Logical research method- is a logical method of scientific reproduction of the development of a complex object (system) by means theoretical analysis. Aimed at analyzing a certain (usually higher) historical state of an object, the logical method includes recreation the object under study precisely as systems(that is, in all the complexity and in all the diversity of the structural and functional connections and dependencies that form it) and as a historical system (that is, in all the complexity and in all the diversity of its historical connections and dependencies). In the history of science (see), the emergence of individual elements of the logical method is associated with the works of C. Lyell, C. Darwin, A. Smith, D. Ricardo; in the history of philosophy (see) - primarily with the works of G. W. F. Hegel.

In its classical form, the logical method of research was created and theoretically studied by K. Marx in the process of writing his fundamental study “Capital. Critique of Political Economy" (1867), dedicated to a critical analysis of capitalism. Characterizing the general principle of the theoretical division of an object, characteristic of the logical method and generally solving the problem of the sequence of consideration of the object, Marx (in relation to the analysis of the economic system of capitalism) wrote: “... It would be unacceptable and erroneous to take economic categories in the sequence in which they have historically played decisive role. On the contrary, their sequence is determined by the relation in which they stand to each other in modern bourgeois society, and this relation is directly opposite to that which seems natural or corresponding to the sequence of historical development... we are talking about... dismemberment within modern bourgeois society" (Marx K. To the criticism of political economy. - M., 1949, p. 221).

In accordance with this principle, “Capital” distinguishes two main types of structural dependencies between the components of the system: along the “dominance - subordination” line and along the “simplicity - complexity” line. With the first type in mind, Marx argued: “Capital is the economic force of bourgeois society that dominates everything. It must constitute both the starting point and the final point and must be dealt with before landed property” and “industrial capital” with such subordinate forms as “interest-bearing capital”, “commodity-merchant capital” and so on. Within the second type of dependence, system elements should be considered before the connections that include them (for example, a car - before a factory), simpler connections - before more complex connections (for example, D-Τ earlier D-T-D), the individual process comes before the interweaving of individual processes (for example, the metamorphosis of individual capital comes before the metamorphosis of social capital), and so on.

The components of the system identified in this way are then subjected to logical analysis along the lines of “form - content”, “essence - phenomenon”, “quantity - quality” and others, as a result of which its simplest relationship is discovered in the object, called by Marx the “cell” of the system, which is called upon serve as a starting point for reproducing an object in the form of a theory. With the logical method of research, F. Engels wrote, “... we start from the first and simplest relation, which is historically, in fact, in front of us, therefore, from the first economic relation that is. This is the relationship we analyze. The very fact that it is a relation means that there are two sides to it that relate to each other. We consider each of these aspects on its own; From this follows the nature of their relationship to each other, their interaction. At the same time, contradictions are revealed that require resolution... We will trace how they were resolved, and we will find that this was achieved by establishing a new relationship and that now we need to develop two opposite sides of this new relationship, and so on.” (Marx K. Towards a critique of political economy. - M., 1949, p. 236).

The movement from the “cell” of the system to all its other relationships and dependencies, carried out by Marx in “Capital” in the form ascent from abstract to concrete, coincides with the sequence of consideration of the object, which Marx called precisely dialectical, or logical. Among other things, its significance lies in the fact that thanks to it “... the most intricate economic problems are clarified simply and almost clearly due only to the fact that they are placed in the proper place and in the correct connection” (Marx K., Engels F. Letters on “Capital” " - M., 1948, p. 121). Analysis of an object as a developing system is achieved using the logical method of research, as well as with the historical one, using the unity of logical and historical research techniques. However, in the case of the logical method, the solution to this general problem is achieved through a structural analysis of the object and the logical sequence of its consideration. “History,” as Engels noted, “often moves in leaps and zigzags, and if it were necessary to follow it everywhere, then due to this it would not only be necessary to take into account a lot of material of lesser importance, but also ... often interrupt the train of thought.” The logical method is free from this and, in essence, turns out to be “the same historical method, only freed from its historical form and from the accidents that violate it”; the reflection of history is provided in it “in an abstract and theoretically consistent form; a corrected reflection, but corrected in accordance with the laws that the actual historical process itself gives, and each moment can be considered at the point of its development where the process reaches full maturity and classical form” (K. Marx. On the Critique of Political Economy, pp. 235–236) . At the same time, logical analysis is not at all obliged to adhere to only an abstract consideration of the object; it fully allows and even presupposes historical illustrations and constant contact with empirical reality.

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

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

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

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

Method, its main function.

Human activity in any form (scientific, practical, etc.) is determined by a number of factors. Its final result depends not only on who acts (subject) or what it is aimed at (object), but also on how this process is carried out, what methods, techniques, and means are used. These are the problems of the method. Method (Greek methodos) - in the broadest sense of the word - “the path to something”, the method of activity of the subject in any of its forms. The concept of “methodology” has two main meanings: a system of certain methods and techniques used in a particular field of activity (in science, politics, art, etc.); the doctrine of this system, the general theory of the method, the theory in action.

The main function of the method is the internal organization and regulation of the process of cognition or practical transformation of a particular object. Therefore, the method (in one form or another) comes down to a set of certain rules, techniques, methods, norms of cognition and action. It is a system of prescriptions, principles, requirements that should guide the solution of a specific problem, achieving a certain result in a particular field of activity. It disciplines the search for truth, allows (if correct) to save energy and time, and move towards the goal in the shortest way. The true method serves as a kind of compass along which the subject of cognition and action makes his way and allows him to avoid mistakes.

F. Bacon compared the method with a lamp illuminating the way for a traveler in the dark, and believed that one cannot count on success in studying any issue by following the wrong path. The philosopher sought to create a method that could be an “organon” (instrument) of knowledge and provide man with dominance over nature. He considered induction to be such a method, which requires science to proceed from empirical analysis, observation and experiment in order to understand causes and laws on this basis.

R. Descartes called the method “exact and simple rules”, the observance of which contributes to the growth of knowledge and allows one to distinguish the false from the true. He said that it was better not to think about finding any truths than to do it without any method, especially without a deductive-rationalistic one.

Significant contributions to the methodology were made by German classical (especially Hegel) and materialist philosophies (especially K. Marx), who developed the dialectical method quite deeply - on an idealistic and materialistic basis, respectively.

Problems of method and methodology occupy an important place in modern Western philosophy, especially in such directions and movements as philosophy of science, positivism and post-positivism, structuralism and post-structuralism, analytical philosophy, hermeneutics, phenomenology and others.

Each method is certainly an important and necessary thing. However, it is unacceptable to go to extremes:

a) underestimate the method and methodological problems, considering all this an insignificant matter that “distracts” from real work, genuine science, etc. (“methodological negativism”);

b) exaggerate the importance of the method, considering it more important than the subject to which they want to apply it, turning the method into a kind of “universal master key” to everything and everyone, into a simple and accessible “tool” of scientific discovery (“methodological euphoria”). The fact is that “...not a single methodological principle can exclude, for example, the risk of reaching a dead end in the course of scientific research”

Science as a specific form of knowledge

Science as a specific form of knowledge. The essence, structure and functions of science in modern society. What characterizes science as a system of knowledge and distinguishes it from other types of knowledge?

The problem of defining science is one of the most difficult in modern research in the theory of knowledge and philosophy of science. There are many definitions of science and scientific knowledge. Such pluralism of approaches and methodological orientations in defining science is understandable and explainable, since in modern conditions it reveals its obvious multifunctionality and can be interpreted as a specific method of cognition, a social institution, a form of accumulation of knowledge and cognitive traditions, a factor in the development of production and modern technologies of activity, etc.

Science is objective, substantiated and systematically organized knowledge about the world. Scientific knowledge is free from personal and value characteristics. Science is only interested in the object. It refuses to consider all the properties and characteristics brought by a person (subject), his abilities, skills, and even the means of cognition with which a person operates.

The main structural components of science as a systemic integrity, or the most important parameters of the existence of science, include:

Science as an activity;

Science as knowledge;

Science as a social institution.

Science as an activity is a creative process of subject-object interaction aimed at the production and reproduction of new objectively true knowledge about reality.

A special analysis of scientific activity makes it possible to record a number of characteristic features of science that distinguish it from other types of spiritual-cognitive activity and, in particular, various forms of ordinary or non-specialized knowledge, which are very actively used in everyday human life and constitute the so-called. the logic of common sense.

In the structure of any (including scientific) activity, one can isolate such components as subject, object (or subject), means and methods, goals and programs, results or products. It is characteristic that in all these parameters scientific activity differs significantly from other types of cognitive activity and forms of knowledge generation. For example, in acts of ordinary or non-specialized cognition, the subject, as a rule, is formed in the process of natural socialization and the acquisition of traditional skills of cognitive and practical activity. In science, a special system of professional socialization is emerging, which involves the subject mastering a huge information array of knowledge, skills, forms and methods of communication.

Equally significant are the differences between scientific and everyday forms of cognitive activity in their object or subject. Ordinary cognition masters only those objects or subject complexes that are directly included in the structure of a person’s practical activity and constitute the space of his life world or everyday experience. Science constructs a special world of idealized objects, an objective reality that is not represented in the real forms of human practical activity or in his everyday empirical experience. The subject of science is always the result of the creative construction of a type of reality that can only be mastered in future forms of practice.

Since scientific-cognitive activity is one of the most complex and developed forms of knowledge of the world, it also differs significantly from other types of knowledge in terms of such parameters in the structure of this activity as its means, methods, goals and programs. Modern science uses many diverse means of knowledge of nature, society and spiritual-psychic reality, carefully adapted to the subject complexes under study.

Among them are:

Material means that make up the experimental-measuring or instrumental base of modern science;

Conceptual and logical means, which include specialized artificial languages ​​and categorical systems, logical and methodological standards and standards for the organization of knowledge, its validity and objective truth;

Mathematical tools that include various systems of mathematical languages ​​and formalisms designed to provide procedures for describing, explaining and predicting the phenomena and processes under study in accordance with the requirements of logical consistency, accuracy, and substantive certainty.

One of the distinctive features of scientific-cognitive activity is its characteristic methodological reflection, aimed at comprehending and constantly evaluating the cognitive actions being carried out, as well as developing a system of special methods and tools designed to optimize these actions and contribute to the achievement of objectively true knowledge about the reality under study. Unlike science, in acts of ordinary or non-specialized cognition, methods and forms of obtaining knowledge are not realized and not analyzed. They are, as it were, melted into the fabric of real cognitive actions and are acquired by the subject directly in the process of education, natural socialization and familiarization with certain customs and traditions.

Scientific activity is fundamentally different from other types and forms of knowledge also in its result, or final product. Any cognitive action should ideally be aimed at obtaining knowledge or information about the cognizable phenomenon. However, in different forms and at different levels of cognition, this information is specified according to a number of essential features. Its content can represent the objective and objective aspects of the existence of phenomena and processes of reality.

It can capture subjectively and personally significant meanings of the social world and the Universe of culture. This may be information about the values, programs and goals of possible acts of activity of an individual, a social group or society as a whole. At the same time, it is very important to fix those properties and parameters that distinguish scientific knowledge as a specific type of information and the final product of scientific and cognitive activity. This characteristic of science presupposes its analysis as a specific system of knowledge.

Science as knowledge. The implementation of a person’s cognitive relationship to the world creates the prerequisites for the translation of cognizable objects into an ideal-sign form, in which they are deobjectified and acquire the status of knowledge. Various typologies of knowledge as a product of spiritual and cognitive activity are possible. Depending on the specifics of the cognizable reality, knowledge is distinguished as information about the objective world of nature and society; about the inner spiritual-psychic world of a person, which contains ideas about the essence and meaning of self-knowledge; about the goals and ideal-theoretical programs of human activity, etc.

Each of these types of knowledge can exist in the forms of proto-scientific, extra-scientific and scientific knowledge. At the same time, scientific knowledge itself is a type of information about the phenomena and processes of reality being studied that must satisfy a number of requirements, or criteria for the scientific nature of knowledge. This problem is one of the most controversial in modern philosophy of science, and depending on the tasks and objectives of the research, various groups of scientific criteria are distinguished. Thus, in order to record historically specific forms of scientific knowledge and distinguish them from protoscience, a set of historical criteria of scientificity is used.

These usually include:

a) formal-logical consistency of knowledge;

b) its experimental verifiability and empirical validity;

c) the rational nature of knowledge;

d) reproducibility and semantic invariance;

e) intersubjectivity and universality. And etc.

The analysis of science as a system of knowledge can be significantly supplemented and specified if its structural division is carried out on other grounds and in other functional “cuts”. Thus, within the framework of any scientific discipline (physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, etc.) it is possible to isolate the structures of empirical, theoretical and metatheoretical knowledge. Each of the named structural levels of knowledge organization specifies science and has a number of functional features.

There are other typologies and classifications of scientific knowledge, within which natural science, mathematical, social, humanitarian, and technical knowledge are distinguished; fundamental scientific knowledge, applied scientific knowledge and knowledge in the form of experimental design projects and developments.

The essence of science (its identification in comparison with ordinary knowledge)

The science. Ordinary

1. Aims at those fragments of reality that are not yet involved in the structures of practice. Science provides a proactive image of reality. Aimed at mastering the world of everyday life, the already established world. Everyday knowledge is born in the course of the practice of mastering this world.

2. Systematically organized and substantiated knowledge. Scientific knowledge is provided by an algorithm - knowing one fragment of a chain, we move along this chain to the result. Knowing the algorithm for solving one problem, we can solve another problem of the same class. This knowledge is prescription. Algorithmization of activities saves effort. Everyday knowledge is crumbly - it is a conglomerate of facts and ideas. This knowledge is largely prescription in nature. This knowledge is unfounded and does not require explanation, since it is embedded in the very structures of practice.

3. Cannot resort to tradition because he masters forms of reality that are not yet present in the tradition. Justified by tradition, prescription.

4. You cannot pull out any part from a scientific theory. If you pull out something from everyday knowledge, it will not suffer

5. Requires appropriate means of cognition - instruments and theoretical methods Does not require special means

6. Needs special language Uses ordinary language

7. Cannot be carried out without special preparation of the subject. The subject is every person

8. Carries out critical reflection on his results and methods. The method is not even explicated (not revealed)

Science, as the most important form of human knowledge in its interaction with various spheres of social life, performs, firstly, a cultural and worldview function, setting guidelines about the structure and structure of the Universe, the emergence and essence of life, and the origin of man. It took dramatic events associated with the burning of G. Bruno, the renunciation of G. Galileo, and the non-acceptance of Charles Darwin's teaching on the origin of species before science became the decisive sphere of culture, and then education, determining the ideological status of man. Secondly, the function of direct productive force, taking into account the unlimited scale and pace of scientific and technological progress, the close connection between science and technology, the powerful potential of science, which radically changes the nature of material production and industry.

Thirdly, the function of social power, when the results and methods of science are used to develop long-term plans and programs for social and economic development, in solving global problems of our time, systemic impact on public life, technical and economic development, social management, ideological education and education of modern humanity.

Fourthly, due to its ability to go beyond the limits of existing practice and work with ideal objects, it actively performs a predictive function, providing scientifically based models of the future development of natural, social and spiritual existence.

Classification of scientific research methods

The variety of types of human activity determines a diverse range of methods that can be classified according to a variety of criteria.

First of all, it is necessary to highlight the methods of spiritual, ideal, including scientific, practical, and material activities.

It has now become obvious that a system of methods and methodology cannot be limited only to the sphere of scientific knowledge, it must go beyond its limits and certainly include it in its orbit and scope of practice. At the same time, it is necessary to keep in mind the close interaction of these two spheres.

As for the methods of science, there may be several reasons for dividing them into groups. Thus, depending on the role and place in the process of scientific knowledge, one can distinguish formal and substantive, empirical and theoretical, fundamental and applied methods, methods of research and presentation, etc.

The content of objects studied by science serves as a criterion for distinguishing between the methods of natural science and the methods of social sciences and humanities. In turn, the methods of natural sciences can be divided into methods for studying inanimate nature and methods for studying living nature, etc. There are also qualitative and quantitative methods, uniquely deterministic and probabilistic, methods of direct and indirect cognition, original and derivatives, etc.

Characteristic features of the scientific method: objectivity, reproducibility, heuristics, necessity, specificity, etc.

The most common in modern science multi-level concept of methodological knowledge. In this regard, all methods of scientific knowledge can be divided into the following main groups: according to the degree of generality and breadth of application. No less widespread is the classification of methods of scientific knowledge, which is based on the criteria for the application of methods at different levels of scientific knowledge. Depending on the level of knowledge, methods of the empirical and theoretical levels are distinguished (Fig. 2).

Let's consider the classification of methods of scientific knowledge by degree of generality.

1. Universal or philosophical methods among which the most ancient are dialectical and metaphysical.

The metaphysical method is a philosophical way of cognition and action, opposed to the dialectical method as its antipode; a characteristic feature of metaphysics is one-sidedness, the absolutization of one side of the process of cognition or one or another element of the whole, a moment of activity in any of its forms.

The dialectical method of philosophical knowledge and way of thinking are based on the analysis of all possible points of view on the subject under study. Such an analysis of different points of view comes down to a clash of opposing positions, which are usually called thesis and antithesis.

Thus, the dialectical method in K. Marx was combined with materialism, and in G. Hegel - with idealism.

Rice. 2. Methods of scientific knowledge

Russian scientists, as a rule, use the dialectical method to study the phenomena and processes of social life under study, since the laws of dialectics have universal significance - they are inherent in the development of nature, society and thinking. When studying objects and phenomena, dialectics recommends proceeding from the following principles.

1. Consider the objects being studied in the light of dialectical laws:

a) unity and struggle of opposites;

b) the transition of quantitative changes to qualitative ones;

c) negation of negation.

2. Describe, explain and predict the phenomena and processes being studied, based on philosophical categories:

General, special and individual;

The essence of the phenomenon;

Possibilities and Realities;

Necessary and accidental;

Causes and consequences.

3. Treat the object of research as an objective reality.

4. Consider the objects and phenomena being studied:

a) comprehensively;

b) in universal connection and interdependence;

c) in continuous change and development;

d) specifically historically.

5. Test the acquired knowledge in practice.

Essentially, each philosophical concept has a methodological function and is a unique way of mental activity. Therefore, philosophical methods are not limited to the two mentioned. These also include methods such as analytical (characteristic of modern analytical philosophy), intuitive, phenomenological, hermeneutic (understanding), etc.

A philosophical method that provides correct and accurate ideas about the general laws of tourism development, its originality and constituent components, as well as the place and role in it of those phenomena that scientists and specialists study, is the dialectical approach. This methodology is based on the materiality of the world around us, in which matter is in continuous movement and development.

The driving forces of development of the surrounding world (matter) are subject to the laws of dialectics - the unity and struggle of opposites, the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones, the negation of negation.

2. General scientific approaches and research methods, which have been widely developed and used in science. They act as a kind of “intermediate” methodology between philosophy and the fundamental theoretical and methodological provisions of the special sciences.

The characteristic features of general scientific concepts are:

a) first of all , the commonality in their content of individual properties, characteristics, concepts of a number of special sciences and philosophical categories;

b) secondly, the possibility of their formalization, clarification by means of mathematical theory and symbolic logic.

On the basis of general scientific concepts and concepts, the corresponding methods and principles of cognition are formulated, which ensure the connection and optimal interaction of philosophy with special scientific knowledge and its methods.

General scientific or general logical methods are analysis, synthesis, generalization, abstraction, induction, deduction, analogy, modeling, historical method, logical method and classification. The relationship between general scientific methods can be presented in the form of a diagram (Fig. 3).

Analysis- this is dismemberment, decomposition of the object of study into its component parts. It underlies the analytical research method. Varieties of analysis are classification and periodization. The analysis method is used both in real and in mental activity.

Synthesis- this is the connection of individual sides, parts of the object of study into a single whole. However, this is not just their connection, but also the knowledge of something new - the interaction of parts as a whole. The result of the synthesis is a completely new formation, the properties of which are not only an external combination of the properties of the components, but also the result of their internal interconnection and interdependence.

Rice. 3. General scientific methods

Analysis and synthesis are methods for determining the optimal balance of forces and means necessary for the successful functioning of a tourism enterprise. They allow you to establish the elements that make up the effect of staff interaction and give an idea of ​​your capabilities in achieving an economic effect. Analysis and synthesis are used in the study, for example, of the work of a tourist enterprise for a financial year, which is divided into quarters, the relationship between them is established, and then the operations are reproduced as a whole.

Through these methods, the positive aspects of tourism events are clarified and their weak links are identified.

The function of the analysis is to identify various features in tourism activities that could be taken as a basis for systematizing facts, arranging them in chronological, functional, structural order, characterizing a certain aspect of the development of the event under study.

The function of synthesis is to establish connections between facts and combine them into groups based on identified grounds.

When analyzing, for example, it can be revealed that an increase in prices for petroleum products will entail an increase in prices for gasoline, fuels and lubricants, and this, in turn, will contribute to an increase in the price of tourist packages.

When studying tourism in general or its individual types, the researcher mentally dissects the activities of each individual staff and at the same time reveals the connection and interaction of elements, properties and aspects of them as a whole.

It should be borne in mind that in scientific research various types of analysis are used: factorial, logical, content analysis, etc.

Main goals factor analysis are reducing the number of variables and determining the structure of relationships between variables. When reducing the number of variables, the final variable includes the most significant features of the variables being combined. Classification involves the selection of several new factors from variables related to each other. In tourism, factor analysis is used in connection with the analysis of consumer demand for tour packages.

Logical analysis is intended to determine the range of concepts with which the subject of research is described, the search for outwardly clearly distinguishable signs, i.e., empirical indicators that make it possible to measure the aspects and properties, for example, of a new tourism product. Logical analysis includes procedures such as the interpretation of basic concepts (interpretation of the content hidden in them) and their operational definitions (division of concepts into elements for which empirical indicators can be selected). Ultimately, characteristics are obtained, the measurement of which provides an answer to the customer’s information request.

Content analysis(from English content content) is a formalized method of studying text and graphic information, which consists in translating the studied information in tourism activities into quantitative indicators and its statistical processing. Characterized by great rigor and systematicity. The object of content analysis can be the content of various types of activities in the tourism industry: international and domestic tour operators, competitors in a certain segment of the tourism services market, managers of international and domestic hotel complexes, emergency events affecting the tourism industry, legislative acts of individual countries in the hospitality industry. The content analysis method is used to study documentary sources and as an auxiliary tool in questioning, observation, testing, in mass communications research, and in marketing.

Generalization- this is the process of transition from the individual to the general, from the less general to the more general.

Mental generalization is based on the universality of connections between objects and phenomena of reality, the interconnection of the individual and the general in all really existing tourist events. In a separate type of tourism there are not only individual features inherent only to it, but also general, similar features. The formation of generalizing provisions (concepts, laws, conclusions, concepts) is possible through the study of specific ones.

The degree of commonality of facts (events) may vary. Hence the difference in levels of generalization - from the establishment of the simplest, elementary similarity at the stage of empirical research of facts to the disclosure of the essential, general, underlying the formation of concepts, the disclosure of laws and explanation of facts at the theoretical level of cognition, when it is created a system of explanatory provisions, a harmonious concept of the phenomenon being studied is formed.

A complex form of generalization that allows one to distinguish important facts from secondary ones is typification, which consists in the selection of characteristic (typical) facts that express the most important aspect of the phenomenon or group of phenomena being studied in tourism. The selection of characteristic (typical) facts is an important feature of scientific generalization, which brings phenomena closer to the knowledge of latent connections. To reveal the essence of the phenomenon under study, a description is not enough, so generalizations of a higher order are needed and those that reveal the repeatability, necessity, significance and causality of the signs of the event.

The form of generalization of experience in tourism is the conclusions, from which a scientific concept and theory are formed, which reveals the characteristic features and essence of the phenomena being studied, the patterns of their occurrence and development.

Abstraction (idealization)- mental distraction from some properties and relationships of the subject being studied and highlighting the properties and relationships that interest the researcher. During abstraction, secondary properties and connections of the object under study are separated from essential properties and connections.

The abstraction method allows us to identify typical connections and relationships in tourism, abstracting from the whole variety of particulars.

As a result of using the abstraction method, it is possible to obtain abstract knowledge of a general nature about individual patterns of running the tourism business, the common goals of the parties, the causes of events in the studied segment of the tourism services market and their essence.

Induction- this is the movement of thought (cognition) from facts, individual cases to the general situation. Inductive inferences “suggest” an idea, a general idea. With the inductive method of research, in order to obtain general knowledge about any class of objects, it is necessary to examine individual objects, find common essential features in them, which will serve as the basis for knowledge about the general feature inherent in this class of objects.

Deduction- this is the derivation of an individual, particular from some general position; the movement of thought (cognition) from general statements to statements about individual objects or phenomena. Through deductive reasoning, a certain thought is “derived” from other thoughts.

Analogy- this is a way of obtaining knowledge about objects and phenomena on the basis of the fact that they have similarities with others, reasoning in which, from the similarity of the objects being studied in some characteristics, a conclusion is made about their similarity in other characteristics. The degree of probability (reliability) of conclusions by analogy depends on the number of similar features in the compared phenomena. Analogy is most often used in similarity theory.

Modeling- a method of scientific knowledge, the essence of which is to replace the subject or phenomenon being studied with a special similar model containing the essential features of the original.

Historical method involves reproducing the history of the object being studied in all its versatility, taking into account all the details and accidents. It involves studying the emergence and development of research objects in chronological order.

The historical represents development in its sequential manifestation, and the logical expresses development in its essence. For example, historically, tourism first developed from walking along developed routes (in a forested area, near the sea coast), then walking tourism appeared as a therapeutic remedy -
health path.

Historical and logical in tourist activity are two sides of the same phenomenon, in which the logical is its essence, general line, quintessence, and the historical is a diverse manifestation of this basis through a mass of accidents.

Boolean method- this is a logical reproduction of the history of the object being studied, liberation from everything random and unimportant.

The logical method is based on the patterns inherent in reality. In tourism, any phenomenon has a certain logic of its origin, development and transition to a qualitatively new state. For example, previously, hotel reservations for tourists were made by telephone in small quantities. In modern conditions, the flow of tourists has increased significantly. Hotel reservations have become possible in real time using the Internet. To provide high-quality customer service, a large number of travel enterprises using information technology have appeared on the tourism services market.

Classification- a method of scientific research and generalization, the essence of which is that the objects, phenomena or processes being studied are ordered into certain groups (classes) based on some selected characteristics.

General scientific concepts most often include such concepts as “information”, “model”, “structure”, “function”, “system”, “element”, “optimality”, “probability”, etc.

General scientific principles and approaches include systemic and structural-functional, cybernetic, probabilistic, modeling, formalization and a number of others.

Such a general scientific discipline as synergetics - the theory of self-organization and development of open integral systems of any nature - natural, social, cognitive (cognitive) - has been developing especially rapidly recently.

The important role of general scientific approaches is that, due to their “intermediate nature,” they mediate the mutual transition of philosophical and specific scientific or particular scientific knowledge (as well as corresponding methods).

The point is that the first is not superimposed in a purely external, direct way on the second. Therefore, attempts to express special scientific content in the language of philosophical categories are, as a rule, unconstructive and ineffective.

3. Specific scientific methods- a set of methods, principles of knowledge, research techniques and procedures used in one or another science corresponding to a given basic form of motion of matter. These are methods of mechanics, physics, chemistry, biology and social sciences.

Thus, methodology cannot be reduced to any one, even “very important method.”

Methodology is also not a simple sum of individual methods, their “mechanical unity”. Methodology is a complex, dynamic, holistic, subordinated system of methods, techniques, principles of different levels, scope, focus, heuristic capabilities, contents, structures, etc.

Let's consider the classification of methods depending on the level of knowledge.

Methods at the theoretical level include axiomatic, hypothetical, hypothetico-deductive, formalization, abstraction, generalization, ascent from the abstract to the concrete, historical, method of system analysis.

Empirical level methods include observation, description, counting, measurement, comparison, experiment and modeling.

How do historical and logical methods of research compare?  

HISTORICAL AND LOGICAL METHODS  

Historical and logical methods (or approaches) are also used in unity. They involve a detailed study of socio-economic processes in their historical sequence, but at the same time with logical generalizations that allow us to evaluate these processes as a whole and draw general conclusions. For example, scientists have studied in detail the specific course and features of the experience of building socialism in the 20th century. in different countries. This historical approach to research enabled many of them to come to logical conclusions about the widespread loss of incentives for workers in socialist countries to work, the inefficiency of the economy, commodity shortages, etc.  

The budget mechanism is historically and logically connected with the budget; at the same time, it is significantly influenced by the tasks solved by society at a particular stage of development. As the tasks change, the budget mechanism must also change. Hence, as the economy develops and is transferred to market economic principles, the budget mechanism will also radically change, acquiring qualitatively new features; in place of the directive administration of government entities, methods of indirect influence of the budget on the economy will appear; the priorities of budget policy will change, which will depend on the solution of current, although very important tasks, will move on to the development and consistent implementation of long-term target programs, the methodology and methodology of budget planning will be radically transformed, in which, for example, volumetric indicators will be replaced by qualitative guidelines such as social standards, etc.  

The materialistic approach to the study of economic processes meant not only an objective recognition of the existence of the real world. In accordance with the materialistic approach, the main active subject of the historical process is a social person engaged in production activities. The structure-forming element was proclaimed to be the method of production of material and spiritual goods, which determines the legal and political superstructure, the forms of social consciousness. The materialistic approach also meant the fundamental possibility of knowing the objective world and its adequate reflection in a theoretical system. It presupposes the unity of dialectics, logic and theory of knowledge. In the theory of knowledge, the leading ones are the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete and the principle of the unity of the historical and logical.  

Along with the identical moment in the characteristics of the historical and logical methods of cognition, a moment of difference also appears here. The logical method is presented as more theoretical, general, and necessary. Moreover, each of these methods presupposes another without knowledge reflecting the development of mankind, the historical method, it is impossible to understand the essence of the subject, i.e. the laws of its development and, therefore, logical, and, conversely, without understanding the process or phenomenon, it is not known where it begins history and therefore historical.  

Thus, the historical and logical, including previous methods, more precisely, the features of a single dialectical method, provide a general answer to the question of where to start and how to build a theoretical system. However, for the practical implementation of this, it is necessary to first build more specific economic models and test them in economic experiments.  

The method of dialectics is concretized in its individual directions: the method of abstraction, the ascent from the abstract to the concrete, the combination of analysis and synthesis, historical and logical, experiment, modeling, etc.  

Method of unity of historical and logical in knowledge.  

Management methodology is the doctrine of the main functions, principles and methods of management work, the system of its most important indicators and results. The basis of the teaching is methods common to all sciences - historical and logical, analysis and synthesis, materialist dialectics, concrete and abstract, the relationship of conditions and phenomena, etc.  

The relationship between historical and logical, general and specific in relation to finance and credit. Financial and credit problems from the perspective of system analysis, and examples of specific global and domestic problems. The role of economic and mathematical methods and computers in the functioning of the financial and credit mechanism, and for its study. Approaches to the analysis and synthesis of financial and credit systems.  

However, the historical approach to the analysis of economic activity is fraught with significant shortcomings. The abundance of descriptive material and particular historical details can make serious theoretical study of economics difficult. In this way, it is not possible to clearly identify the typical features of economic systems. The logical method helps to overcome these shortcomings.  

A significant advantage of probability theory, which is widely used in the application of quantitative methods of risk analysis, is the centuries-old historical experience of using probabilities and logical schemes based on them. However, when uncertainty regarding the future state of the object of study loses the features of statistical uncertainty, classical probability as a characteristic of mass processes measurable during testing becomes irrelevant. This fact, as well as the conclusion about the irrationality of carrying out probabilistic calculations based on analogue data made above, indicate the need to use subjective non-classical probabilities. Note that for a decision maker or investor, calculations based on expert conclusions are more transparent compared to calculations based on statistical research. In addition, they can be adjusted at any time during the project life cycle. This will provide project participants with up-to-date information for timely management of project risks.  

While noting achievements, one should not remain silent about certain gaps and contradictions in theoretical concepts and the insufficiency of the research methods used. The latter deserve special attention. Cost as an economic category is a historical phenomenon that develops in certain social conditions of production. Calculation and accounting of production costs, therefore, are also formed and modified under the influence of objective socio-economic conditions. This is declared by many researchers, but is not always taken into account by them when analyzing the content, structure and methods of accounting for production costs and calculations, trends in their development and ways of improvement. The dialectic of logical and historical in the development of cost accounting and calculation is not always subject to a comprehensive scientific analysis, which inevitably entails simplified conclusions regarding the goals, functions, tasks of calculation, modification and application of methods and techniques for calculating cost, the need and possibility of using the generated information.  

But each method is not only identical with the other, not only. presupposes another, but also passes into another, creates itself as. other. The historical method, which collects empirical material and information, prepares and at a certain stage passes into the logical, and the logical, having analyzed the essence of the subject and the form of its manifestation in reality, passes. into the historical and gives a powerful intellectual impulse for the transformation of reality, that is, it contributes to both further historical knowledge of the subject and its deep transformation.  

The logical method, wrote F. Engels, is essentially nothing more than the same historical method, only freed from historical form and from interfering accidents. Where history begins, the train of thought must begin with the same, and its further movement will be nothing more than a reflection of the historical process in an abstract and theoretically consistent form, a corrected reflection, but corrected in accordance with the laws that the actual historical process itself gives. ..  

The logical method, wrote F. Engels, is essentially nothing more than the same historical method, only freed from historical form and from interfering accidents. Where history begins, the train of thought must begin with the same, and its further movement will be nothing more than a reflection of the historical process in an abstract and theoretically consistent form, a corrected reflection, but corrected in accordance with the laws that the actual historical process itself gives, Moreover, each moment can be considered at the point of its development where the process reaches full maturity, its classical form.  

In practice, it is necessary to correctly read information about outcome indicators, based on the goals of analysis and management. The main npi principle of studying analytical indicators is the deductive method, i.e., a transition from the general to the specific, but it must be used repeatedly. In the course of such an analysis, the historical and logical sequence of economic factors and events is reproduced, the direction of the strength of their impact on the results of economic activity of the enterprise .  

HISTORICAL AND LOGICAL, interconnected methods of dialectic. knowledge and reflection of reality (see Method

System method.

System is a Greek word that literally means “a whole made up of parts,” in another meaning it is an order determined by the systematic, correct arrangement of parts as a whole, determined by the interrelations of the parts. The term "systems approach" refers to a group of methods by which a real object is described as a set of interacting components. These methods are developed within the framework of individual scientific disciplines, interdisciplinary syntheses and general scientific concepts. The need for a systems approach is due to the enlargement and complexity of the systems being studied, the need for systems management and knowledge integration. The systems approach applies to sets of objects, individual objects, and components of objects. In the process of analysis, the system is isolated from the environment, the composition and structure of the system, its functions, integral characteristics (properties), system-forming factors, and relationships with the environment are determined. During the synthesis process, a model of the real system is built. Man as a subject of knowledge is studied by many fundamental and applied sciences (Ananyev). Levels of description have been established: biological, physiological, psychological, sociological. The identification of these levels was greatly facilitated by the fact that each of them corresponds to an integral object that defines it: biological cell, physiological organism, psychological consciousness, social personality. The integral of these levels is Man.

The systemic approach in its socio-philosophical refraction to the problem of political leadership allows us to consider it as part of a broader system (class, power, and so on). A leader simultaneously acts as a part of various systems. On the one hand, it is part of the political system, on the other, part of the economic system. A political leader is also part of the cultural relations of a society. Of course, this does not exhaust the leader’s affiliation with one or another system. For example, a leader belongs to a political party, and the party is a system.

In the future, working on the problem of political leadership, we will repeatedly encounter the belonging of political leadership to various socio-economic systems and systems of social relations.

“The fundamental justification for the principle of historicism, which appeared in Herder, belongs to Hegel. Hegel’s historicism includes two fundamental principles:

1) recognition of the substantiality of history, the presence in it as a fundamental substance of reason, which has infinite power,

2) approval of the integrity of the historical process and its expediency; The ultimate goal of world history is the consciousness of the spirit of his freedom.".

The principle of historicism was adopted by Marxist philosophy after which it changed significantly; this happened, first of all, because it was reoriented to the materialist understanding of history and society. In its development, along with its essence, the name also changed; it began to be called “historicism.” Historicism is based on an approach to reality as changing over time, developing. V.I. Lenin, formulating this principle, wrote: "...Do not forget the basic historical connection, look at each question from the point of view of how a well-known phenomenon in history arose, what main stages in its development this phenomenon passed through, and from the point of view of this development, look at what this thing has now become ".

"Representatives of many philosophical schools partially or completely deny the principle of historicism. These include P. Rickert and W. Windelband (neo-Kantianism), K. Jaspers (existentialism), representatives of pragmatism and neopositivism. Let's get acquainted with one of the options for proving the inconsistency of the principle of historicism, which belongs to the pen of K.R. Popper.

The Marxist approach to the interpretation of the historical process by K.R. Popper is categorically not accepted. K.R. Popper called the entire social philosophy of K. Marx “historicism,” which explains the entire historical process depending on the class struggle for economic superiority. Popper denied the objective laws of the historical process, and therefore the possibility of social forecasting.".

Karl Popper noted: "Belief in historical necessity is a clear prejudice and it is impossible to predict the course of human history...by scientific methods....Historicism is a poor method that does not bring results".

To substantiate his position, K. Popper gives the following arguments:

"1. The course of human history depends to a large extent on the growth of human knowledge.

2. We cannot predict what the growth of scientific knowledge will be.

3. Therefore, we cannot predict the course of human history.

4. This means that we must reject the possibility of theoretical history.".

In his arguments, Popper largely isolates the development of social knowledge from the development of social relations. Everyone knows that gunpowder was invented by the Chinese. However, the very fact of its invention has not yet determined its application. It was used sporadically and very primitively. However, with the growth of industrial relations, opportunities have opened up for its more effective use. Significant needs arose in connection with the emergence of standing armies. Thus, its use was due, on the one hand, to the growth of productive forces, which made it possible to create more effective weapons adequate for the new army. On the other hand, the development of production relations and as their direct consequence of social relations in general. The new army itself, not a feudal militia, but a professional - mercenary army, was able to appear only under the conditions of a change in these relations. Thus, in the simplest and most obvious example, we see that scientific progress is inextricably linked with social needs and cannot in itself serve as an engine of progress, and the concept of “anti-historicism” does not stand up to criticism. But, nevertheless, this theory exists and even allows us to see new sides of social development, even through such one-sidedness.

We see that the point of view adopted in Soviet times about the progressive, ascending development of history, the transition of society from lower to higher, more perfect forms of life, and traditional for us, is not the only one. However, the phenomena and processes of our time, as well as those that preceded them, as well as those that will appear on their basis in the future, cannot be known outside the historical context that connects them. That is why the scientific study of social phenomena and processes cannot be limited to their state at any specific moment of existence, since the cause-and-effect relationship in historical development will be lost. The dialectical and historical-materialist principle of knowledge lies in a unified historical-logical approach, which involves the study of all, or as large as possible, stages of history, in all the diversity of its manifestations, as well as development prospects.

“The dialectic of the historical and logical is revealed in the relationship between the objective historical development of society and its social components and the theoretical reflection of the results of such development at one or another stage and on one or another territory. The objective historical movement is characterized by the universality of the principles of development and the material unity of the world, the embodiment of which is the unity of historical and logical. The essence of objective historical movement is understood under the condition of revealing the logic of the process. The concrete historical content of the phenomenon is reflected in a logical form. At the same time, understanding the logic of historical development allows one to comprehend the nature and character of historical concreteness, in particular political phenomena and processes.

The historical diversity of political forms creates a single internal logic for the development of social relations. But these forms themselves are only a reflection of the essence of the socio-economic relations dominant in society. This logic captures the objective laws of the real historical movement of society in all the diversity of its manifestations. However, such a movement itself and its internal logic do not depend on their theoretical reflection. We can talk about the relationship between the historical (the actual history of politics and society) and the logical (the internal logic of historical development) in ontological terms. In this aspect, the interaction of historical and logical approaches (methods) to the knowledge of law is expressed in the fact that, based on the study of the historical diversity of socio-political forms, the logic of their emergence and development is theoretically reproduced. The historical method turns out to be a prerequisite for the logical analysis of the very dynamics of the development of social philosophy.".

Based on the principle of historicism, a logical study of the problem of political leadership reveals the historical repetition of its manifestations, their general principles of movement and development in which they are expressed. Logical research, and we are talking primarily about dialectical logic, reveals the essence of socio-philosophical phenomena and processes, abstracting from the originality of their specific manifestations. But at the same time relying on their specific historical essence. Historical analysis is aimed at identifying the specific features inherent in a political leader as a socio-historical phenomenon. These specific features change because the historical movement never stops. And the leader is certainly a product of this movement. However, both development in general and in its specific manifestations is not linear, although it is unidirectional. This happens due to the fact that the specificity of the objective conditions in which this development unfolds leaves its mark on the pattern of development. In part, this specificity is characterized by such a category as “accident”. The historical and logical side of the study of the problem of political leadership expresses the concrete manifestation of the natural stages of development, not in their abstract understanding, but in concrete manifestations.

“The abstract logical form of socio-philosophical research is also historical, since this form, being the result of comparison, analysis and generalization of certain historical experience, undergoes certain changes under the influence of historical development. The logical theory of social development is the result of a “transformation” in thinking of the characteristics of the movement of social -historical phenomena and processes. The logical aspect of the theory of political leadership plays a methodological role in the study of its history, in the knowledge of its diversity in relation to specific periods, since, due to its synthesis, socio-historical logic is capable of identifying internal connections, the basis of interaction and interpenetration of historical phenomena and processes. Therefore, the study of any object must fundamentally proceed from the unity of the historical and logical. On the one hand, logic is inherent in historical knowledge, just as historicity is inherent in logical knowledge. On the other hand, their difference is obvious within the framework of unity. Which once again emphasizes the dialectical essence of historical-logical knowledge".

The unity of historical-logical knowledge acts as one of the expressions of the relationship between knowledge of an object in the logical aspect and knowledge of its history. Without understanding the essence of the problem, its scientific coverage is impossible; the logical determines the principle of approach to the historical. Without knowledge of the history of politics, a deep understanding of its essence is excluded, since on the basis of historical generalizations it is possible to understand the problems of their emergence and development. In this case, the knowledge of political leadership as a historical phenomenon becomes impossible.

The task of social philosophy is to reveal what is objectively essential in the origin of political leadership, in a form freed from accidents. In the system of categories she develops, the variety of specific vicissitudes of historical development does not disappear, but is present in a sublated form. The task of the philosophy of history is to reproduce the entire diverse process of the historical development of law, the alternation of specific historical legal facts and show this process in a consistent, specific chronological form.

“Without a historical reproduction of development, the possibility of a logical understanding of its laws is excluded, and without a logical understanding of the objective course of historical development, it is impossible to reveal the internal causes and mechanisms of its natural movement.

The materialist understanding of the dialectical connection between the historical and the logical presupposes the recognition of the primacy of the historical in relation to the logical. The logical is built on the basis of specific historical experience in one or another sphere of social life. Thus, historical research, reproducing the actual development of social life, is primary in relation to its logical research; it acts as a mandatory prerequisite for the logical, since it is necessary to know the history of the object that we intend to study. At the same time, the historical study of a subject assists in the construction of its logical theory in the event that the historical study itself is carried out in accordance with the objective logic of historical legal development.".

The use of the historical method is a prerequisite for logical research in social philosophy. However, to study the origin of political leadership, it is necessary to have certain theoretical knowledge about this socio-historical phenomenon. Thus, the logical method of cognition turns out to be a prerequisite for the historical method. This is also explained by the historicity of the knowledge itself about the subject of research. Since we begin to analyze the diverse historical forms of political leadership and its development, based on the level of theoretical ideas about it that has already been achieved by this time.

Logical research is a reproduction of the historical in the logical tracing of its internal connections, i.e. discovery of the essence and patterns of development of the system of a particular society. An enriched understanding of the essence and patterns of development of a social system acts as a logical basis for its historical knowledge, since it orients historical and social research towards the detection and recording of not yet developed trends, towards isolating from the variety of connections and dependencies of socio-historical phenomena and processes those of them that which are fundamental. This advantage of the logical method also contains its disadvantage compared to the historical method, since, while highlighting what characterizes the essence and patterns of legal development, it is not able to display all the richness of this process. Which ultimately distorts the cognizable object. Therefore, the logical must be corrected and enriched with real material from the history of society. If the logical in the knowledge of social and political phenomena and processes allows us to identify their essence in a static state (in this case we are abstracted from their functionality, which determines their dynamism), to determine the general pattern of their movement and development in accordance with the general laws of social existence, then the historical brings This knowledge is specifically unique, characterizing the specifics of this movement and this development. Without a logical scheme, this development appears as a set of facts that are not interconnected and independent of each other. As a result, in socio-historical research, the cause-and-effect relationships of historical development are lost.

The logical diagram of society and its components not only guides the process of its historical research, but also allows us to reveal the trends of its development. An example of this is the logical method of historical and political knowledge, when the idea of ​​a future political system as a goal is projected through an analysis of the present onto the understanding of the past. Understanding the political system opens up broad opportunities for understanding such a part of it as political leadership. Moreover, its knowledge is also historical and logical in nature, which makes it possible to trace its stages and their features. Reveal the nature of the very relations between the political leader of political and social groups and the whole society. In the future, this opens the way to understanding the inner world of a political leader in its socio-historical specificity. Thus, the historical-logical method of knowledge allows political leadership comprehensively. Moreover, social philosophy gets the opportunity to trace not only external processes, changes and developments of political leadership, but also its internal currents, namely the socio-psychological characteristics of political leadership. But not as “abstract social”, but as socio-historical.

Thus, logical knowledge is characterized by the fact that it does not simply reflect historical and political reality and its phenomena, but, being a relatively stable multivariate basis of various states and properties of social phenomena, fixes attention on their essential aspects and moments, due to which it acquires the ability to reveal objective patterns development and both politics in general and political leadership.

“The logical, starting from real material, deals mainly with abstract constructions. Unlike the logical, in the historical, moments of descriptiveness and commentary play a more important role. For the logical, within the framework of the historical, work is carried out to describe, systematize and comment on the facts of social reality. Thanks logical constructions have objective grounds for this.

The logical in the development of society is at the same time historical in the sense that it is derived from the experience of human history and generalizes this experience. Since we are talking about generalization, the logical embraces the historical experience of society, abstracting from the individual. The study of the special and individual in a social system can be classified as historical. Logical cognition deals primarily with objects that have reached maturity, when the pattern of development is revealed to the maximum extent. Therefore, the logical comprehension of a particular political object allows, through knowledge of its mature state, to see the process of system formation of this object. At the same time, the logical idea of ​​a political object in its mature state, containing its history in a captured form, is abstracted from the uniqueness of the facts of historical reality. Thus, the logical representation turns out to be incomplete. This incompleteness is compensated by historical knowledge of the legal object as a result of tracing the sequence and phasing of its development. At the same time, historical and political facts act here not only as the source material and basis for research, but also as the very object of historical and political knowledge. The coincidence of the historical and the logical is due to the fact that the final, mature forms of politics are not simply the result of their development, but also contain their own past, their own prerequisites, albeit in a significantly changed (removed) form. However, here we simultaneously discover a discrepancy between the historical and the logical, since not all real historical factors in the genesis of politics are reproduced in the political system that has already developed at the corresponding stage. Many of them are eliminated during the development of the system. In addition, those factors that are reproduced in it are included in qualitatively new historical connections and dependencies. They continue to exist, but in a transformed, altered (removed) form. Therefore, the historical (chronological) sequence itself cannot serve as a guide for the logical reproduction of the corresponding mature political forms.

Historical and political research is not limited to simply recording facts and events that took place in the development of the political system. In the course of reproducing its history, only those of them are selected that are essential for characterizing this system and identifying its inherent patterns.".

The logical approach is justified not only when understanding political objects that are at a mature stage; it focuses historical attention on the stages of formation and formation of these objects. With such a formulation of the question, it would turn out that logical research is possible only after the object reaches a developed state. And as S.A. wrote Adamov: “We are not talking about the moment from which the logical replaces the historical, but about the fact that the analysis of an object in a developed form makes it possible to more clearly clarify the question of the previous forms from which the mature form of a given object was ultimately formed.”. This means that both approaches can be productively used in the cognition of both a mature object and one that is still being formed. Returning to the issue of political leadership, it should be noted that the historical-logical approach, or as it is also called the method of historicism, can be of a specifically historical nature. A political leader is one thing in one era, another in another.

To summarize once again, but more specifically, let us define the method of historicism. Historicism is the principle of knowledge of things and phenomena in their formation and development, in organic connection with the conditions that give rise to them. Historicism means an approach to phenomena that includes the study of their occurrence and subsequent development trends, and considers them in the aspect of both the past and the future. And this reveals its historical and logical essence. Historicism is not a fixation of any change (even a qualitative one), but one that expresses the formation of specific properties and connections of things that determine their essence and originality. Historicism presupposes the recognition of the irreversible and successive nature of things. Historicism finds application not only in social philosophy, it is one of the most important principles of science as a whole, which allowed it to give an objective picture of nature and discover the laws of its development. For example, Darwin's theory of evolution. Thanks to this principle, which constitutes an integral part of the dialectical method. Social philosophy has been able to explain the essence of such social phenomena as the state, social classes, social groups, etc., to understand the historically transitional nature of development, and to understand the essential nature of socio-economic formations. In the matter of political leadership, historicism is of no small importance, since it allows, based on existing knowledge, to understand it in its formation and development, and to trace the internal connections of this development.

Book: LOGIC FOR LAWYERS: LECTURES. / Law College of LNU named after. Franco

2. Logical methods of research (cognition)

Logical methods are used in all types of knowledge - everyday, scientific, philosophical, etc. Every person uses logic in his thinking as an “organon”, that is, as a tool, a means for a variety of intellectual actions. It is in this sense that the term “organon” (a tool, a set of mental operations necessary for carrying out certain studies) “works” in Aristotle’s logical works. Aristotle's logical works are called "Analytics" (the term "logic" was introduced later to designate all Aristotelian works on logic). Aristotle considered “Analytics” (logic) as a method by which one can draw a conclusion from certain premises (assumptions), and then justify whether this conclusion was drawn correctly, based on the laws of logic.

Logical methods are the main and necessary means of cognition, therefore every person must master these methods well and use them in their mental activity. In the legal thinking of a lawyer, the conscious use of logical methods is a necessary condition for solving specific theoretical and practical problems in the field of law, for obtaining new knowledge in the process of cognitive activity.

Logical methods of cognition (research) of objects, phenomena, processes of the objective world include: analysis, synthesis, abstraction, idealization, generalization, deduction, induction, analogy, extrapolation, modeling, hypothesis.

Analysis (gr. - schedule, analysis, dismemberment) - a logical technique, a research method, which consists in the fact that the object being studied is mentally or practically divided into its component elements (signs, properties, structural parts), each of which is then studied separately as part of a dissected whole. There are various types of analysis depending on the specifics of the object under study. The most common in modern science is system analysis , the essence of which lies in the approach to the object that is being studied as a structurally organized system in which all elements are organically and inextricably interconnected and thus influence each other. For example, during system analysis, society as an integral system is divided into economic, political, legal, moral and other aspects of existence and social consciousness (structural parts of the whole) and these aspects are studied separately.

A special type of analysis is logical analysis , those. a methodological approach to the results of people's cognitive activity - knowledge in its various forms and types, which is expressed by means of natural and artificial languages ​​based on the laws of the science of logic. Logical analysis means identifying the structural elements (types, types, levels) of knowledge, which is framed in the form of a certain text and their relationship with each other, clarifying the logical meaning of the truth or falsity of statements in the text, logical explication (“explanation”, “clarification”) of the conceptual apparatus , through which this knowledge is realized, establishing the consistency, validity, and proof of this knowledge.

Synthesis (gr. - connection, composition, combination) - This mental connection of parts of an object dismembered in the process of analysis, establishing the interaction of particles and understanding this object as a whole. In the process of formation and development of knowledge in science, synthesis is one of the main means by which existing knowledge is combined as a whole. Examples of the synthesis of knowledge in legal sciences are laws and patterns that are formulated on the basis of personal research, the general theory of state and law, sectoral and interdisciplinary special theories of law.

In real human thinking analysis and synthesis are interconnected Accordingly, we can talk about the analytical-synthetic nature of the thinking of a lawyer: investigator, judge, lawyer, prosecutor, etc. For example, in the course of his professional activity, a judge analyzes all the materials on the case submitted to the court and, based on the study (research) of everything he has read and listened to, creates a complete mental “picture” of the case.

Abstraction or abstraction (lat. - distraction) - the process of mentally separating individual or general properties, features and relationships of a particular object that currently interests a person, as well as mentally abstracting them from many other features. Aristotle viewed abstraction as a process as a result of which everything partial, accidental, and secondary is discarded and the general is separated. The term “abstraction” or “abstraction” in modern logic is used in the following meanings: as a method of everyday and scientific knowledge, as an algorithm or order of an abstraction procedure, that is, the rules of abstraction, as the construction of abstract objects in science. The essence of the abstraction method lies in the study of real objects, phenomena, processes, the identification of various properties, signs, qualities in them, in mental abstraction and fixation of them using words and phrases of natural language. The term “abstraction” has the meaning of: the process of cognition, as a result of this process. Abstraction as a process is research, the study of objects and phenomena in order to identify their specific characteristics, A abstraction as a result is certain knowledge in the form of concepts, categories, judgments, ideas, laws, theories. Abstraction examples:

a) logic as a science abstracts from individual characteristics

the thinking of a particular person and studies the invariants of thinking, that is, what is common to all subjects of thinking, namely, the structure of thinking and the laws to which their thinking is subject;

b) a lawyer, whose thinking is regulated by the rules of law, abstracts from the various manifestations of social relations and studies, first of all, legal relations, that is, those relations that are regulated and sanctioned by law.

Examples of abstractions as a result of the cognitive process: “law”, “state”, “rule of law”, “legal relationship”, “legal order”, “legality”, “offence”, “crime”, “crime”, etc.

Idealization (gr. - idea, concept) - one of the types of abstraction, as a result of which concepts of idealized (ideal) objects are created. Such concepts differ from others in that they reflect, along with the features inherent in real objects, features that significantly deviate from the real properties and are completely absent in their pure form in the objects under study. The idealization method is used in all modern sciences to create theoretical objects with the help of which reasoning and conclusions are built regarding real-life objects. The term “idealization” is also used in two meanings: as a process and as a result. Idealization in the first sense is understood as the mental process of creating idealized objects of theory and forming idealized assumptions (conditions) under which these objects will help describe and explain real-life objects. The result of the idealization process is idealized objects (concepts and laws). they are also called logical constructs. An example of an idealized object in legal sciences is the concept of “rule of law”. Lawyers determine that the concept of a “rule of law state” makes it possible to build reasoning and conclusions regarding actually existing states based on the characteristics that are inherent in a “rule of law state.” The main features of a rule-of-law state: a) enshrinement of fundamental human rights in constitutional and other laws; b) dominance of laws in public and state life; c) legal protection of the individual, etc.

Generalization (from gr. ) as a research method means the formation and development of knowledge through the transition: a) from the thought of the individual, which is contained in a concept, judgment, norm, hypothesis, question, etc., to the corresponding thought of the general; from thoughts about the general to thoughts more general; b) from individual facts, situations, events, objects and phenomena to their identification in thoughts and to the creation of general concepts and judgments regarding them. Such a process of identification becomes a necessary condition for the formation of appropriate hypotheses and theories of concepts. In legal knowledge, the generalization method is used in the form of: a) generalization of professional experience based on the analysis of specific cases (cases); b) theoretical generalization of the practice of state building and the implementation of law in the actions of subjects of legal relations (creation of a theory of law); c) generalization of empirical, sectoral theories of law.

Deduction and induction how logical methods of cognition are used in the process of finding a conclusion from the initial data (founders). In this sense, deduction and induction can be considered as methods that provide the search for the necessary material for generalization and obtaining new conclusions. The methods of deduction and induction are organically interrelated. Deduction is used to draw from such output conclusions that exist in the form of a theoretical law, idea, principle, etc. Deduction in this case is associated with the construction of idealized objects of science, and induction is used as a method of generalizing empirical laws. Knowledge obtained by the method of induction, in the thinking of a scientist, is a prerequisite for the construction of new “demonstrative” knowledge, which, in turn, becomes the basis for the justification of partial truths at the theoretical level of thinking. (A detailed analysis of deduction and induction as logical forms of thinking and methods of cognition will be presented in section 5).

Analogy is an extremely effective method in the cognitive process, since many great discoveries in science have been made (on the basis of analogy by transferring certain properties and characteristics from one object under study to another, as well as relationships and connections between one set of objects to other sets. (Analysis of features analogies will be presented in section 5).

Extrapolation (Latin - prefix “over...”, “over.”, make smooth, finish) is a type of induction, analogy and generalization in their interrelation and is widely used in all sciences. The essence of this method, according to D.P. Gorsky, is to distribute: a) qualitative characteristics from one subject area to another, from the past and present to the future; b) quantitative characteristics of one area of ​​objects to another, one unit to another, based on methods specially developed for this purpose; c) some equation for other subject areas within one science or for other areas of knowledge, which is associated with their specific modification (method of mathematical induction). 1

The extrapolation method is used for forecasting purposes, to justify the spread from one industry to another, when developing the management of economic processes, etc. The result of applying the extrapolation method is the transfer of knowledge to new subject areas.

The extrapolation method in legal theory and practice is used when transferring legal laws and norms of law to new subject areas (analogy of law, analogy of law); when using legal knowledge, which is generalized in a separate branch of law, to other branches of law.

Modeling as a method of cognition, it is very actively used in modern science in the process of searching for new scientific results. The essence of this method lies in the construction of models with the help of which various natural and social objects are studied. The term "model" (lat. - measure, rhythm, magnitude, associated with the word - sample) is used in different meanings. Depending on the context in a particular argument, a model is understood as “method”, “analog”, “type”, “system”, “theory”, “picture of the world”, “interpretation”, “representation”, “algorithm”, “comparison system” " and etc.

The modeling method is used where and when, for some reason, it is impossible to study the object directly. Then, instead of it, its analogue appears - a model, which is studied as an imitation of the original (object). The properties of an object are studied on the model, and then the accumulated knowledge is transferred to the original. The basis of this transfer is the similarity, the similarity of the model and the original.

In legal theory and practice, the modeling method is used in constructing a scientific theory of law (theory of law as a model), a system of legal acts, in the situation of proving legal facts (an “investigative experiment” as an analogue of the actions of suspects, victims, witnesses), etc.

Hypothesis . The term “hypothesis” (assumption) is used in the following meanings: a) as problematic knowledge (in a broad sense); b) assumption; c) as an idea that allows you to combine a certain body of knowledge into a knowledge system (a hypothesis in the narrow sense). In legal activities, the term hypothesis is used in all three meanings. A hypothesis as a research method consists of constructing an assumption (a probabilistic statement or a set of statements) regarding factual data about certain phenomena, processes, events, the reasons for their occurrence and functioning, as well as when predicting the future.

Based on the same factual data, several hypotheses can be created, which are called versions. The condition for different assumptions (versions) is a certain body of knowledge about the subject being studied. Depending on the role that hypotheses play in the process of cognition on the path of new knowledge, hypotheses are divided into auxiliary (working) and main (determining).

In legal activities, a hypothesis is used as a method of scientific research and as a method of forensic investigation. (More details about the logic of constructing and checking versions are discussed in Section 8).