2 scientific knowledge. Cognition

The core of science is research activity itself, aimed at developing new knowledge, systematizing it and determining the areas of its application. Over time, the structure of scientific knowledge has been determined, in which levels and forms of scientific knowledge are distinguished.

Explanation and understanding are two complementary cognitive processes that are used in any field of scientific knowledge. Explanation is a transition from more general knowledge to more specific empirical knowledge. Explanation allows for anticipation and prediction of future processes.

From the point of view of the source, content and direction of cognitive interest, empirical and theoretical levels of research and organization of knowledge are distinguished.

Empirical (from Latin empeiria - experience) knowledge is aimed directly at the object and is based on observational and experimental data. Historically and logically, this level of knowledge was the first and dominated in the experimental natural science of the 17th-18th centuries. The main means of formation and development of scientific knowledge at this time were empirical research and subsequent logical processing of their results through empirical laws, generalizations and classifications. Already at this stage, primary scientific abstractions arose, through the prism of which the ordering and classification of empirical material delivered during observations and experiments was carried out. Subsequently, such logical forms as typology, explanatory schemes, and ideal models acted as transitional from the empirical level of scientific knowledge to the theoretical.

Theoretical level science is characterized by the fact that its main task is not the description and systematization of the facts of reality, but a comprehensive knowledge of objective reality in its essential connections and patterns. In other words, the main purpose of science is realized at the theoretical level - the discovery and description of the laws that govern the natural and social world. Theoretical research is associated with the creation and development of a conceptual apparatus; much attention is paid to improving the principles and methods of cognition.

The empirical and theoretical levels are organically interconnected and complement each other in the holistic structure of scientific knowledge. Empirical research, providing new data, stimulates the development of theory, which, in turn, opens up new perspectives for explaining and predicting facts, orients and guides experimental science.

1. Forms of scientific knowledge

Under form of scientific knowledge understand the way of organizing the content and results of cognitive activity. For empirical research, this form is fact, and for theoretical research - hypothesis and theory.

Scientific fact is the result of observations and experiments that establishes the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of objects. 80% of a scientist’s work consists of observing an object of interest in order to establish its stable, repeatable characteristics. When the researcher is convinced that, under appropriate conditions, an object always looks in a strictly defined way, he confirms this result with the help of an experiment and, if confirmed, formulates a scientific fact. For example: a body, if it is heavier than air, being thrown up, will definitely fall down.

Thus, scientific fact- this is something given, established by experience and fixing empirical knowledge. In science, the totality of facts forms the empirical basis for putting forward hypotheses and creating theories. Knowledge cannot be limited to recording facts, because this does not make sense: any fact must be explained. And this is the task of theory.

The example of Newton’s apple is widely known, the fall of which on the head of the famous scientist prompted the latter to explain this event and ultimately led to the creation of the theory of gravity.

The theoretical level of scientific research begins with putting forward hypotheses(gr. hypothesis is translated as assumption). As a form of theoretical knowledge, a hypothesis is defined as conjectural knowledge that satisfactorily explains empirical facts and does not conflict with underlying scientific theories. A hypothesis is put forward to solve a specific scientific problem and must satisfy certain requirements. These requirements include relevance, testability, compatibility with existing scientific knowledge, explanatory and predictive capabilities, and simplicity.

Relevance (from the English relevant - relevant, relevant) of a hypothesis characterizes its relationship to the facts for which it is created. If the facts support or refute a hypothesis, it is considered relevant.

Verifiability A hypothesis presupposes the possibility of comparing its results with observational and experimental data. What is meant is the possibility of such verification, and not the requirement for its mandatory implementation. Many hypotheses of modern science operate with unobservable objects, which requires improvement of experimental techniques to test them. Those hypotheses that cannot be tested at present may be tested later, with the advent of more advanced experimental tools and methods.

Compatibility hypotheses with existing scientific knowledge means that it should not contradict established facts and theory. This requirement applies to a normal period in the development of science and does not apply to periods of crises and scientific revolutions.

Explanatory power A hypothesis consists of the number of deductive consequences that can be drawn from it. If two hypotheses that claim to explain the same fact yield different numbers of consequences, then, accordingly, they have different explanatory capabilities. For example, Newton's hypothesis of universal gravity not only explained the facts previously substantiated by Galileo and Kepler, but also an additional number of new facts. In turn, those facts that remained beyond the explanatory capabilities of Newton’s theory of gravity were later explained in A. Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

Predictive power A hypothesis is the number of events the probability of which it is able to predict.

The hypothesis simplicity criterion refers to situations where competing scientific hypotheses satisfy all the above requirements and, nevertheless, a choice must be made in favor of one of them. Simplicity can serve as a serious argument. It assumes that one hypothesis contains fewer premises for deriving consequences than the other.

Proposing new hypotheses and their substantiation is a very complex creative process in which the intuition and scientific qualifications of the scientist play a decisive role. There is no specific algorithm in this matter. It is common knowledge that most science exists in the form of hypotheses.

Law - next form the existence of scientific knowledge into which hypotheses are transformed as a result of comprehensive justification and confirmation. The laws of science reflect stable, repeating, significant connections between phenomena and processes of the real world. In accordance with the accepted two-stage structure of scientific knowledge, empirical and theoretical laws.

At the empirical stage of the development of science, laws are established that fix the connections between the sensory perceptible properties of objects. Such laws are called phenomenological(from the Greek phainomenon - appearing). Examples of such laws are the laws of Archimedes, Boyle-Mariotte, Gay-Lussac and others, which express functional relationships between various properties of liquids and gases. But such laws do not explain much. The same Boyle-Mariotte law, which states that for a given mass of gas, at a constant temperature, the pressure on the volume is a constant value, does not explain why this is so. Such an explanation is achieved with the help of theoretical laws that reveal deep internal connections of processes and the mechanism of their occurrence.

Empirical laws can be called quantitative laws, and theoretical laws can be called qualitative laws.

According to the degree of generality, laws are divided into universal And private. Universal laws reflect universal, necessary, repeating and stable connections between all phenomena and processes of the objective world. An example is the law of thermal expansion of bodies, expressed using the sentence: “All bodies expand when heated.” Private laws either derived from universal laws, or reflect the laws of a limited sphere of reality. An example is the laws of biology that describe the functioning and development of living organisms.

From the point of view of prediction accuracy, there are statistical And dynamic laws. Dynamic laws have great predictive power because they abstract from minor and random factors. Predictions statistical laws are probabilistic in nature. These are the laws of demography, population statistics, economics and others, which deal with many random and subjective factors. Some natural laws also have a probabilistic-statistical nature, primarily the laws of the microworld described in quantum mechanics.

Theoretical laws form the core of scientific theory - the highest form of organization of scientific knowledge. Theory is a system of basic, initial concepts, principles and laws, from which, according to certain rules, concepts and laws of a lesser degree of generality can be derived. It appears as a result of a long search for scientific facts, putting forward hypotheses, formulating first the simplest empirical and then fundamental theoretical laws.

Science most often operates not with real objects, but with their theoretical models, which allow for cognitive procedures that are impossible with real objects.

Depending on the form of idealization, they distinguish descriptive theories, in which the description and systematization of extensive empirical material is carried out, mathematized theories, in which the object appears in the form of a mathematical model and deductive theoretical models.

According to the degree of accuracy of predictions, theories are divided into deterministic And stochastic. The former are distinguished by the accuracy and reliability of predictions, but, due to the complexity of many phenomena and processes in the world and the presence of a significant amount of uncertainty, they are rarely used.

Stochastic theories make probable predictions based on the study of chance. Theories of natural science type are called positive, since their task is to explain facts. If a theory aims not only to explain, but also to understand objects and events, it is called normative. It deals with values ​​that cannot be scientific facts in the classical sense of the word. Therefore, doubts are often expressed about the scientific status of philosophical, ethical, and sociological theories.

Thus, all of the listed norms and ideals of scientific knowledge clearly indicate that, unlike all other methods of extra-scientific knowledge, science has a consciously organized and substantiated character.

Theory of knowledge was first mentioned by Plato in his book The Republic. Then he identified two types of knowledge - sensory and mental, and this theory has been preserved to this day. Cognition - This is the process of acquiring knowledge about the world around us, its patterns and phenomena.

IN structure of cognition two elements:

• subject(“knower” - person, scientific society);
• an object(“knowable” - nature, its phenomena, social phenomena, people, objects, etc.).

Methods of cognition.

Methods of cognition generalized on two levels: empirical level knowledge and theoretical level.

Empirical methods:

1. Observation(studying an object without intervention).
2. Experiment(learning takes place in a controlled environment).
3. Measurement(measurement of the degree of size of an object, or weight, speed, duration, etc.).
4. Comparison(comparison of similarities and differences of objects).

1. Analysis. The mental or practical (manual) process of separating an object or phenomenon into its components, disassembling and inspecting the components.
2. Synthesis. The reverse process is the combination of components into a whole, identifying connections between them.
3. Classification. Decomposition of objects or phenomena into groups according to certain characteristics.
4. Comparison. Detecting differences and similarities in compared elements.
5. Generalization. Less detailed synthesis - unification by common features without identifying connections. This process is not always separated from synthesis.
6. Specification. The process of extracting the particular from the general, clarifying for better understanding.
7. Abstraction. Consideration of only one aspect of an object or phenomenon, since the rest are not of interest.
8. Analogy(identification of similar phenomena, similarities), a more advanced method of cognition than comparison, since it includes the search for similar phenomena in a time period.
9. Deduction(movement from the general to the particular, a method of cognition in which a logical conclusion emerges from a whole chain of conclusions) - in life, this type of logic became popular thanks to Arthur Conan Doyle.
10. Induction- movement from facts to the general.
11. Idealization- creation of concepts for phenomena and objects that do not exist in reality, but there are similarities (for example, an ideal fluid in hydrodynamics).
12. Modeling- creating and then studying a model of something (for example, a computer model of the solar system).
13. Formalization- image of an object in the form of signs, symbols (chemical formulas).

Forms of knowledge.

Forms of knowledge(some psychological schools are simply called types of cognition) there are the following:

1. Scientific knowledge. A type of knowledge based on logic, scientific approach, conclusions; also called rational cognition.
2. Creative or artistic knowledge. (It's also art). This type of cognition reflects the world using artistic images and symbols.
3. Philosophical knowledge. It lies in the desire to explain the surrounding reality, the place that a person occupies in it, and what it should be.
4. Religious knowledge. Religious knowledge is often classified as a type of self-knowledge. The object of study is God and his connection with man, the influence of God on man, as well as the moral principles characteristic of this religion. An interesting paradox of religious knowledge: the subject (man) studies the object (God), which acts as the subject (God) who created the object (man and the whole world in general).
5. Mythological knowledge. Cognition characteristic of primitive cultures. A way of cognition among people who had not yet begun to separate themselves from the world around them, who identified complex phenomena and concepts with gods and higher powers.
6. Self-knowledge. Understanding your own mental and physical properties, self-awareness. The main methods are introspection, introspection, formation of one’s own personality, comparison of oneself with other people.

To summarize: cognition is a person’s ability to mentally perceive external information, process it and draw conclusions from it. The main goal of knowledge is both to master nature and to improve man himself. In addition, many authors see the goal of knowledge in a person’s desire for

1. Specifics of scientific knowledge.

2. The relationship between empirical and theoretical knowledge.

3. Forms and methods of scientific knowledge.

When studying the first question "Specificity of scientific knowledge" it is necessary to understand the essence and meaning of science as a phenomenon of spiritual culture.

The science, represents a specific sphere of human activity aimed at the production, systematization and testing of knowledge. Besides that the science – this is a knowledge system. It also represents - social institution And direct productive force.

Science is characterized by relative independence and internal logic of development, methods (methods) of cognition and implementation of ideas, as well as socio-psychological features of the objective and essential perception of reality, that is style of scientific thinking.

Most often, science is defined through its own foundation, namely: 1) the scientific picture of the world, 2) the ideals and norms of science, 3) philosophical principles and methods.

Under scientific picture of the world understand a system of theoretical ideas about reality, which is developed by summarizing the most important knowledge accumulated by the scientific community at a certain stage in the development of science.

TO ideals and norms sciences include invariants (French invariant - unchanging) influencing the development of scientific knowledge, setting guidelines for scientific research. These in science are the intrinsic value of truth and the value of novelty, the requirements of the inadmissibility of falsification and plagiarism.

The immediate goals of science are research, description, explanation, prediction of the processes and phenomena of reality that form the subject of its study.

The ideological origins of science are usually attributed to myth and religion (in particular, Christianity). Her ideological basis serves: materialism, idealism, naturalism, sensationalism, rationalism, agnosticism.

Scientific issues are dictated by both the immediate and future needs of society, the political process, the interests of social groups, the economic situation, the level of spiritual needs of the people, and cultural traditions.

The specificity of scientific knowledge is characterized by the following components: objectivity; consistency; validity; empirical confirmability; a certain social orientation; close connection with practice.

Science differs from all methods of exploring the world in the development of a special language for describing objects of research and in the procedure for proving the truth of the results of scientific research.

Scientific knowledge is a type of subject-object relations, the main essential feature of which is scientific rationality. The rationality of the cognizing subject finds its expression in an appeal to the arguments of reason and experience, in the logical and methodological ordering of the thinking process, in the influence of existing ideals and norms of science on scientific creativity.

As an integral part of spiritual production, science is associated with goal setting. It can turn into a direct productive force in the form of knowledge and new technologies, principles of labor organization, new materials, and equipment.

In conclusion, the student should pay attention to one more feature of scientific knowledge. It acts as a measure of the development of a person’s abilities for creative creation, for constructive and theoretical transformation of reality and himself. In other words, scientific activity produces not only new technologies, creates materials, equipment and tools, but, being part of spiritual production, allows the people included in it to creatively self-realize, objectify ideas and hypotheses, thereby enriching culture.

Considering the second question « Crelationship between empirical and theoretical knowledge", It should be remembered that knowledge in any field of science has two closely interrelated levels: empirical and theoretical. The unity of the two levels (layers) of scientific knowledge follows from the cognitive abilities of the knowing subject. At the same time, it is predetermined by the two-level nature of the functioning of the object (phenomenon - essence). On the other hand, these levels are different from each other, and this difference is determined by the way the object is reflected by the subject of scientific knowledge. Without experimental data, theoretical knowledge cannot have scientific validity, just as empirical research cannot ignore the path laid out by theory.

Empirical level cognition is the level of accumulation of knowledge and facts about the objects under study. At this level of cognition, the object is reflected from the side of connections and relationships accessible to contemplation and observation.

On theoretical level a synthesis of scientific knowledge in the form of a scientific theory is achieved. The theoretical, essentially conceptual, level of scientific knowledge is designed to systematize, explain and predict facts established in the course of empirical research.

Fact represents recorded empirical knowledge And acts as a synonym for the concepts “event” and “result”.

Facts in science not only serve as an information source and empirical basis for theoretical reasoning, but also serve as a criterion for their reliability and truth. In turn, the theory forms the conceptual basis of the fact: it highlights the aspect of reality being studied, sets the language in which the facts are described, and determines the means and methods of experimental research.

Scientific knowledge unfolds according to the following scheme: problem - hypothesis - theory, each element of which reflects the degree of penetration of the knowing subject into the essence of the objects of science.

Cognition begins with awareness or formulation of a problem. Problem – this is something that is still unknown, but needs to be known, this is the researcher’s question to the object. It represents: 1) a difficulty, an obstacle in solving a cognitive problem; 2) contradictory condition of the question; 3) a task, a conscious formulation of the initial cognitive situation; 4) conceptual (idealized) object of scientific theory; 5) a question that arises in the course of cognition, a practical or theoretical interest that motivates scientific research.

Hypothesis – it is a scientific assumption or assumption regarding the essence of an object, formulated on the basis of a number of known facts. It goes through two stages: nomination and subsequent verification. As a hypothesis is tested and validated, it can be discarded as untenable, but it can also be “polished” into a true theory.

Theory - This is a form of scientific knowledge that provides a holistic display of the essential connections of the object under study. Theory as an integral developing system of knowledge has such structure: a) axioms, principles, laws, fundamental concepts; b) an idealized object, in the form of an abstract model of connections and properties of the object; c) logical techniques and methods; d) patterns and statements derived from the main provisions of the theory.

The theory performs the following functions : descriptive, explanatory, prognostic (predictive), synthetic, methodological and practical.

Description there is an initial, not entirely strict, approximate fixation, isolation and ordering of the characteristics of the features and properties of the object under study. A description of a particular phenomenon is resorted to in cases where it is impossible to give a strictly scientific definition of the concept. Description plays an important role in the process of theory development, especially at its initial stages.

Explanation carried out in the form of a conclusion or a system of conclusions using those provisions that are already contained in the theory. This distinguishes a theoretical explanation from an ordinary explanation, which is based on ordinary, everyday experience.

Forecast, foresight. Scientific theory allows you to see trends in the further development of an object and predict what will happen to the object in the future. The greatest predictive capabilities are possessed by those theories that are distinguished by the breadth of coverage of a particular area of ​​reality, the depth of problem formulation and the paradigmatic nature (i.e., a set of new principles and scientific methods) of their solution.

Synthesis function. A scientific theory organizes extensive empirical material, generalizes it, and acts as a synthesis of this material on the basis of a certain unified principle. The synthesizing function of the theory is also manifested in the fact that it eliminates fragmentation, disunity, fragmentation of individual components of the theory, and makes it possible to discover fundamentally new connections and systemic qualities between the structural components of the theoretical system.

Methodological function. Scientific theory replenishes the methodological arsenal of science, acting as a specific method of cognition. The set of principles for the formation and practical application of methods of cognition and transformation of reality is the methodology for man’s exploration of the world.

Practical function. The creation of a theory is not an end in itself for scientific knowledge. Scientific theory would not have much significance if it were not a powerful means for further improving scientific knowledge. In this regard, theory, on the one hand, arises and is formed in the process of practical activity of people, and on the other hand, practical activity itself is carried out on the basis of theory, illuminated and directed by theory.

Moving on to the study of the third question “ Forms and methods of scientific knowledge", you need to understand that scientific knowledge cannot do without methodology.

Method - is a system of principles, techniques and requirements that guide the process of scientific knowledge. A method is a way of reproducing the object being studied in the mind.

Methods of scientific knowledge are divided into special (special scientific), general scientific and universal (philosophical). Depending on the role and place in scientific knowledge, formal and substantive, empirical and theoretical, research and presentation methods are fixed. In science there is a division into methods of natural and human sciences. The specificity of the former (methods of physics, chemistry, biology) is revealed through explanations of the cause-and-effect relationships of natural phenomena and processes, the latter (methods of phenomenology, hermeneutics, structuralism) - through an understanding of the essence of man and his world.

Methods and techniques of scientific knowledge include:

observation- this is a systematic, purposeful perception of objects and phenomena in order to become familiar with the object. This may include a procedure measurements quantitative relationships of the object under study;

experiment- a research technique in which an object is placed in precisely taken into account conditions or artificially reproduced in order to clarify certain properties;

analogy– establishing the similarity of certain characteristics, properties and relationships among objects, and on this basis - making assumptions about the similarity of other characteristics;

modeling- a research method in which the object of study is replaced by another object (model) that is in a similarity relationship with the first. The model is subjected to experiment in order to obtain new knowledge, which, in turn, is evaluated and applied to the object being studied. Computer modeling has acquired great importance in science, making it possible to simulate any processes and phenomena;

formalization- study of an object from the form side with the aim of deeper knowledge of the content, which allows you to operate with signs, formulas, diagrams, diagrams;

idealization- extreme distraction from the real properties of an object, when the subject mentally constructs an object, the prototype of which is in the real world (“absolutely solid body”, “ideal liquid”);

analysis- dividing the object under study into its component parts, sides, trends in order to consider the connections and relationships of individual elements;

synthesis– a research technique that combines elements dissected by analysis into a single whole in order to identify natural, significant connections and relationships of the object;

induction- movement of thought from the particular to the general, from isolated cases to general conclusions;

deduction- the movement of thought from the general to the particular, from general provisions to particular cases.

The above methods of scientific knowledge are widely used at the empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge. In contrast, the method ascent from the abstract to the concrete, and historical And logical methods are applied primarily at the theoretical level of knowledge.

Method of ascent from abstract to concrete is a method of theoretical research and presentation, consisting in the movement of scientific thought from the initial abstraction (“the beginning” is one-sided, incomplete knowledge) to the reproduction in theory of a holistic image of the process or phenomenon being studied.

This method is also applicable in the knowledge of one or another scientific discipline, where they move from individual concepts (abstract) to multifaceted knowledge (concrete).

Historical method requires taking the subject in its development and change with all the smallest details and secondary features, requires tracking the entire history of the development of this phenomenon (from its genesis to the present) in all its completeness and diversity of its aspects.

Boolean method is a reflection of the historical, but it does not repeat history in all details, but takes the main essential in it, reproducing the development of the object at the level of essence, i.e. without historical form.

Among scientific research methods, a special place occupies systems approach, which is a set of general scientific requirements (principles) with the help of which any objects can be considered as systems. System analysis implies: a) identifying the dependence of each element on its functions and place in the system, taking into account the fact that the properties of the whole are irreducible to the sum of the properties of its elements; b) analysis of the behavior of the system from the point of view of its conditioning by the elements included in it, as well as the properties of its structure; c) studying the mechanism of interaction between the system and the environment in which it is “inscribed”; d) study of the system as a dynamic, developing integrity.

The systems approach has great heuristic value, since it is applicable to the analysis of natural scientific, social and technical objects.

For a more detailed introduction to the topic in the reference literature, refer to the articles:

New philosophical encyclopedia. In 4 volumes - M., 2001. Art.: “Method”, “Science”, “Intuition”, “Empirical and Theoretical”, “Cognition”, etc.

Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. - K., 2002. Art.: “Methodology of science”, “Science”, “Intuition”, “Empirical and theoretical” etc.

Cognition is the process of gaining knowledge about the world around us and about ourselves. Knowledge begins from the moment a person begins to ask himself questions: who am I, why did I come into this world, what mission should I fulfill. Cognition is a constant process. It occurs even when a person is not aware of what thoughts guide his actions and actions. Cognition as a process is studied by a number of sciences: psychology, philosophy, sociology, scientific methodology

, history, science. The purpose of any knowledge is to improve yourself and expand your horizons.

Structure of cognition Cognition how scientific category has a clearly defined structure. Cognition necessarily includes a subject and an object.

The subject is understood as a person who takes active steps to carry out cognition. The object of cognition is what the subject’s attention is directed to. The object of cognition can be other people, natural and social phenomena, or any objects.

Methods of cognition

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

Empirical methods of cognition involve the study of an object using any research activities confirmed experimentally.

• Observation Empirical methods of cognition include: observation, experiment, measurement, comparison.
• Experiment is a method of cognition during which an object is studied without direct interaction with it. In other words, the observer can be at a distance from the object of knowledge and still receive the information he needs. With the help of observation, the subject can draw his own conclusions on a particular issue and build additional assumptions. The observation method is widely used in their activities by psychologists, medical personnel, and social workers. is a method of cognition in which immersion occurs in a specially created environment. This method of cognition involves some abstraction from outside world . Scientific research is carried out using experiments. During this method
• Measurement cognition confirms or disproves the hypothesis put forward. is an analysis of any parameters of the object of cognition: weight, size, length, etc. During the comparison, a comparison is made significant characteristics

object of knowledge.

Theoretical methods of cognition

• Analysis Theoretical methods of cognition involve the study of an object through the analysis of various categories and concepts.
• Synthesis The truth of the hypothesis being put forward is not confirmed experimentally, but is proven using existing postulates and final conclusions. Theoretical methods of cognition include: analysis, synthesis, classification, generalization, concretization, abstraction, analogy, deduction, induction, idealization, modeling, formalization.
• Classification implies mental analysis of a whole object of knowledge into small parts. The analysis reveals the connection between the components, their differences and other features. Analysis as a method of cognition is widely used in scientific and research activities.
• Generalization involves combining individual parts into a single whole, discovering a connecting link between them. Synthesis is actively used in the process of all cognition: in order to accept new information, it is necessary to correlate it with existing knowledge. is a grouping of objects united according to specific parameters. involves grouping
• Specification individual items
• Abstraction implies focusing on the particular side of a particular subject in order to discover a new approach, to acquire a different perspective on the problem being studied. At the same time, other components are not considered, are not taken into account, or are given insufficient attention.
• Analogy carried out in order to identify the presence of similar objects in the object of cognition.
• Deduction– this is a transition from the general to the specific as a result of conclusions proven in the process of cognition.
• Induction- this is a transition from the particular to the whole as a result of conclusions proven in the process of cognition.
• Idealization implies the formation of separate concepts denoting an object that do not exist in reality.
• Modeling involves the formation and consistent study of any category of existing objects in the process of cognition.
• Formalization reflects objects or phenomena using generally accepted symbols: letters, numbers, formulas or other symbols.

Types of knowledge

Types of cognition are understood as the main directions of human consciousness, with the help of which the process of cognition is carried out. Sometimes they are called forms of cognition.

Ordinary cognition

This type of cognition involves the individual receiving basic information about the surrounding world in the process of life. Even a child has ordinary knowledge. Small man , obtaining the necessary knowledge, draws his own conclusions and gains experience. Even if it comes negative experience

, in the future it will help to develop such qualities as caution, attentiveness, prudence. A responsible approach develops through understanding the experience gained and living it internally. As a result of everyday knowledge, an individual develops an idea of ​​how one can and cannot act in life, what one should count on and what one should forget about. Ordinary cognition is based on elementary ideas about the world and connections between existing objects. It does not affect general cultural values, does not consider the worldview of the individual, his religious and moral orientation. Ordinary cognition strives only to satisfy a momentary request about the surrounding reality. A person simply accumulates the useful experience and knowledge necessary for further life activities.

Scientific knowledge Its other name is . Here a detailed consideration of the situation in which the subject is immersed plays an important role. Using a scientific approach, existing objects are analyzed and appropriate conclusions are drawn. Scientific knowledge is widely used in research projects of any direction. With the help of science, many facts are proven true or disproved. The scientific approach is subject to many components; cause and effect relationships play a large role.

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

Artistic knowledge

This type of cognition is also called creative. This knowledge is based on artistic images and affects the intellectual sphere of activity of the individual. Here, the truth of any statements cannot be proven scientifically, since the artist comes into contact with the category of beauty. Reality is reflected in artistic images, and is not constructed by the method of mental analysis. Artistic knowledge is limitless in its essence. The nature of creative knowledge of the world is such that a person himself models an image in his head with the help of thoughts and ideas. The material created in this way is an individual creative product and receives the right to exist. Each artist has his own inner world

which he reveals to other people through creative activity: an artist paints pictures, a writer writes books, a musician composes music. Every creative thinking has its own truth and fiction.

This type of cognition consists of the intention to interpret reality by determining a person’s place in the world. Philosophical knowledge is characterized by the search for individual truth, constant reflection on the meaning of life, appeal to such concepts as conscience, purity of thoughts, love, talent.

Philosophy tries to penetrate into the essence of the most complex categories, explain mystical and eternal things, determine the essence of human existence, and existential questions of choice. Philosophical knowledge is aimed at understanding controversial issues of existence. Often, as a result of such research, the activist comes to understand the ambivalence of all things. A philosophical approach involves seeing the second (hidden) side of any object, phenomenon or judgment.

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

each of us.

Mythological knowledge This type of cognition belongs to primitive society

. This is a version of the knowledge of a person who considered himself an integral part of nature. Ancient people sought answers to questions about the essence of life differently than modern people; they endowed nature with divine power. That is why the mythological consciousness formed its gods and the corresponding attitude to current events. Primitive society abdicated responsibility for what happened in everyday reality and turned entirely to nature.

Self-knowledge This type of cognition is aimed at studying one’s true states, moods and conclusions. Self-knowledge always implies deep Scan, thoughts, actions, ideals, aspirations.

Those who have been actively engaged in self-knowledge for several years note that they have highly developed intuition. Such a person will not get lost in the crowd, will not succumb to the “herd” feeling, but will make responsible decisions on his own. Self-knowledge leads a person to understand his motives, comprehend the years he has lived and the deeds he has committed. As a result of self-knowledge, a person’s mental and physical activity increases, he accumulates self-confidence, and becomes truly courageous and enterprising. Thus, cognition as a deep process of acquiring the necessary knowledge about the surrounding reality has its own structure, methods and types. Each type of cognition corresponds different periods

in the history of social thought and the personal choice of an individual.

Concept of scientific method Scientific method

is a system of regulatory principles, techniques and methods by which objective knowledge of reality is achieved within the framework of scientific and cognitive activity. The study of methods of scientific and educational activity, their capabilities and limits of application are integrated by the methodology of science (see). Ancient Greek word"method" (μέθοδος) denotes the path to achieving a goal. Therefore, in the broad sense of the word, a method means a set of rational action that must be undertaken in order to solve a certain problem or achieve a certain practical or theoretical goal

(cm. ). Methods are developed in the course of rational reflection on the objective (subject) content in some abstract area within certain (predetermined) orientations and are enshrined in the principles, norms and methods of activity. Following the method ensures regulation in purposeful activity and sets its logic.

The development of methods is necessary in any form of activity where rationalization of its ideal plan is one way or another possible, therefore each sustainable sphere of human activity, and especially science, has its own specific methods. Moreover, in science, the reproducibility of the latter within a single, albeit nonlinear, structure of activity suggests that such methods are not a disparate set of cognitive tools created during the development of science, but a set of functionally interrelated cognitive practices. The formation of the concept of the scientific method, its ideal as a guide to correct knowledge and method of activity, is associated with the emergence(see) as a rational-theoretical type of worldview, and then Sciences(see) as a human cognitive activity aimed at obtaining, justifying and systematizing objective knowledge.

Scientific knowledge represents a historically developing process of achieving reliable knowledge about the world, the truth of which is verified and proven by human practice. Science goes beyond everyday experience and existing production activities, exploring not only those objects that a person encounters in Everyday life, but also those that humanity can practically master only in the distant future. In order to identify and study such objects, ordinary practice is not enough, you need to cognize the world in a special way and set tasks that have not yet arisen in everyday activities. Scientific knowledge plays this role.

The specificity of scientific knowledge is that it is subject to certain strict principles (causality of phenomena and events, truth or reliability, objectivity and relativity of scientific knowledge), therefore, in the process of knowledge, appropriate methods are used that ensure the reliability of the results obtained. The experience of the development of science shows that the results of scientific and educational activity are largely determined by the accuracy of the methods used. The development of scientific methods is a complex process that is targeted and regulated by preliminary ideas about the object being studied. Such ideas are the objective basis of the method. They are reinterpreted into rules and techniques of activity, applying which, scientific knowledge reveals new features and characteristics of the structure and behavior of the object being studied.

Currently, scientific knowledge is an institutionally established type of activity in which a person’s mastery of reality becomes an instrumentally mediated process of interaction. researchers(scientists). The effectiveness of such interaction, and therefore the reproduction and development of science as such, is ensured by the accumulation and transmission of cognitive experience and knowledge, which becomes possible through sustainable cognitive practices, which are the methods of carrying out the scientific-cognitive process.

The systematic development of scientific methods turns out to be the most important condition for the formation and development of science as a social system. Their use makes the scientific search process a potentially reproducible procedure, which is of fundamental importance from the point of view of ensuring the reliability of the research results, since the latter become verifiable parameters. In addition, the mediation of scientific research by formed and subject to transformation scientific methods determines the possibility of training scientists and is a prerequisite for the specialization of the scientific and cognitive process, creating conditions for the formation of science as a professional infrastructure that has a complex system of division of labor and due to this is capable of concentrating and coordinating scientific research resources.

Analysis of the process of scientific knowledge allows us to distinguish two main types of methods of scientific and educational activity:

1. Methods inherent in human cognition in general, on the basis of which both scientific and practical knowledge: universal methods of cognition.
2. Methods inherent only to scientific knowledge, which, in turn, are divided into two main groups: 1) empirical scientific methods; 2) theoretical scientific methods.

Along with universal and general scientific methods, there are highly specialized methods of a specific nature that are developed, applied and improved only within specific scientific disciplines. Intradisciplinary methods of theoretical and empirical research, including case study methods, are primarily highly specialized cognitive practices. The scope of such methods, which vary from science to science, includes, for example, methods of conducting physical experiment, experimental techniques in biology, survey techniques in sociology, techniques for analyzing sources in history, and the like.

Regardless of the type of scientific and educational activity, any scientific method is based on three fundamental principles - objectivity, systematicity and reproducibility.

1. Objectivity implies the alienation of the subject of knowledge from its object, that is, the researcher does not allow subjective ideas to influence the process of scientific knowledge.
2. Systematicity implies the orderliness of scientific and cognitive activity, that is, the process of scientific knowledge is carried out in a systematic, orderly manner.
3. Reproducibility implies that all stages and phases of the process of scientific knowledge can be repeated (reproduced) under the guidance of other researchers, obtaining similar, consistent results, and thereby verifying their reliability. If the results are not reproducible, then they are unreliable and therefore cannot be considered reliable.

If the application of scientific methods does not comply with the principles of objectivity, systematicity and reproducibility, then the process of scientific knowledge becomes impossible, and the methods themselves lose their effectiveness.

1. Universal methods of cognition

1.1. Analysis and synthesis

Objects of the reality surrounding a person are systems with many elements, their properties, connections and relationships. Knowledge of the world in the totality of its connections and relationships, in the process of its change and development, represents the main task of scientific knowledge. Initially, a person develops a general picture of the subject being studied with a very poor idea of ​​its internal structure, its constituent elements and the connections between them, knowledge of which is a necessary prerequisite for revealing the essence of the subject. Therefore, subsequent study of the subject is associated with concretizing the general idea of ​​it.

Cognition gradually reveals the internal essential features of an object, the connections of its elements and their interaction with each other. In order to carry out these steps, it is necessary to divide the entire object (mentally or practically) into its component parts, and then study them, highlighting properties and characteristics, tracing connections and relationships, and also identifying their role in the system of the whole. After this cognitive task solved, the parts can be combined into a single object and a concrete general idea can be created, that is, a representation that is based on knowledge inner nature subject. This goal is achieved through operations such as analysis and synthesis.

Analysis and synthesis- two universal, oppositely directed operations cognitive thinking:

1. Analysis- this is a method of thinking that involves separating an entire object into its component parts (sides, features, properties or relationships) for the purpose of their comprehensive study (see).
2. Synthesis- this is a method of thinking that involves combining previously identified parts (sides, characteristics, properties or relationships) of an object into a single whole (see).

There are four types of analysis and synthesis:

1. Natural analysis- separation of objects into parts, and natural synthesis - the combination of these parts into new objects, in accordance with the possibilities existing in nature.
2. Practical analysis- separation of objects into components, and practical synthesis - unification of them in integrity, in accordance with the possibilities of practice, which would never be realized in nature.
3. Mental Analysis- separation from objects of what is inseparable either in nature or in practice, and mental synthesis - the connection of what, in accordance with the laws of nature, cannot be combined.
4. Meta-analysis and meta-synthesis- that is, the analysis and synthesis of knowledge about the world, in contrast to the analysis and synthesis of objectively existing objects.

The objective prerequisite for these cognitive operations is the structure of material objects, the ability of their elements to regroup, unite and separate. Analysis and synthesis are the most elementary and simple methods of cognition that underlie human thinking; at the same time, they are also the most universal methods, characteristic of all its levels and forms. Sometimes they are considered as autonomous processes of cognitive thinking, although in general it is believed that analysis and synthesis do not oppose each other, but exist in unified forms of mental activity.

Analysis of an object in the process of thinking presupposes the action of a special mechanism analysis through synthesis(see), that is, the inclusion of a cognizable object in ever new connections and relationships with other objects, and thus identifying its new qualities and properties. Analysis in this case is not a simple separation of a certain integrity into its component parts; it cannot be carried out without transforming the object under study, without expressing its essential aspects in conceptual form. Synthesis involves not so much the unification of certain elements into a structure, but the reconstruction of the universal properties of an object in its various specific manifestations. Therefore, the basis of the division “analyticity - syntheticity” is not so much the dominance of isolated processes of analysis or synthesis, but rather the qualitative features of unified analytical-synthetic processes and forms of thought. IN scientific research they are used both at the empirical level when studying external signs and properties, and theoretically - when clarifying the essence of phenomena. Analysis and synthesis in the process of scientific knowledge, as a rule, are associated with a number of other cognitive operations, in particular, with abstraction, generalization, induction, deduction and others.

1.2. Abstraction

Abstraction- this is a thinking technique that consists in abstracting from a number of properties and relationships of the phenomenon being studied while simultaneously highlighting the properties and relationships that interest the researcher (see). The result of the abstracting activity of thinking is the formation of various kinds of abstractions, which are both individual concepts and categories, and their systems (see). The abstraction process is of a two-stage nature, suggesting, on the one hand, the establishment of the relative independence of individual properties, and on the other, the identification of properties and relationships of interest to the researcher.

Objects of objective reality have infinite number various properties, connections and relationships. Some of these properties are similar to each other and determine each other, while others are different and relatively independent. In the process of cognition and practice, first of all, this relative independence of individual properties is established, those of them are identified, the connection between which is important for understanding the subject and revealing its essence. The process of such isolation presupposes that these properties and relationships must be designated by special substitute signs, thanks to which they are fixed in consciousness as abstractions. Abstraction - universal technique knowledge, without which both scientific and everyday knowledge, both empirical and theoretical levels of research are unthinkable.

1.3. Generalization

Generalization- this is a method of thinking, as a result of which the general properties and characteristics of objects are established. The operation of generalization is carried out as a transition from a particular or less general concept and judgment to a more general concept or judgment. Generalization is carried out in close connection with abstraction. When thinking abstracts a certain property or relationship of a number of objects, it thereby creates the basis for their unification into 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. At certain stages of cognition, there is a limit to such an expansion of concepts, ending with the development of philosophical categories of extremely broad concepts that form the basis of scientific knowledge.

Generalization is widely used in science not only in empirical research and at the first stages of constructing theoretical knowledge, but is also a powerful tool for constructing the fundamental theories themselves. In this sense, generalization can be considered as a transition from a less general concept to a more general one (where the formal-logical law of inverse correspondence between the content and scope of the concept operates), and in a broader sense, as a transition from private knowledge to general knowledge. Moreover, in the latter case, the expansion of the volume of knowledge does not lead to an impoverishment of its content; on the contrary, such an expansion simultaneously implies an enrichment of the latter. Thus, moving along the steps of abstraction and generalization, from the particular to the general, from the less general to the more general, knowledge gradually penetrates into the essence of the phenomena being studied.

1.4. Induction and deduction

In the process of scientific research, the researcher often has to draw conclusions about the unknown based on existing knowledge. Moving from the known to the unknown, the researcher can either use knowledge about individual facts, while approaching the discovery of general principles, or, conversely, based on general principles, draw conclusions about particular phenomena. Such a transition is carried out with the help of such logical operations, How induction and deduction.

1. Induction- this is a way of reasoning and a method of research in which the general conclusion is based on particular premises (see).
2. Deduction- this is a method of reasoning through which a conclusion of a particular nature necessarily follows from general premises (see).

Induction and deduction are widely used in all areas of scientific knowledge. They play an important role in the construction of empirical knowledge and the transition from empirical knowledge to the theoretical.

1.4.1. Induction

Induction is a type of generalization associated with anticipating the results of observations and experiments based on data from past experience. The basis of induction is experience, experiment and observation, during which individual facts are collected. Then, by studying these facts and analyzing them, the researcher establishes common and recurring features of a number of phenomena included in a certain class. On this basis, he builds an inductive inference, the premises of which are judgments about individual objects and phenomena indicating their repeating feature, and a judgment about a class that includes these objects and phenomena. As a conclusion, a judgment is obtained in which a feature identified in a set of individual objects is attributed to the entire class. The value of inductive inferences lies in the fact that they provide a transition from individual facts to general provisions, allow one to detect dependencies between phenomena, build empirically based hypotheses and come to generalizations.

In inductive reasoning, a distinction is made between complete and incomplete induction.

Full induction:

Full induction applicable in cases where the class of objects being studied is visible and all objects of this class can be listed. Complete induction is based on the study of each of the objects included in the class, and on this basis finding their common characteristics. However, in some cases there is simply no need to consider absolutely all objects of a particular class; in other cases this is impossible to do due to the vastness of the class of phenomena being studied or due to the limitations of human practice. Then incomplete induction is used.

Incomplete induction:

Incomplete induction is a method of reasoning in which a general conclusion is based on the study of a limited number of objects of a certain class. There are two types of incomplete induction: popular induction(or induction via simple enumeration) and scientific induction:

1. Popular induction is constructed as a generalization of a number of observations of similar phenomena in which some repeating feature is recorded. The fixation of a new characteristic in a number of objects occurs here, as a rule, without a preliminary research plan: having discovered a similar characteristic in the first encountered objects of a certain class and not having encountered a single contradictory case, the specified characteristic is transferred to the entire class of objects. The absence of a contradictory case is the main reason for accepting an inductive inference. The discovery of such a case refutes the inductive generalization.

   The conclusion obtained by induction through a simple enumeration has a relatively low degree of reliability and, with continued research based on expanding the class of cases studied, can often turn out to be erroneous. Therefore, popular induction can be used in scientific research when putting forward first and approximate hypotheses. It is often resorted to at the first stages of acquaintance with a new class of objects, but in general it cannot serve as a reliable basis for inductive generalizations obtained by science. Such generalizations are built mainly on the basis of scientific induction.

2. Scientific induction characterized by the search for causal dependencies between phenomena and the desire to discover essential features of objects combined into a class. There are three main types of scientific induction:
   1. Induction through case selection. Unlike popular induction, which takes into account only the number of cases under study, induction through case selection takes into account the characteristics of each group of cases.
   2. Induction through the study of causal relationships. Scientific induction is also widely used as a method of finding causal relationships by studying a certain set of circumstances preceding the observed phenomenon. By varying the circumstances and observing a certain phenomenon each time, the researcher establishes its cause. This method characterizes, in particular, many types of experimental study of objects.
   3. Induction through the study of a single representative of a certain class. Scientific induction can be built not only on the basis of the study of a number of phenomena or objects included in a certain class, but also on the basis of the study of a single representative of the specified class. In this case, when reasoning about the belonging or absence of a certain characteristic of an object, such characteristics should not be used. individual properties, which distinguish it from other items of the same class.

These types of incomplete induction play an extremely important role in cognition. Incomplete induction allows you to shorten the scientific search and come to general provisions, the disclosure of patterns, without waiting for all the phenomena of a given class to be studied in detail. However, it also contains a significant limitation, namely that the conclusion of incomplete induction most often does not provide reliable knowledge. This applies to a lesser extent to scientific induction, some varieties of which provide reliable conclusions, but entirely to popular induction. Knowledge obtained through incomplete induction is usually problematic and probabilistic. This raises the possibility of numerous errors resulting from hasty generalizations. Generalizations of this kind are especially characteristic of the early stages of scientific research.

The problematic nature of most inductive conclusions requires their repeated testing in practice, comparison with experience of the consequences deduced from inductive generalization. As these consequences coincide with the result of experience, the degree of reliability of the inductive inference increases. In this process, the substantiation of knowledge obtained through induction necessarily involves a movement from inductive generalizations to one or another particular case. This kind of conclusion is already a deductive inference. Thus, induction is complemented by deduction, which ensures the transition from probabilistic to reliable knowledge.

1.4.2. Deduction

Deduction differs from induction in the directly opposite course of thought and represents a transition from the general to the particular. In deduction, relying on general knowledge, a conclusion of a particular nature is made, therefore one of the premises of deduction is necessarily a general judgment. If it is obtained as a result of inductive reasoning, then deduction complements induction, expanding the amount of knowledge gained. The greatest cognitive value of deduction is manifested in the case when the general premise is not just an inductive generalization, but some kind of hypothetical assumption, a new scientific idea. In this case, deduction plays not just an auxiliary role, complementing induction, but is the starting point for the emergence of a new theoretical system. The theoretical knowledge created in this way predetermines the further course of empirical research and targets the construction of new inductive generalizations. In general, at the initial stage of scientific research, induction predominates, but in the course of the development and substantiation of scientific knowledge, deduction begins to play a major role. Thus, these two operations of scientific knowledge are inextricably linked and complement each other.

1.5. Analogy

When studying the properties and signs of phenomena, the researcher cannot understand them immediately, in their entirety, in their entirety, but approaches their study gradually, revealing step by step more and more new properties. Having studied some of the properties of an object, he may find that they coincide with the properties of another already well-studied object. Having established such similarity and found that the number of matching features is quite large, the researcher can make the assumption that other properties of these objects coincide. This kind of reasoning forms the basis of the analogy.

Analogy- this is a method of cognition in which, on the basis of the similarity of objects in some characteristics, they conclude about their similarity in other characteristics. There are two forms of manifestation of analogy in cognition: associative And logical analogies. Associative analogy manifests itself mainly in psychological acts of creativity. It is figurative in nature and plays a big role during the initial emergence of new scientific ideas. In the course of associative analogy, sometimes phenomena and objects that are very distant in nature are united. The situation is different when a researcher, with a certain degree of probability, judges the relationship of certain phenomena on the basis of their parallel study. In such a study there is logical analogy . Such parallel study and comparison of phenomena allows us to quickly penetrate into their essence.

Analogy, in addition, is of great importance as an illustration, proof or explanation of certain phenomena. In this case, there is a search for any prototypes of the phenomena being studied, and these prototypes themselves can be either real situations, designed to prove or disprove this or that position, or artificially constructed situations that help to create visual representations of unobservable phenomena and thereby help to understand their essence. Inferences by analogy, understood extremely broadly, as the transfer of information about one object to another, constitute the epistemological basis of modeling.

1.6. Modeling

Modeling- this is the study of an object (original) by creating and studying its copy (model), replacing the original from certain aspects that are of interest to cognition (see and). The model always corresponds to the original object - in those properties that are subject to study, but at the same time differs from it in a number of other characteristics, which makes the model convenient for studying the object being studied. The modeling method is a universal method of cognition, which was used in ancient times, although it was not recognized as a special research method. The use of modeling in scientific knowledge is dictated by the need to reveal such aspects of objects that either cannot be comprehended through direct study, or it is unproductive to study them in this way due to any limitations.

Models used in scientific knowledge are divided into two large classes: material And perfect. The former are natural objects that obey natural laws in their functioning. The latter are ideal formations, recorded in the appropriate symbolic form and functioning according to the laws of the logic of thinking, reflecting the world.

Material models:

There are two main types of material models: subject-physical And subject-mathematical, and two main types of ideal models: idealized model representations And iconic models. According to this distinction, the main types of modeling are distinguished. Each of them is used depending on the characteristics of the object being studied and the nature of the cognitive tasks.

Subject-physical modeling is widely used both in scientific practice, and in the field material production. Subject-physical modeling always assumes that the model should be similar to the original in physical nature and differ from it only in the numerical values ​​of a number of parameters. Along with this, in the practice of scientific research, a type of modeling is often used, in which the model is built from objects of a different physical nature than the original, but is described by the same system of mathematical dependencies. In contrast to subject-physical modeling, this type of modeling is called subject-mathematical. The subject model here becomes an object of testing and study, as a result of which its mathematical description is created. The latter is then transferred to the modeled object, characterizing its structure and functioning.

Ideal models:

In developed science, especially in the transition to theoretical research, modeling using ideal models is widely used. This way of obtaining knowledge about objects can be characterized as modeling through idealized representations. It is a leading tool for theoretical research. Actively using model representations, scientific research also applies the so-called iconic modeling, which is based on building and testing mathematical models certain class of phenomena, without the use of auxiliary physical object which is being tested. The latter distinguishes the symbolic model from the subject-mathematical one. This type of modeling is sometimes also called abstract-mathematical. It requires the construction of a sign model representing a certain object, where the relationships and properties of the object are presented in the form of signs and their connections. This model is then examined purely by logical means, and new knowledge arises as a result of the deductive deployment of the model without reference to the subject area on the basis of which this iconic model grew.

2. Empirical scientific methods

2.1. Empirical knowledge

The concept of empirical knowledge is used in both broad and narrow meanings. In a broad sense, empirical refers to everyday knowledge that accumulates in the course of the development of human practice. In modern scientific methodology, empirical research is understood more narrowly - as a certain stage in obtaining scientific knowledge, which is obtained on the basis of targeted observation and experiment.

The main goal of empirical knowledge is to obtain observational data and form scientific facts, on the basis of which the empirical basis of scientific knowledge is then built and a system of theoretical constructions is developed. Thus, empirical research is carried out on the basis of practical operation with objects, excluding direct observation and primary logical processing of observation data. As a result of all these procedures, scientific facts emerge.

Scattered data obtained at the first stage of empirical research during observation of an object are not in themselves facts of science. They may contain errors associated with incorrect experiments, instrument readings, deviations in the functioning of the senses, and so on. In order for these observations to receive the status scientific facts, they need to be cleared of various kinds of random and subjective layers, to highlight what characterizes the objective phenomenon itself. The next stage of empirical research is to subject the obtained facts to further rational processing: systematization, classification and generalization, and on this basis to identify certain empirical dependencies and establish empirical patterns.

In general, the empirical level of knowledge consists of the following main steps:

1. Preparation of an empirical study.
2. Obtaining initial data.
3. Formation of scientific facts based on the data obtained.
4. Primary rational processing of scientific facts (systematization, classification and generalization) in order to establish empirical dependencies.

2.2. Observation

Observation represents the purposeful perception of phenomena of objective reality, during which the observer gains knowledge about the external aspects, properties and relationships of the object being studied. Scientific observation, in contrast to ordinary contemplation, is always conditioned by one or another scientific idea and is mediated by theoretical knowledge, which shows what to observe and how to observe. Process scientific observation is a special type of activity that includes as elements the observer himself, the object of observation and the means of observation. The latter include instruments that study the properties of objects, and a material medium through which information is transmitted from an object to an observer.

In the methodology of scientific knowledge, depending on what is observed and by what means the observation is carried out, four types are distinguished:

1. Direct observation. In direct observation, the researcher deals directly with the properties of the object being studied.
2. Indirect observation. Unlike direct observation, indirect observation is the perception not of the object itself, but of the consequences that it causes. By analyzing these consequences, they logically reveal the nature of the object being studied.
3. Direct observation. Direct observation (despite some ambiguity of this term) is called such observation, which is carried out directly by the human senses, without the use of any auxiliary means. Such observation was widely used in the first steps of the development of natural sciences.
4. Indirect (or instrumental) observation. Indirect or instrumental observation is such observation that is carried out using technical means. This type of observation is one of the main means of knowledge in modern science.

As a rule, in scientific practice, these types of observations do not appear in their pure form; they are used in combination with each other, representing individual aspects complex process obtaining primary, initial data about the reality being studied.

2.3. Description

Directly sensory data obtained as a result of observation can serve as material for individual consciousness, but in order to become material for social consciousness and enter into everyday use scientific analysis, they must be fixed and transmitted using certain symbolic means. This process of consolidating and transmitting information is carried out using the operation descriptions.

Empirical description- this is the recording by means of natural or artificial language of information about objects given in observation. With the help of description, sensory information is translated into the language of concepts, signs, diagrams and numbers, thereby taking a form convenient for further rational processing (systematization, classification and generalization). If the description uses natural language, then it appears in the form of a regular narrative.

Description can be considered as the final stage of observation. At this stage of research, the task of deep penetration into the essence of the phenomenon and the disclosure of its internal nature is not yet set. The researcher strives to record in as much detail as possible mainly the external aspects of the object being studied.

Description is a necessary element in the structure of scientific knowledge. However, as science develops, the nature of this technique changes significantly. The volume of conventional narration is gradually reduced, giving way to more rigorous means of description. This happens because a description based on natural language has a number of disadvantages: inaccuracy, vagueness and ambiguity of basic terms. For example, such a description cannot be used in the exact sciences. Therefore, in modern scientific knowledge, the description is built on the basis of an artificial language, which is distinguished by logical rigor. At the same time, the role of natural language remains, since it is included as a mandatory element in any artificial language system. Rigor as the main requirement for description is increasingly spreading to those areas of scientific knowledge that were traditionally considered descriptive: the social sciences and the humanities.

The description is divided into two main types: quality And quantitative. In the history of science, it often happened that the same phenomenon received first qualitative, and then quantitative description. In modern science, qualitative and quantitative descriptions are interconnected, representing different aspects of a single research process. Quantitative description is carried out using various tables, graphs and matrices, called “observation protocols”, which arise as a result of various measurement procedures. Therefore, a quantitative description in the narrow sense of the word can be considered as a recording of measurement data. Modern scientific description, based on a mathematical apparatus, necessarily includes a measurement operation.

2.4. Measurement

Measurement is a cognitive operation that results in the numerical value of the measured quantities. It complements qualitative methods of understanding natural phenomena with precise quantitative methods. The measurement operation is based on comparing objects according to some similar properties, characteristics, signs. Through measurement, a transition is made from what is observed in experience to mathematical abstractions and back. With the help of units of measurement, it becomes possible to accurately measure the quantities under consideration, expressing their relationship through the ratio of numbers. Considering that many quantities are functionally related to each other, it is possible, based on knowledge of some quantities, to indirectly establish others.

Quantitative knowledge of the studied quantities can be obtained both directly in the form of direct measurement and indirectly through calculation. On this basis, an idea emerges about direct And indirect measurement.

2.4.1. Direct measurement

Direct measurement is a directly empirical procedure. It acts as a comparison of some measured property with a standard. Reference- this is a special thing that ensures the preservation and reproduction of some selected property by which a certain class of quantities is measured.

The emergence of measurement standards is the result of a long historical development of social practice and improvement of the methodology of scientific research itself. It is associated with the transition from random to expanded and then to the universal form of direct measurement. At the early stages, measurement appears in a random form, when there are no standards yet, and the measurement of a quantity characterizing a thing is carried out through any other thing characterized by the same quantity. Then, as practice develops, the measurement begins to cover ever wider classes of objects and moves from random to expanded form. At this stage, the thing becomes a standard. The standard serves as the first basis for the introduction of units of measurement (for example, the standard of length in the Paris Chamber of Weights and Measures simultaneously serves as a measure and scale of length and gives its unit 1 m).

In the process of developing direct measurements, measuring instruments, which allow, through a series of steps, to compare the measured value with a standard. IN difficult cases empirical research, direct measurement can be carried out in the process experiment, act as its element. But, nevertheless, measurement is not identified with the experimental procedure. It can also be carried out outside the experiment. On the other hand, an experiment is not always related to measurement and can be qualitative in nature. Thus, measurement and experiment act as specific methods of empirical research, which can be either separated from each other or synthesized within a single activity.

2.4.2. Indirect measurement

Based on direct measurements, they are developing indirect measurements, the essence of which is that they allow you to obtain the value of the measured quantity based on a mathematical relationship, without resorting to comparison with a standard. In this way, science obtains numerical values ​​of quantities in conditions when the process of direct measurement is complex, as well as in conditions when direct measurement is fundamentally impossible. Unlike direct measurement, indirect measurement is no longer an empirical procedure, but represents a transition from empirical research to theoretical research. In its simplest forms, it is directly adjacent to empirical research, but in complex forms, indirect measurement is directly related to theoretical calculations.

Indirect and direct measurements interact with each other during the development of science, clarifying and checking each other. In particular, the accuracy of direct measurements increases due to corrections made through the use of indirect measurements. In turn, finding new equations and carrying out increasingly complex indirect measurements relies on direct measurements. With each new stage of its development, science improves the means and methods of measurement, creating new calculation methods, new measuring equipment and standards. Thanks to this, it becomes possible to study previously unexplored types of processes and discover new laws of nature. In turn, knowledge of the laws of nature always leads to improvement of measurement methods and tools. Thus, in science, the acquired knowledge is constantly being embodied in new measurement tools and new measurement methods are being developed based on previously discovered laws of nature. This allows scientific knowledge to rise to higher levels of its development.

2.5. Experiment

Studying nature, a person not only contemplates, but also actively intervenes in the course of its processes and phenomena. This practical-cognitive human activity forms the basis of experimental research. Experiment- a special experience that has a cognitive, purposeful, methodological nature, which is carried out in artificial (specially specified), reproducible conditions through their controlled change (see).

Unlike ordinary observation, in an experiment the researcher actively intervenes in the course of the process being studied in order to obtain certain knowledge about it. The phenomenon under study is observed here under specially created and controlled conditions, which makes it possible to restore the course of the phenomenon each time the conditions are repeated. Having created an artificial system, it then becomes possible to consciously (and sometimes unconsciously, accidentally) influence it by rearranging its elements, eliminating them or replacing them with other elements. By observing the changing consequences, it is possible to reveal a certain causal relationship between elements and thereby identify new properties and patterns of the phenomena being studied.

During the experiment, the researcher not only controls and reproduces the conditions in which the object is studied, but also often artificially changes these conditions and varies them. This is one of the important advantages of experiment over observation. By changing the interaction conditions, the researcher receives great opportunities to detect hidden properties and relationships of an object. Typically, control and change of conditions is achieved through the use of instrument devices, which are the observer’s instrument of influence on the object.

Often an experiment is carried out on the basis of a theory that determines the formulation of problems and the interpretation of its results. Often main task The experiment serves to test hypotheses and predictions of the theory that are of fundamental importance (the so-called decisive experiment). In this regard, experiment, as one of the forms of practice, serves as a criterion for the truth of scientific knowledge as a whole.

The main logical and practical elements of the experimental procedure:

1. Posing a question and putting forward a tentative answer.
2. Creation of an experimental setup that provides the necessary conditions for the researcher to interact with the object being studied.
3. Controlled modification of these conditions.
4. Recording consequences and establishing causes.
5. Description of a new phenomenon and its properties.

The experiment takes leading place in scientific knowledge. The role of experiment is especially great in the natural sciences. However, with the development of scientific knowledge about social phenomena In connection with the needs of social practice, in particular in connection with the needs of improving the organization and management of society, social experiments are beginning to acquire increasing importance. Social experiment, being a research method, at the same time performs the function of optimizing social systems. He simultaneously belongs to both the field of science and the field of social management, helping to design and implement new social forms.

3. Theoretical scientific methods

3.1. Theoretical knowledge

In science-oriented discourses the term "theory" and “theoretical” (see) is used in two very different meanings. In the broad sense of the word, “theoretical” refers to cognitive activity in general. In this sense, “theory” is often compared with the practical activities of man. Here they usually talk about the relationship between theory and practice, theoretical and practical human activity. In a narrower sense, theory does not mean all human cognitive activity, but only its highest levels, where knowledge about the most significant and fundamental properties reality, and its main patterns are also revealed. Thus, a theory can be defined as an organically integral, consistent system of views, ideas and concepts that, in a generalized form, reveals the essential properties and natural connections of objective reality, on the basis of which explanation and prediction of phenomena are achieved. Modern science is a system various theories, on the basis of which it is possible to construct an explanation of empirical facts and derive the prediction of new ones.

In general, theoretical knowledge has a deductive structure, where it is possible to identify some general concepts, principles and hypotheses that make up the theoretical basis and the system of consequences arising from this basis. Distinctive feature developed theories is the use mathematical formalism, realized in the axiomatization and formalization of theories, the construction of mathematical models and mathematical hypotheses. The use of mathematical apparatus is a powerful means of modern scientific knowledge. At the same time, theoretical knowledge has complex structure, and formally the mathematical part represents only one side of the theory, but not the whole theory. In addition to this part, the theory includes a special idealized model reality, which is operated in the form thought experiment. The elements of which it consists are the so-called abstract objects(see), the connections and relationships of which form this model. The presence of such objects, replacing real things, their properties and relationships in knowledge, is a characteristic feature of theoretical knowledge.

Theoretical language describes the relationships of abstract objects of a theoretical model, which is somehow connected with observable reality. Thanks to this connection, theoretical statements acquire objective meaning. At the basis of an established theory, one can always find a mutually consistent network of abstract objects that determine the specifics of this theory. This network can be represented as fundamental theoretical framework- an abstract idealized model of reality studied within the framework of the theory. Around it, particular theoretical schemes are formed that are part of the scientific theory. In addition to the specified model, inside developed theory It is possible to identify other subsystems of abstract objects.

The development of a theory can be carried out in at least two ways: 1) through formal operations with signs of a theoretical language; 2) by studying, using the method of thought experiment, correlations of objects combined into theoretical schemes. In the first case, they do not pay attention to the meaning of the signs and operate with them according to certain rules that form the syntax of the accepted theoretical language. In the second approach, they necessarily explicate the content of the corresponding symbolic expressions and introduce ideas about abstract objects that reveal a system of certain connections and relationships. The development of knowledge here is carried out through a thought experiment with abstract objects, the study of connections of which makes it possible to form new abstractions and thereby advance in the plane of theoretical content, without resorting to methods of formalized thinking. The interrelation of two methods of constructing a theory means that the researcher from time to time corrects the movement in mathematical formalism with meaningful operations with abstract objects, and then again moves on to the formal way of operating with these objects, exploring their connections through the transformation of signs mathematical language in accordance with its syntactic norms.

The choice of the initial abstract objects of the theory and the establishment of their connections is determined not only by the nature of the experiments and observations, but also by the researcher’s accepted picture of the world, which sets general ideas about the structure of reality, and with different sides can be studied in a whole set of specific theories. Partial representations of the picture of the world are included in each of them, but in general it acts as a synthetic and very generalized idea of ​​​​nature, based on specific theories. Changing pictures of the world changes ideas about the structure of natural objects that are subject to study in one or another field of science. Accordingly, the already established theories that form this branch of knowledge are reconstructed.

The established theory includes many elements that form the structure of the theory. They are fixed in special linguistic means: there are statements that describe a theoretical scheme, expressions that form a mathematical apparatus; The theory also includes descriptions of the rules for connecting abstract objects of the theoretical scheme with real objects of experience and expressions characterizing these abstract objects in terms of the picture of the world. This entire set of interconnected statements forms the language of the established scientific theory.

A theory is created to explain a certain class of phenomena. Once built, it simultaneously acts in explanation functions, and in prediction functions, which are closely related to each other.

Explanation is one of the most important tasks scientific knowledge. It is in the process of explanation that the essential aspects and relationships of objects are revealed, the internal causal relationship of phenomena and their natural conditionality are established. To explain a phenomenon means to establish its fundamental properties and relationships, its basic causality, and to identify the general laws to which it obeys. From a logical point of view, an explanation is the inclusion of the objects under study in the system of theoretical knowledge, bringing them under general provisions and the principles of science, on the basis of which the most complete and deep understanding of these objects is achieved.

The construction of a theory as an attempt to provide an explanation of the phenomena being studied does not mean the end of scientific research (although it represents a certain stage in the development of science). Scientists, based on existing knowledge, always strive to predict the existence of new phenomena. This task is performed scientific prediction (foresight, forecasting). The essence of prediction is that with its help it is possible to anticipate the course and development of events or give a description of phenomena that science and practice have not yet encountered. The logical basis of prediction is the presence of a certain theory that reveals general patterns, on the basis of which it is possible to deduce consequences that describe new areas of reality.

Thus, the main goal of scientific theory is to establish general patterns and explain incomprehensible phenomena on their basis. The main function of the formed theory is to explain and predict new phenomena.

In the course of its development, a theory always strives to cover as much as possible facts. As long as these facts relate to the subject area, the basic laws of which are reflected in the theory, the theory assimilates these facts and develops successfully. But in its development, the theory may also encounter facts that will require fundamentally new theoretical concepts for their explanation. This phenomenon means that scientific research is faced with a fundamentally new type of objects, the nature of which cannot be described from the standpoint of existing theories. Since the researcher does not know in advance that he is dealing with an object that is fundamentally new in nature, it is quite understandable that his first attempts at theoretical understanding of such objects will consist in assimilating them within the framework of existing theories. This is carried out until logical contradictions arise in the theory. Their presence indicates that cognition has encountered objects that require fundamentally new theoretical concepts.

Construction new theory always preceded by staging scientific problem. The problem focuses the researcher's attention on the paradoxes of previous theories, demanding their resolution. It serves as a kind of intermediate link between past and future knowledge, and its formulation is the starting point for the origin and development of theory. To solve a scientific problem, you need to look at empirical facts in a new way. A new way of considering them leads to the advancement hypotheses, which are a preliminary form of constructing theoretical knowledge. A hypothesis is an assumption about the phenomena of reality, their fundamental properties and development; it is a tentative explanation of new phenomena, built on the basis of a limited number of empirical data.

Due to the fact that the hypothesis is probabilistic in nature, it needs logical justification and empirical confirmation. Verification is carried out not by direct comparison of the hypothesis with empirical material, but by the method of deriving a number of intermediate hypotheses, from which consequences comparable to empirical reality are directly derived. In the process of this justification, hypotheses are refined, rearranged or completely discarded. Hypotheses most often arise as an attempt to explain new empirical facts that do not agree with established theories. But they can also be put forward for “intra-theoretical” considerations, for example, from the desire to improve the mathematical apparatus, generalize it, and find its consistent interpretation. Such hypotheses can also be fruitful and lead to the discovery of new objects.

3.2. Thought experiment method

At the theoretical level, all universal (general scientific) methods of cognition are used, but they are implemented through a system of specific methods characteristic of this level research. Among these techniques, one of the leading places is occupied by thought experiment. A characteristic feature of theoretical thinking is the use of abstract objects. A researcher, developing a theory, always manipulates in his imagination special images of reality, which capture in a generalized form the most essential features of the phenomena being studied. Such images are abstract objects of the theoretical level of knowledge. The construction of abstract objects as theoretical images of real reality and operating with them in order to study the essential characteristics of reality constitute the task of a thought experiment. Therefore, the role of a thought experiment is especially great in the process of generating new theoretical knowledge.

In the methodology of science, a thought experiment is interpreted, on the one hand, as a mental process representing a plan for a future real experiment; on the other hand, a thought experiment is understood as a special type of mental activity in which the course of a real experiment is not simply thought through, but a combination of mental images is carried out that in reality cannot be realized at all. The concept of a thought experiment in the first aspect does not yet reveal its essence and specificity as a special method of cognition; such a disclosure is given only with the second understanding of the method, although the line between them is very relative.

Any thought experiment begins as thinking through a practically feasible operation, and it is difficult to make a sharp distinction between thinking through a real one and carrying out a thought experiment, which, however, does not give rise to their identification. The difference between a thought experiment and thinking through real experiments begins where the thought, starting from initial images, moves into the realm of practically impossible things, idealized objects. Therefore, the term “idealized experiment” is often synonymous with a thought experiment.

As theoretical research becomes more complex, a thought experiment acquires more and more new functions. Thus, in modern natural science, in connection with the use of the method of mathematical hypothesis, it becomes one of the main means of interpreting mathematical formalisms.

3.3. Idealization and formalization

3.3.1. Idealization

During a thought experiment, the researcher often operates with idealized situations. Such situations are constructed as a result of a special procedure called idealization. This is a type of abstraction operation, the use of which is typical for theoretical research. The essence of this operation is as follows. In the process of studying an object, mentally select one of necessary conditions its existence, then, by changing the selected condition, gradually reduce its effect to a minimum. In this case, it may turn out that the property of the object under study will also change in a certain direction. Then a passage to the limit is carried out, assuming that this property receives maximum development if the condition is excluded altogether. As a result, an object is constructed that cannot exist in reality (since it is formed by excluding the conditions necessary for its existence), but nevertheless has prototypes in the real world.

Any theoretical thinking operates with idealized objects. They are of great heuristic importance, since only with their help is it possible to build theoretical models and formulate theoretical laws that explain certain phenomena. Therefore, idealized objects are necessary elements of developed theoretical knowledge. At the same time, idealization, like any scientific method, despite its great importance in theoretical research, has its limits and in this sense is relative character. Its relativity is manifested in the fact that:

1. idealized ideas can be clarified, adjusted or even replaced with new ones;
2. each idealization is created to solve certain problems, that is, a property from which the researcher abstracts in some conditions may turn out to be important when implementing other conditions, and then it is necessary to create fundamentally new idealized objects;
3. It is not in all cases possible to move from idealized ideas (fixed in mathematical formulas) directly to empirical objects, and such a transition requires certain adjustments.

3.3.2. Formalization

In connection with the mathematization of science, it increasingly uses a special method of theoretical thinking - formalization. This technique consists of constructing abstract mathematical models that reveal the essence of the processes of reality being studied. When formalizing, reasoning about objects is transferred to the plane of operating with signs (formulas). Relationships of signs replace statements about the properties and relationships of objects. In this way, a generalized signed model of a certain subject area is created, which makes it possible to detect the structure various phenomena and processes when distracted from quality characteristics the latter.

The derivation of some formulas from others according to the strict rules of logic and mathematics represents a formal study of the main characteristics of the structure of various, sometimes very distant in nature, phenomena. In a number of cases, the analysis of formal models makes it possible to establish theoretical patterns that could not be discovered empirically. In addition, the establishment of structural similarity makes it possible to use the mathematical apparatus developed to describe some processes as a ready-made means of studying other processes. Formalization is most successfully used in mathematics, logic and linguistics.

3.4. Axiomatic method

At axiomatic When constructing theoretical knowledge, a set of initial positions is first specified that do not require proof (at least within the framework of a given knowledge system). These provisions are called axioms or postulates(cm. ). Then, according to certain rules, a system of inferential proposals is built from them. The set of initial axioms and propositions derived on their basis forms an axiomatically constructed theory.

Axioms- These are statements for which proof of truth is not required. Logical inference allows you to transfer the truth of axioms to the consequences derived from them. Fixing certain rules of inference makes it possible to streamline the reasoning process when developing an axiomatic system, to make this reasoning more rigorous and correct. Thus, the axiomatic method facilitates the organization and systematization of scientific knowledge and serves as a means of constructing a developed scientific theory. The axiomatic method is most widely used in mathematics. It is also used in empirical sciences, but taking into account a number of features associated with experimental testing of the theory (see).

One of the first and successful attempts to apply the axiomatic method in science was Euclid's geometry. Based on five initial axioms (postulates), Euclid developed a system of proof for a number of theorems, reducing more complex provisions of geometry to intuitively clear and simple ideas, the truth of which was not in doubt. For a long time, Euclid's geometry remained a model of theoretical knowledge and was considered as an ideal for constructing theoretical systems. In accordance with this ideal, theories were created in other areas of scientific knowledge.

The axiomatic method developed as science developed. Euclid's "Principles" were the first stage of his application, which was called meaningful axiomatics. The axioms were introduced here on the basis of existing experience and were chosen as intuitively obvious provisions. The rules of inference in this system were also considered to be intuitively obvious and were not specifically recorded. All this imposed certain restrictions to meaningful axiomatics. Firstly, the axiomatic system was built only in relation to a domain of objects already known in experience, given in advance, before constructing the theory (hence the requirement for the intuitive evidence of the axioms). Secondly, the relatively weak development of the logical inference technique led to defects in the proof (in Euclidean geometry, for example, many theorems were not strictly proven, which was revealed in the subsequent development of mathematics).

All these limitations of the substantive axiomatic approach were overcome by the subsequent development of the axiomatic method, when a transition was made from substantive to formal and then to formalized axiomatics. When formally constructing an axiomatic system, there is no longer a requirement to select only intuitively obvious axioms, for which the domain of objects they characterize is predetermined. Axioms are introduced formally as a description of some system of relations (not strictly related to only one specific type objects); the terms appearing in the axioms are initially defined only through their relation to each other. Thus, axioms in a formal system are considered as unique definitions of initial concepts (terms). These concepts initially do not have any other, independent definition.

Subsequent deductive deduction of consequences from the axioms allows us to obtain a system of statements, which is considered as some generalized theory. Such a theory can be used to characterize not one, but several subject areas of reality. You just need to find rules that allow you to compare the basic terms included in the axioms with the characteristics of the corresponding objects, and consider the axioms themselves as a characteristic of the connections between these characteristics. Finding such rules for correlating the axioms of a formally constructed system with a particular subject area is called interpretation.

In the process of interpretation, the initial concepts of the theory receive additional definitions(except for those specified by their connections in the axioms). Due to this, the axiomatic system turns into a specific theory of a certain area of ​​reality. If a formal axiomatic system is created on the basis of a substantive one, then from the very beginning it has a natural interpretation, that is, subject area, which is described and explained by a substantive theory. But, besides this, the formal system acquires new interpretations. This is one of the important heuristic functions of the formal approach to the construction of an axiomatic theory. It allows you to create a theoretical structure before the corresponding field has been identified, and then find the specified field for a given theory. Thus, the use of formal axiomatics significantly expands the predictive functions of cognition. The transition to formalized systems has opened up new possibilities for building scientific theories great degree of generality.

3.5. Hypothetico-deductive method

In mathematics and logic, a theory is often considered a formal or formalized axiomatic system that is interpreted in terms of various models. Moreover, theory is distinguished from such models. In empirical sciences, a model connecting the mathematical formalism of a theory with experience is necessarily included in the theory. The model must be justified as an idealized scheme of interactions recorded in experience. This is where the peculiarities of constructing theoretical knowledge in empirical sciences arise. A specific technique of this construction is hypothetico-deductive method, the essence of which is to create a system of deductively interconnected hypotheses(see), from which statements about empirical facts. This method began to be used back in the 15th century (in exact natural science), but it became the object of methodological analysis relatively recently, when the specifics of theoretical knowledge in comparison with empirical research began to become clear.

Developed theoretical knowledge is “not built from below” due to inductive generalizations of scientific facts, but is deployed, as it were, “from above” in relation to empirical data. The method of constructing such knowledge is that a hypothetical construction is first created, which is deductively developed, forming a certain system of hypotheses, and then this system is subjected to experimental testing, during which it is clarified and specified. This is the essence of the hypothetico-deductive development of the theory. The deductive system of hypotheses has a hierarchical structure. First of all, it has a hypothesis (or hypotheses) of the upper tier and hypotheses of the lower tiers, which are consequences of the first hypotheses. Each hypothesis is introduced in such a way that, using logical or logical-mathematical methods, subsequent hypotheses can be derived from it, and the hypotheses of the lower tier can be directly compared with experimental data. In developed sciences, most often they deal not with one, but with a whole system of higher-tier hypotheses, from which consequences are derived that are verified experimentally.

A characteristic feature of the hypothetico-deductive system is its integrity. During empirical testing The entire system of hypotheses as a whole is compared with experience, and this makes the process of rebuilding hypotheses a very complex procedure. The simplest case is when there is one hypothesis of the upper tier and from it a linear chain of intermediate hypothetical statements, compared with experience, clearly follows. In this case, experimental data immediately pronounces a “sentence” on the hypothesis. But most often, science deals with more complex options, when the upper tier of a hypothetical system includes several hypotheses and a detailed system of intermediate conclusions follows from it. Then the discrepancy between a hypothetical system and experience does not mean that all hypothetical positions in it are incorrect. It may turn out that only one hypothesis is incorrect, while the others are correct, but experience will testify against the entire system of hypotheses, without indicating which element of it is subject to change. Therefore, the restructuring of the hypothetico-deductive system often causes great difficulties and requires significant creative efforts from scientists.

As the hypothetico-deductive system unfolds into a theory, it distinguishes the main part, a kind of core of the system, to which the upper tier hypotheses belong, and the periphery of the hypothesis, forming an intermediate layer between the core and empirical data. If facts appear that contradict the system, the researcher first strives, without changing the core of the theory, to expand the number of hypotheses in order to assimilate new facts. But this method of coordination complicates the system, makes it cumbersome, and ultimately leads to contradictions. A theory created by the hypothetico-deductive method can be supplemented by hypotheses, but not before certain limits, until difficulties arise in its further development. During such periods, it becomes necessary to reconstruct the very core of the theoretical structure, to put forward a new hypothetico-deductive system that could explain the facts under study without introducing additional hypotheses and, in addition, predict new facts. Most often, during such periods, not one, but several competing hypothetico-deductive systems are put forward.

Each hypothetico-deductive system implements a special research program, the essence of which is expressed by the postulates of this system (upper tier hypotheses). Therefore, the competition of hypothetico-deductive systems acts as a struggle between various research programs. In the struggle between competing research programs, the winner is the one that best incorporates experimental data and makes predictions that are unexpected from the point of view of other programs. However, this does not mean that such predictions and their complete agreement with the facts should immediately be expected from a promising program. On the contrary, at the very beginning of its implementation, when the hypothetico-deductive system only develops the content of its core and creates a layer of intermediate hypotheses, it cannot immediately lead to the discovery of new facts. Moreover, in the early stages of a new research program, it may contradict the facts if each hypothesis in the intermediate layer is tested directly. The postulates of the hypothetico-deductive system themselves indicate at what stage in its development it is necessary to include data from experience, on which it can be tested and, if necessary, rebuilt. Therefore, it would be incorrect to say that every hypothesis introduced during the development of a theory must be immediately tested. The specificity of the hypothetico-deductive method is that each hypothesis plays the role of a certain element in an integral system of hypotheses and the nature of its experimental verification is determined by the properties of the hypothetico-deductive system as a whole.

The hypothetico-deductive method can come in two varieties. It can be a way of constructing a system of meaningful hypotheses with their subsequent expression in the language of mathematics and can appear in the form of techniques for creating a formal system with its subsequent interpretation. In the first case, a system of meaningful concepts is introduced, which then receives a mathematical description; in the second case, the construction path is different: first, a mathematical apparatus is built, which then receives a meaningful interpretation.

3.6. Ascent from abstract to concrete

Task theoretical knowledge is to obtain a holistic image of the process under study. Any process of reality can be represented as a specific combination various connections. Theoretical research highlights these connections and reflects them with the help of certain scientific abstractions. But a simple set of such abstractions does not yet give an idea of ​​the nature of the object, its functioning and development. In order to create such an idea, it is necessary to mentally reproduce the process in all its completeness and complexity of its connections and relationships. This research technique is called method of ascension from abstract to concrete. Using it, the researcher first finds the main connection (relationship) of the object being studied, and then, step by step, tracing how it changes under different conditions, discovers new connections, establishes their interactions, and in this way reflects in its entirety the essence of the object being studied. In the process of applying the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, cognition moves from the concrete to the abstract and then again to the concrete, but to the understood, analyzed concrete, which is presented as a unity of abstract definitions. The method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete is used in the construction of various scientific theories and can be used in both social and natural sciences.

The method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete is the most important theoretical technique that ensures the disclosure of the essence of the object being studied. It involves a movement from the first general and abstract definitions, capturing individual essential aspects of the reality under study, to a system of definitions that reproduce the interaction of these aspects in thinking. Logically, this is expressed in the introduction of a developed system of concepts and statements based on some primary concepts and statements taken as initial ones.

The construction of a theory by deriving consequences from certain initial concepts and statements also presupposes an axiomatic method. Therefore, outwardly it may seem that the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete acts only as a specific manifestation of the axiomatic approach. However, a more detailed examination reveals that there is a significant difference between these methods. When constructing a theory axiomatic method it is enough to have axioms and rules of inference to expand theoretical system. In the case of applying the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, the situation is different. Here new statements are introduced through appropriate study real connections object by attracting more and more new conditions from which the researcher was initially distracted. Primary, main connection, isolated by thinking as the initial element of the analyzed object, is transformed into a more complex connections, expressed in the form of new theoretical definitions of a given object.

Thus, the development of theory in the case of using the method of ascension from the abstract to the concrete is carried out by constantly turning to an object with which the researcher carries out real or mental experiments and on this basis, step by step, recreates in thinking the concrete interweaving of its essential connections. The transition from one statement to another takes place here through the synthesis of previously acquired knowledge, aimed at actually operating with an object. The rules of inference are used here, but the inference itself is carried out not formally, but through meaningful operations with the connections of the object, revealed by experience.

Being one of the important methods of theory building, the method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete is used in modern scientific research along with axiomatic and hypothetico-deductive methods. These methods, having their own specificity, can be used in a certain combination with each other. Thus, using the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, the researcher within it can use methods of hypothetico-deductive construction of individual links of the theory. At the same time, when using formal axiomatic techniques, when looking for an interpretation of mathematical formalisms, they resort to a whole series of thought experiments where the rules of the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete are used.

3.7. Historical and logical methods

When studying complex evolving systems special meaning have historical and logical methods research. The process of development, like any other objective process of reality, breaks down into phenomenon and essence, into empirical history and the main line of development, its pattern, the reflection of which is the main goal of theoretical knowledge. This pattern can be identified in two ways: historical And logical.

Historical method involves tracing history in all its completeness and diversity, generalizing empirical material and establishing a general historical pattern on this basis. But this same pattern can be identified without directly addressing real story, but by studying the process at the highest stages of its development, which is the main goal of the logical method. The objective basis of this method is that at higher stages of development of an object, in the process of its functioning, the main features of the previous stages of development are reproduced. Moreover, history is recorded in the structure of an object not in all its diversity, but only in those moments that were essential for its formation; it appears here as if in a form purified from accidents. Often the connections between the elements of a given structure and the previous stages of development can be revealed only indirectly, as a result of the complex analytical and synthetic activity of human consciousness.

Scientific knowledge of developing objects equally uses both logical and historical methods. But where direct study of the past is available, at least from those remains that have survived to the present day, the historical method may prevail; where this is not possible, they use logical method. In general, the historical and logical methods complement each other, which makes it possible to move from the structure existing object and the laws of its functioning to the laws of development, and, conversely, from the history of development to the structure of an existing object, that is, when studying development, the researcher turns to the present in order to better understand the past, while when understanding the functioning of an object, the researcher turns to the past in order to It's better to imagine the present.

Being closely related to each other and complementing each other, the historical and logical methods act as completely equal in their theoretical status, since from a logical point of view there is no advantage in knowing the functioning of an object compared to knowing its history. The historical method, reconstructing history, ascends from its empirical diversity to the general laws of development. The logical method, aimed at studying an existing subject, also begins its movement by identifying the empirical characteristics of the subject with the subsequent identification of the main elements of the structure, knowledge of which is important both for understanding the functioning of the subject and for indirectly establishing general laws its development.