3. Means and methods of cognition Different sciences, quite understandably, have their own specific methods and means of research. Philosophy, without discarding such specificity, nevertheless concentrates its efforts on the analysis of those methods of cognition that are common

§ 5. INDUCTION AND DEDUCTION AS METHODS OF COGNITION The question of using induction and deduction as methods of knowledge has been discussed throughout the history of philosophy. Induction was most often understood as the movement of knowledge from facts to statements of a general nature, and by

Chapter II. Forms of development of scientific knowledge The formation and development of theory is a complex and lengthy dialectical process that has its own content and its own specific forms. The content of this process is the transition from ignorance to knowledge, from incomplete and inaccurate

There are two levels in the structure of scientific knowledge: empirical and theoretical. These two levels should be distinguished from the two stages of the cognitive process as a whole - sensory and rational. Sensory knowledge is close, but not identical to empirical, rational knowledge differs from theoretical.

Sensual and rational are forms of human knowledge in general, both scientific and everyday; empirical and theoretical knowledge is characteristic of science. Empirical knowledge is not reduced to the sensory; it includes moments of comprehension, understanding, interpretation of observation data and the formation of a special type of knowledge - a scientific fact. The latter represents the interaction of sensory and rational knowledge.

Theoretical knowledge is dominated by forms of rational knowledge (concepts, judgments, inferences), but visual model representations such as an ideal ball and an absolutely rigid body are also used. Theory always contains sensory-visual components. Thus, both feelings and reason function at both levels of cognition.

The difference between the empirical and theoretical levels of scientific knowledge occurs on the following grounds (Table 2):

The level of reflection of reality,

Character subject of research,

Applicable study methods,

Forms of knowledge,

Language means.

table 2

Difference between empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge

Empirical and theoretical research is aimed at understanding the same objective reality, but its vision and reflection in knowledge occurs in different ways. Empirical research is fundamentally focused on the study of external connections and aspects of objects, phenomena and dependencies between them. As a result of this study, empirical dependencies are clarified. They are the result of an inductive generalization of experience and represent probabilistic true knowledge. This is, for example, the Boyle-Mariotte law, which describes the correlation between pressure and volume of gas: РV=const, where Р is the gas pressure, V is its volume. Initially, it was discovered by R. Boyle as an inductive generalization of experimental data, when the experiment discovered a relationship between the volume of gas compressed under pressure and the magnitude of this pressure.

At the theoretical level of cognition, the internal, essential connections of an object are identified, which are fixed in laws. No matter how many experiments we carry out and generalize their data, simple inductive generalization does not lead to theoretical knowledge. Theory is not built by inductive generalization of facts. Einstein considered this conclusion to be one of the important epistemological lessons in the development of physics in the 20th century. A theoretical law is always reliable knowledge.

Empirical research is based on direct practical interaction between the researcher and the object being studied. And in this interaction the nature of objects, their properties and features are learned. The truth of empirical knowledge is verified by direct appeal to experience, to practice. At the same time, objects of empirical knowledge should be distinguished from objects of reality, which have an infinite number of characteristics. Empirical objects are abstractions that have a fixed and limited set of characteristics.

Theoretical research lacks direct practical interaction with objects. They are studied only indirectly, in a thought experiment, but not in a real one. The theoretical ideal objects studied here are called idealized objects, abstract objects or constructs. Their examples include a material point, an ideal product, an absolutely solid body, an ideal gas, etc. For example, a material point is defined as a body without size, but concentrating in itself the entire mass of the body. There are no such bodies in nature; they are constructed by thinking to identify the essential aspects of the object being studied. Verification of theoretical knowledge by appealing to experience is impossible, and therefore it is associated with practice through empirical interpretation.

The levels of scientific knowledge also differ in function: at the empirical level there is a description of reality, at the theoretical level there is explanation and prediction.

The empirical and theoretical levels differ in the methods and forms of knowledge used. The study of empirical objects is carried out through observation, comparison, measurement and experiment. The means of empirical research are instruments, installations and other means of real observation and experiment.

At the theoretical level, there are no means of material, practical interaction with the object being studied. Special methods are used here: idealization, formalization, thought experiment, axiomatic, ascent from the abstract to the concrete.

The results of empirical research are expressed in natural language with the addition of special concepts in the form of scientific facts. They record objective, reliable information about the objects being studied.

The results of theoretical research are expressed in the form of law and theory. For this purpose, special language systems are created in which the concepts of science are formalized and mathematized.

The specificity of theoretical knowledge is its reflexivity, focus on oneself, the study of the process of knowledge itself, its methods, forms, and conceptual apparatus. In empirical knowledge, this kind of research, as a rule, is not carried out.

In real knowledge of reality, empirical and theoretical knowledge always interact as two opposites. The data of experience, arising independently of the theory, are sooner or later covered by the theory and become knowledge, conclusions from it.

On the other side, scientific theories, arising on their own special theoretical basis, are built relatively independently, without a strict and unambiguous dependence on empirical knowledge, but are subordinate to them, ultimately representing a generalization of experimental data.

Violation of the unity of empirical and theoretical knowledge, the absolutization of any of these levels leads to erroneous one-sided conclusions - empiricism or scholastic theorizing. Examples of the latter are the concept of building communism in the USSR in 1980, the theory of developed socialism, and the antigenetic doctrine of Lysenko. Empiricism absolutizes the role of facts and underestimates the role of thinking, denies its active role and relative independence. The only source of knowledge is experience, sensory knowledge.

Methods of scientific knowledge

Let us consider the essence of general scientific methods of cognition. These methods arise in the bosom of one science and are then used in a number of others. Such methods include mathematical methods, experiment, modeling. General scientific methods are divided into those applied at the empirical level of knowledge and at the theoretical level. Methods of empirical research include observation, comparison, measurement, and experiment.

Observation- systematic, purposeful perception of the phenomena of reality, during which we gain knowledge about external aspects, properties and their relationships. Observation is an active cognitive process, based primarily on the work of human senses and his objective material activity. This, of course, does not mean that human thinking is excluded from this process. The observer consciously searches for objects, guided by a certain idea, hypothesis or previous experience. Observation results always require a certain interpretation in the light of existing theoretical principles. Interpretation of observational data allows a scientist to separate essential facts from unimportant ones, to notice what a non-specialist might ignore. Therefore, nowadays in science it is rare for discoveries to be made by non-specialists.

Einstein, in a conversation with Heisenberg, noted that whether a given phenomenon can be observed or not depends on the theory. It is the theory that must establish what can be observed and what cannot.

The progress of observation as a method of scientific knowledge is inseparable from the progress of observation tools (for example, telescope, microscope, spectroscope, radar). Devices not only enhance the power of the senses, but also give us, as it were, additional organs of perception. Thus, devices allow you to “see” the electric field.

In order for surveillance to be effective, it must satisfy the following requirements:

Intentionality or purposefulness

Planfulness,

Activity,

Systematicity.

Observation can be direct, when an object affects the researcher’s senses, and indirect, when the subject uses technical means and devices. In the latter case, scientists make conclusions about the objects under study through the perception of the results of the interaction of unobservable objects with observed objects. Such a conclusion is based on a certain theory that establishes a certain relationship between observable and unobservable objects.

Necessary party observation is description. It represents the recording of observation results using concepts, signs, diagrams, and graphs. Basic requirements for scientific description, are aimed at making it as complete, accurate and objective as possible. The description must give a reliable and adequate picture of the object itself and accurately reflect the phenomenon being studied. It is important that the concepts used for the description have a clear and unambiguous meaning. Description is divided into two types: qualitative and quantitative. A qualitative description involves fixing the properties of the object being studied; it provides the most general knowledge about it. Quantitative description involves the use of mathematics and a numerical description of the properties, aspects and connections of the object being studied.

In scientific research, observation performs two main functions: providing empirical information about an object and testing hypotheses and theories of science. Often, observation can also play an important heuristic role, contributing to the development of new ideas.

Comparison- this is the establishment of similarities and differences between objects and phenomena of reality. As a result of comparison, what is common to several objects is established, and this leads to knowledge of the law. Only those objects between which there can be an objective commonality should be compared. In addition, comparisons should be made based on the most important, essential features. Comparison is the basis of inferences by analogy, which play a big role: the properties of phenomena known to us can be extended to unknown phenomena that have something in common.

Comparison is not only an elementary operation used in a certain field of knowledge. In some sciences comparison has grown to the level of a fundamental method. For example, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology. This indicates the ever-increasing role of comparison in the process of scientific knowledge.

Measurement Historically, as a method, it developed from the comparison operation, but unlike it, it is a more powerful and universal cognitive tool.

Measurement is a procedure for determining the numerical value of a certain quantity by comparison with a value taken as a unit of measurement. In order to measure, it is necessary to have an object of measurement, a unit of measurement, a measuring device, a specific measurement method, and an observer.

Measurements can be direct or indirect. In direct measurement, the result is obtained directly from the process itself. With indirect measurement, the desired quantity is determined mathematically on the basis of knowledge of other quantities obtained by direct measurement. For example, determining the mass of stars, measurements in the microcosm. Measurement allows us to find and formulate empirical laws and, in some cases, serves as a source for the formulation of scientific theories. In particular, measurements of the atomic weights of elements was one of the prerequisites for the creation periodic table DI. Mendeleev, which is a theory of the properties of chemical elements. Michelson's famous measurements of the speed of light subsequently led to a radical overthrow of established concepts in physics.

The most important indicator of the quality of a measurement and its scientific value is accuracy. The latter depends on the quality and diligence of the scientist, on the methods he uses, but mainly on the available measuring instruments. Therefore, the main ways to increase measurement accuracy are:

Improving the quality of measuring instruments operating
based on certain established principles,

Creation of devices operating on the basis of new principles.
Measurement is one of the most important prerequisites for the use of mathematical methods in science.

Most often, measurement is an elementary method that is included as an integral part of the experiment.

Experiment– the most important and complex method of empirical knowledge. An experiment is understood as a method of studying an object when a researcher actively influences it by creating artificial conditions necessary to identify the corresponding properties of a given object.

The experiment involves the use of observation, comparison and measurement as more elementary research methods. The main feature of the experiment is the intervention of the experimenter during natural processes, which determines the active nature of this method of cognition.

What advantages arise from specific features experiment versus observation?

During the experiment, it becomes possible to study this
phenomena in their “pure form”, i.e. various side factors are excluded,
obscuring the essence of the main process.

The experiment allows you to study the properties of objects of reality under extreme conditions (at ultra-low or ultra-high
temperatures, at highest pressure). This can lead to unexpected effects, resulting in new properties of objects being discovered. This method was used, for example, to discover the properties of superfluidity and
superconductivity.

The most important advantage of the experiment is its repeatability, and its conditions can be systematically changed.

Classification of experiments is carried out on various grounds.

Depending on the goals, several types of experiments can be distinguished:

- research- carried out in order to detect that the object has no
previously known properties (a classic example is Rutherford’s experiments on

scattering of a-particles, as a result of which the planetary
atomic structure);

- test– carried out to test certain scientific statements (an example of a verification experiment would be testing the hypothesis about the existence of the planet Neptune);

- measuring– carried out to obtain accurate values ​​of certain properties of objects (for example, experimental melting of metals, alloys; experiments to study the strength of structures).

According to the nature of the object being studied, physical, chemical, biological, psychological, and social experiments are distinguished.

According to the method and results of the study, experiments can be divided into qualitative and quantitative. The first of them are more likely to be of a research, exploratory nature, the second provide an accurate measurement of all significant factors influencing the course of the process being studied.

An experiment of any kind can be carried out either directly with the object of interest or with its substitute - a model. Accordingly, experiments happen natural and model. Model ones are used in cases where experiment is impossible or impractical.

The experiment was most widely used in natural science. Modern science began with the experiments of G. Galileo. However, at present it is receiving increasing development in the study of social processes. Such a spread of the experiment throughout larger number branches of scientific knowledge speaks of the growing importance of this research method. With its help, problems of obtaining the values ​​of the properties of certain objects are solved, hypotheses and theories are experimentally tested, and the heuristic significance of the experiment in finding new aspects of the phenomena being studied is also great. The effectiveness of the experiment also increases due to the progress of experimental technology. Another peculiarity is noted: the more experimentation is used in science, the faster it develops. It is no coincidence that textbooks on experimental sciences age much faster than textbooks on descriptive sciences.

Science is not limited to the empirical level of research, it goes further, revealing essential connections and relationships in the object under study, which, taking shape in the law known by man, acquire a certain theoretical form.

At the theoretical level of cognition, other means and methods of cognition are used. Methods of theoretical research include: idealization, formalization, the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, axiomatic, thought experiment.

Method of ascent from abstract to concrete. The concept “abstract” is used mainly to characterize human knowledge. Abstract is understood as one-sided, incomplete knowledge, when only those properties that interest the researcher are highlighted.

The concept of “concrete” in philosophy can be used in two senses: a) “concrete” – reality itself, taken in all its diversity of properties, connections and relationships; b) “specific” – designation of multifaceted, comprehensive knowledge about an object. The concrete in this sense acts as the opposite of abstract knowledge, i.e. knowledge, poor in content, one-sided.

What is the essence of the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete? The ascent from the abstract to the concrete is a universal form of the movement of knowledge. According to this method, the process of cognition is divided into two relatively independent stages. At the first stage, a transition is made from the sensory-concrete to its abstract definitions. During this operation, the object itself seems to “evaporate”, turning into a set of abstractions and one-sided definitions fixed by thinking.

The second stage of the process of cognition is actually the ascent from the abstract to the concrete. Its essence is that thought moves from abstract definitions of an object to comprehensive, multifaceted knowledge about the object, to the concrete in knowledge. It should be noted that these are two sides of the same process, which have only relative independence.

Idealization– mental construction of objects that do not exist in reality. Such ideal objects include, for example, an absolutely black body, a material point, and a point electric charge. The process of constructing an ideal object necessarily presupposes the abstracting activity of consciousness. So, speaking about an absolutely black body, we abstract from the fact that all real bodies have the ability to reflect the light falling on them. To form ideal objects great importance have other mental operations. This is due to the fact that when creating ideal objects we must achieve the following goals:

Deprive real objects of some of their inherent properties;
- mentally endow these objects with certain unreal properties. This requires a mental transition to the limiting case in the development of any property and the discarding of some real properties of objects.

Ideal objects play a big role in science; they make it possible to significantly simplify complex systems, which makes it possible to apply mathematical research methods to them. Moreover, science knows many examples when the study of ideal objects led to outstanding discoveries(Galileo's discovery of the principle of inertia). Any idealization is legitimate only within certain limits; it serves to scientifically solve only certain problems. Otherwise, the use of idealization may lead to some misconceptions. Only with this in mind can one correctly assess the role of idealization in cognition.

Formalization– a method of studying a wide variety of objects by displaying their content and structure in a symbolic form and studying the logical structure of the theory. The advantage of formalization is the following:

Ensuring a complete overview of a certain area of ​​problems, a generalized approach to solving them. A general algorithm for solving problems is created, for example, calculating the areas of various figures using integral calculus;

The use of special symbols, the introduction of which ensures brevity and clarity of knowledge recording;

Attributing specific meanings to individual symbols or their systems, which avoids the polysemy of terms that is characteristic of natural languages. Therefore, when operating with formalized systems, reasoning is distinguished by clarity and rigor, and conclusions are demonstrative;

The ability to form iconic models of objects and replace the study of real things and processes with the study of these models. This achieves simplification of cognitive tasks. Artificial languages ​​have relatively greater independence, independence of the sign form in relation to the content, therefore, in the process of formalization, it is possible to temporarily distract from the content of the model and explore only the formal side. Such a distraction from the content can lead to paradoxical, but truly brilliant discoveries. For example, with the help of formalization, the existence of the positron was predicted by P. Dirac.

Axiomatization has found wide application in mathematics and mathematized sciences.

The axiomatic method of constructing theories is understood as such their organization when a number of statements are introduced without proof, and all the rest are deduced from them according to certain logical rules. Statements accepted without proof are called axioms or postulates. This method was first used to construct elementary geometry by Euclid, then it was used in various sciences.

A number of requirements are imposed on an axiomatically constructed knowledge system. According to the requirement of consistency in a system of axioms, no proposition and its negation should be deducible at the same time. According to the requirement of completeness, any proposition that can be formulated in a given system of axioms can be proved or disproved in it. According to the requirement of independence of axioms, any of them should not be deduced from other axioms.

What are the advantages of the axiomatic method? First of all, the axiomatization of science requires precise definition concepts used and adherence to the rigor of conclusions. In empirical knowledge, both have not been achieved, due to which the application of the axiomatic method requires the progress of this field of knowledge in this regard. In addition, axiomatization organizes knowledge, excludes unnecessary elements from it, and eliminates ambiguities and contradictions. In other words, axiomatization rationalizes the organization of scientific knowledge.

Currently, attempts are being made to apply this method in non-mathematical sciences: biology, linguistics, geology.

Thought experiment is carried out not with material objects, but with ideal copies. A thought experiment acts as an ideal form of a real experiment and can lead to important discoveries. It was a thought experiment that allowed Galileo to discover the physical principle of inertia, which formed the basis of all classical mechanics. This principle could not be discovered in any experiment with real objects, in real-life environments.

Methods used at both the empirical and theoretical levels of research include generalization, abstraction, analogy, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, modeling, historical and logical methods, and mathematical methods.

Abstraction wears in mental activity most universal character. The essence of this method consists in mental abstraction from unimportant properties, connections and the simultaneous identification of one or more aspects of the subject being studied that are of interest to the researcher. The process of abstraction has a two-stage character: separation of the essential, identification of the most important; the realization of the possibility of abstraction, i.e. the actual act of abstraction or distraction.

The result of abstraction is the formation of various kinds of abstractions - both individual concepts and their systems. It should be noted that this method includes integral part to all other methods that are more complex in structure.

When we abstract some property or relationship of a number of objects, we thereby create the basis for their unification into a single class. In relation to the individual characteristics of each of the objects included in a given class, the characteristic that unites them acts as a common one.

Generalization– a method, a method of cognition, as a result of which the general properties and characteristics of objects are established. The generalization operation is carried out as a transition from a particular or less general concept and judgment to a more general concept or judgment. For example, concepts such as “pine”, “larch”, “spruce” are primary generalizations from which one can move on to the more general concept “ conifer tree" Then you can move on to concepts such as “tree”, “plant”, “living organism”.

Analysis– a method of cognition, the content of which is a set of techniques for dividing an object into its component parts for the purpose of their comprehensive study.

Synthesis– a method of cognition, the content of which is a set of techniques for combining individual parts of an object into a single whole.

These methods complement, condition and accompany each other. In order for the analysis of a thing to become possible, it must be recorded as a whole, which requires its synthetic perception. And vice versa, the latter presupposes its subsequent dismemberment.

Analysis and synthesis are the most elementary methods of cognition, which lie at the very foundation human thinking. At the same time, they are also the most universal techniques, characteristic of all its levels and forms.

The possibility of analyzing an object is, in principle, limitless, which logically follows from the position of the inexhaustibility of matter. However, the choice of elementary components of the object is always carried out, determined by the purpose of the study.

Analysis and synthesis are closely interconnected with other methods of cognition: experiment, modeling, induction, deduction.

Induction and deduction. The separation of these methods is based on the identification of two types of inferences: deductive and inductive. In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is made about a certain element of a set based on knowledge of the general properties of the entire set.

All fish breathe through gills.

Perch - fish

__________________________

Consequently, perch breathe through gills.

One of the premises of deduction is necessarily a general proposition. Here there is a movement of thought from the general to the specific. This movement of thought is very often used in scientific research. Thus, Maxwell, from several equations expressing the most general laws of electrodynamics, consistently developed a complete theory of the electromagnetic field.

The especially great cognitive significance of deduction is manifested in the case when a new scientific hypothesis acts as a general premise. In this case, deduction is the starting point for the emergence of a new theoretical system. The knowledge created in this way determines the further course of empirical research and guides the construction of new inductive generalizations.

Consequently, the content of deduction as a method of cognition is the use of general scientific provisions when studying specific phenomena.

Induction is an inference from the particular to the general, when, based on knowledge about part of the objects of the class, a conclusion is made about the class as a whole. Induction as a method of cognition is a set of cognitive operations, as a result of which the movement of thought is carried out from less general provisions to more general ones. Thus, induction and deduction are directly opposite directions of the train of thought. The immediate basis of inductive inference is the repeatability of the phenomena of reality. Finding similar features in many objects of a certain class, we conclude that these features are inherent in all objects of this class.

Highlight the following types induction:

-full induction, in which a general conclusion about a class of objects is made based on the study of all objects in the class. Complete induction gives
reliable conclusions and can be used as evidence;

-incomplete induction in which the general conclusion is obtained from the premises,
not covering all subjects of the class. There are three types of incomplete
induction:

Induction through simple enumeration or popular induction, in which a general conclusion about a class of objects is made on the basis that among the observed facts there is not a single one that contradicts the generalization;

Induction through the selection of facts is carried out by selecting them from the general mass according to a certain principle, reducing the likelihood of random coincidences;

Scientific induction, in which a general conclusion about all objects of the class
done on the basis of knowledge of the necessary signs or causal
connections of some class objects. Scientific induction can provide not only
probable, but also reliable conclusions.

Causal relationships can be established using scientific induction methods. The following canons of induction are distinguished (Bacon-Mill's rules of inductive research):

Single similarity method: if two or more cases of the phenomenon being studied have only one circumstance in common, and all others
circumstances are different, then this is the only similar circumstance and
there is a reason for this phenomenon;

Single difference method: if cases in which the phenomenon
occurs or does not occur, differ only in one preceding circumstance, and all other circumstances are identical, then this circumstance is the cause of this phenomenon;

The combined method of similarity and difference, which is
a combination of the first two methods;

Method of accompanying changes: if a change in one circumstance always causes a change in another, then the first circumstance
there is a reason for the second;

Residual method: if it is known that the cause of the phenomenon under study
the circumstances necessary for it do not serve, except for one, then this one circumstance is the cause of this phenomenon.

The attractiveness of induction lies in its close connection with facts and practice. It plays a big role in scientific research - in putting forward hypotheses, in discovering empirical laws, in the process of introducing new concepts into science. Noting the role of induction in science, Louis de Broglie wrote: “Induction, insofar as it seeks to avoid already beaten paths, inasmuch as it inexorably attempts to push back the already existing boundaries of thought, is the true source of truly scientific progress” 1 .

But induction cannot lead to universal judgments in which patterns are expressed. Inductive generalizations cannot make the transition from empirical to theory. Therefore, it would be wrong to absolutize the role of induction, as Bacon did, to the detriment of deduction. F. Engels wrote that deduction and induction are related to each other in the same necessary way as analysis and synthesis. Only in mutual connection can each of them fully demonstrate their merits. Deduction is the main method in mathematics; in theoretically developed sciences, inductive conclusions predominate in empirical sciences.

Historical and logical methods are closely interconnected. They are used in the study of complex developing objects. The essence of the historical method is that the history of the development of the object under study is reproduced in all its versatility, taking into account all laws and accidents. It is used primarily for the study of human history, but it also plays an important role in understanding the development of inanimate and living nature.

The history of an object is reconstructed logically based on the study of certain traces of the past, the remnants of past eras, imprinted in material formations (natural or man-made). Historical research is characterized by a chronological following.

________________

1 Broglie L. Along the paths of science. M., p. 178.

thoroughness of consideration of the material, analysis of the stages of development of research objects. Using the historical method, the entire evolution of an object is traced from its origin to its current state, the genetic relationships of the developing object are studied, the driving forces and conditions for the development of the object are clarified.

The content of the historical method is revealed by the structure of the study: 1) the study of “traces of the past” as the results of historical processes; 2) comparing them with the results of modern processes; 3) reconstruction of past events in their spatio-temporal relationships based on the interpretation of “traces of the past” with the help of knowledge about modern processes; 4) identifying the main stages of development and the reasons for the transition from one stage of development to another.

The logical method of research is the reproduction in thinking of a developing object in the form of a historical theory. In logical research, one abstracts from all historical accidents, reproducing history in general view, freed from everything unimportant. The principle of unity of the historical and logical requires that the logic of thought follow the historical process. This does not mean that thought is passive; on the contrary, its activity consists in isolating from history what is essential, the very essence of the historical process. We can say that the historical and logical methods of cognition are not only different, but also largely coincide. It is no coincidence that F. Engels noted that the logical method is, in essence, the same historical method, but freed from historical form. They complement each other.

It is a complex integral structure of interconnected facts, ideas and views. Its most fundamental difference from ordinary knowledge is the desire for objectivity, critical understanding of ideas, a clearly developed methodology both in acquiring knowledge and in testing it.

Falsifiability criterion

For example, one of the most important elements of the scientific approach is the so-called Karl Popper criterion (named after the author). It lies in the possibility or impossibility of experimental verification of a theory. For example, in the predictions of Nostradamus one can find scenes from the lives of entire nations. However, it is not possible to verify whether they are real predictions or simple coincidences that modern journalists look for only after the events have happened. The same problem arises from many vague views of humanitarian concepts. At the same time, if we assume that the firmament is the firmament, then despite the absurdity of this statement in our days, it can be considered a scientific theory (albeit instantly refuted).

Levels of scientific knowledge

At the same time, any scientific activity presupposes not only criteria for testing views, but also a methodology for finding new facts and theories. Experts usually divide the levels of scientific knowledge in philosophy into empirical and theoretical. And each of them has its own techniques and methodology, which we will discuss below.

Levels of scientific knowledge: empirical

Here knowledge is represented by sensory forms. It unites the entire set of paths that open to a person thanks to his senses: contemplation, touch, sensations of sounds and smells. It should be noted that
empirical knowledge can occur not only through human sensations, but also with the help of special instruments that provide the necessary, often more accurate facts: from a thermometer to a microscope, from measuring containers to quantum particle accelerators.

Levels of scientific knowledge: theoretical

The ultimate goal of accumulating empirical knowledge is its systematization, the derivation of patterns. Theoretical knowledge is a logical abstraction, which is obtained through the derivation of scientific hypotheses and theories based on available data, the creation of more global constructs, a number of elements of which are often not yet known to empirical observation.

Methods and levels of scientific knowledge

At the empirical level, the following methods are distinguished::

• comparison;
• experiment;
• observation.

At the theoretical level we are dealing with such mental constructs as:

• idealization;
• abstraction;
• analogy;
• mental modulation;
• system method.

Conclusion

Thus, the empirical and theoretical levels of scientific knowledge constitute a unified system of procedures, processes and methods for acquiring knowledge about the world around us, the laws of nature, the life of human society and its individual spheres (for example,

1.2.Methods of theoretical research

Idealization. Idealization is the process of creating mental objects that do not exist in reality, through mental abstraction from some properties of real objects and the relationships between them, or by endowing objects and situations with those properties that they do not possess for the purpose of a deeper and more accurate knowledge of reality. Objects of this kind serve as the most important means of understanding real objects and the relationships between them. They're called idealized objects. These include objects such as, for example, a material point, an ideal gas, an absolutely black body, geometry objects, etc.

Idealization is sometimes confused with abstraction, but this is wrong, because although idealization is essentially based on the process of abstraction, it is not reduced to it. In logic, abstract objects, as opposed to concrete ones, include only those objects that do not interact in space and time. Ideal objects cannot be considered really existing; they are quasi-objects. Any scientific theory studies either a certain fragment of reality, a certain subject area, or a certain side, one of the aspects of real things and processes. At the same time, theory is forced to abstract itself from those aspects of the subjects it studies that do not interest it. In addition, theory is often forced to abstract from some differences in the objects it studies in certain respects. This process of mental abstraction from certain aspects, properties of the objects being studied, from certain relationships between them is called abstraction.

Abstraction. The creation of an idealized object necessarily includes abstraction - abstraction from a number of aspects and properties of the specific objects being studied. But if we limit ourselves to only this, then we will not yet receive any integral object, but will simply destroy a real object or situation. After abstraction, we still need to highlight the properties that interest us, strengthen or weaken them, combine them and present them as properties of some independent object that exists, functions and develops according to its own laws. All this, of course, represents a much more difficult and creative task than simple abstraction. Idealization and abstraction are ways of forming a theoretical object. It can become any real object that is thought of as non-existent, ideal conditions. Thus, for example, the concepts of “inertia”, “material point”, “absolute black body”, “ideal gas” arise.

Formalization(from lat. forma view, image). Formalization refers to the display of objects of a certain subject area using symbols of a language. During formalization, the objects under study, their properties and relationships are put into correspondence with some stable, clearly visible and identifiable material structures, which make it possible to identify and record the essential aspects of the objects. Formalization clarifies the content by identifying its form and can be carried out with varying degrees of completeness. Expressing thinking in natural language can be considered the first step of formalization. Its further deepening is achieved by introducing various kinds of special signs into ordinary language and creating partially artificial and artificial languages. Logical formalization is aimed at identifying and fixing the logical form of conclusions and evidence. Complete formalization of a theory occurs when one completely abstracts from the substantive meaning of its initial concepts and provisions and lists all the rules of logical inference used in the proofs. Such formalization includes three points: 1) designation of all initial, undefined terms; 2) listing formulas (axioms) accepted without proof; 3) introduction of rules for transforming these formulas to obtain new formulas (theorems) from them. A striking example of formalization is the mathematical descriptions of various objects and phenomena widely used in science on the basis of relevant theories. Despite the widespread use of formalization in science, there are limits to formalization. In 1930, Kurt Gödel formulated a theorem called the incompleteness theorem: it is impossible to create such a formal system of logically justified formal rules of proof that would be sufficient to prove all true theorems of elementary arithmetic.

Models and Simulation in scientific research . A model is a material or mentally imagined object that, in the process of study, replaces the original object, preserving some of its typical features that are important for this study. The model allows you to learn how to control an object by testing various control options on a model of this object. Experiment for these purposes with a real object in best case scenario it can be inconvenient, and often simply harmful or even impossible due to a number of reasons (the long duration of the experiment in time, the risk of bringing the object into an undesirable and irreversible state, etc.). The process of building a model is called modeling. So, modeling is the process of studying the structure and properties of the original using a model.

There are material and ideal modeling. Material modeling, in turn, is divided into physical and analog modeling. Physical modeling is usually called modeling in which a real object is contrasted with its enlarged or reduced copy, which allows research (usually in laboratory conditions) with the help of subsequent transfer of the properties of the studied processes and phenomena from the model to the object based on the theory of similarity. Examples: planetarium in astronomy, building models in architecture, models aircraft in aircraft manufacturing, environmental modeling - modeling processes in the biosphere, etc. Analog or mathematical modeling is based on the analogy of processes and phenomena that have different physical natures, but are described in the same way formally (by the same mathematical equations). The symbolic language of mathematics allows us to express the properties, aspects, relationships of objects and phenomena of a very different nature. The relationships between various quantities that describe the functioning of such an object can be represented by the corresponding equations and their systems.

Induction(from Latin induction - guidance, motivation), there is an inference that leads to a general conclusion based on particular premises, this is the movement of thinking from the particular to the general. The most important, and sometimes the only method of scientific knowledge has long been considered inductive method. According to the inductivist methodology, dating back to F. Bacon, scientific knowledge begins with observation and statement of facts. Once the facts are established, we begin to generalize them and build a theory. A theory is seen as a generalization of facts and is therefore considered reliable. However, even D. Hume noted that a general statement cannot be deduced from facts, and therefore any inductive generalization is unreliable. Thus the problem of justifying inductive inference arose: what allows us to move from facts to general statements? D. Mil made a great contribution to the development and substantiation of the inductive method.

Awareness of the unsolvability of the problem of justifying induction and the interpretation of inductive inference as claiming the reliability of its conclusions led Popper to deny the inductive method of cognition in general. Popper spent a lot of effort trying to show that the procedure described by the inductive method is not and cannot be used in science. The fallacy of inductivism, according to Popper, lies mainly in the fact that inductivism attempts to substantiate theories through observation and experiment. But, as postpositivism has shown, there is no direct path from experience to theory; such justification is impossible. Theories are always just unfounded, risky assumptions. Facts and observations are used in science not for justification, not as a basis for induction, but only for testing and refuting theories - as a basis for falsification. This removes the old philosophical problem of justifying induction. Facts and observations give rise to a hypothesis, which is not at all a generalization. Then, with the help of facts, they try to falsify the hypothesis. A falsifying inference is deductive. Induction is not used in this case, therefore, there is no need to worry about its justification.

According to K. Popper, it is not the inductive method, but the trial and error method that is fundamental in science. The knowing subject confronts the world not as tabula rasa, in which nature paints its portrait, man always relies on certain theoretical principles in understanding reality. The process of cognition begins not with observations, but with making guesses and assumptions that explain the world. We compare our guesses with the results of observations and discard them after falsification, replacing them with new guesses. Trial and error is what makes up the method of science. To understand the world, Popper argues, there is no more rational procedure than the method of trial and error - assumptions and refutations: boldly putting forward a theory; attempts the best way show the fallacy of these theories and their temporary recognition if criticism is unsuccessful.

Deduction(from Latin deduction - inference) is the receipt of particular conclusions based on knowledge of some general provisions, this is the movement of thought from the general to the particular. Hypothetico-deductive method. It is based on the derivation (deduction) of conclusions from hypotheses and other premises, the truth value of which is unknown. In scientific knowledge, the hypothetico-deductive method became widespread and developed in the 17th-18th centuries, when significant advances were made in the field of studying the mechanical motion of terrestrial and celestial bodies. The first attempts to use the hypothetic-deductive method were made in mechanics, in particular in the studies of Galileo. The theory of mechanics, set forth in Newton’s “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” is a hypothetico-deductive system, the premises of which are the basic laws of motion. The success of the hypothetico-deductive method in the field of mechanics and the influence of Newton's ideas led to the widespread use of this method in the field of exact natural science.

2.2. Forms of theoretical knowledge. Problem. Hypothesis. Law. Theory.

The main form of organization of knowledge at the theoretical level is theory. Previously, we can give the following definition of theory: theory is knowledge about the subject area, which covers the subject as a whole and in particular and is a system of ideas, concepts, definitions, hypotheses, laws, axioms, theorems, etc., connected in a strictly logical way. What is the structure of the theory and how it is formed is the main problem of the methodology of science.

Problem. Knowledge does not begin with observations and facts, it begins with problems, with tension between knowledge and ignorance, notes L.A. Mikeshina. A problem is a question to which the answer is a theory as a whole. As K. Popper emphasizes, science begins not with observations, but with problems, and its development is underway from one problem to another - more profound. A scientific problem is expressed in the presence of a contradictory situation. Plato also noted that a question is more difficult to answer. The determining influence on the formulation of the problem and the method of solution is the nature of the thinking of the era, the level of knowledge about those objects that the problem concerns: “in the matter of choosing a problem, tradition, the course of historical development play a significant role.” Scientific problems should be distinguished from non-scientific (pseudo-problems), an example of which is the problem of perpetual motion. A. Einstein noted the importance of the procedure for posing a problem in scientific research: “The formulation of a problem is often more significant than its solution, which can only be a matter of mathematical or experimental art. Raising new questions, developing new possibilities, looking at old problems from a new angle require creative imagination and reflect real success in science." In order to solve scientific problems, hypotheses are put forward.

Hypothesis. A hypothesis is an assumption about the properties, causes, structure, connections of the objects being studied. The main feature of a hypothesis is its speculative nature: we do not know whether it will turn out to be true or false. In the process of subsequent testing, the hypothesis may find confirmation and acquire the status of true knowledge, but it is possible that the test will convince us of the falsity of our assumption and we will have to abandon it. A scientific hypothesis usually differs from a simple assumption by a certain validity. The set of requirements for a scientific hypothesis can be summarized in the following way: 1. A hypothesis must explain known facts; 2. The hypothesis must not have contradictions that are prohibited by formal logic. But contradictions that are a reflection of objective opposites are quite acceptable; 3. The hypothesis must be simple (“Occam’s razor”); 4. A scientific hypothesis must be testable; 5. The hypothesis must be heuristic (“crazy enough” N. Bohr).

From a logical point of view, the hypothetico-deductive system is a hierarchy of hypotheses, the degree of abstraction and generality of which increases with distance from the empirical basis. At the top are the hypotheses that have the most general character and therefore having the greatest logical power. From them, as from premises, hypotheses of a lower level are derived. At the lowest level of the system are hypotheses that can be compared with empirical data. IN modern science many theories are constructed in the form of a hypothetico-deductive system. There is another type of hypothesis that attracts a lot of attention from philosophers and scientists. These are the so-called ad hoc hypotheses(For this case). Hypotheses of this type are distinguished by the fact that their explanatory power is limited only to a small range of known facts. They say nothing about new, still unknown facts and phenomena.

A good hypothesis should not only provide an explanation for known data, but also direct research to the search and discovery of new phenomena and new facts. Hypotheses ad hoc They only explain, but do not predict anything new. Therefore, scientists try not to use such hypotheses, although it is often quite difficult to decide whether we are dealing with a fruitful, heuristically strong hypothesis or a hypothesis ad hoc. The hypothetical nature of scientific knowledge was emphasized by K. Popper, W. Quine and others. K Popper characterizes scientific knowledge as hypothetical, he introduces the term probabilism(from Lat. probable - probable), noting that scientific thinking is characterized by a probabilistic style. Charles Pierce coined the term “fallibilism” (from Lat. fallibilis- fallible, fallible), arguing that at any given moment in time our knowledge of reality is partial and conjectural, this knowledge is not absolute, but is a point in the continuum of unreliability and uncertainty.

The most important component of the system of theoretical knowledge are laws. A unique cell for organizing theoretical knowledge at each of its sublevels is, notes V.S. Stepin, a two-layer structure is a theoretical model and a theoretical law formulated regarding it.

Law. The concept of “law” is one of the main ones in the system scientific worldview and reflects the genesis of science in the context of culture. The belief in the existence of fundamental laws of nature was based on the belief in divine laws so characteristic of the Judeo-Christian tradition: “God controls all things through the ruthless law of fate, which he has established and to which he himself submits.” A. Whitehead, having set the task of understanding how the idea of ​​the law of science arose, showed that the belief in the possibility of scientific laws was a derivative of Medieval theology. In the world system, designated as the Universe, and understood as a hierarchized integrity, existence is characterized through the principle of universalism. In the context of Stoicism, abstract principles of law were established that embodied the tradition of imperial law, and were then translated from Roman law into the scientific worldview. Law (from the Greek “nomos” - law, order) is opposed to physis, just as the human is opposed to the natural. The natural order, as the Greeks believed, is primordial, this is Cosmos. Among the Latins, the concept of “law” originally arose to designate and regulate social relations. Whitehead draws attention to the decisive role of the cultural and historical context, which was the environment in which the fundamental ideas of the future scientific worldview were born. “The Middle Ages formed one long training of the Western European intellect, accustoming it to order... The habit of a certain precise thinking was instilled in the European mind as a result of the dominance of scholastic logic and scholastic theology.” The previously formed idea of ​​fate, demonstrating the ruthless course of things, turned out to be useful not only for illustrating human life, but also influenced the emerging scientific thinking. As Whitehead noted, “the laws of physics are the dictates of fate.”

The idea of ​​law is key in the worldview and we find confirmation of this in the statements of outstanding figures of Medieval culture, for example, F. Aquinas, who argued that there is an eternal law, namely reason, existing within the consciousness of God and governing the entire Universe, and among thinkers of the New Age. In particular, R. Descartes wrote about the laws that God put into nature. I. Newton considered his goal to collect evidence of the existence of laws prescribed to nature by God.

If we compare this style of Western thinking with the thought tradition of other civilizations, we will see that their cultural uniqueness sets different standards of explanation. For example, in the Chinese language, as Needham noted, there is no word corresponding to the Western "law of nature." The closest word is "Lee", which Needham translates as the principle of organization. But in Western culture, the core of which is science, the idea of ​​law corresponded to the basic target setting scientific worldview for an objective explanation of reality through comprehension of the natural laws of nature.

Characterizing the dynamics of science in Western culture, today it is customary to distinguish three main types of scientific rationality: classical, non-classical and post-non-classical paradigms of scientific rationality (B.S. Stepin). The question posed at the beginning presupposes an analysis of the transformation of the concept of “law” in these paradigms, as well as in different standards of scientificity, since today the physical example of scientificity is no longer the only one. The experience of biology in the study of evolution, in the search for the laws of evolution is more significant and therefore relevant for modern physics, which is penetrated by the “arrow of time” (I. Prigogine). The traditions of the humanities are also important in terms of analyzing the question: is a certain law of evolution possible?

Another context in which the transformation in scientific knowledge of the concept of “law” should be analyzed is indicated when we identify various cognitive practices or epistemological schemes that represent models of scientific knowledge. For example, in constructivist models of cognition, be it radical constructivism or social constructivism, does the concept of a “law” of science still make sense? It is no coincidence that the tendency towards relativization and subjectification of scientific knowledge, noted in modern philosophy science, leads to the need to discuss the problem of the relationship between law and interpretation.

Today, the concept of law is given four main meanings. Firstly, law as a necessary connection between events, as “calm in the phenomenon.” Here the law is identified with objective laws that exist independently of our knowledge about them (objective laws). Secondly, law as a statement that claims to reflect the internal state of objects included in theories(laws of science). Third, laws are understood as axioms and theorems of theories, the subject of which are objects, the meaning of which is given by these same theories(logical and mathematical theories). Fourthly, law as normative instructions, developed by the community, which must be fulfilled by subjects of morality and law (moral laws, criminal laws, state laws).

In terms of problems of philosophical epistemology, the question of the relationship between objective laws and the laws of science is important. The very posing of such a question implies a worldview about the existence of objective laws. D. Hume, I. Kant, E. Mach doubted this. Hume's skepticism is associated with the denial of Hume's law of causality, which states: one cannot reliably extrapolate past experience to the future. The fact that an event happened n times does not allow us to say that this event will happen n+1 times. “Any degree of repeatability of our perceptions cannot serve as a basis for us to conclude that there is a greater degree of repeatability of certain objects which we do not perceive.” Supporters of the objective existence of laws accept Hume's point of view, understanding the laws of science as hypotheses. Thus, A. Poincaré argued that the laws of science, as the best expression of the internal harmony of the world, are the basic principles, prescriptions, reflecting the relationships between things. “However, are these regulations arbitrary? No, otherwise they would be infertile. Experience presents us with free choice, but at the same time it guides us.”

According to I. Kant, laws are not extracted by reason from nature, but are prescribed by it. Based on this view, the laws of science can be understood as the cognitive order that is instilled in our minds through adaptive evolution. This position is close to the evolutionary epistemology of K. Popper. E. Mach believed that laws are subjective and are generated by our psychological need not to get lost among natural phenomena. In modern cognitive science, it is possible to compare laws with subjective habits, which in turn are explained as a consequence of objective evolution.

So, in epistemology, the concept of the law of science reflects the acceptance of objectively existing interactions in nature. The laws of science are conceptual reconstructions of patterns associated with the adoption of a certain conceptual apparatus and various abstractions. The laws of science are formulated using the artificial languages ​​of their discipline. There are “statistical” laws, based on probabilistic hypotheses, and “dynamic” laws, expressed in the form of universal conditions. The study of the laws of reality finds expression in the creation of theories that reflect the subject area. Law is a key element of theory.

Theory. Theory translated from Greek means “contemplation” of what actually exists. Scientific knowledge of the era of Antiquity was theoretical, but the meaning of this term was completely different; the theories of the ancient Greeks were speculative and, in principle, not oriented towards experiment. In classical modern science, theory begins to be understood as a conceptual symbolic system built on the basis of experience. In the structure of theoretical knowledge, fundamental and particular theories are distinguished.

According to V.S. Stepin, in the structure of the theory, as its basis there is a fundamental theoretical scheme associated with the corresponding mathematical formalism. If empirical objects can be compared with real objects, then theoretical objects are idealizations, they are called constructs, they are logical reconstructions of reality. “At the basis of an established theory one can always find a mutually consistent network of abstract objects that determines the specificity of this theory. This network of objects is called the fundamental theoretical scheme."

According to the two identified sublevels of theoretical knowledge, we can talk about theoretical schemes as part of the fundamental theory and as part of particular theories. At the basis of the developed theory, one can distinguish a fundamental theoretical scheme, which is built from a small set of basic abstract objects, structurally independent from each other, and in relation to which fundamental theoretical laws are formulated. The structure of the theory was considered by analogy with the structure of a formalized mathematical theory and was depicted as a hierarchical system of statements, where from the basic statements of the upper tiers, statements of the lower tiers are strictly logically derived, up to statements directly comparable with experimental facts. The hierarchical structure of statements corresponds to a hierarchy of interconnected abstract objects. The connections of these objects form theoretical schemes at various levels. And then the development of theory appears not only as the operation of statements, but also as thought experiments with abstract objects of theoretical schemes.

Theoretical frameworks play an important role in the development of theory. The derivation of their consequences (particular theoretical laws) from the fundamental equations of the theory is carried out not only through formal mathematical and logical operations on statements, but also through meaningful techniques - thought experiments with abstract objects of theoretical schemes, which make it possible to reduce the fundamental theoretical scheme to particular ones. Their elements of theoretical schemes are abstract objects (theoretical constructs), which are in strictly defined connections and relationships with each other. Theoretical laws are directly formulated relative to the abstract objects of the theoretical model. They can be used to describe real situations of experience only if the model is justified as an expression of the essential connections of reality that appear in such situations.

Theoretical knowledge is created to explain and predict phenomena and processes of objective and subjective reality. Depending on the level of penetration into the essence of the object being studied, scientific theories are divided into descriptive-phenomenological (empirical) and deductive (mathematized, axiomatic).

So, a theory is an abstractly generalized, constructively constructed, holistic and logically unfolding conceptual model of the object of study, which is a logically abbreviated knowledge that has explanatory and heuristic abilities.

In general, the empirical and theoretical levels of scientific research discussed above represent conditional stages of a holistic scientific process. The edifice of science thus characterized rests on a foundation designated as the foundations of science.