The structure of the process of scientific knowledge: empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge. Theoretical level of knowledge

3. Means and methods of knowledge Different sciences, quite understandably, have their own specific methods and means of research. Philosophy, without discarding such specifics, nevertheless focuses its efforts on the analysis of those methods of cognition that are common.

§ 5. INDUCTION AND DEDUCTION AS METHODS OF KNOWLEDGE The question of the use of induction and deduction as methods of knowledge has been discussed throughout the history of philosophy. Induction was most often understood as the movement of knowledge from facts to statements of a general nature, and under

Chapter II. Forms of the development of scientific knowledge The formation and development of a theory is the most complex and lengthy dialectical process, which has its own content and its own specific forms. The content of this process is the transition from ignorance to knowledge, from incomplete and inaccurate

It is a complex holistic structure of interconnected facts, ideas and views. Its fundamental difference from everyday knowledge is the desire for objectivity, critical reflection on ideas, a well-developed methodology both in acquiring knowledge and in testing it.

Falsifiability criterion

So, for example, one of the most important elements of the scientific approach is the so-called Karl Popper criterion (named after the author). It lies in the possibility or impossibility of experimental verification of the theory. So, for example, in the predictions of Nostradamus, one can find plots from the life of entire peoples. However, it is not possible to verify whether they are real predictions or mere coincidences that modern journalists seek out only after the events have happened. The same problem is engendered by many vague views of humanitarian concepts. However, if we assume that the firmament is a firmament, then despite the absurdity of this statement today, it can be considered a scientific theory (albeit instantly refuted).

Levels of scientific knowledge

However, any scientific activity involves not only criteria for checking views, but also a methodology for finding new facts and theories. Experts usually divide the levels of scientific knowledge in philosophy into empirical and theoretical. And each of them has its own techniques and methodology, which we will discuss below.

Levels of scientific knowledge: empirical

Here knowledge is represented by sensory forms. It unites the entire set of paths that open up to a person through his senses: contemplation, touch, sensations of sounds and smells. It should be noted that
empirical knowledge can occur not only through human sensations, but also with the help of special devices that provide the necessary, often more accurate facts: from a thermometer to a microscope, from measuring containers to quantum particle accelerators.

Levels of scientific knowledge: theoretical

The ultimate goal of piling up empirical knowledge is their systematization, the derivation of patterns. Theoretical knowledge is a logical abstraction, which is obtained by deriving scientific hypotheses and theories based on available data, creating more global structures, a number of elements of which are often not yet known to empirical observation.

Methods and levels of scientific knowledge

At the empirical level, the following methods are distinguished:

• comparison;
• experiment;
• observation.

At the theoretical level, we are dealing with such mental constructs as:

• idealization;
• abstraction;
• analogy;
• mental modulation;
• system method.

Conclusion

Thus, the empirical and theoretical levels of scientific knowledge constitute a single system of procedures, processes and methods for acquiring knowledge about the world around us, the laws of nature, the life of human society and its individual areas (for example,

1.2 Methods theoretical research

Idealization. Idealization is the process of creating mental objects that do not exist in reality, by means of a mental abstraction from some properties of real objects and relations between them, or by endowing objects and situations with those properties that they do not possess with the aim of a deeper and more accurate knowledge of reality. Objects of this kind serve as the most important means of knowing real objects and the relationships between them. They're called idealized objects. These include such objects as, for example, a material point, an ideal gas, an absolutely black body, objects of geometry, etc.

Idealization is sometimes confused with abstraction, but this is wrong, because although idealization essentially relies on the process of abstraction, it is not reduced to it. In logic, abstract objects, unlike concrete ones, include only such objects that do not interact in space and time. Ideal objects cannot be considered as really existing, they are quasi-objects. Any scientific theory studies either a certain fragment of reality, a certain subject area, or a certain side, one of the aspects of real things and processes. At the same time, the theory is forced to digress from those aspects of the subjects it studies that do not interest it. In addition, the theory is often forced to abstract from certain differences in the subjects it studies in certain respects. This process of mental abstraction from certain aspects, properties of the objects being studied, from certain relations between them is called abstraction.

Abstraction. The creation of an idealized object necessarily includes abstraction - a distraction from a number of aspects and properties of the specific objects being studied. But if we limit ourselves to this, then we will not get any integral object yet, but simply destroy the real object or situation. After abstraction, we still need to highlight the properties of interest to us, strengthen or weaken them, combine and present them as properties of some independent object that exists, functions and develops according to its own laws. All this, of course, is a much more difficult and creative task than simple abstraction. Idealization and abstraction are ways of forming a theoretical object. It can be any real object that is conceived in non-existent, ideal conditions. Thus, for example, the concepts of "inertia", "material point", "absolutely black body", "ideal gas" arise.

Formalization(from lat. forma view, image). Formalization refers to the display of objects of a certain subject area using the symbols of a certain language. During formalization, the objects under study, their properties and relations are associated with some stable, clearly visible and identifiable material structures, which make it possible to identify and fix material aspects objects. Formalization clarifies the content by identifying its form and can be carried out with varying degrees completeness. The expression of thinking in natural language can be considered the first step of formalization. Its further deepening is achieved by introducing various kinds of special signs into ordinary language and the creation of partially artificial and artificial languages. Logical formalization is aimed at identifying and fixing the logical form of conclusions and evidence. A complete formalization of a theory takes place when one completely abstracts from the meaningful meaning of its initial concepts and provisions and enumerates all the rules of logical inference used in the proofs. Such formalization includes three points: 1) the designation of all original, undefined terms; 2) enumeration of formulas (axioms) accepted without proof; 3) introduction of rules for transforming these formulas to obtain new formulas (theorems) from them. A striking example of formalization is the mathematical descriptions of various objects and phenomena widely used in science based on the relevant theories. In spite of wide application formalization in science, there are boundaries of formalization. In 1930, Kurt Godel formulated a theorem called the incompleteness theorem: it is impossible to create such a formal system of logically valid formal proof rules that would be sufficient to prove all true theorems of elementary arithmetic.

Models and Simulation in scientific research . A model is such a material or mentally represented object that, in the process of studying, replaces the original object, retaining some of its typical features that are important for this study. The model allows you to learn how to control an object by testing various options control on the model of this object. For these purposes, experimenting with a real object is at best inconvenient, and often simply harmful or even impossible for a number of reasons (long duration of the experiment in time, risk of bringing the object into an undesirable and irreversible state, etc.). The process of building a model is called modeling. So, modeling is the process of studying the structure and properties of the original with the help of a model.

Distinguish between material and ideal modeling. Material modeling, in turn, is divided into physical and analog modeling. It is customary to call physical modeling, in which a real object is opposed to its enlarged or reduced copy, which allows research (as a rule, in laboratory conditions) with the help of the subsequent transfer of the properties of the studied processes and phenomena from model to object based on the theory of similarity. Examples: planetarium in astronomy, models of buildings in architecture, models of aircraft in aircraft construction, environmental modeling - modeling of processes in the biosphere, etc. Analog or mathematical modeling is based on the analogy of processes and phenomena that have a different physical nature, but are described formally in the same way (by the same mathematical equations). The symbolic language of mathematics makes it possible to express the properties, sides, relations of objects and phenomena of the most diverse nature. Relationships between different sizes describing the functioning of such an object can be represented by the corresponding equations and their systems.

Induction(from Latin induction - guidance, motivation), there is a conclusion that leads to a general conclusion based on private premises, this is the movement of thinking from the particular to the general. The most important, and sometimes the only method of scientific knowledge, has long been considered inductive method. According to the inductivist methodology, dating back to F. Bacon, scientific knowledge begins with observation and statement of facts. After the facts are established, we proceed to generalize them and build a theory. The theory is seen as a generalization of facts and therefore is considered reliable. However, even D. Hume noted that a general statement cannot be deduced from the facts, and therefore any inductive generalization is unreliable. This is how the problem of justifying inductive inference arose: what allows us to move from facts to general statements? D. Mil made a great contribution to the development and justification of the inductive method.

Awareness of the unsolvability of the problem of justifying induction and the interpretation of inductive inference as claiming the reliability of its conclusions led Popper to reject the inductive method of cognition in general. Popper spent a lot of effort trying to show that the procedure described by the inductive method is not used and cannot be used in science. The fallacy of inductivism, according to Popper, lies mainly in the fact that inductivism tries to substantiate theories through observation and experiment. But, as postpositivism has shown, no direct way from experience to theory, such a justification is impossible. Theories are always just unsubstantiated risky assumptions. Facts and observations are used in science not for substantiation, not as a basis for induction, but only for testing and refuting theories - as a basis for falsification. This removes the old philosophical problem of justifying induction. Facts and observations give rise to a hypothesis, which is not at all their generalization. Then, with the help of facts, they try to falsify the hypothesis. The falsifying conclusion is deductive. Induction is not used in this case, therefore, there is no need to worry about its justification.

According to K. Popper, not the inductive method, but the trial and error method is the main one in science. The cognizing subject confronts the world not as tabula rasa, on which nature draws its portrait, a person always relies on certain theoretical principles in the cognition of reality. The process of cognition does not begin with observations, but with the advancement of conjectures, assumptions that explain the world. We correlate our guesses with the results of observations and discard them after falsification, replacing them with new guesses. Trial and error is what makes up the method of science. For knowledge of the world, Popper argues, there is no more rational procedure than the method of trial and error - assumptions and rebuttals: the bold advancement of a theory; attempts the best way to show the fallacy of these theories and their temporary acceptance if criticism fails.

Deduction(from lat. deduction - derivation) is the receipt of private conclusions based on the knowledge of some general provisions, this is the movement of thought from the general to the particular. Hypothetical-deductive method. It is based on the derivation (deduction) of conclusions from hypotheses and other premises, the truth value of which is unknown. In scientific knowledge, the hypothetical-deductive method became widespread and developed in the 17th-18th centuries, when significant progress was made in the study of the mechanical motion of terrestrial and celestial bodies. The first attempts to apply the hypothetical-deductive method were made in mechanics, in particular, in the studies of Galileo. The theory of mechanics set forth in Newton's "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" is a hypothetical-deductive system, the premises of which are the basic laws of motion. The success of the hypothetical-deductive method in the field of mechanics and the influence of Newton's ideas led to the widespread use of this method in the field of exact natural science.

2.2. Forms of theoretical knowledge. Problem. Hypothesis. Law. Theory.

The main form of organization of knowledge at the theoretical level is theory. Preliminarily, the following definition of theory can be given: theory is knowledge about the subject area, which covers the subject in general and in particular and is a system of ideas, concepts, definitions, hypotheses, laws, axioms, theorems, etc., connected in a strictly logical way. What is the structure of the theory, how it is formed - the main problem of the methodology of science.

Problem. Cognition does not begin with observations and facts, it begins with problems, with the tension between knowledge and ignorance, notes L.A. Mikeshin. A problem is a question to which the theory as a whole is the answer. As K. Popper emphasizes, science does not begin with observations, but with problems, and its development proceeds from one problem to another - deeper ones. A scientific problem is expressed in the presence of a contradictory situation. Even Plato noticed that the question is more difficult than the answer. The decisive influence on the formulation of the problem and the method of solution has the nature of the thinking of the era, the level of knowledge about those objects that the problem concerns: "tradition, the course of historical development play a significant role in the choice of the problem." scientific problems should be distinguished from non-scientific (pseudo-problems), an example of which is the problem of a perpetual motion machine. A. Einstein noted the importance of the procedure for posing a problem in scientific research: “The formulation of a problem is often more significant than its solution, which can only be a matter of mathematical or experimental art. The posing of new questions, the development of new possibilities, the consideration of old problems from a new angle require creative imagination and reflect real success in science. In order to solve the problems of science, hypotheses are put forward.

Hypothesis. A hypothesis is an assumption about the properties, causes, structure, relationships of the objects under study. The main feature of a hypothesis lies in its conjectural nature: we do not know whether it will turn out to be true or false. In the process of subsequent verification, the hypothesis may be confirmed and acquire the status of true knowledge, but it is possible that the verification will convince us of the falsity of our assumption and we will have to abandon it. A scientific hypothesis usually differs from a simple assumption in a certain degree of validity. The set of requirements for a scientific hypothesis can be summarized as follows: 1. The hypothesis must explain the known facts; 2. The hypothesis must not have contradictions that are prohibited by formal logic. But contradictions, which are a reflection of objective opposites, are quite admissible; 3. The hypothesis must be simple ("Occam's razor"); 4. A scientific hypothesis must be capable of being verified; 5. The hypothesis must be heuristic (“crazy enough” N. Bohr).

From a logical point of view, a hypothetico-deductive system is a hierarchy of hypotheses, the degree of abstraction and generality of which increases with distance from the empirical basis. At the top are the hypotheses that have the most general character and therefore have the greatest logical force. From them, as from premises, hypotheses of a lower level are deduced. At the lowest level of the system are hypotheses that can be compared with empirical data. In modern science, many theories are built in the form of a hypothetical-deductive system. There is another variety of hypotheses that attracts much attention of philosophers and scientists. These are the so-called ad hoc hypotheses(for this case). Hypotheses of this type are distinguished by the fact that their explanatory power is limited to only a small circle of known facts. They say nothing about new, yet unknown facts and phenomena.

A good hypothesis should not only provide an explanation for the known data, but also direct research towards the search for and discovery of new phenomena, new facts. Hypotheses ad hoc only explain, but do not predict anything new. Therefore, scientists try not to use such hypotheses, although it is often quite difficult to decide whether we are dealing with a fruitful, heuristically strong hypothesis or a hypothesis ad hoc. The hypothetical nature of scientific knowledge was emphasized by K. Popper, W. Quine and others. K Popper characterizes scientific knowledge as hypothetical, he introduces the term probabilism(from lat. probable - probable), noting that scientific thinking is characterized by a probabilistic style. C. Pierce introduced the term “fallibilism” to characterize scientific knowledge (from lat. fallibilis- fallible, fallible), arguing that at any given moment in time our knowledge of reality is partial and conjectural, this knowledge is not absolute, but is a point on a continuum of uncertainty and uncertainty.

Laws are the most important component of the system of theoretical knowledge. A peculiar cell of the organization of theoretical knowledge at each of its sublevels is, notes V.S. Stepin, two-layer construction - a theoretical model and a theoretical law formulated in relation to it.

Law. The concept of "law" is one of the main ones in the system of the scientific worldview and reflects the genesis of science in the context of culture. The belief in the existence of fundamental laws of nature was based on the belief in divine laws, so characteristic of the Judeo-Christian tradition: "God governs all things through the ruthless law of fate, which he established and to which he himself obeys." A. Whitehead, setting the task of understanding how the idea of ​​the law of science arose, showed that belief in the possibility of scientific laws was a derivative of medieval theology. In the system of the world, designated as the Universe, and understood as a hierarchized integrity, the existent is characterized through the principle of universalism. In the context of Stoicism, abstract principles of law were established that embodied the tradition of imperial law and were then translated from Roman law into a scientific worldview. Law (from the Greek "nomos" - law, order) opposes fusis, as the human opposes the natural. The natural order, as the Greeks believed, is primordial, it is the Cosmos. Among the Latins, the concept of "law" originally arose to designate and regulate public relations. Whitehead draws attention to the decisive role of the cultural-historical context, which was the environment in which the fundamental ideas of the future scientific worldview were born. “The Middle Ages formed one long training session for the Western European intellect, accustoming it to order ... The habit of a certain exact thinking was instilled in the European mind as a result of the dominance of scholastic logic and scholastic theology.” The previously formed idea of ​​fate, demonstrating the ruthless course of things, turned out to be useful not only for illustrating human life, but also influenced the emerging scientific thinking. As Whitehead remarked, “the laws of physics are the dictates of fate.”

The idea of ​​law is a key one in understanding the world and we find confirmation of this in the statements of prominent figures of medieval culture, for example, F. Aquinas, who argued that there is an eternal law, namely the mind that exists inside the consciousness of God and governs the entire Universe, and thinkers of the New Age. In particular, R. Descartes wrote about the laws that God put into nature. I. Newton considered it his goal to collect evidence for the existence of laws prescribed by God to nature.

If we compare this style of Western thinking with the thinking tradition of other civilizations, we will see that their cultural identity sets different standards of explanation. For example, in Chinese, as Needham noted, there is no word corresponding to the Western “law of nature.” The closest word is "Lee", which Needham translates as the principle of organization. But in Western culture, the core of which is science, the idea of ​​law corresponded to the main goal setting of the scientific worldview to an objective explanation of reality through the comprehension of the natural laws of nature.

Describing the dynamics of science in Western culture, today it is customary to distinguish three main types of scientific rationality: classical, non-classical and post-non-classical paradigms of scientific rationality (V.S. Stepin). The question posed at the beginning involves an analysis of the transformation of the concept of "law" in these paradigms, as well as in different standards of scientificity, since today physical sample science is no longer the only one. The experience of biology in the study of evolution, in the search for the laws of evolution, is more significant and therefore relevant for modern physics, which is penetrated by the “arrow of time” (I. Prigogine). The traditions of the humanities are also important in terms of analyzing the question: is some law of evolution possible?

Another context in which to analyze the transformation of the concept of “law” in scientific cognition is indicated when we identify various cognitive practices or epistemological schemes that represent models of scientific cognition. For example, in constructivist models of cognition, whether it be radical constructivism or social constructivism, does the concept of the "law" of science retain its meaning? It is no coincidence that the trend of relativization and subjectification of scientific knowledge, noted in modern philosophy science, leads to the need to discuss the problem of the relationship between law and interpretation.

Today, the concept of law is given four main meanings. First of all, law as a necessary connection between events, as "calm in the phenomenon." Here the law is identified with objective laws that exist independently of our knowledge of them (objective laws). Secondly, law as a statement claiming to reflect the internal state of objects that are part of theories(laws of science). Thirdly, laws are understood as axioms and theorems of theories, the subject of which are objects, the meaning of which is given by these theories(logical and mathematical theories). Fourth, law as regulations developed by the community, which must be carried out by the subjects of morality and law (moral laws, criminal laws, state laws).

In terms of the problems of philosophical epistemology, the question of the relationship between objective laws and the laws of science is important. The very formulation of such a question implies an ideological position about the existence of objective laws. D. Hume, I. Kant, E. Mach doubted this. Hume's skepticism is connected with the denial of Hume's law of causality, which states that it is impossible to extrapolate past experience to the future with certainty. The fact that an event occurred n times does not allow us to say that this event will occur n + 1 times. “Any degree of repetition of our perceptions cannot serve as a basis for us to conclude that some objects that we do not perceive are more repeatable.” Supporters of the objective existence of regularities accept Hume's point of view, understanding the laws of science as hypotheses. So, A. Poincaré argued that the laws of science, as the best expression of the inner harmony of the world, are the basic principles, prescriptions that reflect the relationship between things. “However, are these prescriptions arbitrary? No, otherwise they would be fruitless. Experience presents us with free choice, but at the same time it guides us.

According to I. Kant, laws are not extracted by reason from nature, but are prescribed to it. Based on this point of view, the laws of science can be understood as a cognitive order that is instilled in our minds in the course of adaptive evolution. This position is close to the evolutionary epistemology of K. Popper. E. Mach believed that laws are subjective and are generated by our psychological need not to get lost among natural phenomena. In modern cognitive science, laws are allowed to be compared with subjective habits, which in turn are explained as a consequence of objective evolution.

So, in epistemology, the concept of the law of science reflects the acceptance of objectively existing interactions in nature. The laws of science are conceptual reconstructions of patterns associated with the adoption of a certain conceptual apparatus and various abstractions. The laws of science are formulated using the artificial languages ​​of their discipline. Allocate "statistical", based on probabilistic hypotheses, and "dynamic" laws, expressed in the form of universal conditions. The study of the laws of reality finds expression in the creation of theories that reflect the subject area. Law is the key element of theory.

Theory. Theory in Greek means "contemplation" of what really is. scientific knowledge the era of Antiquity was theoretical, but the meaning of this term was completely different, the theories of the ancient Greeks are speculative and, in principle, not focused on experiment. In the classical science of modern times, theory begins to be understood as a conceptual symbolic system built on the basis of experience. In the structure of theoretical knowledge, fundamental theories and particular ones are distinguished.

According to V.S. Stepin, in the structure of the theory, as its basis, there is a fundamental theoretical scheme associated with the corresponding mathematical formalism. If empirical objects can be compared with real objects, then theoretical objects are idealizations, they are called constructs, they are logical reconstructions of reality. “At the basis of an established theory, one can always find a mutually consistent network of abstract objects that determines the specifics of this theory. This network of objects is called the fundamental theoretical scheme.

Corresponding to the two distinguished sublevels of theoretical knowledge, one can speak of theoretical schemes as part of fundamental theory and as part of particular theories. At the basis of the developed theory, one can single out a fundamental theoretical scheme, which is built from a small set of basic abstract objects that are constructively independent of each other, and in relation to which fundamental theoretical laws are formulated. The structure of the theory was considered by analogy with the structure of a formalized mathematical theory and was depicted as a hierarchical system of statements, where from the basic statements upper tiers statements of the lower tiers are strictly logically deduced up to statements that are directly comparable with experimental facts. The hierarchy of interconnected abstract objects corresponds to the hierarchical structure of statements. The connections of these objects form theoretical schemes of various levels. And then the deployment of the theory appears not only as an operation with statements, but also as thought experiments with abstract objects of theoretical schemes.

Theoretical schemes play an important role in the development of a theory. The conclusion from the fundamental equations of the theory of their consequences (particular theoretical laws) is carried out not only through formal mathematical and logical operations on statements, but also through meaningful techniques - thought experiments with abstract objects of theoretical schemes that allow reducing the fundamental theoretical scheme to private ones. Their elements of theoretical schemes are abstract objects (theoretical constructs) that are in strictly defined connections and relationships with each other. Theoretical laws are directly formulated in relation to the abstract objects of the theoretical model. They can be used to describe real situations experience only if the model is justified as an expression of the essential connections of reality that appear in such situations.

Theoretical knowledge is created to explain and predict the phenomena and processes of objective and subjective reality. Depending on the level of penetration into the essence of the object under study, scientific theories are divided into descriptive-phenomenological (empirical) and deductive (mathematized, axiomatic).

So, theory is an abstract-generalized, constructively constructed, integral and logically unfolding conceptual model of the object of study, which is a logically abbreviated knowledge with explanatory and heuristic abilities.

On the whole, the empirical and theoretical levels of scientific research discussed above are conditional stages of a holistic scientific process. The edifice of science thus characterized rests on a foundation, designated as the foundations of science.