Forms of scientific knowledge. Features of scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge criteria

Questions for consideration

Scientific methods of cognition and their classification.
Method, technique and methodology: general and specific.
Process scientific knowledge and its stages.

Basic concepts and categories: method, technique, methodology; general scientific, particular scientific and specific, empirical and theoretical, heuristic and algorithmic methods of cognition; observation, description, comparison, analogy, measurement, generalization, classification, induction, extrapolation, systematization, analysis, abstraction, idealization, synthesis, concretization, deduction, modeling, experiment.

Any cognitive activity carried out using certain techniques, selected either intuitively or in accordance with established traditions. In science, such techniques are called "methods". The concept of "method" (comes from the Greek. Methodos - way, way) is a way of theoretical and practical mastering of reality. The methods used in the scientific and cognitive process are called "scientific methods of cognition."
Scientific methods of cognition are interconnected. On the basis of some methods, others appear, which, in turn, are the basis for the construction of new methods, etc. The same method can include a specific set of other methods. Thus, it can be noted that the set of methods used in one or another cognitive process is a "discharged nesting doll", in the frills of a dress of which one more, and one more method, and another can be hidden. In this regard, in scientific knowledge, it is customary to use methods in a complex manner. Right choice methods of cognition and the ability to use them make the research process more effective and fruitful.
Methods can be classified for various reasons. The most traditional and most often found in educational literature include the following classifications: by breadth and level of application, by scope, as well as by the "mechanism" of acquiring knowledge. So, let's look at the classification data.
The first classification: from the point of view of the breadth of application, it is customary to distinguish general scientific, specific scientific and special research methods.
General scientific research methods are the most widespread, are quite accessible and are used simultaneously in various (if not all) sciences. The idea of general scientific research methods is given by formal logic - the science of constructing scientific knowledge, the founder of which was the ancient Greek scientist Aristotle. General scientific research methods can include: analysis, synthesis, comparison, analogy, etc.
Private scientific research methods are characteristic for a specific, specific science and, as a rule, their use is limited. Particular scientific methods may include: methods of mathematical analysis, statistical analysis, sociological research, etc. These methods, however, are often borrowed from other sciences and used in an interdisciplinary manner. So, mathematical methods in economics are widespread, especially in microanalysis economic problems... Economic statistics is the basis for the study of economic phenomena. And to study macroeconomic phenomena, for example, unemployment, sociological surveys are often used. As any science develops, an interdisciplinary approach begins to play an increasing role in it.
Special methods are developed and applied for individual studies or groups of studies, in fact, without further repetition. These methods are most often used in empirical, applied research.
The second classification: from the point of view of the scope of application, empirical (Latin empirio - experience) and theoretical research methods can be distinguished. Empirical methods serve to influence reality in order to master it. These can include methods such as observation, comparison, measurement, experiment, etc. Empirical research methods are based on the sensory perception of reality. Theoretical methods serve to advance, study, and test theoretical constructs. TO theoretical methods research includes: generalization, idealization, formalization, etc. Theoretical research methods are based on the rational, ie. reasonable (based only on thought processes) mastery of reality.
However, the division of methods into empirical and theoretical is somewhat arbitrary. With greater accuracy, one could speak of "predominantly" theoretical and "predominantly" empirical methods of research. So, modeling can involve the creation of an image of an object both in logical-formal schemes of the mind, and in experimental conditions. At the same time, a scientific experiment usually begins with the formulation of a hypothesis. Methods such as abstraction, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction can also be classified as conditionally theoretical. Some researchers call them mixed.
The third classification: from the point of view of the "mechanism" of obtaining information, the methods of scientific knowledge can be divided into heuristic (Greek eureka - find) and algorithmic. Heuristic methods mean those that allow you to get knowledge with a certain tolerance of the probability of truth, mainly in the process of "intuitive insight." Such methods are, apparently, the majority, and in order to obtain a more accurate result, they should be used in conjunction with other methods. These can include: induction, analogy, statistical methods, etc. Algorithmic methods allow you to obtain more accurate knowledge formed as a result of the implementation of a certain well-established and worked out algorithm. These can include methods: analysis, comparison, measurement, etc.
Each method has certain cognitive tools, i.e. means used to achieve the stated goal of the research. The choice of research tools can be influenced by: the degree of development of scientific knowledge, the availability of the tool, features of the studied object, the period of study, features of information processing, external conditions... The concretization of the research method leads to the concretization of the instrument. If the graph, considered as an analysis tool, can be used in both statistical and macro- and microeconomic analysis, then, for example, the graph of the Lorenz curve is only in macroeconomics when analyzing inequality in the distribution of income of the population, and the graph of the indifference curve (line of equal utility ) - in microeconomics in the section "theory of consumer behavior".
Just like the methods, the tools are in constant development and improvement. Moreover, the development of research tools seems to be proceeding along the path of their unification. Thus, the Lorenz curve or Ginny coefficient (a tool for measuring inequality of income of the population) can be used both when assessing convergence between countries, and when assessing the degree of market concentration, etc., and the indifference curve can be used in the theory of production (equal output line).
Along with the methods in the cognitive process, methodology and methodology are used. Being the same root, these concepts ("methodology" and "methodology"), however, create a certain polarity (Fig. 1).
Under the concept of "methodology" it is customary to mean the totality and sequence of methods and techniques developed empirically and used to achieve the set research goal. In other words, the methodology acts as the practice of applying and using scientific methods. The choice of methodology depends on the preferences of the researcher, technical capabilities, and often has an individual character. With the development of science and technology, some methods become obsolete and new, more progressive ones appear. There is a change in methods.
The concept of "methodology of science" is broader and more capacious, it includes not only methods and methods of research, taken from more general theories, their sequence, but also the principles and forms of cognition. In other words, methodology is a theory of methods and techniques. The choice of a research methodology includes a number of mandatory stages: setting and choosing a research goal, defining research principles, developing research methods, including the choice of research methods, methods and tools, deciding on ways to verify research results. Each scientific, including economic, school (trend) has developed its own research methodology, while the research methodology used in different schools (trends) may have quite similar features.

Rice. 1. Relationship between methodology and methodology

So, Marxism studied economic system from the point of view of the class approach, the historical (institutional) school - from the point of view of historical development (historical development of institutions), the neoclassical school - from the point of view of marginal analysis, etc., but both, and others, and still others used methods, for example , achieving an optimal result.
Methodology, techniques, methods and research tools are the most important elements of the cognitive process. The cognitive process can be conditionally divided into several stages (Fig. 2).
We will call the first stage of the process "from practice to concrete knowledge." It implies a transition from sensory perception of reality and the formation of ideas about it to the development of judgments and inferences. The methods used at this stage of the study are quite clear and simple. They include: observation, comparison, which, in turn, can be carried out using methods such as measurement and analogy, as well as generalization, which creates the basis for the classification of the phenomenon.
Let us consider in more detail the methods used at the first stage of the study.
Observation - as a rule, scientific research begins with it. Observation is used to obtain and accumulate primary empirical information regarding the object under study, as well as to test and substantiate the truth of the hypotheses put forward. Observation as a general scientific method of research is a directed and systematic, systematic tracking of the most significant facts, phenomena, processes, their registration, description, systematization, identification of features and patterns. Distinctive feature scientific observation is the initial choice of the purpose of the study, objectives, procedures for implementation, as well as its regularity. Observation refers to empirical research methods and is most often carried out in the field (natural) conditions, less often in the laboratory. It contains the following required elements: object, subject, means, conditions, purpose, on the basis of which the tasks of observation are formulated and its results are interpreted. It is important to "remove" the observer, his "non-influence" on the results of the study. Additionally, observation can include measurement and experiment.

Fig. 2. Scheme of the application of general scientific methods in the process of cognition

Although there is a variety of ways to conduct observation, it is commonly referred to as the most basic research methods. To the merits this method research can include the ability to track facts, phenomena, processes in time, study their development and dynamics. Observation results are interpreted using qualitative, comparative and quantitative indicators. Through observation, many economic laws and laws have been discovered. In labor economics, for example, observation is used as a special research method (the method of timekeeping of working hours) to substantiate the worker's output standards. Observation plays an important role in studying the dynamics and development of economic phenomena. On the basis of observations, “cobweb-like” models of the dynamics of demand in microeconomics, dynamic models of economic growth in macroeconomics are built, new economic phenomena are studied.
Despite the fact that description is inextricably linked with scientific observation, it can be considered as a separate research method. Description is a general scientific empirical research method based on observation and is a linguistic (sign) fixation of empirical data about the research object, i.e. its language model. With the help of the description, data about the object of research are systematized, its specificity and behavior are "translated" into a certain linguistic structure, interpreted in a certain theoretical system, which often leads to rather serious distortions of the information obtained as a result of observation and scientific discussions. The thoroughness and regularity of the description of the characteristics of the object allows you to collect more reliable information and get a more accurate idea, and therefore a judgment about reality. On the basis of the description, for example, the so-called positive economy is built.

Cognition is the process of gaining knowledge about the world around us and about oneself. Cognition begins from the moment when a person begins to ask himself questions: who I am, why I came to this world, what mission I must fulfill. Cognition is a constant process. It occurs even when a person is not aware of what thoughts guide his actions and deeds. Cognition as a process studies a number of sciences: psychology, philosophy, sociology, scientific methodology, history, science of science. The goal of any knowledge is self-improvement and broadening your horizons.

The structure of cognition

Cognition as a scientific category has a clearly defined structure. Cognition necessarily includes a subject and an object. A subject is understood as a person who takes active steps to implement cognition. The object of cognition is what the subject's attention is directed to. Other people, natural and social phenomena, any items.

Methods of cognition

The methods of cognition are understood as tools with the help of which the process of acquiring new knowledge about the surrounding world is carried out. Methods of cognition are traditionally divided into empirical and theoretical.

Empirical methods of cognition

Empirical methods of cognition provide for the study of an object with the help of any research actions, confirmed empirically. Empirical methods of cognition include: observation, experiment, measurement, comparison.

Observation Is a method of cognition, during which the study of an object is carried out without direct interaction with it. In other words, the observer can be at a distance from the object of knowledge and at the same time receive the information he needs. With the help of observation, the subject can draw his own conclusions on a particular issue, build additional assumptions. The observation method is widely used in their activities by psychologists, medical staff, social workers.
Experiment is a method of cognition in which there is an immersion in a specially created environment. This method of cognition involves some abstraction from the outside world. With the help of an experiment, Scientific research... In the course of this method of cognition, the hypothesis put forward is confirmed or refuted.
Measurement is an analysis of any parameters of the object of knowledge: weight, size, length, etc. In the course of comparison, a comparison of the significant characteristics of the object of knowledge is carried out.

Theoretical methods of cognition

Theoretical methods of cognition provide for the study of an object through the analysis of various categories and concepts. In this case, the truth of the hypothesis put forward is not confirmed empirically, but is proved with the help of the existing postulates and final conclusions. Theoretical methods of cognition include: analysis, synthesis, classification, generalization, concretization, abstraction, analogy, deduction, induction, idealization, modeling, formalization.

Analysis implies mental analysis of the whole object of knowledge into small parts. The analysis reveals the connection between the components, their differences and other features. Analysis as a method of cognition is widely used in scientific and research activities.
Synthesis involves the unification of individual parts into a single whole, the discovery of a link between them. Synthesis is actively used in the process of all cognition: in order to accept new information, you need to correlate it with already existing knowledge.
Classification Is a grouping of objects, united by specific parameters.
Generalization involves grouping individual items according to their main characteristics.
Concretization is a refinement process carried out with the aim of focusing attention on significant details of an object or phenomenon.
Abstraction involves focusing on private side specific subject in order to discover a new approach, to acquire a different view of the problem under study. At the same time, other components are not considered, are not taken into account, or insufficient attention is paid to them.
Analogy carried out in order to identify the presence of similar objects in the object of knowledge.
Deduction- this is a transition from the general to the particular as a result of inferences proved in the process of cognition.
Induction- this is a transition from the particular to the whole as a result of inferences proved in the process of cognition.
Idealization implies the formation of separate concepts denoting an object that does not exist in reality.
Modeling involves the formation and sequential study of any category of existing objects in the process of cognition.
Formalization reflects objects or phenomena using generally accepted symbols: letters, numbers, formulas or other conventions.

Types of cognition

The types of cognition are understood as the main directions of human consciousness, with the help of which the process of cognition is carried out. They are sometimes called forms of knowledge.

Ordinary cognition

This type of cognition implies the receipt by a person of elementary information about the world around him in the process of life. Even a child has ordinary knowledge. A small person, receiving the necessary knowledge, draws his own conclusions and gains experience. Even if a negative experience comes, in the future it will help to form such qualities as caution, attentiveness, prudence. A responsible approach develops through comprehension of the experience gained, its internal living. As a result of everyday cognition, the personality forms an idea of how it is possible and how it is impossible to act in life, what should be counted on and what should be forgotten. Everyday knowledge is based on elementary ideas about the world and connections between existing objects. It does not affect general cultural values, does not consider the worldview of the individual, its religious and moral orientation. Ordinary cognition strives only to satisfy a momentary request about the surrounding reality. A person simply accumulates useful experience and knowledge necessary for further life.

Scientific knowledge

This type of cognition is based on a logical approach. Its other name is. A detailed consideration of the situation in which the subject is immersed plays an important role here. With the help of a scientific approach, the analysis of existing objects is carried out, appropriate conclusions are drawn. Scientific knowledge is widely used in research projects of any direction. With the help of science, they prove the truth or refute many facts. Scientific approach is subordinated to many components, cause - effect relationships play an important role.

In scientific activity, the process of cognition is carried out by putting forward hypotheses and proving them in a practical way. As a result of the research being conducted, a scientist can confirm his assumptions or completely abandon them if final product will not meet the stated purpose. Scientific knowledge is based primarily on logic and common sense.

Artistic cognition

This type of cognition is also called creative. Such knowledge is based on artistic images and affects the intellectual sphere of the personality. Here, the truth of any statements cannot be scientifically proven, since the artist comes into contact with the category of beauty. Reality is reflected in artistic images, and is not built by the method of mental analysis. Artistic knowledge is limitless in its essence. The nature of creative cognition of the world is such that a person himself models an image in his head with the help of thoughts and ideas. The material created in this way is an individual creative product and gets the right to exist. Each artist has his own inner world, which he reveals to other people through creative activity: an artist paints pictures, a writer - books, a musician composes music. All creative thinking has its own truth and fiction.

Philosophical knowledge

This type of cognition consists in the intention to interpret reality by determining a person's place in the world. Philosophical knowledge is characterized by a search for individual truth, constant reflections on the meaning of life, an appeal to such concepts as conscience, purity of thoughts, love, talent. Philosophy tries to penetrate the essence of the most complex categories, explain mystical and eternal things, determine the essence of human existence, existential issues of choice. Philosophical knowledge is aimed at comprehending the controversial issues of life. Often, as a result of such research, the agent comes to an understanding of the ambivalence of all that exists. A philosophical approach involves seeing the second (hidden) side of any object, phenomenon or judgment.

Religious cognition

This type of cognition is aimed at studying the relationship of a person with higher powers. The Almighty is considered here simultaneously as an object of study, and at the same time as a subject, since religious consciousness implies the praise of the divine principle. A religious person interprets all the events taking place from the point of view of divine providence. He analyzes his inner state, mood and waits for some definite response from above to certain actions performed in life. For him, the spiritual component of any business, morality and moral foundations are of great importance. Such a person often sincerely wishes others happiness and wants to fulfill the will of the Almighty. A religiously minded consciousness implies the search for the only correct truth that would be useful to many, not just one specific person... Questions that are posed to the individual: what are good and evil, how to live according to conscience, what is the sacred duty of each of us.

Mythological knowledge

This type of knowledge belongs to primitive society.... This is a variant of cognition of a person who considered himself an integral part of nature. Ancient people looked for answers to questions about the essence of life differently than modern people, they endowed nature with divine power. That is why the mythological consciousness has formed its gods and the corresponding attitude to the events taking place. Primitive society relinquished responsibility for what happens in everyday reality and turned entirely to nature.

Self-knowledge

This type of cognition is aimed at studying one's true states, moods and conclusions. Self-knowledge always implies a deep analysis of one's own feelings, thoughts, actions, ideals, aspirations. Those who have been actively engaged in self-knowledge for several years note that they have a highly developed intuition. Such a person will not get lost in the crowd, will not succumb to the “herd” feeling, but will make responsible decisions on his own. Self-knowledge leads a person to understand their motives, to comprehend the years lived and the deeds committed. As a result of self-knowledge, a person's mental and physical activity increases, he accumulates self-confidence, becomes truly brave and enterprising.

Thus, cognition as a deep process of acquiring the necessary knowledge about the surrounding reality has its own structure, methods and types. Each type of cognition corresponds to a different period in the history of social thought and the personal choice of an individual person.

The main forms of scientific knowledge.

Problem

The process of scientific cognition begins with the formulation of a problem.

The problem is what is not cognized and what needs to be cognized, knowledge of ignorance.

The statement of the problem is conditioned by the needs of practical activity and the contradictions between existing theories and new facts. When setting it, it is important: first, the awareness of a certain situation as a task; secondly, a clear understanding of the meaning of the problem, its formulation with a distinction between the known and the unknown. Problem statement includes some preliminary knowledge, ways of its solution, for which it is necessary to go beyond the achieved knowledge.

A. Einstein, L. Infeld emphasized that it is much more important to formulate a problem than to solve it; the solution often depends on mathematical and experimental skills. In order to ask a new question, open a new opportunity, look at an old problem from a new point of view, it is necessary to have a creative imagination, and only this, mainly, moves science forward.

The concept of a fact is not something taken for granted, as it seems at first glance. After all, the fact is the absence of those phenomena, the existence of which was assumed or was considered already proven, if these assumptions and evidence are refuted. Delusions, illusions are also facts - the phenomena of consciousness, cognition. Facts can be directly perceived by our senses; the presence of facts is also established by indirect observation, which fixes not the facts themselves, but the impact that they have on the phenomena that are amenable to direct observation. Finally, the establishment of facts is possible through assumptions, guesses, hypotheses that admit the existence of some facts unknown to science, if these assumptions, guesses, hypotheses are ultimately confirmed.

Factual knowledge makes sense only in connection with a certain theo-! the theoretical concept that serves as its rationale79.

By itself, the reading of the instrument cannot be regarded as a scientific fact. It becomes it when it correlates with the phenomenon under study, which necessarily presupposes an appeal to theories describing the operation of the devices used.

Unlike observation data, facts are always reliable, objective information, such a description of phenomena and connections between them, in which subjective layers are removed. Therefore, it is inappropriate to represent facts as directly sensory experiences or as statements fixing these experiences, the so-called. protocol sentences independent of theoretical interpretation. Any scientific fact is one of many projections of this or that real phenomenon, obtained from the corresponding theoretical point of view. Thus, depending on the nature of the conceptual interpretation, the same phenomena serve as the basis for the "production" of different facts. For example, two theories of light - Newton's corpuscular theory and Huygens' wave theory.

A fact is a fragment of reality expressed in scientific language and included in the system of scientific knowledge by displaying this data in the conceptual system of some theory.

Hypothesis

The solution to the problem involves the development of a certain hypothesis.

| A hypothesis as a form of knowledge is a scientifically grounded assumption based on facts; problematic, unreliable, probabilistic knowledge; the supposed solution to the problem.

Not a single scientific theory is born in a finished form, at first it exists as a hypothesis. The hypothesis also does not arise immediately: initially it is a very preliminary assumption, a guess. The guess is most often very unstable, unstable, subject to modifications. As a result, a hypothesis is formed as the most probabilistic assumption based on the strength of psychological and logical confidence in its plausibility. Basic requirements for the hypothesis:

the hypothesis must be compatible with all the facts to which it concerns; explain them and have the ability to predict new facts;

the hypothesis must be available for verification (empirical or logical proof);

the hypothesis must be tested for compatibility with the fundamental inter-theoretical principles of the given science.

For example, if a physicist finds that his hypothesis is in conflict with the principle of conservation of energy, he will be inclined to abandon such a contradiction and look for a new solution to the problem. However, there are periods in the development of science when a scientist is inclined to ignore some (but not all) of the fundamental principles of his science. This happens in periods when a radical breakdown of fundamental principles and concepts is needed. For example, the founders of electrodynamics were forced to abandon the principle of action at a distance. Planck abandoned the principle of continuity of action, which until that moment was considered inviolable in physics. It was this kind of hypothesis that N. Bohr called “crazy ideas”. But what distinguishes them from guesswork and schizophrenic delirium is that, breaking with one or two principles, they do not break with others, they agree with them, which determines the seriousness of the scientific hypothesis put forward.

Ways of forming hypotheses: based on sensory experience, using the method of mathematical hypothesis.

Hypothesis testing - empirical confirmation and refutation. However, the empirical confirmation of the consequences and hypothesis does not guarantee its truth, and the refutation of one of the consequences does not unequivocally testify to its falsity as a whole. All attempts to construct an effective logic of confirmation and refutation of theoretical explanatory hypotheses have not yet been crowned with success. Therefore, the status of an explanatory theory is given to the hypothesis that has the maximum objectivity and predictive power.

Some methodologists believe that all our knowledge is of a hypothetical nature, differing only in the degree of probability of the subjective nature of the hypotheses (Popper). However, most researchers still proceed from the fact that the highest form of organization of knowledge is theory.

In a broad sense, a theory is a complex of concepts, ideas and views, aimed at explaining and interpreting certain phenomena and processes. In the narrow sense, it is the most developed form of organization of scientific knowledge, designed to give a more or less holistic idea of the laws, essential characteristics of a certain sphere of natural and social reality.

A simple description or systematization of facts cannot be considered theory. It necessarily involves not only a description, but also an explanation. The explanation includes the disclosure of patterns and cause-and-effect relationships in those processes and phenomena that are covered by this theory.

| Theory is a system of reliable knowledge, objective, proven, proven by practice, knowledge of the essential characteristics of a certain fragment of reality.

Scientific theory is an integral system of knowledge, the various components of which are located in logical dependence on each other and are derived from a certain set of concepts and assumptions; a logically connected and internally differentiated system of statements and laws about the objects investigated by a certain science.

The main components of the theory:

1) the initial empirical basis, which includes many facts recorded in this area of knowledge, obtained in experiments and requiring a theoretical explanation; 2)

initial theoretical basis- many primary assumptions, postulates, axioms, general laws, theories, collectively describing an idealized object; 3)

the set of rules of inference and proof admissible within the framework of the theory; 4)

a set of statements derived in theory with their proofs, which constitute the bulk of theoretical knowledge. 5)

laws (of varying degrees of generality) that express essential, stable, repetitive, necessary connections between phenomena covered by this theory; 6)

assumptions, hypotheses.

Sometimes in structure scientific theory distinguish formal calculus - the logical apparatus of the theory (mathematical equations, logical symbols, rules, etc.), and meaningful interpretation.

The construction and interpretation of the content of the theory are associated with the scientist's worldview, certain methodological principles, the historical level of development of science and technology.

і Thus, theory as a special form of mastering the world is always associated with certain philosophical and ideological attitudes.

Modern scientific knowledge is not just a collection of separate theories. It is a complex multilevel education that combines a fairly integral system of fundamental and applied theories, phenomenological (describing phenomena) and axiomatized theories, etc. We can talk about a hierarchy of theories: a few fundamental theories; a wide range of special theories, numerous theoretical models applicable to experimental devices and developments in technical sciences.

Concepts

і Concept (Latin conceptio - understanding, a single concept) is a system of views expressing a certain way of seeing, understanding phenomena and processes, which includes a complex conglomerate of logical-theoretical, philosophical, social, psychological components... This is more general than theory, a form of the systemic organization of knowledge.

In socio-humanitarian knowledge, a concept can be a form of knowledge that "replaces" a theory (for example, the dispositional concept of personality or the concept of social exchange in sociology).

The concept introduces into the theoretical discourses of disciplines their initial principles and preconditions that determine the basic concepts - concepts and schemes of reasoning, forming fundamental questions ("ideas"). This is essentially a form of organizing knowledge at the metatheoretical level.

The emphasis on conceptuality in scientific knowledge implicitly actualized the socio-cultural and value-normative component in it, shifting the emphasis from “cognitive”, “logical”, “intrasystemic” in theory to “practical”, “semantic”, to its “opening” outward83 ...

Post-non-classical science methodology Special attention devotes to the study of the conceptual organization of scientific knowledge (the concepts of “personal knowledge” by M. Polani, “thematic analysis of science” by J. Holton, “research program” by I. Lakatos, “paradigm” by T. Kuhn, etc.).

SECTION 5. Methods and forms of scientific knowledge

Problem.

The process of scientific cognition begins with the formulation of a problem.

The problem is what is not cognized and what needs to be cognized, knowledge of ignorance.

The statement of the problem is conditioned by the needs of practical activity and the contradictions between existing theories and new facts.

When setting it, it is important: first, the awareness of a certain situation as a task; secondly, a clear understanding of the meaning of the problem, its formulation with a distinction between the known and the unknown. Problem statement includes some preliminary knowledge, ways of its solution, for which it is necessary to go beyond the achieved knowledge.

P. 110-115. V. 19-21.

SECTION 6. Philosophy of science, its genesis and stages of development

Philosophy and Science: Problems of Relationship and Interaction.

Even in antiquity, Plato and Aristotle tried to distinguish between the features of science and philosophy. Aristotle argued that philosophy is the science of sciences because it cognizes the nature of existence, and leaves its external side and individual manifestations to the arts and sciences.

However, at this time the knowledge of the ancients, called "philosophy", was syncretic in nature and contained the rudiments of both scientific and philosophical knowledge.

Since the 19th century, the assertion about the greatness of science and the inferiority of philosophy has become popular, based, on the one hand, on the fact that in the speculative reflections of philosophers there are not only many ingenious guesses, but also a lot of nonsense. On the other hand, on the practical value of specific knowledge in the context of the development of industrial civilization and the industrial revolution. Positivism asserted that philosophy has cognitive value only in those periods of history when science has not yet been formed.

The problem of the relationship between science and philosophy is actively discussed in the twentieth century.

Today, some thinkers argue that philosophy and science differ in the objects of research, others that the boundary lies within the problems being investigated, which philosophy and science consider from different angles.

Philosophy and science are brought together by the fact that both philosophical and scientific knowledge, relying on experience and reason, reflect the world in general and abstract concepts, common to them is the search for truth and the desire to logically substantiate knowledge, express it in theoretical form.

The task of understanding the value foundations of science and culture as a whole is of a philosophical nature, since the subject of philosophical reflections is not the world itself, but the relationship “man and the world”.

In philosophy, the self-consciousness of science is formed, the problems of the essence and characteristics of scientific and cognitive activity are investigated.

Philosophy sets general worldview guidelines in choosing a research problem, substantiating hypotheses and evaluating the results obtained. Philosophical analysis, generalization and interpretation of new scientific results not only establishes their connection and difference with previously accumulated knowledge, but also lays the methodological foundations for the formation of a new system of views.

Philosophy performs in relation to science critical function, integrates natural science, humanitarian, technical knowledge, forming a scientific picture of the world. The philosophical foundations of science provide a kind of "docking" of new scientific knowledge with the dominant worldview, culture, including it in the socio-cultural context of the era; the function of substantiating already acquired knowledge; a heuristic function, participating in the construction of new theories, the restructuring of the normative structures of science and pictures of reality.

Natural philosophy as a historical form of the relationship between philosophy and science

Natural philosophy is a way of understanding the world, based on some speculatively established general principles and giving a general picture covering all of nature as a whole. Natural philosophy was historically the first form of rational thinking aimed at cognizing nature, taken in its entirety.

The main reasons for the "death" of natural philosophy were:

Formation of natural sciences that have reached a certain degree of maturity;

Awareness of the limitations of abstract speculative (speculative) generalizations, criticism of natural philosophical constructions on the part of major natural scientists;

Criticism of natural philosophy by positivism (O. Comte, J.S. Mill, G. Spencer and others), which arose in the 30s of the nineteenth century. and proclaimed a decisive break with the philosophical ("metaphysical") tradition, believing that science does not need any philosophy standing above it.

The emergence of the philosophy of science and features of its development in the XIX century.

19th century positivism

As a result of the disintegration of natural philosophy, a special direction in the development of philosophical thought XIX century - positivism (from Latin positivus - positive) - declaring the only source of true, valid knowledge to be concrete (empirical) sciences and denying the cognitive value of traditional philosophical research.

In the middle of the nineteenth century. the main ideas of the positivist direction in philosophy were laid. These initial ideas include:

Complete elimination of traditional philosophical problems that are insoluble due to the limitations of the human mind;

search for a universal method of obtaining reliable knowledge and a universal language of science;

Epistemological phenomenalism is the reduction of scientific knowledge to a set of sensory data and the complete elimination of the “unobservable” from science;

Methodological empiricism - the desire to decide the fate of theoretical knowledge based on the results of its experimental verification;

Descriptivism is the reduction of all functions of science to description.

Machism (empirio-criticism).

Machism is a direction in the philosophy and methodology of science of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, founded by E. Mach and R. Avenarius. A partial synonym for the term "Machism" is the term "empirio-criticism": sometimes Machism is understood only as the teaching of Mach, but not the teaching of Avenarius. Machism (empirio-criticism) is considered the second stage in the evolution of positivism.

The main theoretical principles of Machism were proposed at the beginning of the 20th century almost simultaneously and independently of each other by Mach and Avenarius (Switzerland). They were further developed in the works of their students, as well as in the works of K. Pearson (Great Britain) and P. Duhem (France). Nevertheless, the wide spread of Machism (empirio-criticism in general) is associated with the activities of Mach. Its influence is explained by the fact that Mach's work arose as a direct reaction to the crisis of classical physics. Mach made a claim to explain this crisis and propose a program for a way out of it.

Machism proposed its own solution to the psychophysical problem, according to which the soul and body are built from the same "elements" (sensations), and therefore it is necessary to speak not about the relationship between real processes - physiological and mental, but about various complexes of sensations. Machism is ideologically close to the philosophy of J. Berkeley and D. Hume.

Mach's doctrine is based on the theory (principle) of the economy of thought and the ideal of a purely descriptive science. Mach declares the economy of thought to be the main characteristic of cognition in general, deriving it from the organism's initial biological need for self-preservation, which, according to Mach, determines the need for the organism to adapt to facts. Avenarius expresses the same idea in the principle of least expenditure of energy.

Neo-Kantianism.

In the 60s of the nineteenth century. in Germany, a philosophical movement arose - neo-Kantianism. Just like the positivists, the neo-Kantians argued that knowledge is only a matter of concrete, "positive" sciences. They reject philosophy in the sense of teaching about the world as a whole as "metaphysics."

Neo-Kantians focused on the active, creative, constructive activity of the mind, seeing in it the basis of all scientific knowledge.

Within the framework of neo-Kantianism, two scientific schools were formed - the Marburg School - Hermann Cohen, Paul Natorp, Ernst Cassirer and the Baden School - Wilhelm Windelband, Heinrich Rickert.

The Marburg school paid special attention to the study of the logical foundations of the philosophy of I. Kant, defending the primacy of "theoretical" reason over "practical" reason, placing at the center of its interests the method of interpreting cultural phenomena constituted in the spheres of morality, art, law, religion, science. At the same time, the Marburg school considered mathematics as a model for socio-humanitarian knowledge: the methods of forming concepts in mathematics were relied on as a standard for the formation of concepts in general.

Unlike the Marburg school of neo-Kantianism, the Baden school focused on the psychological interpretation of the philosophy of I. Kant, affirming the priority of practical reason and substantiating the transcendental, meaningful nature of values; therefore, the center of research of the Baden school was axiological, cultural, anthropological problems.

Neo-Kantianism made a significant contribution to the philosophy of language, philosophy of myth, philosophy of culture.

Pragmatism.

Pragmatism is a philosophical trend that emerged at the end of the 19th century. and most widespread in the United States.

Pragmatism owes its birth to the activities of a small group of scientific workers who gathered in the early 70s. XIX century. in Cambridge, which Pierce called the Metaphysical Club. In 1871, Charles Pearce (1839-1914) gave a talk containing the basic ideas of pragmatism, and in late 1878 he expounded them in the articles "Consolidating Beliefs" and "How to Make Our Ideas Clear", which went unnoticed. In 1898, the psychologist and philosopher William James (1842-1910) revived and developed Peirce's ideas in his article "A Philosophical Concept and Practical Results." At the beginning of the XX century. John Dewey (1859-1952) and George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) joined pragmatism. XX century ideas of pragmatism occupy a large place in the works of Richard Rorty (b. 1931), Hilary Putnam (b. 1926).

Supporters of pragmatism argued that philosophy should not be a reflection on the origins of being and cognition, but a general method for solving the problems that people face in various life (“problem”) situations. scientific knowledge Consider now the third block of bases ... it goes in cycles: any cycle begins with Problems, problem leads to the emergence of some kind of theory ...

Philosophical Problems artificial life and artificial intelligence

Abstract >> Informatics

Artificial intelligence and artificial life on philosophical Problems thinking and life in general. Contemporary Western ... two distinct styles of thinking in the field scientific knowledge are the descendants of two radically different ...

Home> Law

2.2. Science as a process of cognition Over the two and a half centuries of its development, science has become an extremely complex and ramified formation, in which, however, the systemic organization and internal structure are clearly traced. In a hierarchical order, the main elements of the structure of scientific knowledge are arranged as follows: - reliably established facts; - patterns that summarize the totality of facts; - theoretical constructions, reflecting systems of laws that together describe some areas of the real world; - scientific pictures of the world that create generalized images of reality, combining all theories that do not contradict each other in a systemic unity. experiments, their verification and rechecking) are empirical basis of science. The facts accumulated in the process of research are systematized and generalized according to certain rules. In the case of reliable detection of the community of facts, their repeated uniformity and cause-and-effect relationships, we can say that an empirical law has been found - a general rule to which observed phenomena obey. However, the laws established at the empirical level, especially when it comes to direct observation of phenomena, and not about a specially organized experiment, they often explain little, since they do not reveal the driving forces, the root causes of these phenomena. Therefore, the empirical laws, as a rule, are of little heuristic. To clarify the nature of certain phenomena, as well as to determine the direction of further research, it is necessary to consider the issue on another - theoretical- the level of cognition. The goal of scientific cognition, as already noted, is to establish laws - essential, stable connections between phenomena, that is, to identify the common reality for a certain area. To establish such a generality, science resorts to abstraction, in terms of general, repeating characteristics idealized objects and not taking into account all other characteristics of real objects that are insignificant from the point of view of the problem being solved. A natural question arises: how to determine which characteristics of an object are essential and which are not? The fact is that any research process begins not with the accumulation of facts, but with the advancement of a problem, or at least a task. We need some initial idea, an assumption - what exactly we intend to find out. Otherwise, a multitude of disparate facts recorded during the observation process will create such an intense “information noise” that it will be almost impossible to distinguish an elusive “signal” of one or another regularity from under it. General characteristics(signs) of real objects and phenomena. As for the isolation of the essential from the point of view of the problem of the study of internal features, then here the phenomenon of scientific creativity manifests itself - foresight, guess, insight, finally. This is followed by the explanation and substantiation of the idea at the theoretical level of knowledge. The theory operates mainly with idealized objects, such as a material point, absolutely solid, ideal gas and many others. This kind of abstraction is absolutely necessary for the construction of mathematical models (after all, modern theory is a product of the global mathematization of science). Moreover, the principle of abstraction is incorporated into the procedure of a modern experiment, which since the time of G. Galileo has been an integral part of the two-pronged experimental-mathematical method. In fact, any experiment is organized and carried out in such a way as to investigate a particular process with the least possible influence of outsiders. from the point of view of the task of factors. Of course, experiments are carried out with real objects, but the objects of research themselves are selected and prepared in a special way, and the procedure (technique) of the experiment, as a rule, is constructed so that it is possible to trace the dependence of the course of the studied process on the controlled change of one specific parameter, when all other parameters remain unchanged (fixed). Therefore, the results of the experiment carried out in this way turn out to be suitable for their mathematical processing. In this, experiment is qualitatively different from observation in the natural-philosophical sense, while remaining, nevertheless, a method of research at the empirical level. experimental research associated with the study of complex and subtle processes, therefore, they require serious technical equipment, significant energy consumption, as well as labor costs for processing large amounts of information. The interaction of experiment with theory is also becoming more complex, which is reflected in the development of the theory of experimental planning and methods of statistical processing of its results. 2.3. The structure of scientific knowledge Let us now trace in a generalized form the standard model for constructing scientific knowledge, bearing in mind that when structuring, dividing into stages of such a complex process, one cannot do without elements of abstraction of its particular features. The process of cognition begins with the establishment through observation of a certain set of facts. If, in the course of systematization of accumulated facts, some regularity or stable, repeated dependence is found, then we can assume that a primary empirical generalization has been obtained, or empirical law As a rule, along with facts that fit into the framework of the empirical law, such facts are discovered that do not fit into the discovered regularity, contradict her. At this stage, the need to advance inevitably arises. theoretical hypothesis, which would allow purely speculatively, mentally to modify the known (accepted) reality so that facts contradicting regularities fit into some general scheme (model) that must satisfy the requirement of consistency.In the conditions of developed modern science, as a rule, the accumulation of a set of facts potentially needing in a new theoretical understanding, has been going on for a fairly long time and many scientists and research teams participate in it. It is necessary for a certain "critical volume" of such facts to appear in order for it to become apparent that problem situation when newly discovered facts cannot be explained and understood on the basis of existing theories. The emergence of such a problem inevitably requires the advancement of an adequate hypothesis. The theoretical hypothesis, as a trial solution to eliminate the existing contradiction, is comprehensively analyzed for its confirmation the available empirical data and theoretical knowledge. Further, subject to such confirmation, from the hypothesis, according to the rules of logic, consequences are derived that admit empirical verification... These consequences are deduced both speculatively and on the basis of the use of an adequate mathematical apparatus. logically refuted... If the consequences of the hypothesis are confirmed, in principle, we can talk about the birth new theory So, the standard model for constructing scientific knowledge is "pulled" into the following chain: the establishment and accumulation of empirical facts - primary empirical generalization - the discovery of new, deviating from the rule, facts - the advancement of a problem (a hypothesis that gives an adequate explanation) - a logical (deductive) conclusion from hypotheses of empirically testable consequences - an experimental test of the existence of the facts predicted by the hypothesis. Reliable confirmation of the hypothesis gives it the status theoretical the law... Note that such a model is called hypothetical-deductive and it is generally accepted that the main part of the building of modern science was built according to this scheme. It would seem that everything is very simple - it is enough to act according to the given scheme, and the scientific law will be discovered, because each new element of knowledge is logically deduced from the previous ones. However, here is the opinion of an outstanding physicist on this matter Albert Einstein: "There is no clear logical path to scientific truth, it must be guessed by some kind of intuitive leap of thinking." Indeed, the phenomenon of scientific creativity consists in the fact that at a certain stage of the cognition process, further progress is possible only in an extraordinary way - a scientist, putting forward a successful hypothesis, predicts the truth, if you like, discovers it with his mind's eye and only then builds a logical bridge to it in the form of proof Let us return to the last stage of the hypothetical-deductive model of the cognition process, completed by the emergence of a theoretical law. It should be specially noted here that with the recognition of such a law, the final point in the process of cognition is not set. The fact is that, according to the rules of the same logic, the truth of the corollary does not follow from the truth of the consequence (in our case, the hypothesis). In fact, here the philosophical principle is fully manifested, proclaiming the relative nature of the provisions, laws and theories of all sciences, without exception, that study nature. and society. We can only talk about a certain degree of reliability of a theoretical hypothesis, since, no matter how large the number of facts confirming it, in principle there is a nonzero probability that new firmly established facts will appear that will significantly limit the scope of application of the accepted theory and require development of a consistent generalizing theory. The history of science knows many examples of this. 2.4. Criteria and norms of scientific character So, the theoretical level of knowledge allows you to get the most general, holistic idea of connections and patterns, objectively acting in a specific area of the real world. Empirical verification provides credibility the established theoretical explanation, that is, the possibility of reliable prediction of the behavior of material systems. However, it is not uncommon for the accepted theory, while satisfying the reliability criterion, which is manifested in the correct prediction of previously unknown phenomena, nevertheless turns out to be inadequate to nature. This means that the accepted theoretical model of a real object does not fully reflect it. internal structure and properties. Over time, she turns out to be unable to consistently explain a wider range of phenomena. There is a need to create a new theoretical model that would meet the criterion adequacy to nature The history of natural science knows many examples of how the heuristic potential of seemingly unshakable theories was exhausted precisely because of the identification at the achieved level of development of their inadequacy to the nature of real phenomena and processes. A striking example of this kind is the development of ideas about the nature of light: from the concept of elastic longitudinal waves to the concept of transverse electromagnetic waves and further to the concept of wave-particle duality of light. It should be noted that in the development of modern theories, concepts are introduced that correspond to the characteristics of the studied reality inaccessible to direct observation. This leads to a certain independence of theoretical knowledge from its empirical basis. Therefore, the problem of ensuring the scientific character of knowledge, its compliance with the criteria and norms of scientific character is becoming increasingly important, especially if we take into account the activation of all kinds of pseudoscientific ideas and directions. As for the scientific methodology, it formulated a number of principles for establishing the scientific character of knowledge. One of them, named principle of verification, we have already touched: any judgment makes sense only if it empirically verifiable.The verification principle is effective in the field of natural sciences, and often at the level of indirect verification, when the concepts introduced by the theory cannot be observed directly. For example, in elementary particle physics, the concept is widely used quarks- hypothetical particles, of which, according to the theory, the experimentally observed particles participating in the strong interaction consist - hadrons... It is not possible to detect free quarks in experiments, for which there are a number of explanations. However, the physical phenomena predicted by the quark theory have been reliably recorded, which is evidence of its indirect verification. However, a more reliable confirmation of the concepts and theories based on them is provided by the application of the principle of falsification, which says: only that knowledge can be scientific which basically refutable... Formulating this principle, the great philosopher of the twentieth century. Karl Popper started from a significant difference in the weight of facts in the procedures for confirming and refuting scientific knowledge. Indeed, the repetition of many supporting facts does not give the final confidence in the truth of this or that law, but one clearly refuting fact is enough to recognize this law as erroneous. The law of universal gravitation is often cited as an example: any number of falling apples will not become an immutable confirmation of its truth, but one apple flying away from the Earth is enough for it to be considered refuted. That is why each unsuccessful attempt falsifying (refuting) a theory gives new confirmation of its scientific character. Consistent implementation of the principle of falsification deprives scientific knowledge of completeness and immutability. Here the principle of falsification turns into the concept of a permanent scientific revolution, according to which the alleged refutability of theories becomes real over time, which leads to their collapse, the emergence of new problems that require explanation, and this is the guarantee of the progress of science. 2.5. Scientific revolutions and the formation of scientific paradigms Recent years have been characterized by the expansion of the functions of science: along with the description and explanation of objects and phenomena, it began to perform the function of a productive force in the sense, of course, that today scientific research and development is the basis of any production. The results of scientific activity in the form of scientific information are a kind of product directly used in the production of material values. The volume of scientific information produced by world science is constantly growing. As quantitative estimates show, the volume of scientific production increases by exponential law, i.e., every 15 years it increases by e times (where e = 2.72 - the base of the natural logarithm) While developing exponentially on average, science, however, from time to time dramatically changes the rate of accumulation and systematization of knowledge. Periods of smooth, painstaking accumulation of information are suddenly replaced by an avalanche-like appearance of fundamentally new ideas, hypotheses and theories that radically change the seemingly unshakable ideas about the surrounding reality. The picture of the world is being rewritten anew. This is the internal logic of the development of scientific knowledge, the logic that combines evolutionary and revolutionary processes. Within the framework of the methodology, various models are discussed that reflect a similar logic of the development of science. The most popular among scientists was the concept of the development of the American philosopher Thomas Kuhn, who introduced the concept of paradigms , translated from Greek means: sample, example. According to T. Kuhn, the paradigm unites "... generally recognized scientific achievements, which for a certain time provide a model for posing problems and their solutions to the scientific community." Thus, the paradigm for a long period of time determines the scientific picture of the world, serves as a model, a generally accepted standard of approach to solving scientific problems, is reflected in textbooks, fundamental and popular scientific literature, and, finally, its main provisions take possession of the mass consciousness. The paradigm is, as a rule, based on a certain theory, but the paradigm itself as such is not a theory, since it does not perform the function of explanation, but sets a general direction for the construction of all kinds of theories (during the period of its validity). In the history of natural science, paradigms have taken their place, based on Aristotelian dynamics, Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian electromagnetic theory, Einstein's theory of relativity. The development of scientific knowledge within the framework of the paradigm began to be called normal; with the advent new paradigm bound extraordinary the stage of increasing such knowledge, which marks a scientific revolution. It should be emphasized that the emergence of a new paradigm is logically inexplicable, because it does not in any way follow from previous knowledge. Here we have an unpredictable leap, rather, even the rise of cognition, an irrational event, which, moreover, is not unambiguously determined. The fact is that at the critical moment of the transition from one state to another, there are several possible continuations and the implementation of one of them is determined by a coincidence of circumstances. This is the logic of the evolutionary development of science, in which the continuity of scientific knowledge (the principle of correspondence) demonstrates the combination of heredity and variability of the system, and natural selection retains only hypotheses adequate to nature, capable of developing more and more. general theories with high information content. The high level of entropy, characteristic of contradictory, critical situations, is abruptly replaced by a completely ordered state of the knowledge system. Note also that the assertion of a new paradigm is not a one-time event. It occurs with overcoming the active opposition of the supporters of the previous paradigm, therefore the process of assessment, critical analysis, comprehension and adoption of the paradigm takes place already at normal stage of development of science. An alternative model put forward by the English philosopher Imre Lakatos and based on the methodology of research programs, fundamentally differs from Coon's position that the choice of one of the competing programs should be made on rational basis. The research program is viewed not as a fundamental theory, but as a sequence of transforming theories based on common principles. With this approach, the scientific revolution consists in replacing one program with another, competing, program superior to the first in heuristic power. Consequently, according to I. Lakatos, the driving force behind the development of science is the rational competition of programs, each of which has its own potential for positive heuristics. scientific revolutions.When defining the meaning and content of the concept of "scientific revolution", a radical change (revolution) of the entire hierarchical structure of science, all its elements, namely: methods of interpreting observed facts, patterns, theories, and finally, the entire scientific picture of the world, which is generalized form concentrates all other elements of scientific knowledge. One, even the largest, scientific discovery unable to change the scientific picture of the world. However, such a discovery could stimulate a series of other discoveries that, together, will provide the necessary conditions for such a shift. This is primarily about discoveries in such fundamental sciences as physics and cosmology. It is quite obvious that a change in the scientific picture of the world inevitably entails the same radical restructuring of the research methods themselves, as well as the norms and criteria of the scientific nature of knowledge. There is a generally accepted opinion that three scientific revolutions have been unambiguously recorded in the history of science, i.e., three cases a cardinal change in the scientific picture of the world. The first scientific revolution fell on the VI-IV century. BC e., when science itself stood out from the entire body of knowledge about the surrounding world, creating quite definite norms and rules for ensuring the scientific nature of knowledge and models of its construction. The so-called antique scientific picture the world, the core of which was geocentric system of world spheres, became a determining factor in the worldview for the next 20 centuries. Second scientific revolution occurred in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. Its starting point was the transition from geocentric to heliocentric model of the world... At the same time, profound changes took place in science, which led to the formation classical natural science... The result of this revolution was mechanistic scientific picture of the world on the basis of natural science, armed with an experimental and mathematical method. At the same time, a stereotype of scientific knowledge was formed - the idea of an absolutely true picture of nature established once and for all. However, already at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. truly "burst out" third scientific revolution , which crushed the claims of classical mechanics for an exhaustive description and explanation of all natural phenomena. In fact, the quintessence of the upheaval that took place was a decisive refusal to select in the model of the world any there was no "main" center... All frames of reference are equal, therefore, our ideas depend on the "binding" to a specific frame of reference, and therefore are relative, like the scientific picture of the world itself. natural science picture of the world became the result of a deep rethinking of such fundamental initial concepts as space, time, continuity, causality, which led to the inconsistency of new ideas with the criteria of so-called common sense. General ideas about the world have changed significantly: it became obvious that an absolutely complete, true picture will never be created, for knowledge is relative, and absolute truth is unattainable. 2.6. The possibilities and limits of the scientific method The obvious tendency to accelerate scientific progress is capable of giving rise to the illusion of the infinity of its possibilities in the mass consciousness. Meanwhile, penetrating into the depths of the universe, science is forced to overcome more and more serious obstacles. In fact, this is why scientific methods are being improved in order to overcome such obstacles - when "head-on", and when "bypassing". However, there are boundaries of knowledge that are fundamental. The existence of one of these boundaries is due to the fact that the foundations of science are not absolute and in principle can be refuted. A rational scientific method cannot be built otherwise than on the unsubstantiated introduction of the most general primary assumptions - postulates, axioms, from which then (more or less rigorously) all subsequent propositions and laws of the theory are derived. called "hidden qualities", introduced by Aristotle and his followers to explain natural phenomena, since these hypotheses did not allow experimental verification. Later, Einstein revised the principles of the absoluteness of space and time, reversibility of time, universal determinism, introduced by Newton, which turned out to be inadequate to reality outside the macrocosm. In principle, the postulates of homogeneity, materiality, and symmetry of the world, which constitute the fundamental basis modern views about him. The reliability of these provisions is practically confirmed by the fact that the consequences derived from them do not contradict the observed reality (as well as each other). However, it cannot be unambiguously asserted that this consistency will remain beyond the limits of the reality studied by science. Here we move on to the next limitation of the cognitive capabilities of science associated with fundamental limitation of human experience in time and space. Regarding what is beyond experience, the truth of any statement is probabilistic. Another barrier of this kind is rooted in nature itself human, the sensory apparatus of which adequately perceives the objects of the macrocosm, but loses this ability when studying the objects of the mega- and microcosm. There is not and cannot be such an image from among the objects around us that would correspond to what, say, an electron looks like. In addition, the means of research that a person uses are also objects of the macrocosm and therefore "do not fit" with such objects of research as, for example, an elementary particle or a galaxy. Moreover, when interacting with objects of the microworld, our macrodevices begin to exert on them irreparable influence, which, in turn, limits cognitive possibilities. The exit of cognition beyond the limits of the macrocosm that forms our everyday experience, and hence the ability to think figuratively, in a forced way is accompanied by an ever wider involvement of mathematical and logical abstractions. In modern physics, there are many concepts that simply correspond to certain mathematical parameters and nothing more. However, one should not forget that mathematics and logic were created in the same macrocosm and at some level of penetration into the depths of the universe may also stop working. Expanding horizons (as they say), science at the same time reveals the areas of the impossible. So, for example, the theory of relativity strictly limits the speed of light, the impossibility of creating a "perpetual motion machine" is well known. All this indicates that science is not omnipotent, its possibilities are not unlimited. The boundaries of the scientific method are determined by science itself (in the person of scientists, of course), therefore it cannot be argued that they are defined absolutely precisely and correctly. But these boundaries undoubtedly exist, and this is another evidence that real world much more complex and varied than the picture of the world that science draws.

The program of the discipline Concepts of modern natural science for the direction 080100.62 economics of bachelor's degree preparation Author V.V. Gorbatov
Discipline program
"Concepts of Modern Social Science" is a general education discipline designed to train bachelors. It is designed to promote the acquisition of a broad basic higher education, to contribute to the further development of the individual,
The program of the discipline Concepts of modern natural science for the direction 030501. 65 jurisprudence of specialist training Author V. Gorbatov
Discipline program
"Concepts of Modern Social Science" is a general education discipline designed to train specialists. It is designed to promote the acquisition of a broad basic higher education, to promote further development
The concept of modern natural science Chapter 1: The subject of natural science
Document
Natural science is a set of sciences about living and inanimate nature, taken in their interconnection as a single whole. The basis of natural science is physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, medicine and informatics.
Natural science has gone through three stages and entered the fourth. 1 Stage of ancient Greek natural philosophy
Document
1) The stage of ancient Greek natural philosophy (VI century BC - XV century AD) - direct contemplation of nature as an undivided whole; the general picture is covered correctly, but the particulars are completely unclear; this is the stage of "syncretic"
Higher professional education T. Ya. Dubnischeva of the concept of modern natural science
Document
D79 Concepts modern natural science: textbook. manual for stud. universities / Tatyana Yakovlevna Dubnischeva. - 6th ed., Rev. and add. - M .: Publishing Center "Academy", 2006.