Fortune telling 

“Negative heuristics” in cultural analysis. Methodology of research programs by I. Lakatos. Criticism of the concepts of K. Popper and T. Kuhn. The concepts of the “core” of a scientific program, positive and negative heuristics Positive heuristics

9. Positive and negative heuristics.

This issue has already been touched upon above; here we will make some additions. In one of its definitions, heuristics is understood as a method, or methodological discipline, the subject of which is solving problems under conditions of uncertainty. The field of heuristics includes imprecise methodological regulations, and its main problem is resolving contradictions that arise in science. Heuristic (creative) methods for solving problems are usually contrasted with formal solution methods based on precise mathematical models.

From the point of view of Lakatos and some other Western methodologists, heuristics are characterized by guesswork, limiting the scope of search through the analysis of goals, means and materials, attempts to integrate thinking and sensory perception, consciousness and the unconscious. “The program is made up of methodological rules: some of them are rules indicating which research paths should be avoided (negative heuristics), the other part are rules indicating which paths should be chosen and how to follow them (positive heuristics)” .

At the same time, Lakatos believes that, firstly, “the positive heuristics of a research program can also be formulated as a “metaphysical (i.e., philosophical - V.K.) principle.” Secondly, “positive heuristics are, generally speaking, more flexible than negative ones.” Third, it is necessary to “separate the ‘hard core’ from the more flexible metaphysical principles that express positive heuristics.” Fourth, “positive heuristics play the first violin in the development of a research program.” Fifth, "positive and negative heuristics together provide a rough (implicit) definition of the 'conceptual framework' (and hence language)" 1 .

Thus, positive heuristics are methodological rules that promote the positive development of research programs. These rules dictate which paths to follow in further research. Positive heuristics include a series of assumptions about how to modify or develop refutable versions of a research program, how to modernize or clarify the “safety belt,” and what new models should be developed to expand the scope of the program.

Negative heuristics are a set of methodological rules that limit the many possible paths of research, allowing one to avoid roundabout or wrong paths towards the truth. She proposes to invent auxiliary hypotheses that form a “safety belt” around the “hard core” of the research program, which must be adapted, modified, or even replaced completely when confronted with counterexamples.

Literature.

1. Lakatos I. Methodology of scientific research programs // Questions of Philosophy. 1995. No. 4.

2. Lakatos I. Falsification and methodology of research programs. M., 1995.

4. Methodology in the field of theory and practice. Novosibirsk, 1988.

5. Mikeshina L. A. Methodology of scientific knowledge in the context of culture. M., 1992.

“Negative heuristics”

The “negative heuristics” of the princely-druzhina subculture, as well as the pagan culture of the Eastern Slavs, consist of: lack of awareness of the human “I” as a specific spiritual reality; “reflectivity” as an activity of self-understanding, self-construction of culture; high authority of the theme of “mind”, the presence of which in spiritual culture is an indicator of its development.

The formation of the princely-retinue subculture did not lead to the development of the individual, spiritual principle in man. It also lacked an idea of ​​the value of the human person as a spiritual, non-natural being. In Kievan Rus of the 9th – 10th centuries, a naturalistic attitude towards man as a physical, material being prevailed. According to V.O. Klyuchevsky: “...A person’s property in Pravda is valued not less, but even more expensive than the person himself, his health, and personal safety. For the law, the product of labor is more important than a living instrument of labor - human labor power. …The law valued the security of capital more highly and ensured it more carefully than a person’s personal freedom. A person’s personality is considered as a simple value and goes in exchange for property.” Vladimir Monomakh said about himself: “And he fell from his horse a lot, broke his head twice, and damaged his arms and legs - in his youth he damaged it, not valuing his life, not sparing his head.”

In contrast to Western European culture, in which chivalry, an in-depth analysis of the inner world of man in Christian religious and fiction literature, etc. contributed to the growth of individualistic processes, in ancient Russian culture in the 9th–10th centuries. in general, there was practically no interest in the subjective world of man, the reflexive attitude itself, which was expressed in the absence of chivalry and lyrical literature, and in particular love lyrics. In the Russian heroic epic, the motive of the struggle for the salvation and liberation of an individual is very weak. Meanwhile, one of the main goals of the knightly movement in Western Europe was the protection of the weak and disadvantaged, the unfortunate and victims of the lust for power and self-interest of the strong. In the knight’s oath, after defending faith and religion, the king and the fatherland, the third point is: “The shield of knights should be the refuge of the weak and oppressed; the courage of knights should always support in everything the just cause of those who turn to them.” One of the main tasks of knights errant was to protect the oppressed and unfortunate, punishing violence and injustice. The epic heroes fight with monsters (the serpent, the Idol, the Nightingale the Robber) with great physical strength, the Tatars, and defeat them thanks to their advantage in physical power, but in this fight the humanism of the heroes is abstract. Their exploits express more their desire to serve the prince and overcome evil forces than the salvation of specific people.

In ancient Russian culture (both in the pagan Slavic and in the princely retinue) the theme of reason, the “high” authority of wisdom, does not sound, while in the most developed world civilizations respect and admiration for wisdom goes back to ancient times. In ancient Russian literature, wisdom, knowledge, and reason do not appear in their pure form, but to a large extent with a touch of witchcraft, magic, and sorcery. The founder of the state of Kievan Rus Oleg is called prophetic. Traditionally, Princess Olga is considered a wise ruler. However, its “wisdom” lies in cunning, deceit, unfaithfulness to one’s word, i.e. in the “virtues” of a barbaric, pagan order, which already Christian-minded writers continue to regard as high virtues.

Like the pagan Slavic, the princely squad is a subculture, the spiritual reality of which was limited to existing existence. If in Western European culture in the X-XI centuries. “reflexive” activity unfolds to self-understand, overcome barbarism, and create a more perfect, sublime spiritual reality, then in ancient Russian culture such processes are practically not visible.

Thus, the mental space of Old Russian culture by the end of the 10th century. was a complex formation consisting of two subspatial configurations, partially overlapping structures and partially broken value-thought systems, agricultural pagan Slavic and princely-retinue subcultures. Unfortunately, the formation of the princely-druzhina subculture as an elitist culture did not lead to a spiritual surge. On the contrary, pagan naturalism received further development and became more sensually rich and diverse. The princely-boyar elite showed not so much a creative-productive ability, but rather a consumer-destructive ability. Changes in the thematic space occurred within the framework of pagan, naturalistic value and mental orientations. The universals that color the entire spiritual space were the themes of “prey”, “nature”, “liberty”, “clan”, “prince” and “physical strength”. Therefore, in the structure of explanation of spiritual processes in ancient Russian culture of the 9th – 10th centuries. in the explanatory part (“explanans”), these topics should be used as laws (otherwise the explanation will be incomplete). The external influence of ancient culture played a significant role in overcoming the barbarism of the Germanic tribes in Western Europe. The relative isolation of the territory of Kievan Rus, the aggressiveness and “naturalistic Russocentrism” of Old Russian culture prevented the expansion of cultural ties with Byzantium and Western Europe, and its inclusion in a single European cultural and creative process.

It is also necessary to pay attention to the fact that the study of the formation and development of ancient Russian culture before the 11th century. does not provide grounds for affirming the existence of Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian cultures as specific value-mental realities. The fundamental, initial, defining criterion for the existence of a certain culture is the presence of a specific value-thematic reality (“spirit” of culture). The language of the people, the ethnic group as an expression of the organic unity of the people are accompanying, but still secondary formations, because in the absence of a specific mental reality, the existence of language as its reflection and ethnic group is impossible. Therefore, it can be argued that the isolation of these cultures is not possible. Consequently, their existence did not take place, however, just like the language and ethnic groups.

Meanwhile, the assertion of the existence of the Old Russian culture, consisting of agricultural pagan Slavic and princely-druzhina subcultures, does not provide grounds for asserting the existence of the Old Russian nationality. Predominantly naturalistic, “tribal” thinking dominated throughout the history of Kievan Rus, in the vast expanses of which many peoples lived. The emergence of the Kievan state did not significantly change their lives. Tribal formations became lands, but fundamentally tribal self-identification remained the same. Even the multi-tribal people of Pereyaslavl land, probably recognized themselves as Pereyaslovtsians or, moreover, representatives of a particular city or locality. The thin layer of princes, boyars, and warriors was a largely closed formation, largely separated from the local population, since centralizing, integrating state activities. This layer was small (in fact, it came down to receiving tribute), then there is no need to talk about the emergence of spiritual unity. One cannot confuse the unity of the level of existence, the analysis of which was carried out, and the unity of self-consciousness, the consciousness of the “We” Consciousness - the dew as the totality of all. There were, of course, no peoples of Kievan Rus. Only sporadically, during campaigns against Byzantium, the dews were united by a single spirit. Therefore, in this sense, there was nothing to disintegrate. There was a strong consciousness of “We” - Kiev residents, Chernigov residents, Novgorod residents, Polotsk residents, Vladimir residents, Galicians, etc. In the absence of writing, one should keep in mind the conventions of using the phrase “Old Russian language”. This phrase denotes the language not of a single people, but of many tribes, which has preserved kinship from the Proto-Slavic unity in the language and way of life.

Moreover, this community in the 9th–10th centuries. goes beyond the borders of the Kyiv state. In a developed multi-ethnic state, a supra-ethnic level of unity arises: in the Roman Empire - the Romans, in Byzantium - the Romans, in the USSR - the Soviet people. At the same time, the ethnic level of consciousness is preserved (it can be traced very clearly among Roman and Byzantine historians). In the amorphous, barbaric state of Kievan Rus, a supra-ethnic level was not formed at all. Therefore, there is no need and it is inappropriate to use the term “Old Russian nationality” in the analysis, which would otherwise be an obvious modernization.

Thus, the arrival of the Varangians in Rus' and the socio-economic differentiation of ancient Russian society led to the formation of a class of warriors, and in mental terms, a princely squad subspace, which did not differ significantly in its value-thematic structure and arose through the transformation of the FTS of pagan East Slavic culture. Two genetically and thematically related mental subspatial configurations were formed, having a common value-thematic center (VTC).

Old Russian culture, consisting of agricultural pagan Slavic and princely-retinue subcultures, on the eve of the adoption of Christianity remained a pagan, barbaric culture, the spiritual space of which was limited by naturalistic values. The “existential” way of functioning of cultures prevented the emergence of a professional culture that forms a “reflective” attitude and, thus, leads beyond the limits of existing existence into the area of ​​“pure spirit”, the construction of multi-layered value-mental realities, etc.

In preparing this work, materials from the site www.studentu.ru were used

Similar works:

  • “Negative heuristics” in cultural analysis

    Report >> Culture and art

    She doesn't have it. " Negative heuristic" performs an important positive... period. The most important circumstance in " negative heuristics" in the pagan culture of the Slavs (in...). The third important feature " negative heuristics" pagan culture of the Eastern Slavs...

  • Methodology of I. Lakatos’ research programs

    Abstract >> Philosophy

    Program. 8. Program effectiveness. 9. Positive and negative heuristic. 10. Literature. Studying the patterns of development... further research (“positive heuristic"), and which paths should be avoided (“ negative heuristic"). The growth of a mature...

  • Within a community or school of thought, there are rules that explicitly or implicitly dictate which avenues of inquiry should be avoided. This was called the researcher of scientific creativity Imre Lakatos negative heuristics. On the contrary, the rules that should be used were called positive heuristics.

    "Negative heuristics according to Imre Lakatos prohibits the process of reviewing research programs from questioning the correctness of this “hard core” when confronted with anomalies and counterexamples. Instead, she proposes inventing auxiliary hypotheses that form a “safety or protective belt” around the core of the research program, which must be adapted, modified, or even replaced entirely when confronted with counterexamples. For its part, positive heuristics includes a number of assumptions about the modification or development of refutable versions of the research program, about modification or clarification of the “protective belt,” about new models that need to be developed to expand the scope of the program.”

    Baksansky O.E., Kucher E.N., Cognitive sciences: from cognition to action, M., “KomKniga”, 2005, p. 17.

    EXAMPLE. “The Chinese are considered a reserved and ceremonious people. In fact, they express emotions vigorously and laugh often. Oddly enough, their sense of humor is close to the American one: the same simple tricks cause laughter. True, the Chinese have areas closed to humor - these are parents and rulers. According to Confucian norms, both are not subject to criticism. The Chinese are willing to laugh at foreigners, which the Japanese never do.”

    Billevich V.V., School of wit or how to learn to joke, M., Williams, 2005, p. 271.

    EXAMPLE. “... persistent searches for new structures - as integral forms for large semantic systems - are characteristic of any ambitious work, and not just science fiction literature. And finally, we must indicate which material transformations are fundamentally impermissible. Over the kingdom of literature stretches, like the sky above the earth, a law that none of the authors has the right to violate: until the end of the work, the same scheme that opened it. This law can, if desired, be called the law of stabilization of the ontology of discovery (or beginning) or the principle of invariance of the rules of the literary game to which the author invites readers. Just as there is no such game of chess, which in the course of the game would turn into checkers or even a game of buttons, so there are no texts that would begin as a fairy tale and end as a realistic short story. Works distinguished by such gradients of variability can appear at best as parodies with a genological addressee, for example, like the story of an orphan who finds a chest of gold coins, but because they are counterfeit, she goes to prison (as already mentioned). was told above), or the story of the Sleeping Princess, awakened by the prince, who turns out to be a secret pimp and takes her to a brothel. (Such anti-fairy tales were written, for example, by Mark Twain.) But it is impossible to seriously engage in such creativity: after all, there cannot be a crime story in which the criminal, instead of the detective, is tracked down by a dragon; There are no epic stories in which the heroes first eat bread and butter and leave the house through the door, and then can walk through the walls to collect manna from heaven for food. What is for all cultures the highest law prohibiting incest, so for all literary genres has become the taboo of “plot incest” - that is, such a transformation of the course of events, which in its scope goes beyond the framework of the initially established ontology (empirical, “spiritualistic”, etc. .). Intuitively, all authors know that this cannot be done, but in practice, “plot perversions” sometimes happen to them. Most often, such a misfortune occurs as a change in the plausibility scheme of events; for example, the hero is rescued from danger from the very beginning by forces that are still empirically plausible, but then increasingly inclined towards magic; the postulate of empiricism is not formally violated, but in fact the author’s vacillations shake it. In the area of ​​verism of collision, the plot begins to “drift” even more easily to the post-empirical shore where the narrative is based on events unknown from experience to either the author or the reader (this is what is typical of science fiction). Then “incest” is difficult to prove, since we lack intuition as a criterion for the plausibility of what is happening. It’s another matter when the author transfers the plot to an environment that the reader knows better than the author himself; for example, the author, as a person who did not experience the German occupation, begins to write about it. And the reader who has encountered it in the past constantly finds unintentional errors or even distortions of real events in the description.”

    Stanislav Lem, Science Fiction and Futurology in 2 books, Book 1, M., “ACT” 2004, p. 148-150.

    Imre Lakatos' research program concept:

    I. Lakatos does not focus on theories as such, but talks about research programs. The research program is the structural and dynamic unit of his model of science.

    A research program is a series of changing theories connected by common fundamental principles.

    …T 1 T 2 T 3 …………..…T N

    Small oval (dots) – " hard core"NIP. These are signs, ideas, hypotheses that are transferred from one theory (indicated by T 1, T 2, etc.) to another in the process of the evolution of theories.

    For example, the hard core of the Newtonian program in mechanics was the idea that reality consists of particles of matter that move in absolute space and time in accordance with three well-known Newtonian laws and interact with each other according to the law of universal gravitation

    Theories do not replace each other - according to Lakatos, they seem to flow from one another in the process of development. If NIP develops progressively, then each subsequent theory describes everything that the previous one described and, in addition, covers an even larger area of ​​​​knowledge. Lakatos believed that the main sign that an NAA is developing progressively is whether it predicts facts before they are discovered. As soon as a fact is discovered that the NPC did not predict, we can say that the NPC begins to “obsolete” and slide into a degenerate stage. In the degenerate stage, the NPC begins to explain facts after having already received them. Come up with some theories to explain, etc. But the point is that facts precede NPCs. This means that the NPC can no longer predict them. Lakatos mentions Marxism as an example of a degenerate NPC. Lakatos says that Marxism has not predicted a single new fact since 1917. And even vice versa - Marxists prophesied the absence of disagreements between socialist countries, revolutions in developed industrial countries, impoverishment of the working class, etc. but none of this happened. And they had to explain the failure of their predictions having already encountered it.

    Solid oval (second) – " protective belt" NPC. This is a set of different hypotheses, experiments that confirm the validity of the provisions of the NPC. The belt is needed in order to prevent the core from attacks from critics. That is, it is the protective belt that takes criticism.

    The belt is formed" negative heuristics"(schematically - a dash-dotted oval, although it may not be depicted). Negative heuristics, however, can be considered as part of a protective belt. It is difficult to say unambiguously what it is. Probably, this is a kind of “desire” of NPC adherents to confirm justice NPC, to strengthen its position, and so on. The result of such aspiration are new facts included in the protective belt of the core.

    Around it all is " positive heuristics"(schematically in the form of a hyperbole). This is also something ephemeral. It represents a strategy for selecting priority problems and tasks that scientists must solve. The presence of positive heuristics allows you to ignore criticism and anomalies for a certain time and engage in constructive research. Moreover, while there is a positive heuristics, you can avoid criticism for some time, declaring that there are higher goals, that “we’ll get to these minor difficulties later.”

    The growth of scientific knowledge occurs as follows: first, the protective layer of the solid core is destroyed, and then the turn of the hard core itself comes. Only when the hard core of the program has been destroyed will it be necessary to move from the old research program to the new.

    True, the core takes a very long time to collapse. For example, the solid core of Newton's research program is the three laws of mechanics and the law of gravity. On this basis, many theories related to astronomy, the study of light, strength of materials, and technology were developed. They all had their own characteristics, contradictions, and shortcomings, some of which could not be eliminated, and if so, the protective layer began to crack. It took years and decades before the solid core was destroyed. In addition, the Newtonian scientific program is alive and is still being studied and used.

    The survivability of the core explains the fact that there are always alternate NPCs. And each scientist has the right to decide for himself which NIP he should adhere to.

    Lakatos says that NPCs should not be destroyed by competing NPCs. Competitors must complement and improve, so to speak, each other. For example, Darwin could not explain the so-called “Jenkins nightmare,” and yet his theory successfully developed. It is known that Darwin's theory is based on three factors: variability, heredity and selection. Any organism has variability that occurs in an undirected manner. Because of this, variability only in a small number of cases can be favorable for the adaptation of a given organism to the environment. Some variability is not inherited, some is inherited. Heritable variability has evolutionary significance. According to Darwin, those organisms that inherit such changes, which give them a greater opportunity to adapt to the environment, have a greater opportunity for the future. Such organisms survive better and become the basis for a new step in evolution.

    For Darwin, the laws of inheritance—how variation is inherited—were crucial. In his concept of inheritance, he proceeded from the idea that heredity occurs in a continuous manner.

    Let's imagine that a white man came to the African continent. The characteristics of whiteness, including “whiteness,” will, according to Darwin, be transmitted in the following way. If he marries a black woman, then their children will have half “white” blood. Since there is only one white on the continent, his children will marry blacks. But in this case, the share of “whiteness” will decrease asymptotically and eventually disappear. It cannot have any evolutionary significance.

    This kind of consideration was expressed by Jenkins. He drew attention to the fact that positive qualities that contribute to the body’s adaptation to the environment are extremely rare. And therefore, an organism that will have these qualities will certainly encounter an organism that will not have these qualities, and in subsequent generations the positive trait will dissipate. Therefore, it cannot have evolutionary significance.

    Darwin could not cope with this task. It is no coincidence that this reasoning was called “Jenkins’ nightmare.” Darwin's theory had other difficulties. And although Darwin’s teachings were treated differently at different stages, Darwinism never died, it always had followers. As is known, the modern evolutionary concept - the synthetic theory of evolution - is based on the ideas of Darwin, combined, however, with the Mendelian concept of discrete carriers of heredity, which eliminates the “Jenkins nightmare”.

    Thus, the concept of I. Lakatos can be characterized using the following basic concepts and provisions: - research program.

    - the “hard core” of the research program; - “protective belt” of hypotheses; - positive and negative heuristics.

    The NPC is progressive as long as it predicts facts (this, in fact, is its main value).

    The core NPC often does not die completely, but undergoes changes under pressure from competing NPCs.

    Each scientist can choose which NPC to follow. Of course, it may seem that the chosen NPC is unpopular, no one supports her, but this no longer matters.

    Program effectiveness

    Regarding this parameter of the latter, Lakatos notes that, firstly, a scientist should not abandon a research program if it is not working effectively: such refusal is not a universal rule.

    Secondly, he suggests that “the methodology of research programs could help us formulate laws that would stand in the way of the origins of the intellectual turbidity that threatens to flood our cultural environment even before industrial waste and automobile fumes spoil the physical environment of our habitat."

    Third, Lakatos believes that understanding science as a battleground of research programs rather than individual theories suggests a new criterion of demarcation between "mature science" consisting of research programs and "immature science" consisting of "the well-worn pattern of trial and error." mistakes."

    Fourth, “we can evaluate research programs even after they have been eliminated by their heuristic power: how much new evidence they produce, how much power they have to explain refutations as they grow.”

    Positive and negative heuristics

    This issue has already been touched upon above; here we will make some additions. In one of its definitions, heuristics is understood as a method, or methodological discipline, the subject of which is solving problems under conditions of uncertainty. The field of heuristics includes imprecise methodological regulations, and its main problem is resolving contradictions that arise in science. Heuristic (creative) methods for solving problems are usually contrasted with formal solution methods based on precise mathematical models.

    From the point of view of Lakatos and some other Western methodologists, heuristics are characterized by guesswork, limiting the scope of search through the analysis of goals, means and materials, attempts to integrate thinking and sensory perception, consciousness and the unconscious. “The program is made up of methodological rules: some of them are rules indicating which research paths should be avoided (negative heuristics), the other part are rules indicating which paths should be chosen and how to follow them (positive heuristics)” .

    At the same time, Lakatos believes that, firstly, “the positive heuristics of a research program can also be formulated as a “metaphysical (i.e., philosophical - V.K.) principle.” Secondly, “positive heuristics are, generally speaking, more flexible than negative ones.” Third, it is necessary to “separate the ‘hard core’ from the more flexible metaphysical principles that express positive heuristics.” Fourth, “positive heuristics play the first violin in the development of a research program.” Fifth, “positive and negative heuristics together provide a rough (implicit) definition of the “conceptual framework” (and hence language).”

    Thus, positive heuristics are methodological rules that promote the positive development of research programs. These rules dictate which paths to follow in further research. Positive heuristics include a series of assumptions about how to modify or develop refutable versions of a research program, how to modernize or clarify the “safety belt,” and what new models should be developed to expand the scope of the program.

    Negative heuristics are a set of methodological rules that limit the many possible paths of research, allowing one to avoid roundabout or wrong paths towards the truth. She proposes inventing auxiliary hypotheses that form a “safety belt” around the “hard core” of a research program, which must be adapted, modified, or even replaced entirely when confronted with counterexamples.