The problem of scientific truth and criteria of truth. What is scientific truth? Structural elements of scientific substantiation of truth

The concept of scientific truth. Concepts of truth in scientific knowledge.

Scientific truth is knowledge that meets the double requirement: first, it corresponds to reality; secondly, it satisfies a number of scientific criteria. These criteria include: logical harmony; empirical verifiability; the ability to predict new facts based on this knowledge; consistency with that knowledge, whose truth has already been reliably established. The criterion of truth can be the consequences derived from scientific provisions.

The question of scientific truth is a question of the quality of knowledge. Science is only interested in true knowledge. The problem of truth is connected with the question of the existence of objective truth, that is, truth that does not depend on tastes and desires, on human consciousness in general. Truth is achieved in the interaction of subject and object: without an object, knowledge loses its content, and without a subject, there is no knowledge itself. Therefore, in the interpretation of truth, one can distinguish between objectivism and subjectivism.

Subjectivism is the most common point of view. Its supporters point out that truth does not exist outside of man. From this they conclude that objective truth does not exist. Truth exists in concepts and judgments, therefore, there can be no knowledge independent of man and mankind. Subjectivists understand that the denial of objective truth casts doubt on the existence of any truth. If the truth is subjective, then it turns out: how many people, so many truths.
Objectivists absolutize objective truth. For them, truth exists outside of man and humanity. Truth is reality itself, independent of the subject.

But truth and reality are different concepts. Reality exists independently of the cognizing subject. In reality itself there are no truths, but there are only objects with their own properties. It appears as a result of people's knowledge of this reality.
Truth is objective. The object exists independently of the person, and any theory reflects precisely this property. Objective truth is understood as knowledge dictated by an object. Truth does not exist without man and humanity. Therefore, truth is human knowledge, but not reality itself.

There are concepts of absolute and relative truth.
Absolute truth is knowledge that matches the reflective object. Achieving absolute truth is an ideal, not a real result.
Relative truth is knowledge characterized by relative correspondence to its object. Relative truth is more or less true knowledge. Relative truth can be refined and supplemented in the process of cognition, therefore it acts as knowledge subject to change.
There are many concepts of truth:
- on the correspondence of knowledge and the internal characteristic environment;
-conformity of congenital structures;
-correspondence of self-evidence of rationalistic intuition;
-correspondence of sensory perception;
-correspondence of a priori thinking;
-compliance with the goals of the individual;
-coherent concept of truth.
In the concept of coherent truth, judgments are true if they are logically derived from postulates, axioms that do not contradict the theory.

The main features of scientific knowledge are:
1. The main task of scientific knowledge is to discover the objective laws of reality - natural, social (social), the laws of cognition itself, thinking, etc. Hence the orientation of research mainly on the general, essential properties of the subject, its necessary characteristics and their expression in a system of abstractions. Scientific knowledge strives to reveal the necessary, objective connections that are fixed as objective laws. If this is not the case, then there is no science, because the very concept of scientificity presupposes the discovery of laws, a deepening into the essence of the phenomena being studied.

2. The immediate goal and highest value of scientific knowledge is objective truth, comprehended primarily by rational means and methods, but, of course, not without the participation of living contemplation. Hence, a characteristic feature of scientific knowledge is objectivity, the elimination, if possible, of subjectivistic moments in many cases in order to realize the "purity" of considering one's subject.

3. Science, to a greater extent than other forms of knowledge, is focused on being embodied in practice, being a “guide to action” in changing the surrounding reality and managing real processes. The vital meaning of scientific research can be expressed by the formula: "To know in order to foresee, to foresee in order to practically act" - not only in the present, but also in the future. The whole progress of scientific knowledge is connected with the increase in the power and range of scientific foresight. It is foresight that makes it possible to control processes and manage them. Scientific knowledge opens up the possibility of not only foreseeing the future, but also its conscious formation. “The orientation of science towards the study of objects that can be included in activity (either actually or potentially, as possible objects of its future development), and their study as obeying the objective laws of functioning and development, is one of the most important features of scientific knowledge. This feature distinguishes it from other forms of human cognitive activity.
An essential feature of modern science is that it has become such a force that predetermines practice. From the daughter of production, science turns into his mother. Many modern manufacturing processes were born in scientific laboratories. Thus, modern science not only serves the needs of production, but also increasingly acts as a prerequisite for the technical revolution.

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

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

6. Scientific knowledge is characterized by strict evidence, the validity of the results obtained, the reliability of the conclusions. At the same time, there are many hypotheses, conjectures, assumptions, probabilistic judgments, etc. That is why the logical and methodological training of researchers, their philosophical culture, the constant improvement of their thinking, the ability to correctly apply its laws and principles are of paramount importance here.
The structure of scientific knowledge.
The structure of scientific knowledge is presented in its various sections and, accordingly, in the totality of its specific elements. Considering the basic structure of scientific knowledge, Vernadsky believed that the basic framework of science includes the following elements:
- mathematical sciences in their entirety;
- logical sciences almost entirely;
- scientific facts in their system, classifications and empirical generalizations made from them;
- the scientific apparatus taken as a whole.
From the point of view of the interaction between the object and the subject of scientific knowledge, the latter includes four necessary components in their unity:
1) the subject of science is its key element: an individual researcher, the scientific community, a scientific team, etc., ultimately, society as a whole. They explore the properties, aspects of the relationship of objects and their classes under given conditions and at a certain time.
2) the object of science (subject, subject area) - what exactly is studied by this science or scientific discipline. In other words, this is everything that the researcher's thought is directed at, everything that can be described, perceived, named, expressed in thinking, etc. In a broad sense, the concept of an object, in-1, denotes a certain limited integrity, isolated from the world of objects in the process of human activity and cognition, in-2, an object in the totality of its aspects, properties and relationships, opposing the subject of cognition. The concept of an object can be used to express a system of laws inherent in a given object. In epistemological terms, the difference between an object and an object is relative and lies in the fact that the object includes only the main, most essential properties and features of the object.
3) a system of methods and techniques that is characteristic of a given science or scientific discipline and determined by the originality of the subjects.
4) its own specific language - both natural and artificial (signs, symbols, mathematical equations, chemical formulas, etc.). With a different cut of scientific knowledge, it is necessary to distinguish between the following elements of its structure:
1. factual material gleaned from empirical experience,
2. the results of its initial conceptual generalization in concepts and other abstractions,
3. fact-based problems and scientific assumptions (hypotheses),
4. Laws, principles and theories “growing” out of them, pictures of the world,
5. philosophical attitudes (grounds),
6. socio-cultural value and worldview foundations,
7. method, ideals and norms of scientific knowledge, its standards, regulations and imperatives,
8. thinking style and some other elements.

http://www.atheism.ru/library/Vyazovsky_17.phtml

Philosophy as spiritual doing (collection) Ilyin Ivan Alexandrovich

[Lecture 7], hours 13, 14 Scientific truth

[Lecture 7], hours 13, 14

scientific truth

Scientific truth is a systematically coherent collection of true meanings: true concepts and true theses.

This connection is systematic, i.e., one in which only semantic quantities can enter. Such are the classifications of concepts and the classifications of theses.

6) Finally: truth is not just meaning, but theoretically-cognitive- valuable meaning, i.e. true.

The truth is value.

Not all value is truth.

Value in everyday life, and even in vulgar philosophy, is called any hedonistic or utilitarian plus: quantitative, or qualitative, or intensive profit in pleasure or in usefulness.

Value in cultural creativity and in the sciences of culture is referred to as the general and basic essence of economic goods, as well as any practically expedient element of life.

Finally, philosophy, as the science of the Spirit, understands by value either truth, or goodness, or beauty, or Divinity.

From all these kinds of value we delimit the idea of scientific truth by the fact that by truth we mean the specifically cognitive value of meanings. Scientific truth there is a cognitive value meaning. However, this does not move us on the question of what is cognitive value.

[The developed definition of value is generally postponed until the next time. For today it is enough for us to say:] 63 philosophical value is not something subjective, relative, temporary; the meaning of philosophical value is objective, unconditionally, supertemporal. Truth is not truth because we recognize it as such, but vice versa. Not only meaning her such; its value value, its truth is this.

Meanings in terms of content All different; but in his clean form, beyond consideration of their cognitive merit, they are all equally neither are true neitheruntrue are neither good nor bad. The concept of an "equilateral triangle" or "electron" has no purely semantic advantages over the concepts from Andersen's fairy tale: "a cat with eyes the size of a mill wheel." In the same way, there are no purely semantic advantages to the thesis “the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection” or “law in the subjective sense is a set of powers derived from legal norms” over the thesis: “all cabbies have long noses” (taste deliberately).

Only when meaning begins to be considered from this point of view of its cognitive value does it become true or untrue. This approach to a new point of view is a transition from one methodological series 64 to another: from the logical and semantic to the value, the transcendental. From general logic to transcendental.

Here arises between meanings, precisely between theses, the possibility of a new, transcendental connection. The transcendental connection between theses is that the truth of one thesis is based on and guaranteed by the truth of another thesis. Here each thesis receives its cognitive value; an irrevocable sentence is pronounced over him 65 .

(The first version of the continuation of the lecture. - Y. L.)

Either it is true, or it is not true as a single, inalienable, individual semantic unity.

Of course, in process knowledge, we can consider the signs of the concept separately; find in them that they are true, while others are untrue, and accordingly even speak of greater or lesser proximity to the truth. But this will no longer be a semantic consideration, but a normative one. (This assertion, like many others, I cannot develop here; see the work of N. N. Vokach 66 .)

7) I cannot consider here the question of guarantees truth, about its criterion, of the whole doctrine of proof and evidence. But one thing, and a very important one, I can add here.

By truth is meant always a known correspondence of something to something. And not just compliance, but adequate, i.e., unconditionally exact, perfect correspondence. This correspondence, as it is easy to understand after all that has been said, is the correspondence of rational meaning to what is given as a cognizable content. Or: the correspondence between the meaning of the constructed concept and judgment, on the one hand, and the meaning of the object given for cognition. This object can be: a thing in space and time, emotional temporal experience, a thesis, a concept - it doesn't matter.

A cognizable object has its own stable, objective, identical meaning; the constructed concept or its thesis is its own meaning. If the correspondence between the meaning of the thesis and the concept and the meaning of the object given to the concept is adequate (Hegel and Husserl call this correspondence, Hamilton - harmony), then the thesis and the concept are true. And back.

I don't point it out criteria to determine this adequacy or Not adequacy, this identity. I give only what is important to a lawyer-methodologist. Adequate match rational sense to a given sense - this is the formula with which we will inevitably meet in the future and which we will keep in mind.

Such is the character and such is the essence of scientific knowledge in general and its objectivity.

(The second version of the continuation of the lecture. - Y. L.)

Either it is true or untrue as a single, inalienable, individual semantic unity.

True, it may also be that this irrevocable, indivisible sentence will seem to fall apart into parts and degrees: for example, when one speaks of greater or lesser truth. But this is only the appearance of a fact.

In fact, truth is always complete truth; Not-truth.

Incomplete truth is untruth.

The whole conversation about greater or lesser truth is due to difficult the nature of the many meanings of which I have spoken to you. In terms of " ABC”, consisting of features a, b, c, signs A And V can be set to true, and the sign With untrue. And then the idea arises that the meaning ABC half true or 2/3 true and the other third Not true.

Scientific consideration of this division Not knows. It says meaning ABC how does it make sense ABC is not true, individual elements of this semantic unity may be true, but this truth of the parts is not a partial truth of the whole.

True - or Yes, or No; tertium non darum 67 .

And the one who, out of fairness or courtesy, hesitates in a sentence about such a dubious or unfavorable complex meaning, will confirm the dilemmatic nature of the sentence indicated by us, passing from the whole to its elements, in order to say something about them, in any case categorically "yes" or not".

Examples: "yellow ball - there is a round, heavy, metal liquid body”, “conditions of acquisition by prescription are res habilis, titulus, fides, possession, tempus (spatium) 68”.

Thus, the justice of the trial of the defendant meaning may prompt us to abandon the trial of the meaning in toto 69 and go to the semantic elements that make up its composition, or even to the elements of its elements; But, once we start judging, we will say either "yes, true" or "no, not true." Tertium non darum.

For those who are unconvincing, let them verify this phenomenologically.

Truth always means a certain correspondence of something to something. And not just compliance, but adequate, i.e. unconditionally exact, perfect, similar to mathematical equality.

The slightest deviation of one side from the other already gives the lack of adequacy, and hence (inexorably) untruth.

Let us now ask ourselves: what corresponds to what?

Two sides: corresponding and the one to which it corresponds.

First: reaching, aspiring, catching, expressing, knowing.

Second: reachable, sought, caught, expressed, cognized.

All these are only figurative expressions, for dynamic, real, psychic-relative, to meaning as such.

And yet, from all our investigations, it is clear that the truth is true meaning. From this it is clear that the first relevant side is the meaning formulated in the form of concepts or thesis by the cognizing soul of man. It is this meaning that may or may not be adequate to the other, cognizable, side. This meaning, understood in our cognitive acts, is defendant meaning.

Well, what about the other side? What does he/she fit? What is the knowable?

Ordinarily, to this question we might get the following answer: “The knowable is an external thing. Perhaps, in psychology - emotional experience. Well, perhaps in mathematics - quantities and ratios. And quite reluctantly - thoughts in logic. This is how any empiricist will answer us.

We'll say something [completely] 70 other:

The knowable is always nothing but the meaning of the objective situation or sense subject circumstances. circumstance I call what this is the case. The situation is: thing in space and time (earth, sun, bird, mineral, backbone of hominis heidelbergiensis 71); the experience of the human soul in time (Napoleon's volitional state, the mood of Duma circles, my mental experience). This is the relationship of quantities in mathematics or the relationship of mathematical functions. There is a connection of meanings, concepts and judgments. The essence of goodness or beauty is in its content, etc. All this is what it is. It is the subject of the concept.

That's the way it is. How is it? Here is something how is it and tries to establish knowledge 72 .

It can set it appropriately and inappropriately. True or untrue(for example, by understanding a generic concept as a specific one, attributing a suspension veto to the Danish king, 73 omitting the sign of a gratuitous donation, etc.).

And so everything that we recognize as knowable is not only given to us as an objective condition; but this situation has its own meaning, which we will call the meaning of the subject or even better - objective sense. The task of the concept is to ensure that the meaning of the thesis or the concept of the subject would coincide with the objective meaning of the situation.

Everything that we think of as a possible object of knowledge, we think thereby as a situation that has its own meaning (it does not matter whether it is an external fact, or an internal state, or a connection of quantities, or a connection of concepts and values).

To know is to know meaning. For it is impossible to know Not thought. And the thought takes possession only of the meaning. We take things with our hands. By memory we fix the state of mind. But the meaning is given only thoughts. Knowledge is knowledge thought. Thought can only think the meaning of a thing.

Therefore, we need to discard our common philistine belief that we we know, i.e. scientific, intellectual we know things or experiences.

Scientific knowledge is knowledge thought - meaning(be it the meaning of things, or experiences, or other objective circumstances). Hence our confidence in scientific knowledge: whatever it touches, whatever it turns to, everything turns out to have meaning.

The meaning of the situation is given to our knowledge. In trying to formulate it, we establish a concept or a thesis. This concept or thesis has its [objective] 74 identical meaning. These two meanings will coincide - and knowledge will reveal the truth to us. They Not coincide - and our knowledge will be false. Truth is, therefore, the thinking of meaning - up to the adequacy of the cognizable situation equal to the meaning. But we know what adequate equality in the sphere of thought is identity. Therefore: truth is the identity of the formulated meaning and the objective meaning. Coincidence is impossible either with a thing or with the psyche.

A cognitive object has its own stable, objective, identical meaning; the formulated concept or thesis is its own meaning. Their identity gives truth.

Hegel and Husserl call this state correspondence, Hamilton - harmony. We know that this complete harmony of meanings is their identity.

I do not indicate by this criterion for determining this adequacy and coincidence. I only outline here the main definition of the theory of knowledge and pass by, because we are not epistemologists here, but legal methodologists. But this formula, in my opinion, is the same for all sciences.

And I will also point out for those who are interested: only meanings may coincide in identity; and without this identity - reject it - and the truth will be nowhere and completely inaccessible to man. And then we have before us the path of consistent skepticism. And then - take the trouble to doubt the law of contradiction and admit that two opposing judgments can and be true together.

This text is an introductory piece.

Lecture 1, hours 1, 2 Philosophy as a spiritual activity Perhaps no science has such a complex and mysterious fate as philosophy. This science has existed for more than two and a half millennia, and until now its subject1 and method cause controversy. And what? there is science without

[Lecture 3], hours 5, 6, 7, 8 On Philosophical Proof Beginning Since I understood what philosophy is after a long and hard work, I made a promise to myself to work all my life to affirm its essence with evidence and unambiguity. Philosophy is not divination and

[Lecture 5], [hours] 11, 12, 13, 14 Arguments about things. Materialism Disputes about things Disputes about things have been going on since time immemorial. The thing is a controversial subject between materialists and idealists (just as the soul is the main controversial subject between materialists and spiritualists). Is a thing real? Only if

[Lecture 6], hours 15, 16, 17, 18 Disputes about things. Immaterialism 2) A thing is not real at all. Every object is a non-thing; a thing is a state of mind. An amaterialist is not one who admits that in addition to the soul, spirit, concept there is also a thing, but one who recognizes that the material, real is not at all

[Lecture 9], hours 25, 26 Categorical specificity of meaning

[Lecture 11], hours 29, 30 Philosophy as the knowledge of the absolute 1) We mentally passed through all four planes in which philosophy can rotate and from time immemorial rotates: the spatio-temporal thing, the temporal-subjective soul, the objective identical meaning and the objective supreme

[Lecture 12], hours 31, 32 Philosophy and Religion 1) We have to mentally go through the main types of philosophical teachings about the unconditional. However, a preliminary clarification is needed here. From the very beginning: philosophy can) allow the knowability of the unconditional, b) not allow

[Lecture 1], hours 1, 2 Introduction 1. The philosophy of law as a science is still quite uncertain. Uncertainty of the subject; method. General reasoning: everyone is competent. The sciences are simpler: the elementarity and uniformity of the subject - geometry, zoology. Science

[Lecture 2], hours 3, 4 Cognition. Its Subjective and Objective Composition Before the lecture, we must now begin to clarify the foundations of the general methodology of the legal sciences. However, beforehand I would like to give you some literary clarifications and indications. Due to annoying

[Lecture 4], hours 7, 8 The Doctrine of Meaning Meaning (end) 1) We established last time that “thought” can be understood in two ways: thought is something mental and psychological, like thinking, as a state of mind, as an experience, as mental act of the soul; thought is something

[Lecture 5], hours 9, 10 Concept. The Law of Identity Concept and Judgment 1) I tried [last time] to reveal systematically the basic properties of any meaning as such. Meaning is every and always: supertemporal; extra-spatial; superpsychic; perfect; objective; identical;

[Lecture 6], hours 11, 12 Judgment. Scientific Truth Judgment 1) We have developed in the preceding hours the doctrine of meaning and concept in order to answer the question: what? it gives scientific truth its supratemporal objectivity. Now we see one of the elements of this objectivity: scientific

[Lecture 8], hours 15, 16 Value. Norm. [Purpose]75 1) Today we are going to expand on the definitions of value, norm, and purpose. This series of categories is of particular importance to the lawyer; not only because the jurist is a scientist, and that, consequently, he constantly faces

1. Truth as a scientific system An explanation, in the form in which it is customary to preface a work in a preface, about the goal that the author sets himself in it, as well as about his motives and the attitude in which this work, in his opinion , stands to others,

Scientific and philosophical truth That which is truth in science is represented by Nietzsche as a kind of direct primary source. Although in the future he will declare this primary source to be derivative, i.e., he will question it, but in fact, at his level, for Nietzsche he will not lose his

2. The Truth of Faith and Scientific Truth There is no contradiction between faith in its true nature and reason in its true nature. And this means that there is no essential contradiction between faith and the cognitive function of the mind. Knowledge in all its forms is always

The concept of scientific truth. The concept of truth in scientific knowledge.
scientific truth- this is knowledge that meets the double requirement: first, it corresponds to reality; secondly, it satisfies a number of scientific criteria. These criteria include: logical harmony; empirical verifiability; the ability to predict new facts based on this knowledge; consistency with that knowledge, whose truth has already been reliably established. The criterion of truth can be the consequences derived from scientific provisions.
Question about scientific truth is a question about the quality of knowledge. Science is only interested in true knowledge. The problem of truth is connected with the question of the existence of objective truth, that is, truth that does not depend on tastes and desires, on human consciousness in general. Truth is achieved in the interaction of subject and object: without an object, knowledge loses its content, and without a subject, there is no knowledge itself. Therefore, in the interpretation of truth, one can distinguish between objectivism and subjectivism. Subjectivism is the most common point of view. Its supporters point out that truth does not exist outside of man. From this they conclude that objective truth does not exist. Truth exists in concepts and judgments, therefore, there can be no knowledge independent of man and mankind. Subjectivists understand that the denial of objective truth casts doubt on the existence of any truth. If the truth is subjective, then it turns out: how many people, so many truths.
Objectivists absolutize objective truth. For them, truth exists outside of man and humanity. Truth is reality itself, independent of the subject.
But truth and reality are different concepts. Reality exists independently of the cognizing subject. In reality itself there are no truths, but there are only objects with their own properties. It appears as a result of people's knowledge of this reality.
Truth is objective. The object exists independently of the person, and any theory reflects precisely this property. Objective truth is understood as knowledge dictated by an object. Truth does not exist without man and humanity. Therefore truth is human knowledge, but not reality itself.
There are concepts of absolute and relative truth.
Absolute truth is knowledge that matches the reflective object. Achieving absolute truth is an ideal, not a real result. Relative truth is knowledge characterized by relative correspondence to its object. Relative truth is more or less true knowledge. Relative truth can be refined and supplemented in the process of cognition, therefore it acts as knowledge subject to change. Absolute truth is knowledge that does not change. There is nothing to change in it, since its elements correspond to the object itself.
There are many concepts of truth:
- on the correspondence of knowledge and the internal characteristic environment;
-conformity of congenital structures;
-correspondence of self-evidence of rationalistic intuition;
-correspondence of sensory perception;
-correspondence of priori thinking;
-compliance with the goals of the individual;
-coherent concept of truth.
In the concept of coherent truth, judgments are true if they are logically derived from postulates, ascioms that do not contradict the theory.
The main features of scientific knowledge are:
1. The main task of scientific knowledge is to discover the objective laws of reality - natural, social (social), the laws of cognition itself, thinking, etc. Hence the orientation of research mainly on the general, essential properties of the subject, its necessary characteristics and their expression in a system of abstractions. Scientific knowledge strives to reveal the necessary, objective connections that are fixed as objective laws. If this is not the case, then there is no science, because the very concept of scientificity presupposes the discovery of laws, a deepening into the essence of the phenomena being studied.
2. The immediate goal and highest value of scientific knowledge is objective truth, comprehended primarily by rational means and methods, but, of course, not without the participation of living contemplation. Hence, a characteristic feature of scientific knowledge is objectivity, the elimination, if possible, of subjectivistic moments in many cases in order to realize the "purity" of considering one's subject.
3. Science, to a greater extent than other forms of knowledge, is focused on being embodied in practice, being a “guide to action” in changing the surrounding reality and managing real processes. The vital meaning of scientific research can be expressed by the formula: "To know in order to foresee, to foresee in order to practically act" - not only in the present, but also in the future. The whole progress of scientific knowledge is connected with the increase in the power and range of scientific foresight. It is foresight that makes it possible to control processes and manage them. Scientific knowledge opens up the possibility of not only foreseeing the future, but also its conscious formation. “The orientation of science towards the study of objects that can be included in activity (either actually or potentially, as possible objects of its future development), and their study as obeying the objective laws of functioning and development, is one of the most important features of scientific knowledge. This feature distinguishes it from other forms of human cognitive activity.
An essential feature of modern science is that it has become such a force that predetermines practice. From the daughter of production, science turns into his mother. Many modern manufacturing processes were born in scientific laboratories. Thus, modern science not only serves the needs of production, but also increasingly acts as a prerequisite for the technical revolution.
4. Scientific knowledge in epistemological terms is a complex contradictory process of reproduction of knowledge that forms an integral developing system of concepts, theories, hypotheses, laws and other ideal forms fixed in a language - natural or, more characteristically, artificial (mathematical symbols, chemical formulas, etc.). P.). Scientific knowledge does not simply fix its elements, but continuously reproduces them on its own basis, forms them in accordance with its own norms and principles. In the development of scientific knowledge, revolutionary periods alternate, the so-called scientific revolutions, which lead to a change in theories and principles, and evolutionary, calm periods, during which knowledge is deepened and detailed. The process of continuous self-renewal by science of its conceptual arsenal is an important indicator of scientific character.
5. In the process of scientific knowledge, such specific material means as instruments, instruments, and other so-called "scientific equipment" are used, which are often very complex and expensive (synchrophasotrons, radio telescopes, rocket and space technology, etc.). In addition, science, to a greater extent than other forms of cognition, is characterized by the use of such ideal (spiritual) means and methods for the study of its objects and itself as modern logic, mathematical methods, dialectics, systemic, hypothetical-deductive and other general scientific methods. and methods.
6. Scientific knowledge is characterized by strict evidence, the validity of the results obtained, the reliability of the conclusions. At the same time, there are many hypotheses, conjectures, assumptions, probabilistic judgments, etc. That is why the logical and methodological training of researchers, their philosophical culture, the constant improvement of their thinking, the ability to correctly apply its laws and principles are of paramount importance here.
The structure of scientific knowledge.
The structure of scientific knowledge is presented in its various sections and, accordingly, in the totality of its specific elements. Considering the basic structure of scientific knowledge, Vernadsky believed that the basic framework of science includes the following elements:
- mathematical sciences in their entirety;
- logical sciences almost entirely;
- scientific facts in their system, classifications and empirical generalizations made from them;
- the scientific apparatus taken as a whole.
From the point of view of the interaction between the object and the subject of scientific knowledge, the latter includes four necessary components in their unity:
1) the subject of science is its key element: an individual researcher, the scientific community, the scientific team, etc., ultimately the society as a whole. They explore the properties, aspects of the relationship of objects and their classes under given conditions and at a certain time.
2) the object of science (subject, subject area) - what exactly is studied by this science or scientific discipline. In other words, this is everything that the researcher's thought is directed at, everything that can be described, perceived, named, expressed in thinking, etc. In a broad sense, the concept of an object, in-1, denotes a certain limited integrity, isolated from the world of objects in the process of human activity and cognition, in-2, an object in the totality of its aspects, properties and relations, opposing the subject of knowledge. The concept of an object can be used to express a system of laws inherent in a given object. In epistemological terms, the difference between the subject and the object is relative and lies in the fact that the subject includes only the main, most essential properties and features of the object.
3) a system of methods and techniques that is characteristic of a given science or scientific discipline and determined by the originality of the subjects.
4) its own specific language - both natural and artificial (signs, symbols, mathematical equations, chemical formulas, etc.). With a different cut of scientific knowledge, it is necessary to distinguish between the following elements of its structure:
1. factual material gleaned from empirical experience,
2. the results of its initial conceptual generalization in concepts and other abstractions,
3. fact-based problems and scientific assumptions (hypotheses),
4. Laws, principles and theories “growing” out of them, pictures of the world,
5. philosophical attitudes (grounds),
6. socio-cultural value and worldview foundations,
7. method, ideals and norms of scientific knowledge, its standards, regulations and imperatives,
8. thinking style and some other elements.

The purpose of studying the topic: Understanding the multidimensionality of the phenomenon of knowledge and its reliability.

The main questions of the topic: Multidimensionality of scientific knowledge. Truth as a value-target setting of scientific knowledge. Coherent and correspondent interpretations of truth. Dialectics of absolute and relative moments of truth. Probabilistic model of truth. Truth criteria. Substantiation of scientific knowledge.

The understanding of knowledge as a reflection of reality arose in ancient philosophy (the Eleatic school, Democritus), and was substantiated in line with Cartesianism. This interpretation of knowledge was the result of a simplified understanding of subject-object cognitive relations.

Taking into account modern ideas that the cognitive attitude of the subject to the object is mediated by socio-cultural factors (language, scientific communications, the achieved level of scientific and philosophical knowledge, historically changing norms of rationality, etc.), knowledge, including scientific , it is difficult to reduce to a reflection of reality. Scientific knowledge is an integral complex of descriptions and explanations of the object under study, which includes very heterogeneous elements: facts and their generalizations, objective statements, interpretations of facts, implicit assumptions, mathematical rigor and metaphorical imagery, conventionally accepted provisions, hypotheses.

However, the essence of scientific knowledge is the desire for objective truth, the comprehension of the essential characteristics of an object, its laws. If a scientist wanted to know objects in their real diverse existence, he would "drown" in a sea of changing facts. Therefore, the scientist intentionally abstracts from the fullness of reality in order to identify stable, necessary, essential connections and relations of objects. In this way, he builds a theory of the object as a rational model that represents and schematizes reality. The application of the theory to the cognition of new objects (facts) acts as their interpretation in terms of the given theory.

Thus, knowledge in relation to the object acts as a rationalized model, representative scheme, interpretation. The essential characteristic of knowledge is its truth (adequacy, correspondence to the object).

Since the second half of the 19th century, the concept of truth has been subjected to skeptical revision and criticism. The grounds for this criticism are varied. Representatives of the anthropological trend in philosophy (for example, F. Nietzsche) criticized science for objectivist aspirations for statements that do not take into account the realities of human existence. Others (including some representatives of the philosophy of science), on the contrary, denied the significance of the concept of truth precisely on the grounds that knowledge includes anthropological and cultural parameters. For example, T. Kuhn wrote about his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" that he managed to construct a dynamic model of scientific knowledge without resorting to the concept of truth. Despite criticism, the concept of truth retains its significance in modern science as a value-target setting.

The concept of truth is ambiguous. For science, the correspondent and coherent interpretations of truth are most significant. Coherent truth characterizes knowledge as an interconnected system of consistent statements (knowledge correlates with knowledge). Corresponding truth characterizes knowledge as corresponding to reality, as information (“correspondence”) about an object. The establishment of coherent truth is carried out by means of logic. To establish a correspondent truth, one needs to go beyond the limits of the theory, its comparison with the object.

The truth of knowledge (law, theory) is not identical to its complete adequacy to the object. In truth, the moments of absoluteness (irrefutability) and relativity (incompleteness, inaccuracy) are dialectically combined. The Cartesian tradition gave the concept of accuracy the status of an ideal of scientific knowledge. When scientists came to the conclusion that this ideal was unattainable, an idea arose about the fundamental fallibility of knowledge (the principle of fallibilism by Ch. Pierce, K. Popper).

The concept of accuracy in relation to scientific knowledge has a quantitative aspect (for mathematic sciences) and a linguistic aspect (for all sciences). Indeed, the Cartesian ideal of the quantitative accuracy of mathematized knowledge (but not of mathematics itself) cannot be realized due to a number of reasons: the imperfection of measuring systems, the inability to take into account all perturbing effects on the object. Linguistic accuracy is also relative. It lies in the adequacy of the language of science to the tasks of studying the object.

Classical science dealt only with objects whose interaction is subject to strict causal laws. Modern science also studies complex systems whose behavior is subject to probabilistic distributions (statistical laws), and the behavior of individual elements of the system is predictable only with a certain degree of probability. In addition, the objects of modern science are complex multi-factor open systems, for which an unpredictable combination of factors is significant (for example: political science, demography, etc.). The development of such objects is non-linear, any event can deviate the object from the “calculated trajectory”. In this case, the researcher has to think implicatively (according to the repeatedly repeated “if… then…” scheme), calculating possible “scenarios” for the development of the object. To characterize knowledge about statistical regularities and non-linear processes, the concept of truth acquires a new dimension and is characterized as probabilistic truth.

The general epistemological problem of the criteria of truth in relation to scientific knowledge acts as the task of its substantiation. The substantiation of scientific knowledge is a multifaceted activity, which includes the following main points: a) establishing the correspondent truth of theoretical propositions (comparison with facts, empirical verification of conclusions and predictions made on the basis of the theory); b) establishing the internal logical consistency of knowledge (hypotheses); c) establishing the conformity of the provisions of the tested hypothesis with the already existing proven knowledge of related scientific disciplines; d) demonstration, proof of the reliability of the methods by which new knowledge was obtained; e) conventional elements of knowledge, ad hoc hypotheses (to explain specific isolated cases that do not "fit" into the framework of the theory) are considered justified, if they serve to increase knowledge, allow us to formulate a new problem, eliminate the incompleteness of knowledge. Justification is carried out on the basis of value arguments - completeness, heuristic knowledge.

Control questions and tasks

1. Why is the understanding of knowledge as a reflection of reality limited?

2. What are the similarities and differences between coherent and correspondent interpretations of truth?

3. Why is the absolute accuracy of scientific knowledge unattainable?

4. What is the rationale for scientific knowledge?

In the history of philosophy, there have been several understandings, ways of interpreting truth:

1. ontological. "Truth is what it is." The very existence of the thing is important. Until some time, the truth may be hidden, unknown to a person, but at a certain point in time it is revealed to a person, and he captures it in words, in definitions. in works of art.

2. epistemological. "Truth is the correspondence of knowledge to reality." However, in this case, many problems and disagreements arise, since an attempt is often made to compare the incomparable: the ideal (knowledge) with the real-material.

2. positivist. "Truth is empirical confirmation." In positivism, only that which could really be tested in practice was subjected to consideration, everything else was recognized as "metaphysics" that went beyond the interests of "real (positivist) philosophy."

3. pragmatic. "Truth is the usefulness of knowledge, its effectiveness." According to these criteria, what at a given moment in time gives an effect, brings a kind of “profit” was recognized as true.

4. Conventional(founder - J. A. Poincare). "Truth is an agreement." In case of disagreement, you just need to agree among themselves what is considered true.

Most likely, the concept of truth combines all these approaches: it is both what really is and the correspondence of our knowledge to what really is, but at the same time it is also a certain agreement, an agreement on the acceptance of this truth.

Delusion- unintentional distortion of knowledge, a temporary state of knowledge in search of truth.

Lie- intentional distortion of the true.

Criteria for the truth of scientific knowledge:

1. Scientific knowledge should not be contradictory and contribute to the further development and improvement of the theory system.

2. This positive change in theory should sooner or later, one way or another, indirectly or directly give certain practical results, be useful.

3. Practice. It has the dignity of immediate certainty. Only practical activity that transforms reality proves the truth or falsity of knowledge.

4. Time. True scientific knowledge must be considered in its historical limitations. Scientific knowledge reveals its true value, its this-worldly strength and power only when it is considered in development, under specific conditions, used in combination with other forms of knowledge (ordinary, artistic, moral, religious, philosophical).

Additional criteria for the truth of scientific knowledge:

1. E. Mach introduces the principle of economy of thought and simplicity of theory;

2. The beauty of scientific theory. A. Poincare insists on the beauty of the mathematical apparatus;

3. The criterion of common sense; 4. The criterion of insanity - the criterion of non-compliance with common sense;

5. H. Reichenbach puts forward the criterion of the greatest predictiveness of the theory.

6. Verification theory; 7. K. R. Popper refers to the principle of "falsification"