The specifics of scientific knowledge briefly. What is an experiment? What is the scientific picture of the world

Most agree that scientific knowledge is the highest form of knowledge. Science has a huge impact on the life of modern man. But what is science? How does it differ from such types of knowledge as ordinary, artistic, religious, and so on? This question has been answered for a long time. Even ancient philosophers were looking for the difference between true knowledge and changeable opinion. We see that this problem is one of the main ones in positivism. It was not possible to find a method that would guarantee the receipt of reliable knowledge or at least distinguish such knowledge from unscientific one. But there are some common features, which would express the specifics of scientific knowledge.

The specificity of science is not its accuracy, since accuracy is used in technology, in public administration. The use of abstract concepts is not specific either, since science itself also uses visual images.

The specificity of scientific knowledge is that science exists as a system of theoretical knowledge. Theory is a generalized knowledge that is obtained using the following methods:

1. Universalization- extension of the general moments observed in the experiment to all possible cases, including those not observed. ( « All bodies expand when heated.

2. Idealization- in the formulations of laws, ideal conditions are indicated, which in reality do not exist.

3. Conceptualization- in the formulation of laws, concepts borrowed from from other theories having exact meaning and meaning.

Using these techniques, scientists formulate the laws of science, which are generalizations of experience that reveal recurring, necessary essential connections between phenomena.

Initially, based on the classification of empirical data ( empirical level of knowledge) generalizations are formulated in the form of hypotheses (beginning theoretical level knowledge). A hypothesis is a more or less substantiated but unproven assumption. Theory- it's a proven hypothesis, it's a law.

Laws make it possible to explain already known phenomena and predict new phenomena without resorting to observations and experiments for the time being. Laws limit their scope. Thus, the laws of quantum mechanics are applicable only to the microworld.

Scientific knowledge is based on three methodological guidelines (or principles):

· reductionism- the desire to explain the qualitative originality of complex formations by the laws of lower levels;

· evolutionism- assertion of the natural origin of all phenomena;

· rationalism- as opposed to irrationalism, knowledge based not on proof, but on faith, intuition, etc.

These principles make science distinct from religion:

a) supranational, cosmopolitan;
b) she strives to become the only one;
c) scientific knowledge is transpersonal;
d) science is open in nature, its knowledge is constantly changing, supplementing, etc.

In scientific knowledge, empirical and theoretical levels. They fix the differences in the way, methods of cognitive activity of scientists and the nature of the extracted material.

The empirical level is the subject-tool activity of scientists, observations, experiment, collection, description and systematization of scientific data and facts. There are both sensory cognition and thinking as characteristics of cognition in general. The theoretical level is not all thinking, but that which reproduces the internal, necessary aspects, connections, the essence of the phenomenon under study, hidden from direct perception.

Empirical methods include:

Observation - connected with testing the hypothesis systematically, systematically;

measurement - special kind observation, in which a quantitative characteristic of the object is given;

· modeling - a type of experiment, when direct experimental research is difficult or impossible.

TO theoretical methods scientific knowledge include:

· induction - a method of transition from knowledge of individual facts to knowledge of the general (Types of induction: analogy, model extrapolation, statistical method, etc.);

deduction - a method when from general provisions(axioms) other statements are deduced in a logical way (from the general to the particular).

Along with other methods, historical and logical methods of cognition operate in science.

The historical method is the study of the real history of an object, reproduction historical process to reveal its logic.

The logical method is the disclosure of the logic of the development of an object by studying it at the highest stages of the historical process, since at the highest stages the object reproduces its historical development in a compressed form (ontogenesis reproduces phylogeny).

What kind of knowledge does a person have that is not included in science?

Is it a lie, delusion, ignorance, fantasy? But isn't science wrong? Isn't there some truth in fantasy, in deceit?

Science has an area of ​​intersection with these phenomena.

a) Science and fantasy. Jules Verne - out of 108 ideas, 64 have come true or will soon come true, 32 are feasible in principle, 10 are recognized as erroneous. (HG Wells - out of 86 - 57, 20, 9; Alexander Belyaev - out of 50 - 21, 26, 3, respectively.)

b) Science and culture. At the present time, criticism of science has been deployed. The historian Gilanski says this about the scientists: “If it were their will, they would turn magnificent flowering into botany, into meteorology the beauty of sunsets.”

Ilya Prigogine also argues that science reduces the wealth of the world to monotonous repetition, removes reverence for nature and leads to domination over it. Feyerabend: “Science is the theology of scientists, emphasizing the general, science coarsens things, opposes itself to common sense, morality. Life itself is to blame for this, with impersonal relationships through writing, politics, money. Science must be subordinated to morality.

Criticism of science should be considered fair only from the standpoint of a person who has refused to use its results. Humanism implies the right of every person to choose the meaning and way of life. But the one who enjoys its fruits has no moral right to criticism. The development of culture is already unthinkable without the development of science. To eliminate the consequences of the development of science, society uses science itself. The rejection of science is the degradation of modern man, a return to the animal state, to which a person is unlikely to agree.

So knowledge is a complex process. The highest form of cognition is scientific cognition, which has a complex structure, its own specificity, which elevates science, makes its knowledge generally accepted, but at the same time separates science from the individual, from morality, and common sense. But science does not have impenetrable boundaries with non-science, and should not have them in order not to cease to be human.

Review questions:

1. How did the materialists of antiquity show the difference between the phenomena of consciousness and material things?

2. What is the qualitative difference between the phenomena of consciousness and material things?

3. How to define the ideal, how does it differ from the material?

4. How is consciousness related to matter? What are the possible answers?

5. What is a psychophysiological problem?

6. What is a psychophysical problem?

7. Dialectical materialism believes that all matter has a property that has a different development at different levels of matter, and at the highest level becomes human consciousness. What is this property?

8. What problem in dialectical materialism should the theory of reflection in dialectical materialism solve?

9. What problem in the explanation of consciousness arises in dialectical materialism with the acceptance of the theory of reflection?

10. Why did consciousness arise only in humans? Could it not have happened?

11. Is it possible to say that thinking and speech are one and the same, that there is no thought without words? Do animals have a mind?

12. What is the subconscious?

13. What is the unconscious in the human psyche?

14. What is "superconsciousness" in the human psyche?

15. What is parapsychology?

16. What is telepathy?

17. What is telekinesis?

18. What is clairvoyance?

19. What is psychic medicine?

20. What is knowledge?

21. What problem in cognition did the Eleatics (Parmenides and Zeno) discover and what solution did they propose?

22. What question do agnostics answer in the negative?

23. We have two sources of knowledge. One source is the mind, the other - feelings, sensations. What is the source of reliable knowledge?

24. From what idea of ​​R. Descartes did the materialistic sensationalism of D. Locke and the subjective-idealistic sensationalism of D. Berkeley follow?

26. G. Helmholtz believed that our sensations are symbols of things (not at all similar), G.V. Plekhanov compared sensations with hieroglyphs (slightly similar), V.I. Lenin called them copies of photographs of things (very similar). Who was closer to the truth?

27. “One hand is cold, the other is hot, we lower them into normal water. One hand feels warm, the other cold. What is water, really? - asks D. Berkeley.
Which philosophical problem assigned to them?

28. What are the possible options for understanding the truth, if we are talking about the correspondence of knowledge and what this knowledge is about?

29. How did the ancient materialists understand the truth?

30. How should the understanding of truth differ between metaphysicians and dialecticians?

31. What did objective idealists understand by truth? Which side of the truth did they emphasize?

32. What does dialectical materialism consider to be true? Which side of the truth is he pointing to?

33. What is the criterion of truth for pragmatists? Which side of the truth is he exaggerating?

34. What side of our knowledge does irrationalism point to?

35. What is the criterion of truth in subjective idealism? Which side of the truth is exaggerated?

36. What is considered truth in conventionalism? Which side of the truth is being emphasized?

37. What definition of truth can be considered correct?

39. Is the use of abstract concepts specific to science?

40. In what form does scientific knowledge exist?

41. What is scientific theory?

42. Soviet psychologist P.P. Blonsky explained the origin of a human smile from the grin of animals at the sight of food. What scientific principle did he follow?

43. What is the difference between scientific knowledge and religious and artistic?

44. In scientific knowledge, empirical and theoretical levels are distinguished. They fix the differences in the way, methods of cognitive activity of scientists and the nature of the extracted material.
What level does it belong to?

- classification of facts (for example, classification of plants, animals, mineral samples, etc.);
- creation of a mathematical model of the phenomenon under study?

45. The theoretical methods of scientific knowledge include induction and deduction. What is their difference?

46. ​​Is there anything scientific in lies, delusions, fantasies?

Cognition is a specific type of human activity aimed at comprehending the surrounding world and oneself in this world. “Cognition is, primarily due to socio-historical practice, the process of acquiring and developing knowledge, its constant deepening, expansion, and improvement 4.”

A person comprehends the world around him, masters it different ways, among which there are two main ones. First (genetically original) - logistical - production of means of subsistence, labor, practice. Second - spiritual (ideal), within which the cognitive relationship of subject and object is only one of many others. In turn, the process of cognition and the knowledge obtained in it in the course of historical development practice and knowledge itself is increasingly differentiated and embodied in its various forms.

Every shape public consciousness: science, philosophy, mythology, politics, religion, etc. correspond to specific forms of knowledge. Usually, the following ones are distinguished: everyday, playful, mythological, artistic-figurative, philosophical, religious, personal, scientific. The latter, although related, are not identical to each other, each of them has its own specifics.

We will not dwell on the consideration of each of the forms of knowledge. The subject of our research is scientific knowledge. In this regard, it is advisable to consider the features of only the latter.

1. Features of scientific knowledge

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. “The essence of scientific knowledge lies in a reliable generalization of facts, in the fact that it finds the necessary, regular behind the random, the general behind the individual, and on this basis it predicts various phenomena and events” 5 . 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. Even Einstein wrote: "What we call science has as its exclusive task to firmly establish what is" 6 . Its task is to give a true reflection of the processes, an objective picture of what is. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the activity of the subject is the most important condition and prerequisite for scientific knowledge. The latter is impossible without a constructive-critical attitude to reality, excluding inertia, dogmatism, and apologetics.

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.

Essential feature 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. Great discoveries over the past decades in the leading fields of knowledge have led to a scientific and technological revolution that has embraced all elements of the production process: comprehensive automation and mechanization, the development of new types of energy, raw materials and materials, penetration into the microcosm and space. As a result, the prerequisites for the gigantic development of the productive forces of society were formed.

4. Scientific knowledge in epistemological terms is a complex contradictory process of reproducing 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 symbolism, 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 (see more on this below).

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.

In modern methodology, various levels of scientific criteria are distinguished, referring to them, in addition to those named, such as the internal systemic nature of knowledge, its formal consistency, experimental verifiability, reproducibility, openness to criticism, freedom from bias, rigor, etc. In other forms of cognition, the considered criteria may be present (to varying degrees), but there they are not decisive.

The main distinguishing features of science

Intuitively, it seems clear how science differs from other forms of human cognitive activity. However, a clear explication of the specific features of science in the form of signs and definitions turns out to be a rather difficult task. This is evidenced by the variety of definitions of science, the ongoing discussions on the problem of demarcation between it and other forms of knowledge.

Scientific knowledge, like all forms of spiritual production, is ultimately necessary in order to regulate human activity. Different types of cognition fulfill this role in different ways, and the analysis of this difference is the first and necessary condition for identifying the features of scientific cognition.

An activity can be considered as a complexly organized network of various acts of transformation of objects, when the products of one activity pass into another and become its components. For example, iron ore as a product of mining production becomes an object that is transformed into the activities of a steelmaker, machine tools produced at a plant from steel mined by a steelmaker become means of activity in another production. Even the subjects of activity - people who transform objects in accordance with the goals set, can to a certain extent be presented as the results of training and education, which ensures that the subject acquires the necessary patterns of actions, knowledge and skills of using certain means in the activity.

Structural characteristics of an elementary act of activity can be represented as the following scheme (Fig. 1).

Rice. 1 Scheme of structural characteristics of an elementary act of activity.

The right side of this scheme depicts the subject structure of activity - the interaction of funds with the subject of activity and its transformation into a product due to the implementation of certain operations. The left part represents the subject structure, which includes the subject of activity (with its goals, values, knowledge of operations and skills), carrying out expedient actions and using certain means of activity for this purpose. Means and actions can be attributed to both objective and subjective structures, since they can be considered in two ways. On the one hand, the means can be presented as artificial organs of human activity. On the other hand, they can be considered as natural objects that interact with other objects. In a similar way, operations can be presented in various ways both as human actions and as natural interactions of objects.

Activities are always governed by certain values ​​and goals. Value answers the question: "what is this or that activity for?" The goal is to answer the question: "what should be obtained in the activity." The goal is perfect image product. It is embodied, objectified in the product, which is the result of the transformation of the subject of activity.

Since activity is universal, the functions of its objects can be not only fragments of nature that are transformed in practice, but also people whose “properties” change when they are included in various social subsystems, as well as these subsystems themselves, interacting within society as an integral organism. Then, in the first case, we are dealing with the "objective side" of man's change in nature, and in the second case, with the "objective side" of practice aimed at changing social objects. From this point of view, a person can act both as a subject and as an object of practical action.

In the early stages of the development of society, the subjective and objective aspects practical activities are not dissected in cognition, but are taken as a single whole. Cognition reflects the ways of practical change of objects, including in the characteristics of the latter the goals, abilities and actions of a person. Such an idea of ​​the objects of activity is transferred to the whole nature, which is viewed through the prism of the practice being carried out.

It is known, for example, that in the myths of ancient peoples, the forces of nature are always likened to human forces, and its processes - to human actions. Primitive thinking, in explaining the phenomena of the external world, invariably resorts to their comparison with human actions and motives. Only in the process of the long evolution of society does knowledge begin to exclude anthropomorphic factors from the characterization of objective relations. An important role in this process was played by the historical development of practice, and above all by the improvement of means and tools of labor.

As the tools became more complex, those operations that were previously directly performed by man began to "reify", acting as a successive effect of one tool on another and only then on the object being transformed. Thus, the properties and states of objects that arise due to these operations ceased to seem caused by the direct efforts of man, but more and more acted as the result of the interaction of the natural objects themselves. So, if in the early stages of civilization the movement of goods required muscular effort, then with the invention of the lever and block, and then the simplest machines, it was possible to replace these efforts with mechanical ones. For example, using a system of blocks, it was possible to balance a large load with a small one, and by adding a small weight to a small load, raise a large load to the desired height. Here, to lift a heavy body, no human effort is needed: one load independently moves the other.

This transfer of human functions to mechanisms leads to a new understanding of the forces of nature. Previously, forces were understood only by analogy with the physical efforts of a person, but now they are beginning to be considered as mechanical forces. The above example can serve as an analogue of the process of "objectification" of the objective relations of practice, which, apparently, began already in the era of the first urban civilizations of antiquity. During this period, knowledge begins to gradually separate the objective side of practice from subjective factors and consider this side as a special, independent reality. Such consideration of practice is one of the necessary conditions for the emergence of scientific research.

Science sets itself the ultimate goal of foreseeing the process of transforming objects of practical activity (an object in its initial state) into corresponding products (an object in its final state). This transformation is always determined by the essential connections, laws of change and development of objects, and the activity itself can be successful only when it is consistent with these laws. Therefore, the main task of science is to reveal the laws in accordance with which objects change and develop.

With regard to the processes of transformation of nature, this function is performed by natural and Technical science. The processes of change in social objects are studied by the social sciences. Since a variety of objects can be transformed in activity - objects of nature, a person (and the state of his consciousness), subsystems of society, iconic objects that function as cultural phenomena, etc. - all of them can become subjects of scientific research.

The orientation of science towards the study of objects that can be included in activity (either actual or potentially as possible objects of its future transformation), and their study as obeying the objective laws of functioning and development constitutes the first main feature scientific knowledge.

This feature distinguishes it from other forms of human cognitive activity. Thus, for example, in the process of artistic assimilation of reality, objects included in human activity are not separated from subjective factors, but are taken in a kind of "gluing" with them. Any reflection of objects of the objective world in art at the same time expresses the value attitude of a person to an object. An artistic image is such a reflection of an object that contains the imprint of a human personality, its value orientations, which are fused into the characteristics of the reflected reality. To exclude this interpenetration means to destroy artistic image. In science, however, the features of the life activity of a person who creates knowledge, its value judgments are not directly part of the generated knowledge (Newton's laws do not allow one to judge what Newton loved and hated, while, for example, Rembrandt's personality is depicted in Rembrandt's portraits, his attitude and his personal attitude to the depicted social phenomena; a portrait painted by a great artist always acts as a self-portrait).

Science is focused on the subject and objective study of reality. The foregoing, of course, does not mean that the personal moments and value orientations of a scientist do not play a role in scientific creativity and do not affect its results.

The process of scientific knowledge is determined not only by the characteristics of the object under study, but also by numerous factors of a sociocultural nature.

Considering science in its historical development, it can be found that as the type of culture changes, the standards of presentation of scientific knowledge, ways of seeing reality in science, styles of thinking that are formed in the context of culture and are influenced by its most diverse phenomena change. This impact can be represented as the inclusion of various socio-cultural factors in the process of generating proper scientific knowledge. However, the statement of the connections between the objective and the subjective in any cognitive process and the need for a comprehensive study of science in its interaction with other forms of human spiritual activity do not remove the question of the difference between science and these forms (ordinary knowledge, artistic thinking and so on.). The first and necessary characteristic of such a difference is the sign of objectivity and objectivity of scientific knowledge.

Science in human activity singles out only its objective structure and examines everything through the prism of this structure. Like King Midas from the famous ancient legend- whatever he touches, everything turns into gold, - and science, whatever it touches, is for it an object that lives, functions and develops according to objective laws.

Here the question immediately arises: well, what then to be with the subject of activity, with his goals, values, states of his consciousness? All this belongs to the components of the subjective structure of activity, but science is capable of investigating these components as well, because for it there are no prohibitions on the study of any really existing phenomena. The answer to these questions is quite simple: yes, science can explore any phenomena of human life and consciousness, it can explore activity, the human psyche, and culture, but only from one point of view - as special objects that obey objective laws. Science also studies the subjective structure of activity, but as a special object. And where science cannot construct an object and present it " natural life", determined by its essential connections, its claims end there. Thus, science can study everything in the human world, but from a special perspective, and from a special point of view. This special perspective of objectivity expresses both the infinity and limitations of science, since a person as an independent, conscious being has free will, and he is not only an object, he is also a subject of activity.And in this his subjective being, not all states can be exhausted by scientific knowledge, even if we assume that such a comprehensive scientific knowledge about a person, his life activity can be received.

There is no anti-scientism in this statement about the limits of science. It is simply a statement of the indisputable fact that science cannot replace all forms of knowledge of the world, of all culture. And everything that escapes her field of vision is compensated by other forms of spiritual comprehension of the world - art, religion, morality, philosophy.

Studying objects that are transformed into activities, science is not limited to the knowledge of only those subject relations that can be mastered within the framework of the types of activity that have historically developed at a given stage in the development of society. The purpose of science is to foresee possible future changes in objects, including those that would correspond to future types and forms of practical change in the world.

As an expression of these goals in science, not only research is formed that serves today's practice, but also layers of research, the results of which can only find application in the practice of the future. The movement of cognition in these layers is already determined not so much by the direct demands of today's practice as by cognitive interests through which the needs of society in predicting future methods and forms of practical development of the world are manifested. For example, the formulation of intrascientific problems and their solution within the framework of fundamental theoretical research in physics led to the discovery of the laws of the electromagnetic field and the prediction of electromagnetic waves, to the discovery of the laws of fission of atomic nuclei, the quantum laws of atomic radiation during the transition of electrons from one energy level to another, etc. All these theoretical discoveries laid the foundation for future methods of mass practical development of nature in production. A few decades later, they became the basis for applied engineering research and development, the introduction of which into production, in turn, revolutionized equipment and technology - radio-electronic equipment, nuclear power plants, laser installations, etc. appeared.

The focus of science on the study of not only objects that are transformed in today's practice, but also those that can become the subject of mass practical development in the future, is the second distinguishing feature of scientific knowledge. This feature makes it possible to distinguish between scientific and everyday, spontaneous-empirical knowledge and to derive a number of specific definitions that characterize the nature of science.

Scientific and everyday knowledge

The desire to study objects real world and on this basis, to foresee the results of its practical transformation is characteristic not only of science, but also of ordinary knowledge, which is woven into practice and develops on its basis. As the development of practice objectifies human functions in tools and creates conditions for the elimination of subjective and anthropomorphic layers in the study of external objects, certain types of knowledge about reality appear in ordinary cognition, in general similar to those that characterize science.

The embryonic forms of scientific knowledge arose in the depths and on the basis of these types of ordinary knowledge, and then budded from it (the science of the era of the first urban civilizations of antiquity). With the development of science and its transformation into one of the most important values ​​of civilization, its way of thinking begins to exert an ever more active influence on everyday consciousness. This influence develops the elements of an objectively objective reflection of the world contained in everyday, spontaneous-empirical knowledge.

The ability of spontaneous-empirical knowledge to generate substantive and objective knowledge about the world raises the question of the difference between it and scientific research. The characteristics that distinguish science from ordinary knowledge can be conveniently classified according to the categorical scheme in which the structure of activity is characterized (tracing the difference between science and ordinary knowledge in terms of subject, means, product, methods and subject of activity).

The fact that science provides ultra-long-term forecasting of practice, going beyond the existing stereotypes of production and ordinary experience, means that it deals with a special set of objects of reality that are not reducible to objects of ordinary experience. If ordinary knowledge reflects only those objects that, in principle, can be transformed in the available historically established methods and types of practical action, then science is also capable of studying such fragments of reality that can become the subject of development only in the practice of the distant future. It constantly goes beyond the subject structures of existing types and methods of practical development of the world and opens up new objective worlds for humanity of its possible future activity.

These features of the objects of science make the means that are used in everyday knowledge insufficient for their development. Although science uses natural language, it cannot describe and study its objects only on its basis. Firstly, ordinary language is adapted to describe and foresee the objects woven into the actual practice of man (science goes beyond its scope); secondly, the concepts of ordinary language are fuzzy and ambiguous, their exact meaning is most often found only in the context of linguistic communication controlled by everyday experience. Science, on the other hand, cannot rely on such control, since it mainly deals with objects that are not mastered in everyday practical activity. To describe the phenomena under study, it seeks to fix its concepts and definitions as clearly as possible.

The development by science of a special language suitable for describing objects that are unusual from the point of view of common sense is a necessary condition for scientific research. The language of science is constantly evolving as it penetrates into ever new areas of the objective world. Moreover, it has the opposite effect on everyday, natural language. For example, the terms "electricity", "refrigerator" were once specific scientific concepts, and then entered everyday language.

Along with an artificial, specialized language, scientific research needs a special system of special tools that, by directly influencing the object under study, make it possible to identify its possible states under conditions controlled by the subject. The tools used in production and in everyday life are, as a rule, unsuitable for this purpose, since the objects studied by science and the objects transformed in production and everyday practice most often differ in their nature. Hence the need for special scientific equipment (measuring instruments, instrumental installations), which allow science to experimentally study new types of objects.

Scientific equipment and the language of science act as an expression of already acquired knowledge. But just as in practice its products turn into means of new types of practical activity, so in scientific research its products - scientific knowledge expressed in language or embodied in devices, become a means of further research.

Thus, from the peculiarities of the subject of science, we obtained, as a kind of consequence, differences in the means of scientific and everyday knowledge.

The specifics of the objects of scientific research can further explain the main differences between scientific knowledge as a product of scientific activity and knowledge obtained in the sphere of ordinary, spontaneous-empirical knowledge. The latter are most often not systematized; rather, it is a conglomerate of information, prescriptions, recipes for activity and behavior accumulated over the course of the historical development of everyday experience. Their reliability is established due to the direct application in cash situations of production and everyday practice. As for scientific knowledge, its reliability can no longer be substantiated only in this way, since in science, objects that have not yet been mastered in production are mainly studied. Therefore, specific ways of substantiating the truth of knowledge are needed. They are experimental control over the acquired knowledge and the derivation of some knowledge from others, the truth of which has already been proven. In turn, derivability procedures ensure the transfer of truth from one piece of knowledge to another, due to which they become interconnected, organized into a system.

Thus, we obtain the characteristics of the consistency and validity of scientific knowledge, which distinguish it from the products of everyday cognitive activity of people.

From main characteristic scientific research, one can also deduce such a distinctive feature of science when compared with ordinary knowledge, as a feature of the method of cognitive activity. The objects to which everyday knowledge is directed are formed in everyday practice. The devices by which each such object is singled out and fixed as an object of knowledge are woven into everyday experience. The totality of such techniques, as a rule, is not recognized by the subject as a method of cognition. The situation is different in scientific research. Here, the very discovery of the object, the properties of which are subject to further study, is a very laborious task. For example, in order to detect short-lived particles - resonances, modern physics performs experiments on the scattering of particle beams and then applies complex calculations. Ordinary particles leave traces-tracks in photographic emulsions or in a cloud chamber, but resonances do not leave such tracks. They live very a short time(10-22 s) and during this period of time they cover a distance smaller than the size of an atom. Because of this, resonance cannot cause ionization of photoemulsion molecules (or gas in a cloud chamber) and leave an observed trace. However, when the resonance decays, the resulting particles are capable of leaving traces of the indicated type. In the photograph, they look like a set of rays-dashes emanating from one center. By the nature of these rays, using mathematical calculations, the physicist determines the presence of resonance. Thus, in order to deal with the same type of resonances, the researcher needs to know the conditions under which the corresponding object appears. He must clearly define the method by which a particle can be detected in an experiment. Outside of the method, he will not at all single out the object under study from the numerous connections and relations of objects of nature. To fix an object, a scientist must know the methods of such fixation. Therefore, in science, the study of objects, the identification of their properties and relationships is always accompanied by an awareness of the method by which the object is studied. Objects are always given to a person in the system of certain techniques and methods of his activity. But these techniques in science are no longer obvious, they are not repeatedly repeated techniques in everyday practice. And the further science moves away from the usual things of everyday experience, delving into the study of "unusual" objects, the more clearly and distinctly the need for the creation and development of special methods is manifested, in the system of which science can study objects. Along with knowledge about objects, science forms knowledge about methods. The need to develop and systematize knowledge of the second type leads at the highest stages of the development of science to the formation of methodology as a special branch of scientific research, designed to purposefully direct scientific research.

Finally, the desire of science to study objects relatively independently of their assimilation in the available forms of production and everyday experience presupposes specific characteristics of the subject of scientific activity. Engaging in science requires special training of the cognizing subject, during which he masters the historically established means of scientific research, learns the techniques and methods of operating with these means. For everyday knowledge, such training is not necessary, or rather, it is carried out automatically, in the process of socialization of the individual, when his thinking is formed and develops in the process of communicating with culture and including the individual in various areas activities. The pursuit of science implies, along with the mastery of means and methods, the assimilation of a certain system of value orientations and goals specific to scientific knowledge. These orientations should stimulate scientific research aimed at studying more and more new objects, regardless of the current practical effect of the knowledge gained. Otherwise, science will not fulfill its main function - to go beyond the subject structures of the practice of its era, expanding the horizons of opportunities for man to master the objective world.

Two basic attitudes of science ensure the desire for such a search: the intrinsic value of truth and the value of novelty.

Any scientist accepts the search for truth as one of the main principles of scientific activity, perceiving truth as the highest value of science. This attitude is embodied in a number of ideals and norms of scientific knowledge, expressing its specificity: in certain ideals of the organization of knowledge (for example, the requirement of logical consistency of the theory and its experimental confirmation), in the search for an explanation of phenomena based on laws and principles that reflect the essential connections of the objects under study, etc.

An equally important role in scientific research is played by the focus on the constant growth of knowledge and the special value of novelty in science. This attitude is expressed in a system of ideals and normative principles. scientific creativity(for example, the prohibition of plagiarism, the admissibility of a critical review of the foundations of scientific research as a condition for the development of ever new types of objects, etc.).

The value orientations of science form the foundation of its ethos, which a scientist must master in order to successfully engage in research. Great scientists left a significant mark on culture not only because of the discoveries they made, but also because their activity was a model of innovation and service to the truth for many generations of people. Any deviation from the truth for the sake of personal, selfish goals, any manifestation of unscrupulousness in science met with an unquestioning rebuff from them.

In science, the principle is proclaimed as an ideal that all researchers are equal in the face of truth, that no past merit is taken into account when it comes to scientific evidence.

At the beginning of the century, a little-known employee of the patent bureau A. Einstein discussed with the famous scientist G. Lorentz, proving the validity of his interpretation of the transformations introduced by Lorentz. Ultimately, it was Einstein who won the argument. But Lorentz and his colleagues never resorted in this discussion to the techniques widely used in the disputes of everyday life - they did not argue, for example, that it was unacceptable to criticize Lorentz's theory on the grounds that his status at that time was incommensurable with the status not yet known to the scientific community. young physicist Einstein.

An equally important principle of scientific ethos is the requirement of scientific honesty in the presentation of research results. A scientist can make mistakes, but has no right to rig results, he can repeat a discovery already made, but has no right to plagiarize. The institution of references as a prerequisite for the design of a scientific monograph and article is intended not only to fix the authorship of certain ideas and scientific texts. It provides a clear selection of already known in science and new results. Outside of this selection, there would be no incentive to intense search for the new, endless repetitions of the past would arise in science and, ultimately, its main quality would be undermined - to constantly generate the growth of new knowledge, going beyond the usual and already known ideas about the world.

Of course, the requirement of the inadmissibility of falsifications and plagiarism acts as a kind of presumption of science, which in real life may be violated. Different scientific communities may impose different severity of sanctions for violating the ethical principles of science.

Consider one example from the life of modern science, which can serve as an example of the intransigence of the community to violations of these principles.

In the mid-1970s, the so-called case of Gallis, a young and promising biochemist who worked on the problem of intracerebral morphine in the early 1970s, gained notoriety among biochemists and neurophysiologists. He put forward an original hypothesis that plant-derived morphines and intracerebral morphines have the same effect on nervous tissue. Gallis conducted a series of laborious experiments, but was unable to convincingly confirm this hypothesis, although indirect evidence indicated its promise. Fearing that other researchers would overtake him and make this discovery, Gallis decided to falsify. He published fictitious experimental data, allegedly confirming the hypothesis.

Gallis' "discovery" aroused great interest in the community of neurophysiologists and biochemists. However, no one could confirm his results by reproducing experiments according to the method he published. Then the young and already well-known scientist was invited to publicly conduct experiments at a special symposium in 1977 in Munich, under the supervision of his colleagues. Gallis was eventually forced to confess to the falsification. The scientific community reacted to this recognition with a hard boycott. Colleagues of Gallis ceased to maintain scientific contacts with him, all of his co-authors publicly refused to joint articles with him, and as a result, Gallis published a letter in which he apologized to his colleagues and announced that he was stopping his studies in science.

Ideally, the scientific community should always reject researchers who are found to be intentionally plagiarizing or deliberately falsifying scientific results for the sake of some worldly good. The communities of mathematicians and natural scientists are closest to this ideal, but for the humanities, for example, since they are under much greater pressure from ideological and political structures, the sanctions for researchers who deviate from the ideals of scientific integrity are significantly relaxed.

It is indicative that for everyday consciousness the observance of the basic principles of scientific ethos is not at all necessary, and sometimes even undesirable. A person who told a political joke in an unfamiliar company does not have to refer to the source of information, especially if he lives in a totalitarian society.

In everyday life, people exchange a wide variety of knowledge, share everyday experience, but references to the author of this experience in most situations are simply impossible, because this experience is anonymous and often broadcast in culture for centuries.

The presence of science-specific norms and goals of cognitive activity, as well as specific means and methods that ensure the comprehension of ever new objects, requires the purposeful formation of scientific specialists. This need leads to the emergence of an "academic component of science" - special organizations and institutions that provide training for scientific personnel.

In the process of such training, future researchers should acquire not only special knowledge, techniques and methods scientific work, but also the main value orientations of science, its ethical standards and principles.

So, when clarifying the nature of scientific knowledge, we can distinguish a system hallmarks sciences, among which the main ones are: a) setting for the study of the laws of transformation of objects and realizing this setting the objectivity and objectivity of scientific knowledge; b) science going beyond the subject structures of production and everyday experience and studying objects relatively independently of today's possibilities for their production development (scientific knowledge always refers to a wide class of practical situations of the present and future, which is never predetermined). All other necessary features that distinguish science from other forms of cognitive activity can be represented as depending on these main characteristics and due to them.

The considered problems relate to any cognitive activity. Of particular importance for science is scientific knowledge, the specificity of which deserves special analysis.

Scientific and non-scientific knowledge

Cognition (and, accordingly, knowledge) can be divided into scientific and non-scientific, and the latter - into pre-scientific, ordinary and extra-scientific, or para-scientific.

Prescientific knowledge is historical stage in the development of knowledge that precedes scientific knowledge. At this stage, some cognitive techniques, forms of sensory and rational cognition are formed, on the basis of which more developed types of cognitive activity are formed.

Ordinary and parascientific knowledge exist along with scientific.

Ordinary, or everyday, is called knowledge based on the observation and practical development of nature, on the life experience accumulated by many generations. Without denying science, it does not use its means - methods, language, categorical apparatus, however, it gives certain knowledge about the observed natural phenomena, moral relations, principles of education, etc. A special group of everyday knowledge is made up of the so-called folk sciences: folk medicine, meteorology, pedagogy, etc. Mastering this knowledge requires a lot of training and considerable experience, they contain practically useful, time-tested knowledge, but these are not sciences in the full sense of the word.

Extra-scientific (para-scientific) includes knowledge that claims to be scientific, uses scientific terminology, and is incompatible with science. These are the so-called occult sciences: alchemy, astrology, magic, etc. Having arisen in the era of late antiquity and developed in the Middle Ages, they have not disappeared even now, despite the development and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Moreover, at the critical stages of social development, when the general crisis is accompanied by a spiritual crisis, there is a revival of occultism, a departure from the rational to the irrational. Belief in sorcerers, palmists, astrological forecasts, in the possibility of communicating with the souls of the dead (spiritualism) and similar "miracles" is being revived. Religious and mystical teachings are widely spread.

So it was during the years of the crisis generated by the First World War, when the “theory of psychotransmutation” by G.Yu. Godzhieva, anthroposophy R. Steiner, theosophy E.P. Blavatsky and teachings. In the 60s. during the crisis in the countries of the West, esoteric teachings turned out to be fashionable (from the Greek - “directed inwards”. Knowledge intended only for the “chosen ones”, understandable only to them.).

The crisis in our country, generated by the perestroika processes, has created a spiritual vacuum, which seeks to fill all sorts of ideas and "teachings" that are far from science. The existence of non-scientific ideas along with scientific ones is due not least to the fact that scientific knowledge cannot yet answer all the questions in which people are interested. Biology, medicine, agricultural and other sciences have not yet discovered ways to prolong a person's life, get rid of diseases, protect him from the destructive forces of nature, crop failure, etc. People hope to find simple and reliable means of curing diseases and solving other vital problems. These hopes are supported by some sensationalist media. Suffice it to recall the speeches on radio and television of psychics and psychotherapists or the "charged" issue of newspapers, "healing" from all diseases. And many people turned out to be receptive to these and similar “miracles”.

It cannot be denied that some parascientific theories contain elements of useful knowledge that deserve attention. The futile attempts of the alchemists to find " philosopher's Stone» for the transformation of base metals into gold and silver were associated with the study of the properties of metals, which played a role in the formation of chemistry as a science. Parapsychology, exploring the forms of sensitivity that provide ways of receiving information that cannot be explained by the activity of known sense organs, the forms of influence of one living being on another, accumulates material that can receive scientific substantiation in the future.

However, the search for superintelligent means of cognition, supernatural forces, irrationalism and mysticism are not compatible with scientific knowledge, with science, which is the highest form of cognition and knowledge.

Science arose as a result of dissociation from mythology and religion, from the explanation of phenomena by supernatural causes. It relies on a rational explanation of reality, rejecting faith in superintelligent means of knowledge - mystical intuition, revelation, etc.

Science is a sphere research activities aimed at the production of knowledge about nature, society, man. Along with scientists with their knowledge and abilities, qualifications and experience, it includes scientific institutions with their experimental equipment and instruments, with the total amount of knowledge achieved, methods of scientific knowledge, conceptual and categorical apparatus.

Modern science has powerful material and intellectual means of cognition; it not only opposes various non-scientific teachings, but also differs from ordinary cognition.

These differences are as follows.

The object of everyday knowledge is predominantly observable phenomena, and the knowledge gained is a collection of information that is not given in the system, they are not always justified and often coexist with obsolete prejudices. Scientific knowledge deals not only with observable, but also with unobservable objects (elementary particle, gene, etc.). It is characterized by consistency, systematicity, the desire to substantiate their provisions with laws, special methods of verification (scientific experiment, rules of inferential knowledge).

The purpose of everyday knowledge is limited mainly by immediate practical tasks, it is not able to penetrate into the essence of phenomena, discover laws, form theories. Scientific knowledge poses and solves fundamental problems, puts forward well-founded hypotheses, and develops long-term forecasts. Its goal is the discovery of the laws of nature, society, thinking, knowledge of the essence of phenomena, the creation of scientific theories.

The means of everyday knowledge are limited by the natural cognitive abilities that a person has: sensory organs, thinking, forms of natural language, relies on common sense, elementary generalizations, and the simplest cognitive techniques. Scientific knowledge also uses scientific equipment, special research methods, creates and uses artificial languages, special scientific terminology.

Scientific knowledge is a socially conditioned process of cognition of the laws of the objective world, the result of which is a developing system of true knowledge and methods that serve the purpose of transforming reality.

The main task of science is to reveal the objective laws of reality, and its immediate goal and highest value is objective truth. Scientific knowledge is characterized by objectivity, internal consistency, constant focus on practice, focus on foresight, rigorous evidence, the validity of the results obtained, the reliability of conclusions, systematic and systematic, planning, focus on scientific truth.

Science forms a single interconnected developing system of knowledge about world laws. This system is divided into many branches of knowledge, which differ from each other in what side of reality, the form of motion of matter they study. According to the method and subject of knowledge, one can single out the sciences of nature - natural science, and society - social science. In turn, each group of sciences can be subjected to a more detailed division. the science of the most general laws reality is philosophy.

According to their remoteness from practice, sciences are divided into fundamental, which clarify the basic laws and principles of the real world, where there is no direct orientation to practice, and applied sciences - the direct application of the results of scientific knowledge to solve problems. practical problems. But the boundaries between the sciences are conditional and mobile, the proof of this is the fact of the existence of butt disciplines (biophysics, geochemistry...).

Scientific knowledge involves the use of a certain set of techniques and operations leading to the achievement of a goal - a method (from the Greek. "The path to something"). The concept of "methodology" has two main meanings: 1) The system of certain principles, techniques and operations used in a particular field of activity; 2) the doctrine of this system, the theory of method.

The method is reduced to a set of certain rules, techniques, norms of knowledge in action. He is the system! prescriptions, principles, requirements that guide the researcher in solving a specific problem. The method disciplines the search for truth, allows you to choose the shortest path in the search for a result. The main function of the method - regulation of cognitive and other forms of activity. The variety of human activities causes a diverse range of methods, which are classified according to various criteria.

All methods of scientific knowledge are divided according to the degree of generality and scope:

1. Philosophical Methods- dialectical, metaphysical, analytical, intuitive, etc.

2. General scientific approaches and research methods that act as an intermediate methodology between philosophy and the fundamental theoretical and methodological principles of the special sciences. On the basis of general scientific concepts and concepts, the corresponding methods and principles of cognition are formulated, such as systemic and non-functional structure, cybernetic, etc.

3. Private scientific methods - a set of methods, principles of cognition, research methods and procedures used in a particular branch of science, corresponding to a given basic form of the movement of matter. These are the methods of mechanics, physics.

4. Disciplinary Methods system of techniques used in a particular scientific discipline belonging to any branch of science.

5. Methods of interdisciplinary research.
A method is considered scientific if it complies

object of knowledge, goals and objectives of the study. The method must meet a number of requirements: clarity, determinism, directionality, fruitfulness, ability to give related results, reliability, economy. The more perfect the method, the more it meets these requirements.