In loving memory of a wonderful, rare person and physicist
Yuri Vladimirovich Gaponov.
All more or less educated people (that is, those who have completed at least high school) know that, for example, astronomy is one of the most interesting and important sciences about nature. But when the word “science” is uttered, it is assumed that everyone has the same understanding of what we are talking about. Is this really so?
A scientific approach to the phenomena and processes of the surrounding world is a whole system of views and ideas developed over millennia of development of human thought, a certain worldview, which is based on an understanding of the relationships between Nature and man. And there is an urgent need to formulate, if possible, in an accessible language, considerations on this matter.
This need today has sharply increased due to the fact that in recent years and even decades the concept of “science” in the minds of many people has turned out to be blurred and unclear due to the huge number of television and radio programs, publications in newspapers and magazines about the “achievements” of astrology, extrasensory perception, ufology and other types of occult “knowledge”. Meanwhile, from the point of view of the overwhelming majority of people engaged in serious scientific research, none of the named types of “knowledge” can be considered science. What is a real scientific approach to studying the world based on?
First of all, it is based on vast human experience, on the everyday practice of observing and interacting with objects, natural phenomena and processes. As an example, we can refer to the well-known story of the discovery of the law of universal gravitation. Studying observational and measurement data, Newton proposed that the Earth serves as a source of gravitational force, proportional to its mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance from its center. Then he used this assumption, which can be called a scientific hypothesis (scientific because it generalized the data of measurements and observations), to explain the movement of the Moon in a circular orbit around the Earth. It turned out that the hypothesis put forward is in good agreement with the known data on the movement of the Moon. This meant that it was most likely correct, since it well explained both the behavior of various objects near the Earth’s surface and the movement of a distant celestial body. Then, after the necessary clarifications and additions, this hypothesis, which can already be considered a scientific theory (since it explained a fairly wide class of phenomena), was used to explain the observed movement of the planets of the Solar System. And it turned out that the movement of the planets is consistent with Newton’s theory. Here we can already talk about the law that governs the movement of terrestrial and celestial bodies within vast distances from the Earth. Particularly convincing was the story of the discovery “at the tip of a pen” of the eighth planet of the solar system - Neptune. The law of gravity made it possible to predict its existence, calculate its orbit and indicate the place in the sky where it should be looked for. And the astronomer Halle discovered Neptune at a distance of 56" from the predicted location!
Any science in general develops according to the same scheme. First, observational and measurement data are studied, then attempts are made to systematize, generalize them and put forward a hypothesis that explains the results obtained. If a hypothesis explains the available data at least in essential terms, we can expect that it will predict phenomena that have not yet been studied. Testing these calculations and predictions through observations and experiments is a very powerful means of finding out whether a hypothesis is true. If it receives confirmation, it can already be considered a scientific theory, since it is absolutely incredible that predictions and calculations obtained on the basis of an incorrect hypothesis would accidentally coincide with the results of observations and measurements. After all, such predictions usually carry new, often unexpected information, which, as they say, you can’t invent on purpose. Often, however, the hypothesis is not confirmed. This means we need to continue searching and develop other hypotheses. This is the usual hard way in science.
Secondly, an equally important characteristic of the scientific approach is the ability to repeatedly and independently test any results and theories. For example, anyone can explore the law of universal gravitation by independently studying observational and measurement data or performing them again.
Thirdly, in order to talk seriously about science, you need to master the amount of knowledge and methods that the scientific community currently has, you need to master the logic of methods, theories, conclusions accepted in the scientific community. Of course, it may turn out that someone is not satisfied with it (and in general, what science has achieved at each stage never completely satisfies real scientists), but in order to make claims or criticize, you need, at a minimum, to have a good understanding of what has already been done. If you can convincingly prove that a given approach, method or logic leads to incorrect conclusions, is internally contradictory, and instead offer something better - honor and praise to you! But the conversation should only take place at the level of evidence, and not unfounded statements. The truth must be confirmed by the results of observations and experiments, perhaps new and unusual, but convincing for professional researchers.
There is another very important sign of a real scientific approach. This is the honesty and impartiality of the researcher. These concepts, of course, are quite subtle; it is not so easy to give them a clear definition, since they are associated with the “human factor”. But without these qualities of scientists, there is no real science.
Let's say you have an idea, a hypothesis, or even a theory. And here a strong temptation arises, for example, to select a set of facts that confirm your idea or, in any case, do not contradict it. And discard the results that contradict it, pretending that you don’t know about them. It happens that they go even further, “tailoring” the results of observations or experiments to the desired hypothesis and trying to depict its complete confirmation. It’s even worse when, with the help of cumbersome and often not very competent mathematical calculations, which are based on some artificially invented (as they say, “speculative”, that is, “speculative”) assumptions and postulates, not tested and not confirmed experimentally, they build a “theory "with a claim to a new word in science. And when faced with criticism from professionals who convincingly prove the inconsistency of these constructions, they begin to accuse scientists of conservatism, retrogradeness, or even “mafia.” However, real scientists have a strict, critical approach to results and conclusions, and above all to their own. Thanks to this, every step forward in science is accompanied by the creation of a sufficiently solid foundation for further advancement along the path of knowledge.
Great scientists have repeatedly noted that the true indicators of the truth of a theory are its beauty and logical harmony. These concepts mean, in particular, the extent to which a given theory “fits” into existing ideas and is consistent with a known set of verified facts and their established interpretation. This, however, does not mean that the new theory should not contain unexpected conclusions or predictions. As a rule, the opposite is true. But if we are talking about a serious contribution to science, then the author of the work must clearly analyze how a new look at a problem or a new explanation of observed phenomena relates to the entire existing scientific picture of the world. And if a contradiction arises between them, the researcher must honestly state this in order to calmly and impartially figure out whether there are any errors in the new constructions, whether they contradict firmly established facts, relationships and patterns. And only when a comprehensive study of the problem by various independent professionals leads to the conclusion about the validity and consistency of the new concept, can we seriously talk about its right to exist. But even in this case one cannot be completely sure that it expresses the truth.
A good illustration of this statement is the situation with the General Theory of Relativity (GTR). Since its creation by A. Einstein in 1916, many other theories of space, time and gravity have appeared that meet the criteria mentioned above. However, until recently, not a single clearly established observational fact appeared that would contradict the conclusions and predictions of General Relativity. On the contrary, all observations and experiments confirm it or, in any case, do not contradict it. There is no reason yet to abandon general relativity and replace it with any other theory.
As for modern theories that use complex mathematical apparatus, it is always possible (of course, with the appropriate qualifications) to analyze the system of their initial postulates and its compliance with firmly established facts, check the logic of constructions and conclusions, and the correctness of mathematical transformations. A real scientific theory always makes it possible to make estimates that can be measured in observations or experiments, checking the validity of theoretical calculations. Another thing is that such a check can turn out to be an extremely complex undertaking, requiring either a very long time and high costs, or completely new equipment. The situation in this regard is especially complicated in astronomy, in particular in cosmology, where we are talking about extreme states of matter that often took place billions of years ago. Therefore, in many cases, experimental verification of the conclusions and predictions of various cosmological theories remains a matter of the near future. Nevertheless, there is an excellent example of how a seemingly very abstract theory received convincing confirmation in astrophysical observations. This is the story of the discovery of the so-called cosmic microwave background radiation.
In the 1930s - 1940s, a number of astrophysicists, primarily our compatriot G. Gamow, developed the “hot Universe theory”, according to which radio emission should have remained from the initial era of the evolution of the expanding Universe, uniformly filling the entire space of the modern observable Universe. This prediction was practically forgotten, and was remembered only in the 1960s, when American radio physicists accidentally discovered the presence of radio emission with the characteristics predicted by the theory. Its intensity turned out to be the same with very high accuracy in all directions. With the higher accuracy of measurements achieved later, its inhomogeneities were discovered, but fundamentally this hardly changes the described picture (see “Science and Life” No. 12, 1993; No. 5, 1994; No. 11, 2006; No. 6 , 2009). The detected radiation could not by chance turn out to be exactly the same as predicted by the “hot Universe theory.”
Observations and experiments were repeatedly mentioned here. But the very setting up of such observations and experiments, which make it possible to understand what the actual nature of certain phenomena or processes is, to find out which point of view or theory is closer to the truth, is a very, very difficult task. In both physics and astronomy, quite often a seemingly strange question arises: what is actually measured during observations or in experiments, do the measurement results reflect the values and behavior of exactly those quantities that interest researchers? Here we inevitably encounter the problem of interaction between theory and experiment. These two sides of scientific research are tightly linked. For example, the interpretation of observational results in one way or another depends on the theoretical views held by the researcher. In the history of science, situations have repeatedly arisen when the same results of the same observations (measurements) are interpreted differently by different researchers because their theoretical concepts are different. However, sooner or later, a single concept was established among the scientific community, the validity of which was proven by convincing experiments and logic.
Often, measurements of the same quantity by different groups of researchers give different results. In such cases, it is necessary to figure out whether there are any gross errors in the experimental methodology, what are the measurement errors, whether changes in the characteristics of the object being studied are possible due to its nature, etc.
Of course, in principle, situations are possible when observations turn out to be unique, since the observer encountered a very rare natural phenomenon, and there is practically no possibility of repeating these observations in the foreseeable future. But even in such cases, it is easy to see the difference between a serious researcher and a person engaged in pseudo-scientific speculation. A real scientist will try to clarify all the circumstances under which the observation was carried out, to figure out whether any interference or defects in the recording equipment could have led to an unexpected result, or whether what he saw was a consequence of the subjective perception of known phenomena. He will not rush with sensational statements about the “discovery” and immediately build fantastic hypotheses to explain the observed phenomenon.
All this is directly related, first of all, to numerous reports of UFO sightings. Yes, no one seriously denies that amazing, difficult-to-explain phenomena are sometimes observed in the atmosphere. (True, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it is not possible to obtain convincing independent confirmation of such messages.) No one denies that, in principle, the existence of extraterrestrial highly developed intelligent life is possible, which is capable of studying our planet and has powerful technical means for this. However, today there is no reliable scientific data that allows us to talk seriously about signs of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life. And this despite the fact that special long-term radio astronomy and astrophysical observations were repeatedly carried out to search for it, the problem was studied in detail by the world's leading experts and was repeatedly discussed at international symposiums. Our outstanding astrophysicist, Academician I.S. Shklovsky, studied this issue a lot and for a long time considered it possible to discover an extraterrestrial highly developed civilization. But at the end of his life, he came to the conclusion that intelligent life on earth is perhaps a very rare or even unique phenomenon, and it is possible that we are generally alone in the Universe. Of course, this point of view cannot be considered the ultimate truth; it can be challenged or refuted in the future, but I. S. Shklovsky had very good reasons for such a conclusion. The fact is that a deep and comprehensive analysis of this problem carried out by many authoritative scientists shows that already at the current level of development of science and technology, humanity was likely to encounter “cosmic miracles”, that is, with physical phenomena in the Universe that have a clearly defined artificial origin. However, modern knowledge about the fundamental laws of nature and the processes occurring in accordance with them in space allows us to say with a high degree of confidence that the recorded radiation is exclusively of natural origin.
Any sane person will find it at least strange that “flying saucers” are seen by everyone, but not by professional observers. There is a clear contradiction between what science knows today and the information constantly appearing in newspapers, magazines and on television. This should at least give pause to anyone who unconditionally believes reports of multiple visits to Earth by “space aliens.”
There is an excellent example of how the attitude of astronomers to the problem of detecting extraterrestrial civilizations differs from the positions of so-called ufologists, journalists who write and broadcast on similar topics.
In 1967, a group of English radio astronomers made one of the largest scientific discoveries of the 20th century - they discovered cosmic radio sources emitting strictly periodic sequences of very short pulses. These sources were later called pulsars. Since no one had previously observed anything like this, and the problem of extraterrestrial civilizations had long been actively discussed, astronomers immediately thought that they had discovered signals sent by “brothers in mind.” This is not surprising, since at that time it was difficult to imagine that natural processes were possible in nature that would ensure such a short duration and such a strict periodicity of radiation pulses - it was maintained with an accuracy of an insignificant fraction of a second!
So, this was almost the only case in the history of science of our time (except for works of defense significance) when researchers kept their truly sensational discovery in the strictest confidence for several months! Those who are familiar with the world of modern science are well aware of how intense the competition between scientists is for the right to be called discoverers. The authors of a work containing a discovery or a new and important result always strive to publish it as quickly as possible and not allow anyone to get ahead of them. And in the case of the discovery of pulsars, its authors for a long time deliberately did not report the phenomenon they discovered. The question is, why? Yes, because scientists considered themselves obligated to carefully understand how justified their assumption about an extraterrestrial civilization as the source of the observed signals was. They understood what serious consequences the discovery of extraterrestrial civilizations could have for science and for humanity in general. And therefore, they considered it necessary, before declaring a discovery, to make sure that the observed radiation pulses could not be caused by any other reasons other than the conscious actions of extraterrestrial intelligence. A thorough study of the phenomenon led to a truly major discovery - a natural process was found: at the surface of rapidly rotating compact objects, neutron stars, under certain conditions, narrowly directed beams of radiation are generated. Such a beam, like a searchlight beam, periodically reaches the observer. Thus, the hope of meeting with “brothers in mind” was once again not justified (which, of course, from a certain point of view, was upsetting), but a very important step was taken in the knowledge of Nature. It is not difficult to imagine what a fuss there would be in the media if the phenomenon of pulsars were discovered today and the discoverers immediately carelessly reported on the possible artificial origin of the signals!
In such cases, journalists often lack professionalism. A true professional should give the floor to serious scientists, real specialists, and keep his own comments to a minimum.
Some journalists, in response to attacks, say that “orthodox”, that is, officially recognized, science is too conservative and does not allow new, fresh ideas to break through, which, perhaps, contain the truth. And that in general we have pluralism and freedom of speech, which allows us to express any opinions. It sounds convincing, but in essence it is just demagoguery. In fact, it is necessary to teach people to think for themselves and make free and informed choices. And for this, at a minimum, it is necessary to acquaint them with the basic principles of a scientific, rational approach to reality, with the real results of scientific research and the existing scientific picture of the world around them.
Science is an excitingly interesting business, in which there is beauty, and uplifts of the human spirit, and the light of truth. Only this truth, as a rule, does not come on its own, like an insight, but is obtained through hard and persistent work. But its price is very high. Science is one of those wonderful areas of human activity where the creative potential of individuals and all humanity is most clearly manifested. Almost any person who has devoted himself to science and honestly served it can be sure that he did not live his life in vain.
Science concept
Object of research in science, the object of research means the main field of application of the efforts of scientists. In one science (scientific direction), however, there may be several objects of research that constitute a logically connected being and the purpose of research in this science (scientific direction).
Such an object becomes any unknown phenomenon, previously unknown to science, or part of it, which this science intends to investigate. A preliminary division of something unknown (unknown) into logically substantiated parts of the phenomenon is often used. This is used as a completely independent scientific method, if such a division is possible based on a priori visible signs of a given phenomenon.
The subject of the study is the result of theoretical abstraction, allowing scientists to highlight certain aspects, as well as the patterns of development and functioning of the object being studied.
The goal of scientific activity and science is to obtain accurate, comprehensive knowledge about the world around us and its constituent elements.
Research methods: literature review, collection of information
The field of application of science comes from the topic a person studies and in that area it finds application.
Introduction
Science is a special type of human cognitive activity aimed at developing objective, systematically organized and substantiated knowledge about the world around us. The basis of this activity is the collection of facts, their systematization, critical analysis and, on this basis, the synthesis of new knowledge or generalizations that not only describe observed natural or social phenomena, but also allow us to build cause-and-effect relationships and make predictions.
Science is the basic form of human knowledge. Science these days is becoming an increasingly significant and essential component of the reality that surrounds us and in which we, one way or another, must navigate, live and act. A philosophical vision of the world presupposes fairly definite ideas about what science is, how it works and how it develops, what it can do and what it allows us to hope for, and what is inaccessible to it. From the philosophers of the past we can find many valuable insights and tips useful for orientation in a world where the role of science is so important.
1. Concept of science
The content of science should be understood as its definition, including the goals, ideological basis (or, perhaps more narrowly, the paradigm) of science, i.e. a set of accepted ideas, views on what science is, what its goals are, methods of construction and development, etc. In the same circle of ideas it is apparently necessary to include problems of scientific ethics - systems of accepted, but not legally binding rules governing relationships between people in the field of scientific activity. Scientific ethics is usually given little attention in critical, historical and philosophical works, although, due to the important place occupied by science in modern society, it is an essential part of human relationships. We will pay deeper attention to this issue, since in the development of modern science there are quite serious violations of ethical standards that affect the pace of its development. Any ideology is, in essence, a formulation of experimental data about the interaction of people with nature and among themselves. We are accustomed to treating postulated and already tested rules or laws as the final truth, forgetting that the establishment of truth is accompanied by numerous misconceptions. Testing ideological principles empirically is difficult for a number of reasons. Therefore, it has not yet been possible to come to an unambiguous solution to these issues, and this, in turn, affects the development of the sciences themselves.
Most issues related to the ideology of science are described in detail in numerous and accessible philosophical works. We will dwell only on specific problems important for the development of our topic. Let us only note that although the ideology of science has roots in ancient natural science, the formulations currently accepted mainly go back to the Middle Ages, to the works of F. Bacon, R. Descartes and some others.
Science is a sphere of human activity, the function of which is the development and theoretical systematization of objective knowledge about reality; one of the forms of social consciousness; includes both the activity of obtaining new knowledge and its result - the sum of knowledge that underlies the scientific picture of the world; designation of individual branches of scientific knowledge. The immediate goals are the description, explanation and prediction of the processes and phenomena of reality that constitute the subject of its study, based on the laws it discovers. The system of sciences is conventionally divided into natural, social, humanities and technical sciences. Originating in the ancient world in connection with the needs of social practice, it began to take shape from the 16th...17th centuries. and in the course of historical development it has become the most important social institution, exerting a significant influence on all spheres of society and culture as a whole.
1.1 Structure and functions of science
Depending on the sphere of existence, and therefore on the type of reality being studied, three areas of scientific knowledge are distinguished: natural science - knowledge about nature, social science, knowledge about various types and forms of social life, as well as knowledge about man as a thinking being. Naturally, these three spheres are not and should not be considered as three parts of a single whole, which are only side by side, adjacent to each other. The boundary between these spheres is relative. The entire body of scientific knowledge about nature is formed by natural science. Its structure is a direct reflection of the logic of nature. The total volume and structure of natural science knowledge is large and varied.
This includes knowledge about matter and its structure, about the movement and interaction of substances, about chemical elements and compounds, about living matter and life, about the Earth and Space. Fundamental natural science directions also originate from these objects of natural science.
The second fundamental direction of scientific knowledge is social science. Its subject is social phenomena and systems, structures, states, processes. Social sciences provide knowledge about individual varieties and the entirety of social connections and relationships. By its nature, scientific knowledge about society is numerous, but it can be grouped into three areas: sociological, the subject of which is society as a whole; economic - reflect the labor activity of people, property relations, social production, exchange, distribution and relations in society based on them; state-legal knowledge - has as its subject state-legal structures and relations in social systems, they are considered by all sciences about the state and political sciences.
The third fundamental area of scientific knowledge is scientific knowledge about man and his thinking. Man is the object of study of a large number of different sciences, which consider him in various aspects. Along with the indicated main scientific directions, knowledge of science about itself should be included in a separate group of knowledge. The emergence of this branch of knowledge dates back to the 20s of our century and means that science in its development has risen to the level of understanding its role and significance in people's lives. Science today is considered an independent, rapidly developing scientific discipline.
Closely related to the structure of scientific knowledge is the problem of the functions of science. There are several that stand out:
1. descriptive - identifying the essential properties and relationships of reality;
2. systematizing - classifying what is described into classes and sections;
3. explanatory - a systematic presentation of the essence of the object being studied, the reasons for its emergence and development;
4. production-practical - the possibility of applying the acquired knowledge in production, for the regulation of social life, in social management;
5. prognostic - prediction of new discoveries within the framework of existing theories, as well as recommendations for the future;
6. worldview - introducing acquired knowledge into the existing picture of the world, rationalizing a person’s relationship to reality.
2. Definition of science
For many practical and theoretical purposes related to the management of scientific activity and scientific and technological progress, knowledge of the intuitive idea of science alone seems insufficient. Of course, the definition is secondary compared to the concept. Science, no matter how it is defined, involves the progress of the generation of concepts, and by defining its concept, we become involved in this process.
Much of what concerns the relationship between science and society has to do with the place of science among other human activities. Currently, there is a tendency to attach too much importance to science in the development of society. To establish the truth in this matter, it is necessary, first of all, to find out what type of activity should be called science.
In a general sense, science refers to activities associated with the accumulation of knowledge about nature and society, as well as the body of knowledge itself, which makes it possible to predict the behavior of natural objects by modeling both them and their interactions with each other (in particular, mathematical ones). It is generally accepted that science in the modern sense of the word appeared in Ancient Greece, although it is known that vast reserves of knowledge were accumulated long before that in the Ancients, Egypt and China. From a practical point of view, knowledge of examples is quite equivalent to knowledge of theorems written in abstract notation. Therefore, we will conditionally accept the equivalence (in a practical sense) of these knowledge systems. In other words, for ease of comparison, we have equated the usefulness of Babylonian and Greek geometry. Apparently, if there is still a difference between them, then it is in it that one should look for the basis for the definition of science. It turns out that in the general case in Euclidean geometry it is not necessary to remember the theorems themselves, much less the solutions to practical problems: it is enough to know the definitions, axioms, construction rules and have practical skills so that, if the need arises, deduce this or that theorem and solve the required problem based on this knowledge system. Using the found theorem (or theorems) it is not difficult to solve many problems. In contrast, Babylonian “science” involves memorizing a set of examples needed for all occasions. The Babylonian way of accumulating knowledge is always associated with a large consumption of memory resources and, nevertheless, does not make it possible to quickly obtain answers to newly arising questions. The Greek method is associated with the systematization of knowledge and, thanks to this, is as economical as possible. Such examples, and their number can be multiplied - let us remember, for example, the activities of Linnaeus and Darwin to systematize knowledge in biology and the associated progress in this area - make it possible to define science as the activity of systematizing and organizing knowledge. Since the time of F. Bacon, the idea has been realized that science should not only passively observe and collect what is ready, but also actively seek and cultivate knowledge. To do this, according to Bacon, a person must ask nature questions and, through experiment, find out its answers. Another side of the activities of scientists is traditionally the transfer of knowledge to other people, i.e. teaching activities. So, science is the coding of knowledge, the construction of models of various objects and systems, and the calculation (prediction) on this basis of the behavior of specific objects and systems.
2.1 Approaches to defining science
1. Terminological approach in defining science
What remains general and important for all possible definitions of science is that we already somehow know what science is. We are talking about the explication of knowledge that we already find in ourselves, moreover, knowledge that is quite objective or at least shared by us with a significant part of the scientific community. Science includes not only cognition in the sense of action or activity, but also the positive results of this activity. In addition, some results that can hardly be called positive in the literal sense, for example, scientific errors, the use of science for inhumane purposes, falsifications, sometimes very sophisticated by many criteria, still fall within the scope of science.
It is necessary to differentiate terminologically science from several related and sometimes confused concepts. First of all, let’s fix the category of innovation activity, i.e. such activity, the purpose of which is the introduction of certain innovations (innovations) into existing cultural complexes. Thanks to its innovative aspect, science is different from other activities related to knowledge and information. At the same time, science is not identical to research activity: the latter can be defined as innovative activity in the field of knowledge, and this does not include many aspects of science - organizational, personnel, etc., moreover, “activity” is precisely activity, and not one or another specific result, while science includes the results obtained and obtained to the same, if not greater extent, than the activity to obtain them.
Methods of proof and persuasion in the most diverse spheres of human activity, such as science, politics, oratory, philosophy, replaced the earlier “method” of arbitrary or purely traditional solutions to relevant problems based on the hidden postulate of the uniformity of human actions, reflecting the even greater uniformity of nature and supernatural order.
Since then and to this day, the terms “systematicity” and “inquiry into causes” have remained key to any definition of science. The first of them can be considered more universal, since the complete absence of systematicity removes the very question of the existence of science (and even knowability, if the latter is understood, as is often done now, in a sense at least similar to science).
2. Phenomenological aspect of the definition of science
Defining science, we are inside it, as inside something known to us, although not yet explicit. A subject who sees science not as something external, but “inside” himself, is in a situation that is different from the situation of terminological or speculative construction of science and from the situation of purely empirical contemplation of his object (science). Within the framework of science as a system of a higher rank (compared to any of its constituent disciplines), a set of disciplines that study science itself from one side or another forms a certain subsystem. By introducing the principles of operations research, systems approach and phenomenology, it was possible to largely overcome the reductionist dogma that “all knowledge is ultimately reduced to a set of elementary statements.” In particular, the value (moral, culturally significant) side is by no means alien to science. This tendency towards self-increasing value must be taken into account in the definition of science, which, as has been said, is a predominant area of innovation. Phenomenologically, science grows out of relatively elementary value-based manifestations, such as curiosity, the need to be informed, and practical orientation in the world.
3. Value aspects of the definition of science
Since science as a whole and in all its systemic states represents one of the products of the development of the value consciousness of mankind, definitions of science should not ignore, as is sometimes done, its value aspect, or limit it to the value of knowledge alone. At the same time, if for the stage of ancient Eastern, and partly also medieval science, in order to reflect the value plan, it is necessary and, perhaps, sufficient to include in the definition of science an orientation towards comprehending such cosmic value as the universal Law in its hierarchical interpretation, then for the stages of the ancient, Renaissance , as well as modern (classical and postclassical) science, the range of relevant values is much wider and includes the principles of objective and impartial research, humanistic orientation and the imperative of obtaining and generalizing new knowledge about the properties, cause-and-effect relationships and patterns of natural, social and logical-mathematical objects.
3. Basic principles of the development of science
The first of these is, apparently, the principle that determines man’s relationship to nature, largely dictating the methods and possibilities of its study. By the 4th century BC. e. Two main formulations of the first principle took shape: materialistic and idealistic.
Materialism postulates the existence of nature independent of man in the form of various moving forms of matter, and considers man as a product of the natural development of nature. This principle is usually formulated as follows: nature is primary, and consciousness is secondary.
Idealism believes that nature exists in the form of ideas accumulated by the brain about those forms of matter that a person perceives. Depending on whether the existence of ideas is recognized as independent, or whether they are considered a product of the soul (mind), a distinction is made between objective and subjective idealism. One of the forms of objective idealism is religious ideology, which postulates the existence of the primary carrier of ideas - a deity.
Thus, the first principle in the idealist formulation has many variants, while the materialist formulation is essentially unique (maybe this is why idealists consider materialism a primitive ideology.).
From the height of the knowledge accumulated by mankind, modern materialists view idealism as a delusion. Without denying this, we would like to emphasize the following important idea for our topic: the choice between materialism and idealism cannot be justified logically. It is only possible to show through numerous experimental tests that materialism, as the basis for knowledge of nature, provides a more complete and useful system of knowledge than idealism. This situation is not exclusive to the realm of ideas: all the first principles of physics cannot be proven, but are practical conclusions.
Another support for idealism is the form in which our knowledge is embodied. The latter exist in the form of ideas and symbols that have absolutely nothing in common with natural objects, and, nevertheless, allow us to properly communicate with nature. There is a great temptation to give these symbols some independent meaning, which is so characteristic of abstract mathematics and theoretical physics of our time.
So, the choice of one or another formulation of the first principle cannot be predetermined; in other words, scientists should be recognized as having freedom of conscience in this sense. Only experience can convince one of the correctness of one or another formulation.
Conclusion
The basis for the progress of human society is the development of various means of using the energy stored in nature to satisfy the practical needs of man. But as the history of technology shows, the appearance of these tools was extremely rarely associated with science. Most often, they were born as inventions (often made by poorly educated people, having nothing to do with the subject of their invention; it is doubtful that those Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons who invented methods of lighting fire, processing stone, forging metal, smelting metal, etc., can be called scientists. .p. discoveries that made us what we are today). The improvement of inventions also occurred through trial and error, and only very recently did scientific calculations really begin to be used for this.
Speaking so far about science and scientific knowledge, we considered them as an already really existing object of study, which we analyzed from a formal point of view. However, humanity in its history has accumulated knowledge of a very different nature, and scientific knowledge is only one of the types of this knowledge. Therefore, the question arises about the criteria for the scientific nature of knowledge, which accordingly allows us to classify it as scientific or some other.
List of used literature
1) Bezuglov I.G., Lebedinsky V.V., Bezuglov A.I. Fundamentals of scientific research: a textbook for graduate and undergraduate students / Bezuglov I.G., Lebedinsky V.V., Bezuglov A.I. – M.: – Academic project, 2008. – 194 p.
2) Gerasimov I.G. Research. – M.: Politizdat, 1972. – 279 p.
3) Krutov V.I., Grushko I.M., Popov V.V. Fundamentals of scientific research: Textbook. for tech. universities, ed. Krutova, I.M., Popova V.V. – M.: Higher. school, 1989. – 400 p.
4) Shklyar M.F. Fundamentals of scientific research: Textbook / M.F. Shklyar. – 3rd ed. – M.: Publishing and trading corporation “Dashkov and K”, 2010. – 244 p.
The concept of "science" has several basic meanings. Firstly, science is understood as the sphere of human activity aimed at developing and systematizing new knowledge about nature, society, thinking and knowledge of the surrounding world. In the second meaning, science appears as the result of this activity - a system of acquired scientific knowledge. Thirdly, science is understood as one of the forms of social consciousness, a social institution.
The immediate goal of science is to comprehend objective truth, obtained as a result of knowledge about the objective and subjective world.
Objectives of science: collecting, describing, analyzing, summarizing and explaining facts; discovery of the laws of motion of nature, society, thinking and cognition; systematization of acquired knowledge; explanation of the essence of phenomena and processes; forecasting events, phenomena and processes; establishing directions and forms of practical use of acquired knowledge.
An extensive system of numerous and diverse studies, distinguished by object, subject, method, degree of fundamentality, scope of application, etc., practically excludes a unified classification of all sciences on one basis. In the most general form, sciences are divided into natural, technical, social and humanitarian.
TO natural sciences include:
about space, its structure, development (astronomy, cosmology, etc.);
Earth (geology, geophysics, etc.);
physical, chemical, biological systems and processes, forms of motion of matter (physics, etc.);
man as a biological species, his origin and evolution (anatomy, etc.).
Technical sciences are meaningfully based on the natural sciences. They study various forms and directions of development of technology (radio engineering, electrical engineering, etc.).
social sciences also have a number of directions and study society (economics, sociology, political science, jurisprudence, etc.).
Humanitarian sciences - sciences about the spiritual world of man, about the relationship to the surrounding world, society, and one’s own kind (pedagogy, psychology,).
2. Natural science and humanitarian cultures.
Their differences are based on certain types of relationship between object and subject in the natural and social sciences. In the first, there is a clear separation of object from subject, sometimes taken to the absolute; at the same time, all the researcher’s attention is focused on the object. In the social and human sciences, such a division is fundamentally impossible, since in them the subject and the object are merged together in one subject. The problems of such relationships were studied by the English writer and scientist Charles Snow.
The subject area of science includes:
· system of knowledge about nature - natural science (natural sciences);
· a system of knowledge about positively significant values of human existence, social strata, state, humanity (humanities).
The natural sciences are an integral part of the natural science culture, and the humanities, respectively, of the humanitarian culture.
Natural science culture- this is: the total historical volume of knowledge about nature and society; the volume of knowledge about specific types and spheres of existence, which is updated in an abbreviated, concentrated form and accessible to presentation; the content of accumulated and updated knowledge about nature and society, assimilated by a person.
Humanitarian culture- this is: the total historical volume of knowledge of philosophy, religious studies, jurisprudence, ethics, art history, pedagogy, literary criticism and other sciences; system-forming values of humanitarian knowledge (humanism, ideals of beauty, perfection, freedom, goodness, etc.).
Specifics of natural science culture: knowledge about nature is characterized by a high degree of objectivity and reliability (truth). In addition, this is deeply specialized knowledge.
Specifics of humanitarian culture: The system-forming values of humanitarian knowledge are determined and activated based on the individual’s belonging to a certain social group. The problem of truth is solved taking into account knowledge about the object and the assessment of the usefulness of this knowledge by the knowing or consuming subject. At the same time, the possibility of interpretations that contradict the real properties of objects, saturation with certain ideals and projects of the future is not excluded.
The relationship between natural science and humanitarian cultures is as follows: have a common cultural basis, are fundamental elements of a unified system of knowledge; represent the highest form of human knowledge; mutually coordinate in the historical and cultural process; stimulate the emergence of new interdisciplinary branches of knowledge at the intersections of the natural and human sciences.
Man is the main link in the connection of all sciences
Science studies the surrounding nature, reality, reality perceived by us with the help of our senses and comprehended by the intellect and reason. Science is a system and mechanism for obtaining objective knowledge about this surrounding world. Objective - that is, one that does not depend on the forms, methods, structures of the cognitive process and is a result that directly reflects the real state of affairs. Science is indebted to ancient philosophy for the formation (discovery) of the greatest form of logical knowledge - the concept.
Scientific knowledge is based on a number of principles that define, clarify, and detail the forms of scientific knowledge and scientific attitude to the comprehension of reality. They record some features of the scientific worldview, quite subtle, detailed, original, which make science a truly very powerful, effective way of cognition. There are several such principles that underlie the scientific understanding of reality, each of which plays a significant role in this process.
Firstly, this is the principle of objectivity. An object is something that lies outside the cognizing person, located outside his consciousness, existing on its own, having its own laws of development.
The principle of objectivity means nothing more than the recognition of the fact of the existence of an external world independent of man and humanity, of his consciousness and intellect and the possibility of its knowledge. And this intelligent, rational knowledge must follow verified, reasoned methods of obtaining knowledge about the world around us.
The second principle underlying scientific knowledge is the principle of causality. The principle of causality, or, scientifically speaking, the principle of determinism, means the statement that all events in the world are interconnected by a causal relationship. According to the principle of causality, events that do not have a real cause that can be fixed in one way or another do not exist. There are also no events that do not entail any material, objective consequences. Every event generates a cascade, or at least one consequence.
Consequently, the principle of causality asserts the presence in the Universe of natural, balanced ways of interacting between objects. Only on its basis can one approach the study of the surrounding reality from the standpoint of science, using the mechanisms of evidence and experimental verification.
The principle of causality can be understood and interpreted in different ways, in particular, its interpretations in classical science, associated primarily with Newton’s classical mechanics, and quantum physics, which is the brainchild of the 20th century, differ quite greatly, but with all modifications this principle remains one of the main things in the scientific approach to understanding reality.
The next important principle is the principle of rationality, argumentation, and evidence of scientific propositions. Any scientific statement makes sense and is accepted by the scientific community only when it is proven. Types of evidence can be different: from formalized mathematical proofs to direct experimental confirmations or refutations. But science does not accept unproven propositions that are interpreted as very possible. In order for a certain statement to receive scientific status, it must be proven, reasoned, rationalized, and experimentally verified.
This principle is directly related to the next one, which is characteristic mainly of experimental natural science, but to some extent manifests itself in theoretical natural science and mathematics. This is the principle of reproducibility. Any fact obtained in scientific research as intermediate or relatively complete should be able to be reproduced in an unlimited number of copies, either in an experimental study by other researchers, or in a theoretical proof by other theorists. If a scientific fact is irreproducible, if it is unique, it cannot be subsumed under a pattern. And if so, then it does not fit into the causal structure of the surrounding reality and contradicts the very logic of scientific description.
The next principle underlying scientific knowledge is the principle of theoreticalness. Science is not an endless pile of scattered ideas, but a collection of complex, closed, logically completed theoretical constructs. Each theory in a simplified form can be represented as a set of statements interconnected by intratheoretical principles of causality or logical consequence. A fragmentary fact in itself has no meaning in science.
In order for scientific research to provide a sufficiently holistic view of the subject of study, a detailed theoretical system, called a scientific theory, must be built. Any object of reality represents a huge, ultimately infinite number of properties, qualities and relationships. Therefore, an expanded, logically closed theory is needed, which covers the most essential of these parameters in the form of a holistic, expanded theoretical apparatus.
The next principle underlying scientific knowledge and related to the previous one is the principle of systematicity. The general theory of systems is in the second half of the 20th century the basis of a scientific approach to understanding reality and treats any phenomenon as an element of a complex system, that is, as a set of elements interconnected according to certain laws and principles. Moreover, this connection is such that the system as a whole is not an arithmetic sum of its elements, as was previously thought, before the advent of the general theory of systems.
The system is something more substantial and more complex. From the point of view of general systems theory, any object that is a system is not only a collection of elementary components, but also a collection of complex connections between them.
And finally, the last principle underlying scientific knowledge is the principle of criticality. It means that in science there are not and cannot be final, absolute truths approved for centuries and millennia.
Any of the provisions of science can and should be subject to the analyzing ability of the mind, as well as continuous experimental verification. If during these checks and rechecks a discrepancy between previously stated truths and the real state of affairs is discovered, the statement that was previously true is revised. There are no absolute authorities in science, while in previous forms of culture, appeal to authority acted as one of the most important mechanisms for implementing ways of human life.
Authorities in science arise and collapse under the pressure of new irrefutable evidence. What remains are the authorities, characterized only by their brilliant human qualities. New times come, and new truths contain the previous ones either as a special case or as a form of ultimate transition.
Human, which consists in collecting data about the world around us, then in their systematization and analysis and, based on the above, synthesis of new knowledge. Also in the field of science is the formulation of hypotheses and theories, as well as their further confirmation or refutation through experiments.
Science appeared when writing appeared. When five thousand years ago some ancient Sumerian engraved pictograms on stone, depicting how his leader attacked the tribe of ancient Jews and how many cows he stole, history began.
Then he knocked out more and more useful facts about livestock, about the stars and the moon, about the structure of the cart and hut; and newborn biology, astronomy, physics and architecture, medicine and mathematics appeared.
Sciences began to be distinguished in their modern form after the 17th century. Before that, as soon as they were not called - craft, writing, being, life and other pseudo-scientific terms. And the sciences themselves were more of different types of techniques and technologies. The main engine of the development of science is scientific and industrial revolutions. For example, the invention of the steam engine gave a powerful impetus to the development of science in the 18th century and caused the first scientific and technological revolution.
Classification of sciences.
There have been many attempts to classify sciences. Aristotle, if not the first, then one of the first, divided the sciences into theoretical knowledge, practical knowledge and creative knowledge. The modern classification of sciences also divides them into three types:
- Natural sciences, that is, sciences about natural phenomena, objects and processes (biology, geography, astronomy, physics, chemistry, mathematics, geology, etc.). For the most part, the natural sciences are responsible for accumulating experience and knowledge about nature and man. The scientists who collected the primary data were called naturalists.
- Engineering Sciences- sciences responsible for the development of engineering and technology, as well as for the practical application of knowledge accumulated by the natural sciences (agronomy, computer science, architecture, mechanics, electrical engineering).
- Social Sciences and Humanities- sciences about man and society (psychology, philology, sociology, political science, history, cultural studies, linguistics, as well as social studies, etc.).
Functions of science.
Researchers identify four social functions of science:
- Cognitive. It consists of knowing the world, its laws and phenomena.
- Educational. It lies not only in training, but also in social motivation and the development of values.
- Cultural. Science is a public domain and a key element of human culture.
- Practical. The function of producing material and social goods, as well as applying knowledge in practice.
Speaking about science, it is also worth mentioning the term “pseudoscience” (or “pseudoscience”).
Pseudoscience - This is an activity that pretends to be a scientific activity, but is not one. Pseudoscience can arise as:
- fight against official science (ufology);
- misconceptions due to lack of scientific knowledge (graphology, for example. And yes: it’s still not science!);
- element of creativity (humor). (See Discovery show “Brainheads”).
