Literature
Natural science methodology. Methods of natural science and their classification. Methods of empirical and theoretical knowledge

Natural science methodology. Methods of natural science and their classification. Methods of empirical and theoretical knowledge

See also...
Philosophy cheat sheets for the candidate minimum Part 1
Philosophy and natural science: concepts of relationships (metaphysical, transcendental, anti-metaphysical, dialectical).
Nature as an object of philosophizing. Peculiarities of knowledge of nature.
Natural science: its subject, essence, structure. The place of natural science in the system of sciences
Scientific picture of the world and its historical forms. Natural science picture of nature
The problem of objectivity of knowledge in modern natural sciences
Modern science and changes in the formation of worldviews of technogenic civilization
Interaction of natural sciences with each other. Sciences of inanimate nature and sciences of living nature
Convergence of natural science and social and humanities knowledge in non-classical science
Methods of natural science and their classification.
Mathematics and science. Opportunities for using mathematics and computer modeling
Evolution of the concepts of space and time in the history of natural science
Philosophy and physics. Heuristic possibilities of natural philosophy
The problem of discrete matter
Ideas of determinism and indeterminism in natural science
The principle of complementarity and its philosophical interpretations. Dialectics and quantum mechanics
Anthropic principle. The Universe as an “ecological niche” of humanity.
The problem of the origin of the Universe. Models of the Universe.
The problem of the search for extraterrestrial civilizations as an interdisciplinary direction of scientific research. Concepts of noocosmology (I. Shklovsky, F. Drake, K. Sagan).
. Philosophical problems of chemistry. The relationship between physics and chemistry.
. The problem of the laws of biology
Evolutionary theory: its development and philosophical interpretations.
Philosophy of ecology: prerequisites for formation.
Stages of development of the scientific theory of the biosphere.
Interaction between man and nature: ways of its harmonization.
Philosophy of medicine and medicine as a science. Philosophical categories and concepts of medicine
The problem of the origin and essence of life in modern science and philosophy
Concept of information. Information-theoretic approach in modern science.
Artificial intelligence and the problem of consciousness in modern science and philosophy
Cybernetics and general systems theory, their connection with natural science.
The role of ideas of nonlinear dynamics and synergetics in the development of modern natural science.
The role of modern natural science in overcoming global crises.
Post-nonclassical natural science and the search for a new type of rationality. Historically developing, human-sized objects, complex systems as objects of research in post-non-classical natural science
Ethical problems of modern natural science. The crisis of the ideal of value-neutral scientific research
Natural sciences, technical sciences and technology
All Pages

Methods of natural science and their classification.

With the advent of the need to obtain knowledge, there was a need to analyze and evaluate various methods - e.g. in methodology.

Specific scientific methods reflect research tactics, and general scientific methods reflect strategy.

The method of cognition is a way of organizing means, techniques of theoretical and practical activities.

The method is the main theoretical tool for obtaining and organizing scientific knowledge.

Types of natural science methods:

– general (applies to any science) – the unity of the logical and historical, the ascent from the abstract to the concrete;

– special (concerning only one side of the object being studied) – analysis, synthesis, comparison, induction, deduction, etc.;

– private ones, which operate only in a certain area of knowledge.

Natural Science Methods:

observation - the initial source of information, a purposeful process of perceiving objects or phenomena, is used where direct experiment cannot be carried out, for example in cosmology (special cases of observation - comparison and measurement);

analysis - based on the mental or real division of an object into parts, when one moves from a complete description of the object to its structure, composition, characteristics and properties;

synthesis - based on combining various elements of an object into a single whole and generalizing the identified and studied features of the object;

induction – consists of formulating a logical conclusion based on generalizations of experimental and observational data; logical reasoning goes from the particular to the general, providing better understanding and transition to more general level addressing the problem;

deduction is a method of cognition consisting in the transition from certain general provisions to particular results;

a hypothesis is an assumption put forward to resolve an uncertain situation; it is intended to explain or systematize some facts related to a given field of knowledge or located beyond its boundaries, but not to contradict existing ones. The hypothesis must be confirmed or refuted;

comparison method - used for quantitative comparison of the properties, parameters of objects or phenomena being studied;

experiment - experimental determination of the parameters of the objects or objects under study;

modeling - creating a model of a subject or object of interest to a researcher and conducting an experiment on it, making observations and further applying the results obtained to the object being studied.

General methods knowledge concerns any discipline and makes it possible to connect all stages of the process of knowledge. These methods are used in any field of research and make it possible to identify connections and characteristics of the objects under study. In the history of science, researchers include metaphysical and dialectical methods among such methods. Private Methods scientific knowledge- these are methods used only in a particular branch of science. Various methods natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, etc.) are particular in relation to the general dialectical method of cognition. Sometimes private methods can be used outside the branches of natural science in which they originated. For example, physical and chemical methods are used in astronomy, biology, and ecology. Often researchers apply a complex of interrelated private methods to the study of one subject. For example, ecology simultaneously uses the methods of physics, mathematics, chemistry, and biology. Particular methods of cognition are associated with special methods. Special methods examine certain characteristics of the object being studied. They can manifest themselves at the empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge and be universal.

Observation is a purposeful process of perceiving objects of reality, a sensory reflection of objects and phenomena, during which a person receives primary information about the world around him. Therefore, research most often begins with observation, and only then do researchers move on to other methods. Observations are not associated with any theory, but the purpose of observation is always associated with some problematic situation. Observation presupposes the existence of a specific research plan, an assumption that is subject to analysis and verification. Observations are used where direct experiments cannot be performed (in volcanology, cosmology). The results of the observation are recorded in a description, noting those signs and properties of the object being studied that are the subject of study. The description must be as complete, accurate and objective as possible. It is the descriptions of observation results that constitute the empirical basis of science; on their basis, empirical generalizations, systematization and classification are created.

Measurement is the determination of quantitative values (characteristics) of the studied aspects or properties of an object using special technical devices. The units of measurement with which the data obtained are compared play an important role in the study.

An experiment is a more complex method of empirical knowledge compared to observation. It represents a purposeful and strictly controlled influence of the researcher on an object or phenomenon of interest to study its various aspects, connections and relationships. During experimental research the scientist interferes with the natural course of processes and transforms the object of research. The specificity of the experiment is also that it allows you to see the object or process in its pure form. This occurs due to the maximum exclusion of exposure to extraneous factors.

Abstraction is a mental distraction from all the properties, connections and relationships of the object being studied, which are considered unimportant. These are the models of a point, a straight line, a circle, a plane. The result of the abstraction process is called abstraction. Real objects in some problems they can be replaced by these abstractions (the Earth can be considered a material point when moving around the Sun, but not when moving along its surface).

Idealization represents the operation of mentally highlighting one property or relationship that is important for a given theory, and mentally constructing an object endowed with this property (relationship). As a result, the ideal object has only this property (relation). Science identifies general patterns in reality that are significant and repeated in various subjects, so we have to make abstractions from real objects. This is how such concepts as “atom”, “set”, “absolute black body”, “ ideal gas", "continuous medium". Obtained in this way ideal objects in reality do not exist, since in nature there cannot be objects and phenomena that have only one property or quality. When applying the theory, it is necessary to again compare the obtained and used ideal and abstract models with reality. Therefore, it is important to select abstractions in accordance with their adequacy to a given theory and then exclude them.

Among the special universal research methods are analysis, synthesis, comparison, classification, analogy, and modeling.

Analysis is one of the initial stages of research, when one moves from a complete description of an object to its structure, composition, characteristics and properties. Analysis is a method of scientific knowledge, which is based on the procedure of mental or real division of an object into its constituent parts and their separate study. It is impossible to know the essence of an object only by highlighting the elements of which it consists. When the particulars of the object under study are studied through analysis, it is supplemented by synthesis.

Synthesis is a method of scientific knowledge, which is based on the combination of elements identified by analysis. Synthesis does not act as a method of constructing the whole, but as a method of representing the whole in the form of the only knowledge obtained through analysis. It shows the place and role of each element in the system, their connection with other components. Analysis mainly captures that specific thing that distinguishes parts from each other, synthesis – generalizes the analytically identified and studied features of an object. Analysis and synthesis originate in the practical activities of man. Man has learned to mentally analyze and synthesize only on the basis of practical separation, gradually comprehending what happens to an object when performing practical actions with it. Analysis and synthesis are components of the analytical-synthetic method of cognition.

Comparison is a method of scientific knowledge that allows us to establish the similarities and differences of the objects being studied. Comparison underlies many natural science measurements that form an integral part of any experiment. By comparing objects with each other, a person gets the opportunity to correctly cognize them and thereby correctly navigate the world around him and purposefully influence it. Comparison matters when objects that are truly homogeneous and similar in essence are compared. The comparison method highlights the differences between the objects under study and forms the basis of any measurements, that is, the basis of experimental research.

Classification is a method of scientific knowledge that combines into one class objects that are as similar as possible to each other in essential characteristics. Classification makes it possible to reduce the accumulated diverse material to a relatively small number of classes, types and forms and identify the initial units of analysis, discover stable characteristics and relationships. As a rule, classifications are expressed in the form of texts in natural languages, diagrams and tables.

Analogy is a method of cognition in which knowledge obtained by examining an object is transferred to another, less studied, but similar to the first in some essential properties. The analogy method is based on the similarity of objects according to a number of characteristics, and the similarity is established as a result of comparing objects with each other. Thus, the basis of the analogy method is the comparison method.

The analogy method is closely related to the modeling method, which is the study of any objects using models with further transfer of the obtained data to the original. This method is based on the significant similarity of the original object and its model. IN modern research They use different types of modeling: subject, mental, symbolic, computer.

The methods of natural science are based on the unity of its empirical and theoretical sides. They are interconnected and condition each other. Their rupture, or the preferential development of one at the expense of the other, closes the path to correct knowledge of nature - theory becomes pointless, experience becomes blind.

Natural science methods can be divided into the following groups:

1. General methods relating to any subject, any science. These are various forms of a method that makes it possible to connect together all aspects of the process of cognition, all its stages, for example, the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, the unity of the logical and historical. These are, rather, general philosophical methods of cognition.
2. Special methods concern only one side of the subject being studied or a specific research technique:

analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction. Special methods also include observation, measurement, comparison and experiment.

In natural science, special methods of science are given extremely important importance, therefore, within the framework of our course, it is necessary to consider their essence in more detail.

Observation is a purposeful, strict process of perceiving objects of reality that should not be changed. Historically, the observation method develops as an integral part of a labor operation, which includes establishing the conformity of the product of labor with its planned model.

Observation as a method of understanding reality is used either where experiment is impossible or very difficult (in astronomy, volcanology, hydrology), or where the task is to study the natural functioning or behavior of an object (in ethology, social psychology and so on.). Observation as a method presupposes the existence of a research program formed on the basis of past beliefs, established facts, and accepted concepts. Special cases of the observation method are measurement and comparison.

An experiment is a method of cognition by which phenomena of reality are studied under controlled and controlled conditions. It differs from observation by intervention in the object under study, that is, activity in relation to it. When conducting an experiment, the researcher is not limited to passive observation of phenomena, but consciously intervenes in the natural course of their occurrence by directly influencing the process under study or changing the conditions in which this process takes place.

The specificity of the experiment also lies in the fact that under normal conditions processes in nature are extremely complex and intricate and cannot be fully controlled and controlled. Therefore, the task arises of organizing a study in which it would be possible to trace the progress of the process in a “pure” form. For these purposes, the experiment separates essential factors from unimportant ones and thereby significantly simplifies the situation. As a result, such simplification contributes to a deeper understanding of phenomena and creates the opportunity to control the few factors and quantities that are essential for a given process.

The development of natural science raises the problem of the rigor of observation and experiment. The fact is that they need special tools and devices that Lately become so complex that they themselves begin to influence the object of observation and experiment, which, according to the conditions, should not be the case. This primarily applies to research in the field of microworld physics ( quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, etc.).

Analogy is a method of cognition in which knowledge obtained during the consideration of any one object is transferred to another, less studied and this moment studied. The analogy method is based on the similarity of objects according to a number of characteristics, which allows one to obtain completely reliable knowledge about the subject being studied.

The use of the analogy method in scientific knowledge requires some caution. Here it is extremely important to clearly identify the conditions under which it works most effectively. However, in cases where it is possible to develop a system of clearly formulated rules for transferring knowledge from a model to a prototype, the results and conclusions using the analogy method acquire evidentiary force.

Modeling is a method of scientific knowledge based on the study of any objects through their models. The emergence of this method is caused by the fact that sometimes the object or phenomenon being studied turns out to be inaccessible to the direct intervention of the cognizing subject, or such intervention is inappropriate for a number of reasons. Simulation assumes transfer research activities to another object, acting as a substitute for the object or phenomenon of interest to us. The substitute object is called a model, and the research object is called the original, or prototype. In this case, the model acts as a substitute for the prototype, which allows one to obtain certain knowledge about the latter.

Thus, the essence of modeling as a method of cognition is to replace the object of study with a model, and objects of both natural and artificial origin can be used as a model. The ability to model is based on the fact that the model, in a certain respect, reflects some aspect of the prototype. When modeling, it is very important to have an appropriate theory or hypothesis that strictly indicates the limits and boundaries of permissible simplifications.

The main elements of natural science are:

· firmly established facts;
· patterns that generalize groups of facts;
· theories, as a rule, which are systems of laws that collectively describe a certain fragment of reality;
· scientific paintings of the world, drawing generalized images of all reality, in which all theories that allow mutual agreement are brought together into a kind of systemic unity.

The problem of the difference between the theoretical and empirical levels of scientific knowledge is rooted in the difference in the methods of ideally reproducing objective reality and in the approaches to building systemic knowledge. From here follow other, already derivative, differences between these two levels. Empirical knowledge, in particular, has historically and logically been assigned the function of collecting, accumulating and primary rational processing of experience data. Its main task is to record facts. Explanation and interpretation of them is a matter of theory.

Methodological programs have played an important historical role. Firstly, they stimulated a huge variety of specific scientific research, and secondly, they “struck a spark” of some understanding of the structure of scientific knowledge. It turned out that it was sort of “two-story.” And although the “upper floor” occupied by theory seems to be built on top of the “lower” (empirics) and without the latter should crumble, for some reason there is no direct and convenient staircase between them. You can get from the lower floor to the upper one only by a “jump” in the literal and figurative sense. At the same time, no matter how important the base, the basis (the lower empirical floor of our knowledge) is, the decisions that determine the fate of the building are still made at the top, in the domain of theory.

Nowadays, the standard model of the structure of scientific knowledge looks something like this. Knowledge begins with the establishment of various facts through observation or experimentation. If among these facts a certain regularity and repeatability is discovered, then in principle it can be argued that an empirical law, a primary empirical generalization, has been found. And everything would be fine, but, as a rule, sooner or later facts are found that do not fit into the discovered regularity. Here the creative intellect of the scientist is called upon to help, his ability to mentally reconstruct the known reality so that the facts falling out of the general series finally fit into a certain unified scheme and cease to contradict the found empirical pattern.

It is no longer possible to detect this new scheme by observation; it must be invented, created speculatively, initially presented in the form of a theoretical hypothesis. If the hypothesis is successful and removes the contradiction found between the facts, and even better, allows us to predict the receipt of new, non-trivial facts, this means that new theory, found theoretical law.

It is known, for example, that evolutionary theory Charles Darwin was for a long time under threat of collapse due to the widespread in the 19th century. ideas about heredity. It was believed that the transmission of hereditary characteristics occurs according to the principle of “mixing”, i.e. parental characteristics are passed on to the offspring in some intermediate form. If you cross, say, plants with white and red flowers, then the resulting hybrid should have pink flowers. In most cases this is true. This is an empirically established generalization based on many completely reliable empirical facts.

But from this, by the way, it followed that all heritable characteristics during crossing should be averaged. This means that any sign, even the most beneficial for the organism, that appears as a result of mutation (sudden change hereditary structures), over time should disappear, dissolve in the population. And this, in turn, proved that natural selection should not work! The British engineer F. Jenkin proved this strictly mathematically. This “Jenkin’s nightmare” had plagued Charles Darwin’s life since 1867, but he never found a convincing answer. (Although the answer had already been found. Darwin simply did not know about it.)

The fact is that from the orderly series of empirical facts that paint a generally convincing picture of the averaging of heritable characteristics, no less clearly recorded empirical facts of a different order have persistently been knocked out. When crossing plants with red and white flowers, although not often, hybrids with pure white or red flowers will still appear. However, with averaging inheritance of traits, this simply cannot happen - by mixing coffee with milk, you cannot get a black or white liquid! If Charles Darwin had paid attention to this contradiction, his fame would certainly have been enhanced by that of the creator of genetics. But he didn’t pay attention. As, indeed, did most of his contemporaries, who considered this contradiction to be insignificant. And in vain.

After all, such “protruding” facts spoiled all the credibility of the empirical rule of the intermediate nature of the inheritance of traits. In order to fit these facts into the overall picture, some other scheme of the inheritance mechanism was needed. It was not revealed by direct inductive generalization of facts and was not given to direct observation. It had to be “seen with the mind,” guessed, imagined, and accordingly formulated in the form of a theoretical hypothesis.

This problem, as is known, was brilliantly solved by G. Mendel. The essence of the hypothesis he proposed can be expressed as follows: inheritance is not intermediate, but discrete in nature. Heritable traits are transmitted in discrete units (today we call them genes). Therefore, when transmitting hereditary factors from generation to generation, they are split, not mixed. This one is brilliant simple circuit, which subsequently developed into a coherent theory, explained all the empirical facts at once. Inheritance of characters proceeds in a splitting mode, and therefore the appearance of hybrids with “immiscible” characters is possible. And the “mixing” observed in most cases is caused by the fact that, as a rule, not one, but many genes are responsible for the inheritance of a trait, which “lubricates” the Mendelian split. Principle natural selection was saved, the “Jenkin nightmare” dissipated.

Thus, the traditional model of the structure of scientific knowledge assumes movement along the chain: establishment of empirical facts - primary empirical generalization - detection of facts deviating from the rule - invention of a theoretical hypothesis with a new explanation scheme - logical conclusion (deduction) from the hypothesis of all observed facts, which is its verification of truth. Confirmation of a hypothesis constitutes it into a theoretical law. This model of scientific knowledge is called hypothetico-deductive. It is believed that most of modern scientific knowledge is constructed in this way.

Introduction........................................................ ............................ 3

Methods of natural scientific knowledge.................................... 5

Functions of the empirical, theoretical and applied sides

natural sciences........................................................ ................. 10

General, special and particular methods of natural science.................................. 13

Criteria of natural scientific knowledge.................................. 15

Anti-scientific trends in the development of science.................................... 16

Conclusion................................................. ................... 19

Bibliography................................................ ......... 20

Introduction

Science has arrived main reason such a rapidly flowing scientific and technological revolution, the transition to a post-industrial society, the widespread introduction information technologies, the emergence of a “new economy”, for which the laws of classical economic theory do not apply, the beginning of the transfer of human knowledge into electronic form, so convenient for storage, systematization, search and processing, and many others.

All this convincingly proves that the main form of human knowledge - science today is becoming more and more significant and essential part of reality.

However, science would not be so productive if it did not have such a developed system of methods, principles and imperatives of knowledge. It is the correctly chosen method, along with the scientist’s talent, that helps him to understand the deep connection of phenomena, reveal their essence, discover laws and regularities. The number of methods that science is developing to understand reality is constantly increasing. Their exact number is perhaps difficult to determine. After all, there are about 15,000 sciences in the world and each of them has its own specific methods and subject of research.

The purpose of this work is to consider the criteria and methods of natural scientific knowledge. To achieve this goal, the following tasks will be solved:

Consider the structure and functions of natural science;

Consider general, special and particular methods of scientific knowledge;

Consider the subject and principles of scientific knowledge;

Consider anti-scientific trends in the development of science and modern pictures of the world.

Methods of natural scientific knowledge

Natural science methods can be divided into the following groups:

1. General methods relating to any subject, any science. These are various forms of a method that makes it possible to connect together all aspects of the process of cognition, all its stages, for example, the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, the unity of the logical and historical. These are, rather, general philosophical methods of cognition.

2. Special methods concern only one side of the subject being studied or a certain research technique:

analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction. Special methods also include observation, measurement, comparison and experiment.

In natural science, special methods of science are given extremely important importance, therefore, within the framework of our course, it is necessary to consider their essence in more detail.

Observation - This is a purposeful, strict process of perceiving objects of reality that should not be changed. Historically, the observation method develops as an integral part of a labor operation, which includes establishing the conformity of the product of labor with its planned model.

Observation as a method of understanding reality is used either where experiment is impossible or very difficult (in astronomy, volcanology, hydrology), or where the task is to study the natural functioning or behavior of an object (in ethology, social psychology, etc.). Observation as a method presupposes the existence of a research program formed on the basis of past beliefs, established facts, and accepted concepts. Special cases of the observation method are measurement and comparison.

Experiment - a method of cognition with the help of which phenomena of reality are studied under controlled and controlled conditions. It differs from observation by intervention in the object under study, that is, activity in relation to it. When conducting an experiment, the researcher is not limited to passive observation of phenomena, but consciously intervenes in the natural course of their occurrence by directly influencing the process under study or changing the conditions in which this process takes place.

The development of natural science raises the problem of the rigor of observation and experiment. The fact is that they need special tools and devices, which have recently become so complex that they themselves begin to influence the object of observation and experiment, which, according to the conditions, should not be the case. This primarily applies to research in the field of microworld physics (quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, etc.).

Analogy - a method of cognition in which the transfer of knowledge obtained during the consideration of any one object occurs to another, less studied and currently being studied. The analogy method is based on the similarity of objects according to a number of characteristics, which allows one to obtain completely reliable knowledge about the subject being studied.

Modeling - a method of scientific knowledge based on the study of any objects through their models. The emergence of this method is caused by the fact that sometimes the object or phenomenon being studied turns out to be inaccessible to the direct intervention of the cognizing subject, or such intervention is inappropriate for a number of reasons. Modeling involves transferring research activities to another object, acting as a substitute for the object or phenomenon of interest to us. The substitute object is called a model, and the research object is called the original, or prototype. In this case, the model acts as a substitute for the prototype, which allows one to obtain certain knowledge about the latter.

The main elements of natural science are:

firmly established facts;
patterns that generalize groups of facts;
theories, as a rule, which are systems of laws that collectively describe a certain fragment of reality;
scientific pictures of the world, drawing generalized images of all reality, in which all theories that allow mutual agreement are brought together into a kind of systemic unity.

The problem of the difference between the theoretical and empirical levels of scientific knowledge is rooted in the difference in the methods of ideally reproducing objective reality and approaches to building systemic knowledge. From here follow other, already derivative, differences between these two levels. Empirical knowledge, in particular, has historically and logically been assigned the function of collecting, accumulating and primary rational processing of experience data. Its main task is to record facts. Explanation and interpretation of them is a matter of theory.

Methodological programs have played an important historical role. Firstly, they stimulated a huge number of specific scientific studies, and secondly, they “struck the spark” of some understanding of the structure of scientific knowledge. It turned out that it was sort of “two-story.” And although the “upper floor” occupied by theory seems to be built on top of the “lower” (empirics) and without the latter should crumble, for some reason there is no direct and convenient staircase between them. You can get from the lower floor to the upper one only by a “jump” in the literal and figurative sense. At the same time, no matter how important the base (the lower empirical floor of our knowledge) is, the decisions that determine the fate of the building are still made at the top, in the domain of theory.

It is no longer possible to detect this new scheme by observation; it must be invented, created speculatively, initially presented in the form of a theoretical hypothesis. If the hypothesis is successful and removes the contradiction found between the facts, and even better, allows us to predict the obtaining of new, non-trivial facts, this means that a new theory has been born, a theoretical law has been found.

It is known, for example, that Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory was in danger of collapse for a long time due to the widespread in the 19th century. ideas about heredity. It was believed that the transmission of hereditary characteristics occurs according to the principle of “mixing”, i.e. parental characteristics are passed on to the offspring in some intermediate form. If you cross, say, plants with white and red flowers, then the resulting hybrid should have pink flowers. In most cases this is true. This is an empirically established generalization based on many completely reliable empirical facts.

But from this, by the way, it followed that all heritable characteristics during crossing should be averaged. This means that any trait, even the most beneficial one for an organism, that appears as a result of mutation (a sudden change in hereditary structures) must disappear over time and dissolve in the population. And this, in turn, proved that natural selection should not work! The British engineer F. Jenkin proved this strictly mathematically. This “Jenkin’s nightmare” had plagued Charles Darwin’s life since 1867, but he never found a convincing answer. (Although the answer had already been found. Darwin simply did not know about it.)

This problem, as is known, was brilliantly solved by G. Mendel. The essence of the hypothesis he proposed can be expressed as follows: inheritance is not intermediate, but discrete in nature. Heritable traits are transmitted in discrete units (today we call them genes). Therefore, when transmitting hereditary factors from generation to generation, they are split, not mixed. This brilliantly simple scheme, which later developed into a coherent theory, explained all the empirical facts at once. Inheritance of characters proceeds in a splitting mode, and therefore the appearance of hybrids with “immiscible” characters is possible. And the “mixing” observed in most cases is caused by the fact that, as a rule, not one, but many genes are responsible for the inheritance of a trait, which “lubricates” the Mendelian split. The principle of natural selection was saved, the “Jenkin nightmare” dissipated.

Thus, the traditional model of the structure of scientific knowledge involves movement along the chain: establishment of empirical facts - primary empirical generalization - discovery of facts deviating from the rule - invention of a theoretical hypothesis with a new explanation scheme - logical conclusion (deduction) from the hypothesis of all observed facts, which is its verification of truth. Confirmation of a hypothesis constitutes it into a theoretical law. This model of scientific knowledge is called hypothetico-deductive. It is believed that most of modern scientific knowledge is constructed in this way.

Functions of the empirical, theoretical and applied aspects of natural science

The main support, the foundation of science is, of course, established facts. If they are established correctly (confirmed by numerous evidence of observations, experiments, tests, etc.), then they are considered indisputable and mandatory. This is empirical, i.e. experimental basis of science. The number of facts accumulated by science is constantly increasing. Naturally, they are subject to primary empirical generalization and are presented in various systems and classifications. The commonality of facts discovered in experience, their uniformity, indicate that a certain empirical law has been found, a general rule to which directly observed phenomena are subject.

But does this mean that science has fulfilled its main task, which, as is known, is to establish laws? Unfortunately, no. After all, the patterns recorded at the empirical level, as a rule, explain little. For example, ancient observers discovered that most luminous objects in the night sky move along clear circular trajectories, while a few others make some kind of loop-like movements. General rule for both, therefore, there is, but how to explain it? And it’s not easy to explain if you don’t know that the former are stars, and the latter are planets, and their “wrong” behavior in the sky is caused by their joint rotation around the Sun with the Earth.

In addition, empirical regularities are usually not very heuristic, i.e. do not open further directions of scientific research. These problems are solved at a different level of knowledge - theoretical.

The problem of distinguishing between two levels of scientific knowledge - theoretical and empirical (experimental) - arises from one specific feature of its organization. The essence of this feature is the existence various types generalization of the material available for study. Science, after all, establishes laws. And the law is an essential, necessary, stable, repeating connection of phenomena, i.e. something common, and more strictly speaking, something universal for this or that fragment of reality.

The general (or universal) in things is established by abstracting, abstracting from them those properties, signs, characteristics that are repeated, similar, identical in many things of the same class. The essence of formal-logical generalization lies precisely in abstracting such “sameness” and invariance from objects. This method of generalization is called “abstract-universal”. This is due to the fact that the identified general feature can be taken completely arbitrarily, randomly and in no way express the essence of the phenomenon being studied.

For example, the well-known ancient definition of man as a creature “two-legged and without feathers” is in principle applicable to any individual and, therefore, is an abstract and general characteristic of him. But does it give anything to understand the essence of man and his history? The definition that says that a person is a creature that produces tools of labor, on the contrary, is formally inapplicable to most people. However, it is precisely this that allows us to build a certain theoretical structure that, in general, satisfactorily explains the history of the formation and development of man.

Here we are dealing with a fundamentally different type of generalization, which makes it possible to highlight the universal in objects not nominally, but in essence. In this case, the universal is understood not as the simple sameness of objects, the repeated repetition of the same feature in them, but as a natural connection of many objects, turning them into moments, aspects of a single integrity, system. And within this system, universality, i.e. belonging to a system includes not only sameness, but also differences and even opposites. The commonality of objects is realized here not in external similarity, but in the unity of genesis, general principle their connections and development.

It is this difference in the ways of finding commonality in things, i.e. establishing patterns, and distinguishes the empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge. At the level of sensory-practical experience (empirical), it is possible to fix only external common features things and phenomena. Their essential internal signs can only be guessed here, captured by chance. Only the theoretical level of knowledge allows them to be explained and substantiated.

In theory, there is a reorganization or restructuring of the obtained empirical material based on certain initial principles. It's like playing with children's blocks with fragments of different pictures. In order for randomly scattered cubes to form into a single picture, we need a certain general idea, a principle for their addition. In a children's game, this principle is given in the form of a ready-made stencil picture. But how such initial principles of organizing the construction of scientific knowledge are found in theory - great secret scientific creativity.

Science is considered a complex and creative matter because there is no direct transition from empiricism to theory. Theory is not built by direct inductive generalization of experience. This, of course, does not mean that theory is not connected with experience at all. The initial impetus for the creation of any theoretical structure comes from practical experience. And the truth of the theoretical conclusions is again verified by them practical applications. However, the process of constructing a theory and its further development is carried out relatively independently from practice.

General, special and particular methods of natural science

The levels of cognition under consideration also differ according to the objects of study. Conducting research at the empirical level, the scientist deals directly with natural and social objects. The theory operates exclusively with idealized objects ( material point, ideal gas, absolutely solid etc.). All this also leads to a significant difference in the research methods used. For the empirical level, methods such as observation, description, measurement, experiment, etc. are common. The theory prefers to use the axiomatic method, systemic, structural-functional analysis, mathematical modeling etc.

There are, of course, methods used at all levels of scientific knowledge: abstraction, generalization, analogy, analysis and synthesis, etc. But still, the difference in the methods used at the theoretical and empirical levels is not accidental.

Moreover, it was precisely the problem of method that was the starting point in the process of understanding the features of theoretical knowledge. In the 17th century, during the era of the birth of classical natural science, F. Bacon and R. Descartes formulated two divergent methodological programs for the development of science: empirical (inductionist) and rationalistic (deductionist).

Induction is usually understood as a method of reasoning in which a general conclusion is drawn based on a generalization of particular premises. Simply put, this is the movement of knowledge from the particular to the general. Movement in the opposite direction, from the general to the specific, is called deduction.

The logic of the opposition between empiricism and rationalism on the issue of the leading method of obtaining new knowledge is generally simple.

Empiricism. Real and at least somewhat practical knowledge about the world can only be obtained from experience, i.e. based on observations and experiments. And every observation or experiment is isolated. Therefore, the only possible way to understand nature is to move from particular cases to ever broader generalizations, i.e. induction. Another way of finding the laws of nature, when they first build the most general foundations, and then adapt to them and use them to verify particular conclusions, is, according to F. Bacon, “the mother of errors and the disaster of all sciences.”

Rationalism. So far the most reliable and successful have been mathematical sciences. And they became so because they use the most effective and reliable methods of inquiry: intellectual intuition and deduction. Intuition allows us to see in reality such simple and self-evident truths that it is impossible to doubt them. Deduction ensures the derivation of more complex knowledge from these simple truths. And if it is carried out according to strict rules, it will always lead only to truth, and never to error. Inductive reasoning, of course, can also be good, but it cannot lead to universal judgments in which laws are expressed.

These methodological programs are now considered outdated and inadequate. Empiricism is insufficient because induction will never actually lead to universal judgments, since in most situations it is fundamentally impossible to cover all the infinite number of particular cases on the basis of which decisions are made. general conclusions. And not a single one is large modern theory not constructed by direct inductive generalization. Rationalism turned out to be exhausted, because modern science took up such areas of reality (in the micro- and mega-world) in which the required “self-evidence” of simple truths completely disappeared. And the role of experimental methods of cognition turned out to be underestimated here.

Criteria of natural scientific knowledge

To determine the criteria for natural scientific knowledge, the directions of scientific methodology have formulated several principles. One of them is called the principle of verification: any concept or judgment has meaning if it is reducible to direct experience or statements about it, i.e. empirically verifiable. If it is not possible to find something empirically fixed for such a judgment, then it either represents a tautology or is meaningless. Since the concepts of a developed theory, as a rule, are not reducible to experimental data, a relaxation has been made for them: indirect verification is also possible. For example, it is impossible to indicate an experimental analogue to the concept of “quark”. But the quark theory predicts a number of phenomena that can already be detected experimentally. And thereby indirectly verify the theory itself.

The principle of verification makes it possible, to a first approximation, to distinguish scientific knowledge from clearly extra-scientific knowledge. However, it cannot help where the system of ideas is tailored in such a way that it can interpret absolutely all possible empirical facts in its favor - ideology, religion, astrology, etc. In such cases, it is useful to resort to another principle of differentiation between science and non-science, proposed by the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. K. Popper, - the principle of falsification. It states: the criterion for the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability or falsifiability. In other words, only that knowledge can claim the title of “scientific” that is, in principle, refutable.

Despite the seemingly paradoxical form, and perhaps because of it, this principle has a simple and deep meaning. K. Popper drew attention to the significant asymmetry in the procedures of confirmation and refutation in cognition. No number of falling apples is sufficient to conclusively prove the truth of a law. universal gravity. However, just one apple flying away from the Earth is enough for this law to be recognized as false. Therefore, it is precisely attempts to falsify, i.e. to refute a theory should be most effective in terms of confirming its truth and scientific character.

A theory that is irrefutable in principle cannot be scientific. The idea of the divine creation of the world is in principle irrefutable. For any attempt to refute it can be presented as the result of the same divine plan, all the complexity and unpredictability of which is simply too much for us to handle. But since this idea is irrefutable, it means that it is outside of science.

It can, however, be noted that the consistently applied principle of falsification makes any knowledge hypothetical, i.e. deprives it of completeness, absoluteness, immutability. But this is probably not a bad thing: it is the constant threat of falsification that keeps science “on its toes” and prevents it from stagnating and resting on its laurels. Criticism is the most important source of the growth of science and an integral feature of its image.

Anti-scientific trends in the development of science

The achievements of the scientific method are enormous and undeniable. With its help, humanity has settled comfortably throughout the entire planet, put the energy of water, steam, electricity, atom at its service, and began to explore near-Earth space, etc. If, moreover, we do not forget that the overwhelming majority of all scientific achievements have been achieved over the past one and a half hundred years, then the effect is colossal - humanity is most obviously accelerating its development with the help of science. And this may just be the beginning. If science continues to develop at such an acceleration, what amazing prospects await humanity! Approximately such sentiments dominated the civilized world in the 60s and 70s. of our century. However, towards the end, the brilliant prospects dimmed a little, enthusiastic expectations diminished, and even some disappointment appeared: science clearly could not cope with ensuring universal well-being.

Today society looks at science much more soberly. It begins to gradually realize that the scientific method has its costs, scope and limits of applicability. This has been clear to science itself for a long time. In the methodology of science, the question of the boundaries of the scientific method has been debated at least since the time of Immanuel Kant. It is natural that the development of science continually encounters all sorts of obstacles and boundaries. That's why scientific methods are being developed to overcome them. But, unfortunately, some of these boundaries had to be recognized as fundamental. It will probably never be possible to overcome them.

One of these boundaries is outlined by our experience. No matter how you criticize empiricism for incompleteness or one-sidedness, its initial premise is still correct: the ultimate source of any human knowledge is experience (in all possible forms). And our experience, although great, is inevitably limited. At least for the duration of human existence. Tens of thousands of years of socio-historical practice is, of course, a lot, but what is it compared to eternity? And can patterns, confirmed only by limited human experience, be extended to the entire boundless Universe? It is, of course, possible to disseminate, but the truth of the final conclusions when applied to what is beyond the boundaries of experience will always remain nothing more than probabilistic.

Moreover, the situation is no better with the opponent of empiricism - rationalism, which defends the deductive model of the development of knowledge. Indeed, in this case, all particular statements and laws of the theory are derived from general primary assumptions, postulates, axioms, etc. However, these primary postulates and axioms, which are not deducible and, therefore, cannot be proven within the framework of a given theory, are always fraught with the possibility of refutation. This also applies to all fundamental ones, i.e. most general theories. These are, in particular, the postulates of the infinity of the world, its materiality, symmetry, etc. It cannot be said that these statements are completely unproven. They are proven at least by the fact that all the consequences derived from them do not contradict each other and reality. But we can only talk about the reality we have studied. Beyond its limits, the truth of such postulates again turns from unambiguous into probabilistic. So the very foundations of science are not absolute and, in principle, can be shaken at any moment.

Thus, we can sum up what has been said: our “cognitive apparatus”, when moving to areas of reality that are far from everyday experience, loses its reliability. Scientists seem to have found a way out: to describe a reality inaccessible to experience, they switched to the language of abstract notations and mathematics.

Conclusion

In this work, the criteria of natural scientific knowledge were considered. In conclusion, the following conclusions can be drawn:

The traditional model of the structure of scientific knowledge involves movement along the chain: establishment of empirical facts - primary empirical generalization - detection of facts deviating from the rule - invention of a theoretical hypothesis with a new explanation scheme - logical conclusion (deduction) from the hypothesis of all observed facts, which is its verification of truth .

Confirmation of a hypothesis constitutes it into a theoretical law. This model of scientific knowledge is called hypothetico-deductive. It is believed that most of modern scientific knowledge is constructed in this way.

Theory is not built by direct inductive generalization of experience. This, of course, does not mean that theory is not connected with experience at all. The initial impetus for the creation of any theoretical structure comes from practical experience. And the truth of theoretical conclusions is again verified by their practical applications. However, the process of constructing a theory and its further development is carried out relatively independently from practice.

General criteria, or scientific norms, are constantly included in the standard of scientific knowledge. More specific norms that define patterns of research activity depend on subject areas science and the socio-cultural context of the birth of a particular theory.

We can sum up what has been said: our “cognitive apparatus”, when moving to areas of reality that are far from everyday experience, loses its reliability. Scientists seem to have found a way out: to describe a reality inaccessible to experience, they switched to the language of abstract notations and mathematics.

Bibliography

Gorelov A.A. Concepts modern natural science. – M.: Center, 2003. P. 36.
Kuznetsov V.I., Idlis G.M., Gutina V.N. Natural science. - M.: Agar, 1996. P. 61
Lakatos I. Methodology of scientific research programs. – M.: Vlados, 1995.
Modern philosophy of science. - M.: Logos, 1996.
Stepin V. S., Gorokhov V. G., Rozov M. A. Philosophy of science and technology. - M.: Gardarika, 1996. P.97.
Knyazeva E.N., Kurdyumov S.P. Laws of evolution and self-organization complex systems. - M.: Nauka, 1994. P. 121.
Concepts of modern natural science. / Edited by Prof. V.N. Lavrinenko, V.P. Ratnikov. – M.: UNITA-DANA, 1999. P.68.

Lecture No. 1

Topic: Introduction

Plan

1. Basic sciences about nature (physics, chemistry, biology), their similarities and differences.

2. Natural scientific method of cognition and its components: observation, measurement, experiment, hypothesis, theory.

Basic sciences about nature (physics, chemistry, biology), their similarities and differences.

The word "natural science" means knowledge about nature. Since nature is extremely diverse, in the process of understanding it, various natural sciences were formed: physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geography, geology and many others. Each of the natural sciences studies some specific properties of nature. When new properties of matter are discovered, new natural sciences appear with the aim of further studying these properties, or at least new sections and directions in existing natural sciences. This is how a whole body of natural sciences was formed. Based on the objects of research, they can be divided into two large groups: sciences about living and inanimate nature. The most important natural sciences about inanimate nature are: physics, chemistry, astronomy.

Physics- the science that studies the most general properties matter and forms of its movement (mechanical, thermal, electromagnetic, atomic, nuclear). Physics has many types and sections ( general physics, theoretical physics, experimental physics, mechanics, Molecular physics, atomic physics, nuclear physics, physics electromagnetic phenomena etc).

Chemistry– the science of substances, their composition, structure, properties and mutual transformations. Chemistry studies the chemical form of movement of matter and is divided into inorganic and organic chemistry, physical and analytical chemistry, colloidal chemistry, etc.

Astronomy- science of the Universe. Astronomy studies motion celestial bodies, their nature, origin and development. The most important branches of astronomy, which today have essentially turned into independent sciences, are cosmology and cosmogony.

Cosmology– physical doctrine about the Universe as a whole, its structure and development.

Cosmogony– a science that studies the origin and development of celestial bodies (planets, Sun, stars, etc.). The newest direction in space exploration is astronautics.

Biology- science of living nature. The subject of biology is life as a special form of movement of matter, the laws of development of living nature. Biology seems to be the most branched science (zoology, botany, morphology, cytology, histology, anatomy and physiology, microbiology, virology, embryology, ecology, genetics, etc.). At the intersection of sciences, related sciences arise, such as physical chemistry, physical biology, chemical physics, biophysics, astrophysics, etc.

So, in the process of understanding nature, separate natural sciences were formed. This is a necessary stage of cognition - the stage of differentiation of knowledge, differentiation of sciences. It is driven by the need to cover an increasingly larger and more diverse number of research subjects. natural objects and deeper penetration into their details. But nature is a single, unique, multifaceted, complex, self-governing organism. If nature is one, then the idea of it from the point of view of natural science should also be one. Such a science is natural science.

Natural science– the science of nature as a single integrity or the totality of sciences about nature, taken as a single whole. Last words in this definition they once again emphasize that this is not just a set of sciences, but a generalized, integrated science. This means that today the differentiation of knowledge about nature is being replaced by its integration. This task is determined, firstly, by the objective course of knowledge of nature and, secondly, by the fact that humanity learns the laws of nature not for the sake of simple curiosity, but for using them in practical activities, for its own life support.

2. Natural scientific method of cognition and its components: observation, measurement, experiment, hypothesis, theory.

Method- is a set of techniques or operations of practical or theoretical activity.

Methods of scientific knowledge include the so-called universal methods , i.e. universal methods of thinking, general scientific methods and methods of specific sciences. Methods can also be classified according to the ratio empirical knowledge (i.e. knowledge obtained as a result of experience, experimental knowledge) and theoretical knowledge, the essence of which is knowledge of the essence of phenomena, their internal connections.

Features of the natural scientific method of cognition:

1. Is objective

2. The subject of knowledge is typical

3. Historicity is not required

4. Only knowledge creates

5. The natural scientist strives to be an outside observer.

6. Relies on the language of terms and numbers

1. Features of natural science and humanitarian methods of cognition

2. Concept of methodology and method

3. Methods of scientific knowledge

1. Methods of empirical and theoretical knowledge

2. Forms of scientific knowledge

3. The process of scientific knowledge

4. Criteria for the truth of scientific knowledge

1. Features of natural science and humanitarian methods of cognition

In the previous lecture, the contradictions between the humanitarian and natural science cultures were noted. These contradictions are also associated with differences in methods of understanding the world. It is convenient to present the differences between natural science and humanitarian methods of cognition in the form of the following table.

Natural science knowledge	Humanities and arts
1. Is objective in nature	Is subjective
2. The subject of knowledge is typical	The subject of knowledge is individual
3. Historicity is not required	Always historical
4. Only knowledge creates	Creates knowledge, as well as opinion and assessment of the subject being learned
5. The natural scientist strives to be an outside observer.	The humanist inevitably participates in the research process
6. Relies on the language of terms and numbers	Relies on the language of images

Currently, there is a “humanitarianization of natural science”, i.e. It is precisely from the side of natural science culture that there is a movement towards rapprochement with humanitarian culture in the pursuit of a unified culture. This convergence concerns paragraphs. 2, 3 and 6, i.e. Natural science is increasingly interested in unique objects (man, the biosphere, the Universe), natural science has become evolutionary, historical, imagery and intuition are recognized as necessary elements of scientific thinking.

2. The concept of methodology and method

It is important to distinguish between concepts such as methodology and method.

Methodology- this is the doctrine of structure, logical organization, methods and means of activity.

Natural science methodology- the doctrine of the principles of construction, forms and methods natural science knowledge. For example, conservation laws have methodological significance in natural science. In any research or theoretical construction, they must be taken into account.

Method- is a set of techniques or operations of practical or theoretical activity. The method can also be characterized as a form of theoretical and practical mastery of reality, based on the patterns of behavior of the object being studied. F. Bacon 1 compared the correct scientific method with a lamp that illuminates the way for a traveler in the dark.

Methods of scientific knowledge include the so-called universal methods , i.e. universal methods of thinking, general scientific methods and methods of specific sciences. Methods can also be classified according to the ratio empirical knowledge (i.e. knowledge obtained as a result of experience, experimental knowledge) and theoretical knowledge, the essence of which is knowledge of the essence of phenomena, their internal connections. The classification of methods of scientific knowledge is presented in Fig. 1.2.

It should be borne in mind that each branch of natural science, along with general scientific ones, uses its own specific scientific, special methods, determined by the essence of the object of study. However, often methods characteristic of a particular science are used in other sciences. This happens because the objects of study of these sciences are also subject to the laws of this science. For example, physical and chemical research methods are used in biology on the basis that objects of biological research include, in one form or another, physical and chemical forms of movement of matter and, therefore, are subject to physical and chemical laws (remember "Kekule's staircase", discussed by us in the first lecture).

Universal methods in the history of knowledge there are two: dialectical and metaphysical. These are general philosophical methods.

The dialectical method is a method of understanding reality in its inconsistency, integrity and development.

Metaphysical method 2 is a method opposite to the dialectical one, considering phenomena outside of their mutual connection and development.

Since the mid-19th century, the metaphysical method has been increasingly displaced from natural science by the dialectical method.