant for modern natural science?
- What is a paradigm in science?
- What conditions are necessary for conducting scientific experiments?
10. How does the language of science differ from ordinary human
language?
