home › Test Drives › Theory as a logical form: complexity and consistency. Structural elements of the theory and their relationship

Theory as a logical form: complexity and consistency. Structural elements of the theory and their relationship

Under the theory as the highest form of organization of scientific knowledge is understood a holistic idea structured in schemes about the universal and necessary laws of a certain area of reality - the object of the theory, existing in the form of a system of logically interconnected and derivable sentences.

The established theory is based on a mutually coordinated network of abstract objects that determines the specifics of this theory, which is called the fundamental theoretical scheme and associated private schemes. Based on them and the corresponding mathematical apparatus, the researcher can obtain new characteristics of reality, not always referring directly to empirical research.

The following main elements of the theory structure are distinguished:

1) Initial foundations - fundamental concepts, principles, laws, equations, axioms, etc.

2) An idealized object is an abstract model of the essential properties and relationships of the objects under study (for example, "absolutely black body", "ideal gas", etc.).

3) The logic of the theory is a set of certain rules and methods of proof aimed at clarifying the structure and changing knowledge.

4) Philosophical attitudes, socio-cultural and value factors.

5) The totality of laws and statements derived as consequences from the foundations of the theory in accordance with specific principles.

For example, in physical theories, two main parts can be distinguished: formal calculus (mathematical equations, logical symbols, rules, etc.) and meaningful interpretation (categories, laws, principles). The unity of the content and formal aspects of the theory is one of the sources of its improvement and development.

A. Einstein noted that "the theory has two goals:

1. To cover, as far as possible, all phenomena in their interconnection (completeness).

2. To achieve this, taking as a basis as little as possible logically interconnected logical concepts and arbitrarily established relationships between them (basic laws and axioms). I will call this goal "logical uniqueness"

Types of theories

mathematical and empirical,

deductive and inductive,

fundamental and applied,

formal and meaningful

"open" and "closed"

explaining and describing (phenomenological),

physical, chemical, sociological, psychological, etc.

1. Modern (post-non-classical) science is characterized by an increasing mathematization of its theories (especially natural sciences) and an increasing level of their abstractness and complexity. The importance of computational mathematics (which has become an independent branch of mathematics) has sharply increased, since the answer to a given problem often needs to be given in numerical form, and mathematical modeling.

Most mathematical theories rely on set theory as their foundation. But in last years more and more often they turn to the relatively recently emerged algebraic category theory, considering it as a new foundation for all of mathematics.

Many mathematical theories arise through a combination, a synthesis of several basic or generating structures. The needs of science (including mathematics itself) have led to Lately to the emergence of a number of new mathematical disciplines: graph theory, game theory, information theory, discrete mathematics, optimal control theory, etc.

Theories of experimental (empirical) sciences - physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, history - according to the depth of penetration into the essence of the studied phenomena can be divided into two large classes: phenomenological and non-phenomenological.

Phenomenological (they are also called descriptive, empirical) describe the properties and magnitudes of objects and processes observed in experience, but do not delve deeply into their internal mechanisms (for example, geometric optics, thermodynamics, many pedagogical, psychological and sociological theories, etc.). Such theories primarily solve the problem of ordering and primary generalization of the facts pertaining to them. They are formulated in ordinary natural languages with the involvement of special terminology of the relevant field of knowledge and are predominantly of a qualitative nature.

With development scientific knowledge theories of the phenomenological type give way to non-phenomenological ones (they are also called explanatory). Along with observable empirical facts, concepts and quantities, very complex and unobservable, including very abstract concepts, are introduced here.

One of the important criteria by which theories can be classified is the accuracy of predictions. According to this criterion, two large classes of theories can be distinguished. The first of these includes theories in which the prediction has a reliable character (for example, many theories of classical mechanics, classical physics and chemistry). In the theories of the second class, prediction has a probabilistic character, which is determined by the cumulative action a large number random factors. This kind of stochastic (from Greek - guess) theories are found in modern physics, biology and social sciences and humanities due to the specifics and complexity of the very object of their study.

A. Einstein distinguished in physics two main types of theories - constructive and fundamental:

Most physical theories are constructive, i.e. their task is to build a picture of complex phenomena on the basis of some relatively simple assumptions (such, for example, the kinetic theory of gases).

The basis of fundamental theories is not hypothetical provisions, but empirically found general properties of phenomena, principles from which follow mathematically formulated criteria that have universal applicability (such is the theory of relativity).

W. Heisenberg believed that a scientific theory should be consistent (in the formal-logical sense), have simplicity, beauty, compactness, a certain (always limited) scope of its application, integrity and "final completeness". But the strongest argument in favor of the correctness of the theory is its "multiple experimental confirmation".

The theories of the social sciences and the humanities have a specific structure. Thus, in modern sociology, since the work of the prominent American sociologist Robert Merton (i.e., since the beginning of the 20th century), it has been customary to distinguish three levels of subject study of social phenomena and, accordingly, three types of theories.

general sociological theory ("general sociology"),

Private ("medium rank") sociological theories - special theories(sociology of gender, age, ethnicity, family, city, education, etc.)

sectoral theories (sociology of labor, politics, culture, organization, management, etc.)

Ontologically, all sociological theories are divided into three main varieties:

1) theories of social dynamics (or theories of social evolution, development);

2) theories of social action;

3) theories of social interaction.

A theory (regardless of its type) has the main features:

1. Theory is not individual taken reliable scientific provisions, but their totality, an integral organic developing system. The unification of knowledge into a theory is carried out primarily by the subject of research itself, its laws.

2. Not every set of provisions about the subject under study is a theory. In order to turn into a theory, knowledge must reach a certain degree of maturity in its development. Namely, when it not only describes a certain set of facts, but also explains them, i.e. when knowledge reveals the causes and patterns of phenomena.

3. For a theory, it is obligatory to substantiate, to prove the provisions included in it: if there are no substantiations, there is no theory.

4. Theoretical knowledge should strive to explain as much as possible a wide range phenomena, to the continuous deepening of knowledge about them.

5. The nature of the theory determines the degree of validity of its defining beginning, which reflects the fundamental regularity of the given subject.

6. The structure of scientific theories is meaningfully "determined by the systemic organization of idealized (abstract) objects (theoretical constructs). Statements of a theoretical language are directly formulated in relation to theoretical constructs and only indirectly, due to their relationship to extralinguistic reality, describe this reality"

7. Theory is not only ready-made knowledge that has become, but also the process of obtaining it, therefore it is not a "naked result", but should be considered along with its emergence and development.

The main functions of the theory include the following:

1. Synthetic function - combining individual reliable knowledge into a single, integral system.

2. Explanatory function - identification of causal and other dependencies, the diversity of relationships of a given phenomenon, its essential characteristics, the laws of its origin and development, etc.

3. Methodological function - on the basis of the theory, various methods, methods and techniques of research activity are formulated.

4. Predictive - the function of foresight. On the basis of theoretical ideas about the "present" state of known phenomena, conclusions are drawn about the existence of previously unknown facts, objects or their properties, connections between phenomena, etc. Prediction about the future state of phenomena (as opposed to those that exist but have not yet been identified) is called scientific foresight.

5. Practical function. The ultimate purpose of any theory is to be put into practice, to be a "guide to action" to change reality. Therefore, it is quite true to say that there is nothing more practical than a good theory.

How to choose a good one from many competing theories?

K. Popper introduced the "criterion of relative acceptability". The best theory is the one that:

a) communicates the greatest amount of information, i.e. has deeper content;

b) is logically more strict;

c) has greater explanatory and predictive power;

d) can be more accurately verified by comparing predicted facts with observations.

Any theory is an integral developing system of true knowledge (including elements of delusion), which has a complex structure and performs a number of functions. In the modern methodology of science, the following main elements of the theory structure are distinguished: 1) Initial bases- fundamental concepts, principles, laws, equations, axioms, etc. 2) Idealized object- an abstract model of the essential properties and relationships of the objects under study (for example, "absolutely black body", "ideal gas", etc.). 3) Logic theory- a set of certain rules and methods of proof aimed at clarifying the structure and changing knowledge. 4) Philosophical attitudes, sociocultural and value factors. 5) Set of laws and statements, derived as consequences from the foundations of this theory in accordance with specific principles.

An idealized object ("ideal type") plays a methodologically important role in the formation of a theory, the construction of which is a necessary stage in the creation of any theory, carried out in forms specific to different fields of knowledge. This object acts not only as a mental model of a certain fragment of reality, but also contains a specific research program, which is implemented in the construction of a theory.

Speaking about the goals and ways of theoretical research in general, A. Einstein noted that “theory has two goals: 1. To cover, if possible, all phenomena in their interconnection (completeness). concepts and arbitrarily established relationships between them (fundamental laws and axioms) This goal I will call "logical uniqueness".

1 Einstein A. Physics and reality. - M., 1965. S. 264.

The variety of forms of idealization and, accordingly, the types of idealized objects corresponds to the variety of types (types) of theories that can be classified according to different grounds (criteria). Depending on this, theories can be distinguished: descriptive, mathematical, deductive and inductive, fundamental and applied, formal and meaningful, "open" and "closed", explaining and describing (phenomenological), physical, chemical, sociological, psychological, etc. d.

Modern (post-non-classical) science is characterized by the increasing mathematization of its theories (especially natural sciences) and the increasing level of their abstractness and complexity. This feature of modern natural science has led to the fact that work with its new theories, due to the high level of abstractness of the concepts introduced into them, has turned into a new and peculiar type of activity. In this regard, some scientists speak, in particular, of the threat of the transformation of theoretical physics into a mathematical theory.

In modern science, the importance of computational mathematics (which has become an independent branch of mathematics) has sharply increased, since the answer to a given problem often needs to be given in numerical form. At present, mathematical modeling is becoming the most important tool for scientific and technological progress. Its essence is the replacement of the original object with the corresponding mathematical model and its further study, experimentation with it on a computer and with the help of computational algorithms.

The general structure of the theory is specifically expressed in different types(types) of theories. Thus, mathematical theories are characterized by a high degree of abstractness. They rely on set theory as their foundation. Deduction plays a decisive role in all constructions of mathematics. The dominant role in the construction of mathematical theories is played by axiomatic and hypothetical-deductive methods, as well as formalization.

Many mathematical theories arise through a combination, a synthesis of several basic or generating structures. The needs of science (including mathematics itself) have recently led to the emergence of a number of new mathematical disciplines: graph theory, game theory, information theory, discrete mathematics, optimal control theory, etc. In recent years, more and more often turn to the relatively recently emerged algebraic category theory, considering it as a new foundation for all of mathematics.

Phenomenological (they are also called descriptive, empirical) describe the properties and magnitudes of objects and processes observed in experience, but do not delve deeply into their internal mechanisms (for example, geometric optics, thermodynamics, many pedagogical, psychological and sociological theories, etc.). Such theories do not analyze the nature of the phenomena under study and therefore do not use any complex abstract objects, although, of course, to a certain extent they schematize and construct some idealizations of the studied field of phenomena.

Phenomenological theories primarily solve the problem of ordering and primary generalization of the facts relating to them. They are formulated in ordinary natural languages with the involvement of special terminology of the relevant field of knowledge and are predominantly of a qualitative nature. Researchers encounter phenomenological theories, as a rule, at the first stages of the development of a science, when there is an accumulation, systematization and generalization of factual empirical material. Such theories are quite a natural phenomenon in the process of scientific knowledge.

With the development of scientific knowledge, theories of the phenomenological type give way to non-phenomenological ones (they are also called explanatory). They not only reflect the connections between phenomena and their properties, but also reveal the deep inner mechanism of the studied phenomena and processes, their necessary interconnections, essential relationships, i.e. their laws (such, for example, physical optics and a number of other theories). Along with observable empirical facts, concepts and quantities, very complex and unobservable, including very abstract concepts, are introduced here. Undoubtedly, phenomenological theories, due to their simplicity, lend themselves more easily to logical analysis, formalization, and mathematical treatment than non-phenomenological ones. It is no coincidence, therefore, that in physics one of the first axiomatized such sections of it as classical mechanics, geometric optics and thermodynamics.

One of the important criteria by which theories can be classified is the accuracy of predictions. According to this criterion, two large classes of theories can be distinguished. The first of these includes theories in which the prediction has a reliable character (for example, many theories of classical mechanics, classical physics and chemistry). In the theories of the second class, prediction has a probabilistic character, which is determined by the combined action of a large number of random factors. This kind of stochastic (from Greek - guess) theories are found not only in modern physics, but also in large numbers in biology and the social sciences and humanities due to the specifics and complexity of the very object of their study. The most important method of constructing and developing theories (especially non-phenomenological ones) is the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete.

Thus, a theory (regardless of its type) has the following main features:

3. For a theory, it is obligatory to substantiate, to prove the provisions included in it: if there are no substantiations, there is no theory.

4. Theoretical knowledge should strive to explain the widest possible range of phenomena, to the continuous deepening of knowledge about them.

5. The nature of the theory determines the degree of validity of its defining beginning, which reflects the fundamental regularity of the given subject.

1 Stepin V.S. Theoretical knowledge. - M., 2000. S. 707.

The main functions of the theory include the following:

1. Synthetic function- combining individual reliable knowledge into a single, integral system.

2. explanatory function- identification of causal and other dependencies, the diversity of relationships of a given phenomenon, its essential characteristics, the laws of its origin and development, etc.

3. Methodological function- on the basis of the theory, various methods, methods and techniques of research activity are formulated.

4. predictive- function of foresight. On the basis of theoretical ideas about the "present" state of known phenomena, conclusions are drawn about the existence of previously unknown facts, objects or their properties, connections between phenomena, etc. Prediction about the future state of phenomena (as opposed to those that exist but have not yet been identified) is called scientific foresight.

5. practical function. The ultimate purpose of any theory is to be put into practice, to be a "guide to action" to change reality. Therefore, it is quite true to say that there is nothing more practical than a good theory. But how to choose a good one among the many competing theories?

In psychology, in general, the same forms of scientific knowledge, as in other sciences: concepts, judgments, conclusions, problems, hypotheses, theories. Each of them is relatively independent way reflection by the subject of an object, a way of fixing knowledge that has developed in the course of the development of universal human spiritual activity.

Among all forms of cognition, the highest, most perfect and complex in the methodology of science is recognized theory. Indeed, if concepts or conclusions, problems or hypotheses are often formulated in one sentence, then an interconnected, ordered system of statements is necessary to express a theory. Entire volumes are often written to present and substantiate theories: for example, the theory gravity Newton substantiated in the voluminous work “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy” (1687), which he spent more than 20 years writing; Z. Freud outlined the theory of psychoanalysis not in one, but already in many works, and over the past 40 years of his life, he constantly made changes and refinements to it, trying to adapt it to changing social conditions, assimilate new facts from the field of psychotherapy, and reflect the criticism of opponents.

However, this does not mean that the theories are super complex, and therefore inaccessible to the understanding of the "man from the street." Firstly, any theory can be stated in a concise, somewhat schematized version, removing the secondary, unimportant, taking out the substantiating arguments and supporting facts. Secondly, ordinary people(i.e., those who are not professional scientists) from the school bench master many theories along with the logic implicitly inherent in them, and therefore, in adulthood, they often build their own theories based on the generalization and analysis of everyday experience, which differ from scientific ones in the degree of complexity, lack of mathematization and formalization, insufficient validity, less systemic and logical harmony, in particular, insensitivity to contradictions. Thus, a scientific theory is a somewhat refined and complicated version of everyday theories.

Theories act as methodological units, a kind of "cells" of scientific knowledge: they represent all levels of scientific knowledge along with methodological procedures for obtaining and substantiating knowledge. Scientific theory includes, combines all other forms of scientific knowledge: its main “building material” is concepts, they are interconnected by judgments, and conclusions are made from them according to the rules of logic; Any theory is based on one or more hypotheses (ideas) that are the answer to a significant problem (or set of problems). If a particular science consisted of only one theory, then it would nevertheless have all the basic properties of science. For example, for many centuries geometry was identified with the theory of Euclid and was considered an "exemplary" science in terms of accuracy and rigor. In short, theory is science in miniature. Therefore, if we understand how the theory works, what functions it performs, then we will comprehend the internal structure and “working mechanisms” of scientific knowledge as a whole.

In the methodology of science, the term "theory" (from the Greek theoria - consideration, study) is understood in two main senses: broad and narrow. In a broad sense, a theory is a set of views (ideas, ideas) aimed at interpreting a phenomenon (or a group of similar phenomena). In this sense, almost every person has his own theories, many of which belong to the field of everyday psychology. With their help, a person can streamline his ideas about goodness, justice, gender relations, love, the meaning of life, afterlife, etc. In a narrow, special sense, theory is understood as the highest form of organization of scientific knowledge, which gives a holistic view of the patterns and essential connections of a certain area of reality. A scientific theory is characterized by systemic harmony, the logical dependence of some of its elements on others, the deducibility of its content according to certain logical and methodological rules from a certain set of statements and concepts that form the initial basis of the theory.

In the process of knowledge development, the emergence of theories is preceded by the stage of accumulation, generalization and classification of experimental data. For example, before the emergence of the theory of universal gravitation, a lot of information had already been collected both in astronomy (starting from individual astronomical observations and ending with Kepler's laws, which are empirical generalizations of the observed motion of the planets) and in the field of mechanics ( highest value for Newton had Galileo's experiments on the study of the free fall of bodies); in biology the evolutionary theory of Lamarck and Darwin was preceded by extensive classifications of organisms. The emergence of a theory resembles an insight, during which an array of information in the theorist's head is suddenly clearly ordered due to a sudden heuristic idea. However, this is not entirely true: an innovative hypothesis is one thing, and its substantiation and development is quite another. Only after the completion of the second process can we speak of the emergence of a theory. Moreover, as the history of science shows, the development of a theory associated with its modifications, clarifications, extrapolation to new areas can last tens and even hundreds of years.

There are several positions on the question of the structure of theories. Let's take a look at the most influential of them.

According to V.S. Shvyrev, scientific theory includes the following main components:

1) original empirical basis, which includes many facts recorded in this field of knowledge, achieved in the course of experiments and requiring theoretical explanation;

2) the original theoretical basis a set of primary assumptions, postulates, axioms, general laws, collectively describing idealized object of the theory;

3) the logic of the theory the set of admissible rules of logical inference and proof within the framework of the theory;

4) set of statements derived in the theory with their proofs, constituting the main body of theoretical knowledge .

The central role in the formation of the theory, according to Shvyryov, is played by the idealized object underlying it - a theoretical model of the essential connections of reality, represented with the help of certain hypothetical assumptions and idealizations. In classical mechanics, such an object is a system of material points, in molecular-kinetic theory it is a set of randomly colliding molecules closed in a certain volume, represented as absolutely elastic material points.

It is not difficult to demonstrate the presence of these components in developed subject-centric psychological theories of personality. In psychoanalysis, the role of the empirical basis is played by psychoanalytic facts (data from clinical observations, descriptions of dreams, erroneous actions, etc.), theoretical background consists of the postulates of metapsychology and clinical theory, the logic used can be described as "dialectical" or as the logic of "natural language", the "multi-aspect" model of the psyche (topological, energy, economic) acts as an idealized object. From this it is clear that psychoanalytic theory is more complicated than any physical theory, since it includes more basic theoretical postulates, operates with several idealized models at once, and uses more “subtle” logical means. The coordination of these components, the elimination of contradictions between them is an important epistemological task, which is still far from being resolved.

A different approach to the explication of the structure of the theory is proposed by M.S. Burgin and V.I. Kuznetsov, distinguishing four subsystems in it: logico-linguistic(language and logical means), model representative(models and images describing the object), pragmatic-procedural(methods of cognition and transformation of an object) and problem-heuristic(description of the essence and ways of solving problems). The selection of these subsystems, as the authors emphasize, has certain ontological grounds. “The logical-linguistic subsystem corresponds to the existing order real world or some part of it, the presence of certain regularities. The pragmatic-procedural subsystem expresses the dynamic nature of the real world and the presence of interaction of the cognizing subject with it. The problem-heuristic subsystem appears due to the complexity of the cognizable reality, which leads to the emergence of various contradictions, problems and the need to solve them. And, finally, the model-representative subsystem primarily reflects the unity of thinking and being in relation to the process of scientific knowledge.

Noteworthy is the comparison of the theory with the organism, which is made by the above-mentioned researchers. Like a living being, theories are born, develop, reach maturity, and then grow old and often die, as happened with the theories of caloric and ether in the 19th century. As in a living body, the subsystems of the theory are closely interconnected and are in coordinated interaction.

The question of the structure of scientific knowledge is solved somewhat differently by V.S. Stepin. Proceeding from the fact that not a theory, but a scientific discipline should serve as a methodological unit for the analysis of knowledge, he distinguishes three levels in the structure of the latter: empirical, theoretical and philosophical, each of which has a complex organization.

Empirical level includes, firstly, direct observations and experiments, the result of which are observational data; secondly, cognitive procedures through which the transition from observational data to empirical dependencies and facts is carried out. Observation data are recorded in the protocols of observation, which indicate who observed, the time of observation, and describe the devices, if they were used. If, for example, a sociological survey was conducted, then the questionnaire with the respondent's answer acts as an observation protocol. For a psychologist, these are also questionnaires, drawings (for example, in projective drawing tests), tape recordings of conversations, etc. The transition from observational data to empirical dependencies (generalizations) and scientific facts involves the elimination of the subjective moments contained in the observations (associated with possible errors of the observer, random interference that distorts the course of the studied phenomena, instrument errors) in order to obtain reliable intersubjective knowledge about the phenomena. Such a transition involves the rational processing of observational data, the search for a stable invariant content in them, and comparison of sets of observations with each other. For example, a historian who establishes the chronology of past events always seeks to identify and compare a multitude of independent historical evidence that acts as observational data for him. Then the invariant content revealed in the observations is interpreted (interpreted), while using known theoretical knowledge. Thus, empirical facts, constituting the main array of the corresponding level of scientific knowledge, are constituted as a result of the interpretation of observational data in the light of a particular theory.

Theoretical level is also formed by two sublevels. The first one consists of particular theoretical models and laws, which act as theories related to a rather limited area of phenomena. The second one consists of developed scientific theories, including particular theoretical laws as consequences derived from the fundamental laws of the theory. Examples of knowledge of the first sublevel are theoretical models and laws that characterize certain types of mechanical motion: the model and law of pendulum oscillation (Huygens' laws), the motion of planets around the Sun (Kepler's laws), the free fall of bodies (Galilean's laws), etc. In Newtonian mechanics, acting as a typical example of a developed theory, these particular laws, on the one hand, are generalized and, on the other hand, are derived as corollaries.

A peculiar cell of the organization of theoretical knowledge at each of its sublevels is a two-layer structure, consisting of theoretical model and formulated with respect to it law. The model is built from abstract objects (such as a material point, reference system, absolutely solid surface, elastic force, etc.), which are in strictly defined connections and relationships with each other. The laws express the relationship between these objects (for example, the law of universal gravitation expresses the relationship between the mass of bodies understood as material points, the distance between them and the force of attraction: F = Gm1m2/ r2).

The explanation and prediction of experimental facts by theories is connected, firstly, with the derivation of consequences from them that are comparable with the results of experience, and, secondly, with the empirical interpretation of theoretical models achieved through establishing a correspondence between them and the real objects they represent. Thus, not only are the facts interpreted in the light of the theory, but the elements of the theory (models and laws) are interpreted in such a way as to be subject to empirical verification.

Level foundations of science is the most fundamental in the structure of scientific knowledge. However, until the middle of the 20th century, it did not stand out: methodologists and scientists simply did not notice it. But it is this level that "acts as a system-forming block that determines the strategy of scientific research, systematization of the acquired knowledge and ensures their inclusion in the culture of the corresponding era." According to V.S. Stepin, at least three main components of the foundations of scientific activity can be distinguished: ideals and norms of research, the scientific picture of the world and the philosophical foundations of science.

In Chapter 1, paragraph 2, we already looked at the first two components of this level, so let's focus on the third. According to V.S. Stepin, philosophical foundations are ideas and principles that substantiate the ontological postulates of science, as well as its ideals and norms. For example, Faraday's substantiation of the material status of electric and magnetic fields was carried out by references to the metaphysical principle of the unity of matter and force. Philosophical foundations also ensure the "docking" of scientific knowledge, ideals and norms, the scientific picture of the world with the dominant worldview of a particular historical era, with the categories of its culture.

The formation of philosophical foundations is carried out by sampling and subsequent adaptation of ideas developed in philosophical analysis to the needs of a certain area of scientific knowledge. In their structure, V.S. Stepin distinguishes two subsystems: ontological, represented by a grid of categories that serve as a matrix for understanding and cognition of the objects under study (for example, the categories “thing”, “property”, “relationship”, “process”, “state”, “causality”, “necessity”, “accident”, “ space", "time", etc.), and epistemological, expressed by categorical schemes that characterize cognitive procedures and their result (understanding of truth, method, knowledge, explanation, proof, theory, fact).

Noting the validity and heuristic nature of our positions on the issue of the structure of scientific theory, in particular, and scientific knowledge in general, we will try to identify their weaknesses and determine our own vision of the problem. The first, naturally arising question is related to whether to attribute empirical level science to the content of the theory or not: according to Shvyryov, the empirical level is included in the theory, according to Stepin - not (but is part of scientific discipline), Burgin and Kuznetsov implicitly include the empirical level in the pragmatic-procedural subsystem. Indeed, on the one hand, the theory is very closely interconnected with the facts, and it is created to describe and explain them, so the elimination of facts from the theory clearly impoverishes it. But, on the other hand, facts are capable of "leading own life”, independent of a particular theory, for example, “migrate” from one theory to another. The latter circumstance, it seems to us, is more significant: the theory precisely describes and explains the facts, is superimposed on them, and therefore they must be taken out of the bounds of the theory. This is also supported by the established division of the levels of scientific knowledge into theoretical and empirical (fact-fixing).

Therefore, Stepin's point of view seems to us the most reasonable, but it also needs to be corrected, related to the understanding of the structure and role of the philosophical foundations of science. Firstly, they cannot be considered as of the same order with ideals and norms, with a scientific picture of the world, it is impossible precisely because of their fundamental nature, primacy, which the author himself notes. Secondly, they are not limited to ontological and epistemological, but also include value (axiological) and practical (praxeological) dimensions. In general, their structure is homologous to the structure of philosophical knowledge, which includes not only ontology and epistemology, but also ethics, aesthetics, social philosophy, and philosophical anthropology. Thirdly, the interpretation of the genesis of philosophical foundations as a “flow” of ideas from philosophy into science seems to us too narrow; we cannot underestimate the role of the scientist’s personal life experience, in which philosophical views, although they are developed to a large extent spontaneously, are most deeply rooted in force. emotional and value-semantic charge”, a direct connection with what he saw and experienced.

Thus, the theory is the highest form of scientific knowledge, a systematically organized and logically connected multi-level set of abstract objects of varying degrees of generality: philosophical ideas and principles, fundamental and private models and laws, built from concepts, judgments and images.

Further concretization of ideas about the nature of scientific theories is associated with the identification of their functions and types.

The question of the functions of theory is, in essence, the question of the purpose of theory, of its role both in science and in culture as a whole. It's hard to come up with an exhaustive list of features. Firstly, in various sciences, theories do not always fulfill the same roles: one thing is mathematical knowledge dealing with the world of "frozen" ideal entities equal to themselves, and another thing is humanitarian knowledge, focused on comprehending the constantly changing, fluid human existence in the same unstable world. This substantive difference determines the insignificance (often, the complete absence) of the prognostic function in the theories of mathematics, and, on the contrary, its importance for the sciences that study man and society. Secondly, scientific knowledge itself is constantly changing, and with it ideas about the role of scientific theories are being transformed: in general, with the development of science, more and more new functions are attributed to theories. Therefore, we note only the most important, basic functions of scientific theory.

1. Reflective. The idealized object of the theory is a kind of simplified, schematized copy of real objects, so the theory reflects reality, but not in its entirety, but only in the most essential moments. First of all, the theory reflects the main properties of objects, the most important connections and relationships between objects, the laws of their existence, functioning and development. Since an idealized object is a model of a real object, this function can also be called modeling (model-representative). In our opinion, we can talk about three types of models(idealized objects): structural, reflecting the structure, composition of the object (subsystems, elements and their relationships); functional, describing its functioning in time (i.e., those processes of the same quality that occur regularly); evolutionary, reconstructing the course, stages, causes, factors, trends in the development of the object. Psychology uses many models: the psyche, consciousness, personality, communication, small social group, family, creativity, memory, attention, etc.

2. Descriptive the function is derived from the reflective one, acts as its particular analogue and is expressed in fixing the properties and qualities of objects, connections and relations between them by the theory. Description, apparently, is the most ancient, simplest function of science, therefore any theory always describes something, but far from any description is scientific. The main thing in scientific description- accuracy, rigor, unambiguity. The most important means of description is language: both natural and scientific, the latter is created precisely to increase accuracy and rigor when fixing the properties and qualities of objects. Likewise, the psychologist begins the examination of the client with the search and fixation of significant facts. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine that, for example, Freud would build a psychoanalytic theory without relying on previous clinical experience of his own and others, in which descriptions of case histories were abundantly presented with detailed indications of their etiology, symptoms, stages of development, methods of treatment.

3. Explanatory is also a derivative of the reflective function. The explanation already presupposes the search for lawful connections, the clarification of the causes of the appearance and course of certain phenomena. In other words, to explain means, firstly, to bring a single phenomenon under the general law (for example, a single case of a brick falling to the ground can be brought under the general law of gravity, which will show us why the brick flew down (and not up or left hanging). in the air) and precisely at such a speed (or acceleration) and, secondly, to find the cause that gave rise to this phenomenon (in our example, such a cause that caused the fall of a brick will be the force of gravity, the gravitational field of the Earth). and any person cannot do without searching for lawful connections, without clarifying the causes of events and taking into account the influence of various factors on what is happening with him and around him.

4. Predictive the function stems from the explanatory one: knowing the laws of the world, we can extrapolate them to future events and, accordingly, foresee their course. For example, I can reliably assume (and with a 100% probability!) that a brick thrown out of a window by me will fall to the ground. The basis for such a forecast, on the one hand, is ordinary experience, on the other hand, the theory of universal gravitation. Involving the latter can make the forecast more accurate. In modern sciences dealing with complex self-organizing and "human-sized" objects, absolutely accurate forecasts are rare: and the point here is not only the complexity of the objects under study, which have many independent parameters, but also the very dynamics of self-organization processes, in which randomness, a small force impact at bifurcation points can radically change the direction of the system development. Also in psychology, the vast majority of forecasts are of a probabilistic-statistical nature, since, as a rule, they cannot take into account the role of numerous random factors that take place in social life.

5. Restrictive (prohibiting) function is rooted in the principle of falsifiability, according to which a theory should not be omnivorous, capable of explaining any, in the first place, previously unknown, phenomena from its subject area, on the contrary, a “good” theory should prohibit certain events (for example, the theory of universal gravitation prohibits the flight of a brick thrown out of a window upwards; the theory of relativity limits the maximum speed of transmission of material interactions to the speed of light; modern genetics prohibits the inheritance of acquired traits). In psychology (especially in such sections as personality psychology, social psychology), apparently, one should speak not so much about categorical prohibitions as about the improbability of certain events. For example, from the concept of love by E. Fromm it follows that a person who does not love himself will not be able to truly love another. This is, of course, a ban, but not an absolute one. It is also highly unlikely that a child who has missed a sensitive period for learning speech (for example, due to social isolation) will be able to fully master it in adulthood; in the psychology of creativity, it is recognized that there is a low probability of an opportunity for a complete amateur to make an important scientific discovery in fundamental areas of science. And it is almost impossible to imagine that a child with an objectively confirmed diagnosis of imbecility or idiocy could become an outstanding scientist.

6. Systematizing the function is determined by the desire of a person to order the world, as well as the properties of our thinking, spontaneously striving for order. Theories are an important means of systematization, condensation of information simply because of their immanent organization, the logical relationship (deducibility) of some elements with others. The simplest form of systematization are classification processes. For example, in biology, the classifications of plant and animal species necessarily preceded evolutionary theories: only on the basis of the extensive empirical material of the former did it become possible to put forward the latter. In psychology, perhaps the most famous classifications relate to personality typology: Freud, Jung, Fromm, Eysenck, Leonhard, and others made a significant contribution to this area of science. Other examples are the allocation of types of pathopsychological disorders, forms of love, psychological influence, varieties of intelligence, memory, attention, abilities, and other mental functions.

7. Heuristic function emphasizes the role of theory as "the most powerful means of solving the fundamental problems of cognition of reality." In other words, the theory not only answers questions, but also raises new problems, opens up new areas of research, which it then tries to explore in the course of its development. Often the questions posed by one theory are solved by another. For example, Newton, having discovered the gravitational force, could not answer the question about the nature of gravity, this problem was already solved by Einstein in the general theory of relativity. In psychology, the most heuristic theory still seems to be psychoanalysis. On this subject, Hjell and Ziegler write: "Although studies concerning Freud's psychodynamic theory cannot unconditionally prove his concepts (because the verifiability of the theory is low), he inspired many scientists by showing them in which direction research can be carried out in order to improve our knowledge. about behavior. Literally thousands of studies have been prompted by Freud's theoretical statements." In terms of the heuristic function, fuzziness, incompleteness of the theory are more advantages than disadvantages. This is Maslow's theory of personality, which is more of a collection of delightful conjectures and assumptions than a well-defined structure. In many ways, it was precisely because of its incompleteness, coupled with the boldness of the hypotheses put forward, that it "served as an incentive for the study of self-esteem, peak experience and self-actualization, ... influenced not only researchers in the field of personology, but also in the field of education, management and healthcare."

8. Practical function is personified famous aphorism 19th-century German physicist Robert Kirchhoff: "There is nothing more practical than a good theory." Indeed, we build theories not only to satisfy curiosity, but, above all, to understand the world around us. In an understandable, orderly world, we not only feel more secure, but we can also successfully operate in it. Thus, theories act as a means of solving personal and social problems, increase the effectiveness of our activities. In the post-nonclassical era, the practical significance of scientific knowledge comes to the fore, which is not surprising, because modern humanity is facing global problems, which most scientists see as possible to overcome only on the path of the development of science. Theories of psychology today claim not only to solve the problems of individuals and small groups, but also seek to contribute to the optimization of social life as a whole. According to Hjell and Ziegler, psychology should make an important contribution to solving problems related to poverty, racial and sexual discrimination, alienation, suicide, divorce, abuse with children, drug and alcohol addiction, crimes, etc.

Kinds theories are distinguished on the basis of their structure, determined, in turn, by the methods of constructing theoretical knowledge. There are three main, "classical" types of theories: axiomatic (deductive), inductive and hypothetical-deductive. Each of them has its own "construction base" in the face of three similar methods.

Axiomatic theories, established in science since antiquity, personify the accuracy and rigor of scientific knowledge. Today they are most common in mathematics (formalized arithmetic, axiomatic set theory), formal logic (propositional logic, predicate logic) and some branches of physics (mechanics, thermodynamics, electrodynamics). A classic example of such a theory is the geometry of Euclid, which for many centuries was considered a model of scientific rigor. As part of the usual axiomatic theory, there are three components: axioms (postulates), theorems (derived knowledge), rules of inference (proofs).

Axioms(from the Greek axioma "honored, accepted position") - accepted as true (as a rule, due to self-evidence) positions, collectively constituting axiomatics as the fundamental basis of a concrete theory. For their introduction, previously formulated basic concepts (definitions of terms) are used. For example, before formulating the basic postulates, Euclid gives definitions of “point”, “line”, “plane”, etc. Following Euclid (however, the creation of the axiomatic method is attributed not to him, but to Pythagoras), many tried to build knowledge on the basis of axioms: mathematicians, but also philosophers (B. Spinoza), sociologists (J. Vico), biologists (J. Woodger). The view of axioms as eternal and unshakable principles of knowledge was seriously shaken with the discovery of non-Euclidean geometries; in 1931, K. Gödel proved that even the simplest mathematical theories cannot be completely constructed as axiomatic formal theories (the incompleteness theorem). Today it is clear that the acceptance of axioms is conditioned by the specific experience of the era, with the expansion of the latter, even the most seemingly unshakable truths may turn out to be erroneous.

From the axioms, according to certain rules, the remaining provisions of the theory (theorems) are deduced (deduced), the latter constitute the main body of the axiomatic theory. Rules are studied by logic - the science of the forms of correct thinking. In most cases, they are the laws of classical logic: such as identity law("every entity coincides with itself"), law of contradiction(“no proposition can be both true and false”) law of the excluded middle("every judgment is either true or false, there is no third way"), law of sufficient reason(“every judgment made must be properly justified”). Often these rules are applied by scientists semi-consciously, and sometimes completely unconsciously. As noted above, researchers often make logical errors, relying more on their own intuition than on the laws of thought, preferring to use the “softer” logic of common sense. Since the beginning of the 20th century, non-classical logics (modal, multi-valued, paraconsistent, probabilistic, etc.) began to develop, departing from classical laws, trying to capture the dialectics of life with its fluidity, inconsistency, not subject to classical logic.

If axiomatic theories are relevant to mathematical and formal-logical knowledge, then hypothetical-deductive theories specific to the natural sciences. The creator of the hypothetical-deductive method is G. Galileo, who also laid the foundations of experimental natural science. After Galileo, this method was used (albeit mostly implicitly) by many physicists, from Newton to Einstein, and therefore until recently it was considered the main one in natural science.

The essence of the method is to put forward bold assumptions (hypotheses), the truth value of which is uncertain. The hypotheses are then deductively deduced from the consequences until we arrive at statements that can be compared with experience. If empirical verification certifies their adequacy, then the conclusion is legitimate (due to their logical relationship) about the correctness of the initial hypotheses. Thus, the hypothetical-deductive theory is a system of hypotheses of varying degrees of generality: at the very top are the most abstract hypotheses, and at the lowest level are the most specific, but subject to direct experimental verification. It should be noted that such a system is always incomplete, and therefore can be expanded with additional hypotheses and models.

The more innovative consequences can be deduced from a theory, verified by subsequent experience, the more authority it enjoys in science. The Russian astronomer A. Friedman in 1922 derived equations from Einstein's theory of relativity proving its non-stationarity, and in 1929 the American astronomer E. Hubble discovered a "red shift" in the spectrum of distant galaxies, certifying the correctness of both the theory of relativity and Friedman's equations. In 1946, the American physicist of Russian origin G. Gamow from his theory of the hot Universe deduced the consequence of the need for the presence of microwave isotropic radiation in space with a temperature of about 3 K, and in 1965 this radiation, called relic radiation, was discovered by astrophysicists A. Penzias and R. Wilson. It is quite natural that both the theory of relativity and the concept of a hot Universe have entered the "solid core" of the modern scientific picture of the world.

Inductive theories in its pure form in science, apparently, are absent, since they do not provide logically substantiated, apodictic knowledge. Therefore, we should rather talk about inductive method, which is also characteristic, first of all, for natural science, since it allows you to move from experimental facts first to empirical, and then to theoretical generalizations. In other words, if deductive theories are built “from top to bottom” (from axioms and hypotheses to facts, from abstract to concrete), then inductive theories are built “from bottom to top” (from single phenomena to universal conclusions).

F. Bacon is usually recognized as the founder of inductive methodology, although Aristotle gave the definition of induction, and the Epicureans considered it the only authoritative method of proving the laws of nature. Interestingly, perhaps under the influence of Bacon's authority, Newton, who actually relied mainly on the hypothetical-deductive methodology, declared himself a supporter of the inductive method. A prominent defender of the inductive methodology was our compatriot V.I. Vernadsky, who believed that it is on the basis of empirical generalizations that scientific knowledge should be built: until at least one fact is found that contradicts the previously obtained empirical generalization (law), the latter should be considered true.

Inductive inference usually begins with an analysis and comparison of observational or experimental data. If at the same time they see something in common, similar (for example, the regular repetition of a property) in the absence of exceptions (contradictory information), then the data are generalized in the form of a universal position (empirical law).

Distinguish full (perfect) induction when the generalization refers to a finitely visible field of facts, and incomplete induction when it refers to an infinitely or finitely unobservable realm of facts. For scientific knowledge, the second form of induction is most important, since it is it that gives an increment to new knowledge, allows you to move on to law-like connections. However, incomplete induction is not a logical reasoning, since no law corresponds to the transition from the particular to the general. Therefore, incomplete induction is probabilistic in nature: there is always a chance of new facts appearing that contradict those observed earlier.

The "trouble" of induction is that the only refuting fact makes the empirical generalization as a whole untenable. The same cannot be said of theoretically based statements, which can be considered adequate even when confronted with many contradictory facts. Therefore, in order to “strengthen” the significance of inductive generalizations, scientists seek to substantiate them not only with facts, but also with logical arguments, for example, to derive empirical laws as consequences from theoretical premises or to find a reason that determines the presence of similar features in objects. However, inductive hypotheses and theories as a whole are descriptive, ascertaining in nature, have less explanatory potential than deductive ones. However, in the long term, inductive generalizations often receive theoretical support, and descriptive theories are transformed into explanatory ones.

The considered basic models of theories act mainly as ideal-typical constructions. In the real scientific practice of natural science, when constructing theories, scientists, as a rule, use both inductive and hypothetical-deductive methodology (and often intuitively): the movement from facts to theory is combined with the reverse transition from theory to verifiable consequences. More specifically, the mechanism for constructing, substantiating and testing a theory can be represented by a scheme: observational data → facts → empirical generalization → universal hypothesis → partial hypotheses → testable consequences → setting up an experiment or organization of observation → interpretation of experimental results → conclusion about the validity (failure) of hypotheses → putting forward new hypotheses. The transition from one stage to another is far from trivial, it requires the connection of intuition and a certain ingenuity. At each stage, the scientist also reflects the results obtained, aimed at understanding their meaning, compliance with the standards of rationality, and eliminating possible errors.

Of course, not every hypothesis verified by experience is subsequently transformed into a theory. In order to form a theory around itself, a hypothesis (or several hypotheses) must not only be adequate and new, but also have a powerful heuristic potential, refer to a wide field of phenomena.

The development of psychological knowledge as a whole follows a similar scenario. Take, for example, the theory of personality (more precisely, the psychotherapeutic concept as one of its parts) by K.R. Rogers, recognized throughout the world, meeting the criteria of heuristics, experimental approbability, and functional significance to a fairly high degree. Before proceeding to the construction of a theory, Rogers received a psychological education, acquired a rich and varied experience of working with people: first he helped difficult children, then he taught at universities and consulted adults, conducted Scientific research. At the same time, he studied the theory of psychology in depth, mastered the methods of psychological, psychiatric and social assistance. As a result of the analysis and generalization of the experience gained, Rogers came to understand the futility of "intellectual approaches", psychoanalytic and behavioral therapy and the realization that "change occurs through experience in relationships." Rogers was also not satisfied with the discrepancy between the Freudian views "scientific, purely objective statistical approach in science."

Rogers puts the “basic hypothesis” at the basis of his own psychotherapeutic concept: “if I can create a certain type of relationship with another person, he will find in himself the ability to use these relationships for his development, which will cause a change and development of his personality.” Apparently, the advancement of this assumption is based not only on the therapeutic and life experience of the author, but also owes its birth to the philosophical ideas of Rogers, an intuitive conviction in his correctness. Particular consequences follow from the main hypothesis, for example, the statement about three “necessary and sufficient conditions” for successful therapy: nonjudgmental acceptance, congruence (sincerity), and empathic understanding. Conclusion of private hypotheses in this case cannot be considered purely logical, formal, on the contrary, it is of a meaningful, creative nature, connected, again, with the generalization and analysis of the experience of relations with people. As for the main hypothesis, it fully complies with the above-mentioned heuristic and fundamental requirements, and therefore may well serve as an “ideological center” for constructing a developed theory. The heuristic nature of the main hypothesis manifested itself, in particular, in the fact that it directed many researchers to study the quality of the relationship between the consultant and the client. Its fundamental nature is associated with the possibility of extrapolation to any (and not just psychotherapeutic) relationships between people, which was done by Rogers himself.

These hypotheses formed the theoretical basis for client-centered therapy, which then became the subject of objective, rigorous, measurement-based, empirical study. Rogers not only formulated a number of verifiable consequences due, first of all, to the operationalization of the basic concepts, but also defined a program and methods for their verification. The implementation of this program has convincingly proved the effectiveness of client-centered therapy.

It follows from Rogers's theory that the success of therapy depends not so much on the knowledge, experience, theoretical position of the consultant, but on the quality of the relationship. This assumption can also be tested if we can operationalize the concept of "relationship quality", which consists of "sincerity", "empathy", "goodwill", "love" for the client. For this purpose, one of Rogers' employees, based on scaling and ranking procedures, developed the "List of Relationships" questionnaire intended for clients. For example, friendliness was measured using sentences of different ranks: from “He likes me”, “He is interested in me” (high and medium levels of goodwill) to “He is indifferent to me”, “He disapproves of me” (zero and negative levels, respectively). benevolence). These statements were rated by the client on a scale from “very true” to “not true at all”. As a result of the survey, a high positive correlation was found between the empathy, sincerity, friendliness of the consultant, on the one hand, and the success of therapy, on the other. A number of other studies have shown that the success of therapy does not depend on the theoretical position of the consultant. In particular, a comparison of psychoanalytic, Adler and client-centered psychotherapy showed that success depends precisely on the quality of the relationship between the participants in the therapeutic process, and not on the basis of what theoretical ideas it unfolds. Thus, private, and, consequently, the main hypothesis of Rogers received experimental confirmation.

On the example of Rogers' concept of interpersonal relations, we see that the development of the theory is cyclical, spiral in nature: therapeutic and life experience→ its generalization and analysis → advancement of universal and particular hypotheses → derivation of verifiable consequences → their verification → refinement of hypotheses → modification based on refined knowledge of therapeutic experience. Such a cycle can be repeated many times, while some hypotheses remain unchanged, others are refined and modified, third ones are discarded, and fourth ones are generated for the first time. In such a "circle" the theory develops, is refined, enriched, assimilating new experience, putting forward counterarguments to criticism from competing concepts.

Most other psychological theories function and develop according to the same scenario, so it would be legitimate to conclude that the “average psychological theory” combines the features of both hypothetical-deductive and inductive theories. Are there "pure" inductive and hypothetical-deductive theories in psychology? In our opinion, it is more correct to speak of the inclination of a particular concept to the pole of induction or deduction. For example, most of the concepts of personality development are predominantly inductive in nature (in particular, Freud's theory of psychosexual stages, E. Erickson's theory of psychosocial development, J. Piaget's theory of the stages of intelligence development) because, firstly, they are based on a generalization of observations and experiments, in secondly, they are predominantly descriptive in nature, they are distinguished by “poverty” and weakness of explanatory principles (for example, Piaget’s theory cannot explain, except by referring to observational data, why there should be exactly four (and not three or five) stages of the formation of intelligence, why there are only children develop faster than others, why the order of the stages is exactly that, etc.). With regard to other theories, it is often impossible to say exactly which type they are closer to, since the advancement of universal hypotheses in most cases equally relies on both the experience and the intuition of the researcher, as a result of which many theories combine the qualities of empirical generalizations and universal conjecture hypotheses. .

But why are there so many theories in psychology, what determines their diversity, because we live in the same world, we have similar life experiences: we are born, master the language and etiquette, go to school, fall in love, get sick and suffer, hope and dream? Why, then, do theorists interpret this experience in different ways, each emphasizing his own, paying attention to some of its aspects and losing sight of others, respectively, and they put forward different hypotheses, and build theories that are completely different in their content from each other? In our opinion, the key to answering these questions lies through the study of the philosophical foundations of psychological theories, to which we now turn.

The experiment is set up in order to test theoretical predictions. Theory is an internally consistent system of knowledge about a part of reality (the subject of the theory). The elements of the theory are logically dependent on each other. Its content is derived according to certain rules from some initial set of judgments and concepts - the basis of the theory.

There are many forms of non-empirical (theoretical) knowledge: laws, classifications and typologies, models, schemes, hypotheses, etc. Theory acts as the highest form of scientific knowledge. Each theory includes the following main components: 1) the original empirical basis (facts, empirical patterns); 2) basis - a set of primary conditional assumptions (axioms, postulates, hypotheses) that describe the idealized object of the theory; 3) the logic of the theory - a set of rules of inference that are valid within the framework of the theory; 4) the set of statements derived in the theory, which constitute the main theoretical knowledge.

The components of theoretical knowledge have different origins. The empirical foundations of the theory are obtained as a result of the interpretation of experimental and observational data. The rules of inference are not definable within the framework of this theory - they are derivatives of metatheory. Postulates and assumptions are the result of rational processing of products of intuition, not reducible to empirical grounds. Rather, postulates serve to explain the empirical foundations of a theory.

The idealized object of the theory is a sign-symbolic model of a part of reality. The laws formed in theory do not actually describe reality, but an idealized object.

According to the method of construction, axiomatic and hypothetical-deductive theories are distinguished. The first are built on a system of axioms, necessary and sufficient, unprovable within the theory; the second - on assumptions that have an empirical, inductive basis. There are theories: qualitative, built without the involvement of the mathematical apparatus; formalized; formal. Qualitative theories in psychology include the concept of motivation by A. Maslow, the theory of cognitive dissonance by L. Festinger, the ecological concept of perception by J. Gibson, etc. Formalized theories, in the structure of which the mathematical apparatus is used, are the theory of cognitive balance by D. Homans, the theory of intelligence J. Piaget, K. Levin's theory of motivation, J. Kelly's theory of personality constructs. A formal theory (there are few of them in psychology) is, for example, the stochastic theory of the D. Rush test (IRT - item selection theory), which is widely used in scaling the results of psychological and pedagogical testing. "The model of a subject with free will" by V. A. Lefebvre (with certain reservations) can be classified as a highly formalized theory.

A distinction is made between the empirical basis and the predictive power of a theory. A theory is created not only to describe the reality that served as the basis for its construction: the value of a theory lies in what phenomena of reality it can predict and to what extent this forecast will be accurate. Ad hoc theories (for this case) are considered the weakest, allowing to understand only those phenomena and patterns for which they were developed.

Followers of critical rationalism believe that experimental results that contradict the predictions of the theory should lead scientists to abandon it. However, in practice, empirical data that do not correspond to theoretical predictions may encourage theorists to improve the theory - to create "outbuildings". A theory, like a ship, needs “survivability”, therefore, for every counterexample, for every experimental refutation, it must respond by changing its structure, bringing it into line with the facts.

As a rule, at a certain time there is not one, but two or more theories that equally successfully explain the experimental results (within the limits of experimental error). For example, in psychophysics, the theory of the threshold and the theory of sensory continuity exist on an equal footing. In personality psychology, several factor models of personality compete and have empirical evidence (G. Eysenck's model, R. Cattell's model, the "Big Five" model, etc.). In the psychology of memory, the unified memory model and the concept based on the isolation of sensory, short-term and long-term memory, etc., have a similar status.

The well-known methodologist P. Feyerabend puts forward the “principle of perseverance”: do not abandon the old theory, ignore even facts that clearly contradict it. His second principle is that of methodological anarchism: “Science is essentially an anarchist enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humane and progressive than its alternatives based on law and order ... This is proved both by an analysis of specific historical events and an abstract analysis of the relationship between an idea and action. The only principle that does not hinder progress is called "anything goes"... For example, we can use hypotheses that contradict well-supported theories or sound experimental results. It is possible to develop science by acting constructively” [Feyerabend P., 1986].

Basic definitions

The following main elements of the theory structure are distinguished:

1) Initial foundations - fundamental concepts, principles, laws, equations, axioms, etc.

2) An idealized object is an abstract model of the essential properties and relationships of the objects under study (for example, "absolutely black body", "ideal gas", etc.).

3) The logic of the theory is a set of certain rules and methods of proof aimed at clarifying the structure and changing knowledge.

4) Philosophical attitudes, socio-cultural and value factors.

5) The totality of laws and statements derived as consequences from the foundations of the theory in accordance with specific principles.

A. Einstein noted that "the theory has two goals:

1. To cover, as far as possible, all phenomena in their interconnection (completeness).

Types of theories

mathematical and empirical,

deductive and inductive,

fundamental and applied,

formal and meaningful

"open" and "closed"

explaining and describing (phenomenological),

physical, chemical, sociological, psychological, etc.

Most mathematical theories rely on set theory as their foundation. But in recent years, more and more often they turn to the relatively recently emerged algebraic category theory, considering it as a new foundation for all of mathematics.

With the development of scientific knowledge, theories of the phenomenological type give way to non-phenomenological ones (they are also called explanatory). Along with observable empirical facts, concepts and quantities, very complex and unobservable, including very abstract concepts, are introduced here.

One of the important criteria by which theories can be classified is the accuracy of predictions. According to this criterion, two large classes of theories can be distinguished. The first of these includes theories in which the prediction has a reliable character (for example, many theories of classical mechanics, classical physics and chemistry). In the theories of the second class, prediction has a probabilistic character, which is determined by the combined action of a large number of random factors. This kind of stochastic (from Greek - guess) theories are found in modern physics, biology and social sciences and humanities due to the specifics and complexity of the very object of their study.

A. Einstein distinguished in physics two main types of theories - constructive and fundamental:

general sociological theory ("general sociology"),

private ("middle rank") sociological theories - special theories (sociology of gender, age, ethnicity, family, city, education, etc.)

branch theories (sociology of work, politics, culture, organization, management, etc.)

Ontologically, all sociological theories are divided into three main varieties:

1) theories of social dynamics (or theories of social evolution, development);

2) theories of social action;

3) theories of social interaction.

A theory (regardless of its type) has the main features:

3. For a theory, it is obligatory to substantiate, to prove the provisions included in it: if there are no substantiations, there is no theory.

4. Theoretical knowledge should strive to explain the widest possible range of phenomena, to the continuous deepening of knowledge about them.

5. The nature of the theory determines the degree of validity of its defining beginning, which reflects the fundamental regularity of the given subject.

The main functions of the theory include the following:

1. Synthetic function - combining individual reliable knowledge into a single, integral system.

3. Methodological function - on the basis of the theory, various methods, methods and techniques of research activity are formulated.

How to choose a good one from many competing theories?

K. Popper introduced the "criterion of relative acceptability". The best theory is the one that:

a) communicates the greatest amount of information, i.e. has deeper content;

b) is logically more strict;

c) has greater explanatory and predictive power;

d) can be more accurately verified by comparing predicted facts with observations.

Law as a key element of the theory

In its most general form, a law can be defined as a connection (relationship) between phenomena, processes, which is:

a) objective, since it is inherent primarily in the real world, the sensual-objective activity of people, expresses the real relations of things;

b) essential, concrete-universal. Being a reflection of the universe that is essential in the movement, any law is inherent in all processes of a given class, of a certain type (kind), without exception, and acts always and everywhere where the corresponding processes and conditions are deployed;

c) necessary, because being closely connected with the essence, the law acts and is carried out with "iron necessity" in appropriate conditions;

d) internal, as it reflects the deepest connections and dependencies of a given subject area in the unity of all its moments and relations within a certain integral system;

e) repetitive, stable, since "the law is strong (remaining) in the phenomenon", "identical in the phenomenon", their "calm reflection" (Hegel). It is an expression of a certain constancy of a certain process, the regularity of its course, the sameness of its action under similar conditions.

The mechanism for discovering new laws was described by R. Feynman:

“First of all, they guess about it. Then they calculate the consequences of this conjecture and find out what this law will entail if it turns out that it is true. Then the results of the calculations are compared with what is observed in nature, with the results of special experiments or with our experience, and according to the results of such observations, it is found out whether this is so or not. If the calculations disagree with the experimental data, then the law is wrong.”

One-sided (and therefore erroneous) interpretations of the law can be expressed as follows:

1. The concept of law is absolutized, simplified, fetishized. Here, the circumstance (noted by Hegel) is overlooked that this concept - undoubtedly important in itself - is only one of the steps in man's cognition of the unity, interdependence and integrity of the world process. The law is only one of the forms of reflection of reality in cognition, one of the facets, moments of the scientific picture of the world in interconnection with others (reason, contradiction, etc.).

2. The objective nature of laws, their material source is ignored. Reality does not have to be consistent with principles and laws, but on the contrary, the latter are true only insofar as they correspond to the objective world.

3. The possibility of people using the system of objective laws as the basis of their activity in its diverse forms, primarily in the sensual-objective, is denied. However, ignoring the requirements of objective laws still sooner or later makes itself felt, "avenges itself" (for example, pre-crisis and crisis phenomena in society).

4. The law is understood as something eternal, unchanging, absolute, independent in its action from the totality of specific circumstances and fatally predetermining the course of events and processes. Meanwhile, the development of science testifies that "there is not a single law about which we could say with confidence that in the past it was true with the same degree of approximation as it is now ... Every law owes its demotion to the reign of a new law thus there can be no interregnum"

5. The qualitative variety of laws, their irreducibility to each other and their interaction, which gives a unique result in each specific case, is ignored.

6. The fact that objective laws cannot be created or canceled is rejected. They can only be discovered in the process of cognition of the real world and, by changing the conditions of their action, change the mechanism of the latter.

7. The laws of lower forms of matter motion are absolutized, attempts are made only by them to explain the processes within the framework of higher forms of matter motion (mechanism, physicalism, reductionism, etc.).

8. The laws of science are interpreted not as a reflection of the laws of the objective world, but as the result of an agreement between the scientific community, which, therefore, has a conventional character.

10. The circumstance is ignored that objective laws in reality, being modified by numerous circumstances, are always implemented in a special form through a system of intermediate links. Finding the latter is the only scientific way to resolve the contradiction between the general law and more developed concrete relations. Otherwise, the "empirical being" of the law in its specific form is presented as a law as such in its "pure form".

The problem of materialization of the theory

In order for the theory to materialize, objectify, certain conditions are necessary:

1. A theory, even the most general and abstract, should not be vague, here one should not be limited to "probing at random."

2. Theory must give perfect shape of the future object (process), the image of the future that will be achieved in the course of the practical implementation of the theory, outline the general contours of this future, outline and justify the main directions and forms of movement towards it, ways and means of its objectification.

3. The most practical is theory in its most mature and developed state. Therefore, it is necessary to always keep it at the highest scientific level, constantly, deeply and comprehensively develop it, generalizing the latest processes and phenomena of life and practice.

4. Theory (even the most profound and meaningful) does not and cannot change anything by itself. It becomes a material force only when it is "embedded" in people's consciousness.

5. The practical implementation of knowledge requires not only those who will implement the theory into practice, but also the necessary means of implementation - both objective and subjective. These are, in particular, forms of organization of social forces, certain social institutions, necessary technical means, etc.

6. The materialization of theory in practice should not be a one-time act (with its extinction as a result), but a process in the course of which, instead of already implemented theoretical provisions, new, more meaningful and developed ones appear, which pose more complex tasks for practice.

7. Without turning an idea into a personal conviction, a person's faith, the practical implementation of theoretical ideas is impossible, especially those that carry the need for progressive social transformations.

8. In order for theory to become not only a way of explaining, but also a method of changing the world, it is necessary to find effective ways to transform scientific knowledge into a program of practical actions. And this requires an appropriate technologization of knowledge.

Hence, there are so many new technologies in all areas of activity, including traditionally humanitarian ones (social technologies, IT, etc.)

It is at the stage of technologization that a transition is made from a scientific description to a normative system that has a targeted, practical purpose. The absence (or insufficient development) of specific applied theories and technologies is one of the main reasons for the separation of theory from practice.

Popular in category: