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 has sharply increased today 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 to search for it, special long-term radio astronomy and astrophysical observations were repeatedly carried out, 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 radiations are 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.
a special type of cognitive activity aimed at developing objective, systematically organized and substantiated knowledge about the world. Interacts with other types of cognitive activity: everyday, artistic, religious, mythological, philosophical comprehension of the world. N. aims to identify the laws in accordance with which objects can be transformed in human activity. Since any objects can be transformed in activity - fragments of nature, social subsystems and society as a whole, states of human consciousness, etc., all of them can become subjects of scientific research. N. studies them as objects that function and develop according to their own natural laws. It can study a person as a subject of activity, but also as a special object. The objective and objective way of viewing the world, characteristic of science, distinguishes it from other methods of cognition. For example, in art, the reflection of reality occurs as a kind of gluing together of the subjective and objective, when any reproduction of events or states of nature and social life presupposes their emotional assessment. Reflecting the world in its objectivity, N. provides only one slice of the diversity of the human world. Therefore, it does not exhaust the entire culture, but constitutes only one of the spheres that interacts with other spheres of cultural creativity - morality, religion, philosophy, art, etc. The sign of subjectivity and objectivity of knowledge is the most important characteristic of knowledge, but it is still insufficient to determine its specificity, since ordinary knowledge can also provide individual objective and subject knowledge. But unlike him, N. is not limited to reflecting only those objects, their properties and relationships that, in principle, can be mastered in the practice of the corresponding historical era. It is capable of going beyond each historically defined type of practice and opening up new objective worlds for humanity, which can become objects of practical development only at future stages of the development of civilization. At one time, G. Leibniz characterized mathematics as science about possible worlds. In principle, this characteristic can be attributed to any fundamental N. Electromagnetic waves, nuclear reactions, coherent radiation of atoms were first discovered in physics, and these discoveries potentially laid a fundamentally new level of technological development of civilization, which was realized much later (the technology of electric motors and electric generators, radio and television equipment, lasers and nuclear power plants, etc. ). N.'s constant desire to expand the field of studied objects, regardless of today's possibilities for their mass practical development, is the system-forming feature that justifies other characteristics of N. that distinguish it from ordinary cognition. First of all, this is the difference in their products (results). Ordinary cognition creates a conglomerate of knowledge, information, prescriptions and beliefs, only individual fragments of which are interconnected. The truth of knowledge is verified here directly in actual practice, since knowledge is constructed in relation to objects that are included in the processes of production and existing social experience. But since science constantly goes beyond these boundaries, it can only partially rely on existing forms of mass practical development of objects. She needs special practice with the help of which the truth of her knowledge is verified. This practice becomes a scientific experiment. Some knowledge is directly tested in an experiment. The rest are interconnected by logical connections, which ensures the transfer of truth from one statement to another. As a result, the characteristics inherent in knowledge arise: systemic organization, validity and evidence of knowledge. Further, N., in contrast to ordinary cognition, involves the use of special means and methods of activity. It cannot limit itself to using only ordinary language and those tools that are used in production and everyday practice. In addition to them, it needs special means of activity - a special language (empirical and theoretical) and special instrument systems. It is these means that ensure the study of ever new objects, including those that go beyond the capabilities of existing production and social practice. Related to this are the needs of N. for the constant development of special methods that ensure the development of new objects, regardless of the possibilities of their current practical development. The method in scientific research often serves as a condition for recording and reproducing the object of study; Along with knowledge about objects, N. systematically develops knowledge about methods. Finally, there are specific features of the subject of scientific activity. The subject of everyday cognition is formed in the very process of socialization. For N., this is not enough - special training is required for the cognizing subject, which ensures his ability to use the means and methods characteristic of N. in solving its tasks and problems. In addition, systematic studies by N. involve the assimilation of a special value system. The foundation is the value system for the search for truth and the constant increase in true knowledge. On the basis of these attitudes, a system of ideals and norms of scientific research historically develops. These value systems form the basis of N.’s ethics, which prohibits the deliberate distortion of the truth for the sake of certain social goals and requires constant innovative activity, introducing bans on plagiarism. Fundamental value attitudes correspond to two fundamental and defining features of N: the objectivity and objectivity of scientific knowledge and its intention to study ever new objects, regardless of the available possibilities of their mass practical development.
In the development of scientific knowledge, one can distinguish the stage of pre-science and science in the proper sense of the word. At the first stage, the nascent N. does not yet go beyond the scope of existing practice. It models changes in objects included in practical activities, predicting their possible states. Real objects are replaced in cognition by ideal objects and act as abstractions with which thinking operates. Their connections and relationships, operations with them are also drawn from practice, acting as schemes for practical actions. For example, the geometric knowledge of the ancient Egyptians had this character. The first geometric figures were models of plots of land, and the operations of marking a plot using a measuring rope secured at the end with pegs that allowed arcs to be drawn were schematized and became a way to construct geometric figures using a compass and ruler. The transition to N. proper is associated with a new way of forming ideal objects and their connections that model practice. Now they are not drawn directly from practice, but are created as abstractions, based on previously created ideal objects. The models built from their connections act as hypotheses, which then, having received justification, turn into theoretical schemes of the subject area being studied. This is how a special movement arises in the sphere of developing theoretical knowledge, which begins to build models of the reality being studied, as if from above in relation to practice, with their subsequent direct or indirect practical verification. Historically, mathematics was the first to make the transition to the actual scientific knowledge of the world. Then the method of theoretical knowledge, based on the movement of thought in the field of theoretical ideal objects with subsequent experimental testing of hypotheses, became established in natural science. The third milestone in the development of science was the formation of technical science as a kind of mediating layer of knowledge between natural science and production, and then the formation of social science. Each of these stages had its own sociocultural prerequisites. The first example of mathematical theory (Euclidean geometry) arose in the context of ancient culture, with its inherent values of public discussion, demonstration of proof and justification as conditions for obtaining truth. Natural science, based on the combination of a mathematical description of nature with its experimental study, was formed as a result of cultural shifts that took place during the Renaissance, Reformation and early Enlightenment. The formation of technical and social N. was associated with the intensive industrial development of society, the increasing introduction of scientific knowledge into production and the emergence of needs for scientific management of social processes. At each stage of development, scientific knowledge complicated its organization. In all developed sciences, there are levels of theoretical and empirical research with methods and forms of knowledge specific to them (the main form of the theoretical level is scientific theory; the main form of the empirical level is scientific fact).
By the middle of the 19th century. A disciplinary organization of science is formed, and a system of disciplines emerges with complex connections between them. Each of sciences (mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, technical and social sciences) has its own internal differentiation and its own foundations: its characteristic picture of the reality being studied, the specificity of ideals and norms of research, and its characteristic philosophical and worldview foundations. N.'s interaction forms interdisciplinary research, the proportion of which increases with the development of N. Each stage of N.'s development was accompanied by a special type of its institutionalization associated with the organization of research and the method of reproduction of the subject of scientific activity. N. began to take shape as a social institution in the 17th and 18th centuries, when the first scientific societies, academies, and scientific journals arose in Europe. In the 20th century Science has turned into a special type of production of scientific knowledge, including diverse types of associations of scientists, including large research teams, targeted funding and special examination of research programs, their social support, a special industrial and technical base serving scientific research, a complex division of labor and targeted training of personnel. In the process of historical development of N. its functions in social life changed. In the era of the formation of natural science, N. defended her right to participate in the formation of a worldview in the struggle over religion. In the 19th century the ideological function was supplemented by the function of being a productive force. In the first half of the 20th century. N. began to acquire another function; it began to turn into a social force, introducing itself into various spheres of social life and regulating various types of human activity. In the modern era, in connection with global crises, the problem of searching for new ideological orientations of humanity arises. In this regard, the functions of N are also being rethought. Its dominant position in the system of cultural values was largely associated with its technological projection. Today, it is important to organically combine the values of scientific and technological thinking with those social values that are represented by morality, art, religious and philosophical comprehension of the world. This connection represents a new type of rationality.
In the development of science, starting from the 17th century, three main types of rationality can be distinguished: classical (17th - early 20th centuries), non-classical (first half of the 20th century), post-nonclassical (end of the 20th century). Classical science assumed that the subject was distanced from the object, as if cognizing the world from the outside, and considered the elimination from explanation and description of everything that relates to the subject and means of activity to be a condition for objectively true knowledge. Non-classical rationality is characterized by the idea of the relativity of an object to the means and operations of activity; the explication of these means and operations is a condition for obtaining true knowledge about the object. An example of the implementation of this approach was quantum relativistic physics. Finally, post-non-classical rationality takes into account the correlation of knowledge about an object not only with the means, but also with the value-goal structures of activity, suggesting the explication of intrascientific values and their correlation with social goals and values. The emergence of each new type of rationality does not eliminate the previous one, but limits the field of its action. Each of them expands the field of objects under study. In modern post-nonclassical science, complex, historically developing systems that include humans occupy an increasingly important place. These include objects of modern biotechnology, primarily genetic engineering, medical and biological objects, large ecosystems and the biosphere as a whole, human-machine systems, including artificial intelligence systems, social objects, etc. In a broad sense, this can include any complex synergetic systems, interaction with which turns human action itself into a component of the system. The methodology for studying such objects brings together natural science and humanities, constituting the basis for their deep integration. See also: Discipline.
Great definition
Incomplete definition ↓
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
the 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. 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.
Great definition
Incomplete definition ↓
SCIENCE
specialized activity to create a system of knowledge about nature, society and man, which allows one to adequately describe, explain natural or social processes and predict their development.
Scientific discourse is characterized by claims to intersubjective significance (objectivity), systematicity, logical evidence, the use of a specialized artificial language, and theoreticality. The accumulation of knowledge in ancient societies, despite the achievements of Egyptian, Mesopotamian and other civilizations in the field of astronomy, mathematics, medicine, did not yet have a scientific character in the strict sense, since it did not go beyond the scope of pure experience and was only a collection of practical recommendations.
Science in the proper sense arose around the 6th century. BC e. among the ancient Greeks, who moved from a mythological consideration of the world to comprehending it in concepts. The experimental study of the world is complemented by scientific methodology: the rules of logic are established, the concept of hypothesis is introduced, etc.
In the Middle Ages, interest in experimental knowledge weakened, and the pursuit of science was mainly reduced to the development of formal logical methods (scholasticism) and the interpretation of authoritative texts, including the works of the greatest ancient scientists (Aristotle, Euclid, Ptolemy, Pliny the Elder, Hippocrates and etc.), which made it possible to convey the foundations of ancient science to the modern era.
It is in modern times that there is a turn to rationalistic research free from dogmatism, the formation of the humanities begins, and there is a rapid accumulation of new experimental knowledge, undermining the previous picture of the world.
The most important innovation of modern European science is experimentation. If Archimedes, in inventing water screws and convex mirrors, considered the main goal to deceive nature, then in modern times it became important to make it work for oneself, having previously studied it. Knowing a thing is knowing how to use it. The emergence of modern experimental natural science is associated with the name of Galileo (1564–1642), the first to systematically use experiment as the main method of research.
The theoretical justification of the new scientific methodology belongs to F. Bacon (1561–1626), who substantiated in the “New Organon” the transition from the traditional deductive approach (from a general, speculative, assumption or authoritative judgment - to a particular one, i.e. to a fact) to an inductive approach (from a particular, empirical fact - to the general, i.e. to a pattern).
European science reached its highest limit of rationalization in the 17th century. It is to this time that the so-called the scientific revolution that gave impetus to the birth of modern science. The concept of scientific revolution was introduced by the French philosopher A. Koyré, who showed that modern science is not a successor to the medieval doctrina, it arose in the struggle against it.
The recognition of universal laws governing the entire universe was the starting point of classical science. The very concept of “laws of nature” was introduced by R. Descartes (1596–1650), based on the deism that dominated the minds of contemporary scientists.
The turning point in the history of classical science was April 28, 1686, when I. Newton (1642–1727) presented his “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy” to the Royal Society of London. The idea of gravity as the fundamental law governing the world order topped the list of topics for discussion in high society salons for many years. Most thinkers based their theoretical constructions on it, it was ridiculed by French enlighteners, but it truly became the property of mankind only at the beginning of the 19th century. At that time, the most rationalistic philosophical systems appeared, a fundamental reorganization of universities began, and armchair scientists became teachers. The synthesis of knowledge began to be presented in textbooks, and the Newtonian system finally formed the basis of teaching.
Science began to take shape as a social institution in the 17th–18th centuries. - it was then that the first scientific societies, academies and scientific journals arose in Europe. The idea of science as an all-encompassing enterprise was born in 1662, when F. Bacon presented to the Royal Society of London a project for the “restoration of the sciences” - the creation of natural history based on a complete collection of observations, experiments, and practical research. To implement this plan, it was only necessary to organize the scientific community on the principle of a colossal factory. Scientists turned into employees of a world laboratory.
The production nature of new European science is emphasized by M. Heidegger (1889–1976): “By production, first of all, we understand the phenomenon that science, be it natural or humanitarian, today is only considered a real science when it becomes capable of institutionalizing itself. However, research is not production because research work is carried out in institutes, but on the contrary, institutions are necessary because science itself, as research, has the nature of production.”
The acquisition by science of the nature of production determined its new meaning: now it was called upon to bring practical benefits. For the first time, theoretical knowledge found its application in widespread practice, surprisingly, quite late: at the beginning of the 19th century.
The first to serve big business was chemistry, a science capable of analyzing the properties of commercially important ores and metals, oil, natural gas and dyes. Germany and the USA were at the forefront of the development of applied science. Industry began to develop in these countries later than, for example, in Great Britain, and therefore they did not have conservative traditions that separated science from technology. It was then that science took the form of a conveyor belt for the production of socially useful products, and scientific discovery gave way to invention.
With the development of new science, the need arose for a deeper division into special ones. By the middle of the 19th century. The disciplinary organization of science is formed, a system of disciplines with complex connections between them arises. Rationalization of the field of science leads to its bureaucratization by the destruction of individual creativity and the development of research groups and state scientific policy. Science is turning into a special type of scientific knowledge production, including diverse types of scientific associations, including large research teams, targeted funding, their social support, a complex division of labor and targeted training. “Only the West,” writes M. Weber (1864–1920), “knows the rational and systematic, i.e. professional, scientific activity of specialist scientists in that specific modern sense, which presupposes their dominance in a given cultural situation, first of all , as specialist bureaucrats, the pillars of the modern Western state and the modern Western economy."
By the beginning of the 20th century. A difficult situation has arisen in fundamental science: most sciences have been shaken by a crisis of foundations. According to E. Husserl (1859–1938), the cause of the crisis was the collapse of faith in reason. The new natural science broke away from its eternal basis - philosophy and became its gravedigger, turning into a research technique that mathematized the world and eliminated the qualitative certainty of phenomena. Science now carries out only one pragmatic function, and this function cannot replace man’s need to understand the world, which was satisfied by the science of past eras, which has not lost its connection with philosophy. Husserl is convinced: only a return to metaphysics and the application of a holistic method of consideration in all areas of science can overcome its “crisis.”
The crisis of the sciences manifested itself most clearly in physics, which in its purest form contained classical methodology. According to many scientists, the crisis in the foundations of physics, which seemed to have been successfully resolved already in the first third of the 20th century, continues - despite the conquest of space, the fission of the atomic nucleus and other equally impressive successes of scientists. The fact is that the main goal of fundamental science - the unification of particular physical theories on a consistent conceptual basis and the construction of a unified picture of the world - has never been achieved.
The foundations of modern physics were laid in the first third of the 20th century. - in connection with overcoming the crisis of the foundations of science due to the influence of the irrational cultural and methodological background that reigned at that time. As A. Poincaré (1854–1912) noted, the quantum doctrine was accepted despite its incompatibility with the principle of causality and the axioms of mathematical physics. The paradoxical nature of a theory becomes almost a criterion of its truth.
In the works of many philosophers of science (T. Kuhn, G. Bachelard, P. Feyerabend), the unconventional methods of the new physics were retrospectively justified epistemologically - by developing the concept of “new scientific rationality”. The point was that in the conditions of the emergence of non-classical rationality, the line between the rational and the irrational is blurred. “Democracy” in science, which rejects the “totalitarianism” of a single picture of the world and a single comprehensive metanarrative for describing reality, implies a certain anarchy in methodology. Modern science proclaims itself to be internally pluralistic and no longer intends to impose one single model of understanding reality. According to the creator of anarchist epistemology, P. Feyerabend, the only universal principle of knowledge can be the principle of “everything is permitted,” and scientists have the right to invent any methods and theories.
Scientific and technological power is one of the most important components of the national power of the state. The leader is the United States, which spends more on research and development (R&D) than all other countries. If R&D in the USA is financed by 40-45% from taxpayers, then in Japan this figure does not exceed 20%: in this country they believe that the concentration of scientific potential in companies shortens the path from the emergence of an idea to its implementation in a product.
Until the early 1990s. The USSR was at least not inferior to the USA in terms of the number of scientists and designers. The Soviet scientific system, focused on the needs of super-industrialization and the military-industrial complex, was one of the most important factors providing the country with the status of a superpower. The orders that she received from the state (nuclear project, space program) were not only of national, but also of world-historical significance.
Society had great respect for people of science. And science lived up to public expectations. The world's first nuclear power plants and nuclear-powered ships were built. New scientific centers emerged - Dubna, Akademgorodok. Soviet physicists began to receive Nobel Prizes (1958, 1962, 1964). Soviet rockets conquered space.
And yet the greatness of Soviet science was one-sided. Thus, the humanitarian sector was rather poorly represented in it, which turned out to be one of the reasons for the defeat of the USSR in the Cold War. When the collapse of the USSR occurred, domestic science lost its main, and most importantly, systemic customer. This led to a deep crisis in the scientific structure. Industrial research centers and academic institutions, deprived of government funding, were on the verge of collapse. In 1996, R&D expenditures in the United States amounted to $184.7 billion, and in Russia, even according to clearly inflated official data, only $5.3 billion.
In the post-Soviet space, only Russia, despite financial difficulties, managed to maintain a powerful scientific and technical potential. A number of fundamental studies have yielded results of global significance. In the field of computer science and computer technology, a multiprocessor computing system with a peak performance of a trillion operations per second has been created. A breakthrough has been made in the field of thermonuclear fusion, astrophysics and mechanics. Russian academician Zh. Alferov received the Nobel Prize in physics in 2000.
However, the authority of modern Russian science is still far from its former Soviet one. In the citation ranking compiled based on the results of 2005, Russia occupies only 18th place, behind not only the USA, England, Germany, Japan, but even China and Israel.
The decline of Russian science is largely explained by the exodus of scientists abroad in search of better living and working conditions: in 1992, the average salary of scientists in Russia was just over $5. During the 1990s More than 250 thousand scientists left Russia, and in total more than 2.4 million people left science, i.e. two-thirds of the payroll. As a result, the most valuable know-how was lost, including in the field of defense technologies and nuclear energy, entire areas of research were lost, the level of inventive activity and the average citation index of the works of Soviet scientists in world literature decreased by 90%. If in the mid-1960s. it was inferior to the American one by about 1.5 times, then in the early 1990s. this gap has grown in favor of the United States by 14 times. If Russia is still in first place in the world in terms of the number of scientific workers, then in terms of competitiveness it is only 70th.
According to experts from the Council of Europe Commission on Education, our country’s financial losses from the emigration of scientists reach $1 billion a year. The “worth” of just one MIPT graduate is estimated on the world market at about $1 million, and every fifth graduate leaves.
Russian science is rapidly aging. In many institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the average age of scientists exceeds 60 years, while back in the era of space exploration this figure was 38 years. The shortage of scientific workers in Russian research institutes is more than 175 thousand, or over 20%.
The first steps towards restoring the potential of domestic science began to be taken only in the early 2000s, when serious progress was made in the field of financing fundamental science, increasing remuneration for scientists, etc.
On April 26, 2007, V. Putin, in his annual address to the Federal Assembly, set the task for Russian science to make a breakthrough in the field of the most advanced technologies, primarily nanotechnologies, which will allow Russia to regain its lost leadership in science.
Great definition
Incomplete definition ↓
Science is one of the spheres of human activity, the function of which is the production and systematization of knowledge about nature, society and consciousness. Knowledge includes the activity of producing knowledge. The term "N." is also used to designate certain areas of scientific knowledge - physics, chemistry, biology, etc. The prerequisites for the emergence of science are the social division of labor, the separation of mental labor from physical labor, and the transformation of cognitive activity into a specific occupation of an initially small but constantly growing group of people. Certain elements of scientific knowledge appeared in Ancient China, India, Egypt, and Babylon. However, the emergence of N. dates back to the 6th century. BC e., when the first theoretical systems opposing religious and mythological ideas appeared in Ancient Greece. N. became a special social institution in the 17th century, when the first scientific societies and academies appeared in Europe, and the first scientific journals began to be published. At the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. A new way of organizing science is emerging—large scientific institutes and laboratories with a powerful technical base. If until the end of the 19th century. N. played a supporting role in relation to production, then in the 20th century. N.'s development begins to outstrip the development of technology and production, and a unified system “N. - technology - production” takes shape, in which N. plays a leading role. Currently, science permeates all spheres of public life: scientific knowledge and methods are necessary in material production, economics, politics, management, and the education system. N. has a revolutionary influence on all aspects of social life, being the driving force of the scientific and technological revolution. The scientific disciplines that together form the science system as a whole are divided into three groups: natural, social, and technical science. There are no sharp boundaries between these groups. Many disciplines occupy an intermediate position between these groups or arise at their junction. In addition, in recent decades, interdisciplinary and complex research has developed significantly, uniting representatives of very distant disciplines and using methods of different N. All this makes the problem of N. classification very complex. However, the above division of science is still useful in many respects, since it expresses an important difference between them in the subject of study: natural science studies natural phenomena and processes, social science studies society and man, and technical science. explore the features of artificial, man-made devices. Based on their relationship to practice, science and scientific research are usually divided into fundamental and applied. The main goals of fundamental science are to understand the essence of phenomena, discover the laws governing the flow of observed processes, and discover the deep structures underlying empirical facts. In methodological research, science, as a rule, refers to fundamental science. However, in recent decades, applied research has occupied an increasing place in science, the immediate goal of which is to apply the results of fundamental science to solve technical, production, and social problems. It is clear that the development of fundamental science must outstrip the growth of applied research, preparing the necessary theoretical basis for the latter. Attempts to develop a precise definition of science, scientific knowledge, and the scientific method, a definition that would make it possible to separate science from other forms of social consciousness and activities - from art, philosophy, religion - were not crowned with success. And this is quite natural, because in the process of historical development the boundaries between science and non-science are constantly changing: what yesterday was non-science today acquires the status of science; what we consider N. today may be rejected tomorrow as pseudoscience. However, some features of N. that distinguish it from other forms of social consciousness can still be pointed out. For example, N. differs from art in that it reflects reality not in images, but in abstractions, in concepts, strives for their logical systematization, gives a generalized description of phenomena, etc. Unlike philosophy, N. strives for discovery new facts, to verify, confirm or refute his theories and laws, uses observation, measurement, experiment as methods of knowledge, etc. In relation to religion, N. differs in that he tries not to take a single position on faith and periodically returns to critical analysis of its foundations. Nevertheless, science, art, and philosophy are united by a creative attitude toward reality and its reflection; elements of scientific knowledge penetrate art and philosophy, and in the same way, elements of art and philosophy are an irreducible component of scientific creativity. Various aspects of science are studied by a number of special disciplines: the history of science, the logic of science, the sociology of science, the psychology of scientific creativity, etc. Since the middle of the 20th century. A special field began to take shape, seeking to unite all these disciplines into a comprehensive study of N. - scientific studies.
Definitions, meanings of words in other dictionaries:
Philosophical Dictionary
A special human response to the challenge of history, to the complication of the social world. It is aimed at obtaining subject knowledge, knowledge of things, processes as such, and includes criticism of one’s own foundations and achievements, that is, subject modality predominates in science. N....
Philosophical Dictionary
One of the spheres of human activity, the function of which is the production and systematization of knowledge about nature, society and consciousness. Knowledge includes the activity of producing knowledge. The term "N." is also used to designate certain areas of scientific knowledge...
Philosophical Dictionary
Philosophical Dictionary
A special type of cognitive activity aimed at developing objective, systematically organized and substantiated knowledge about the world. Interacts with other types of cognitive activity: everyday, artistic, religious, mythological, philosophical. comprehension of the world. How...
Philosophical Dictionary
A special type of cognitive activity aimed at developing objective, systematically organized and substantiated knowledge about the world. Interacts with other types of cognitive activity: everyday, artistic, religious, mythological, philosophical comprehension...
