How we are working
1 Contacting the company You can either call or order a call on the site, as well as come to our office. 2 Negotiation of the contract If you have no more questions and our offer satisfies your requirements, we draw up a contract and proceed to the study, or we prepare an information letter for submission to the court. 3 Performance of work After receiving the documents and payment, the specialist starts work, organizes a trip if necessary. 4 The result of the work! The result of our work is an act of expert opinion (opinion of a specialist), prepared in accordance with the current methods and regulations.
Do you need expertise?
Find out detailed information about the examination, the timing of its implementation, required documents and cost, as well as get free consultation you can have our specialist:
The principle of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of research is of decisive importance, since it is this principle that determines the requirements imposed by the legislator on the quality of the main area of forensic activity - the production of an examination.
Objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of research are closely interrelated and mutually compatible requirements for expert research, but they have their own content. The objectivity of the study lies in the impartiality, impartiality and independence in the conduct of the study and implies that in the course of the examination, the expert must take into account all the factors that are important in the conduct of the study, as well as use the methods recommended by modern science and expert practice. When examining and evaluating the materials submitted for examination, preparing and formulating the conclusions of an expert study, the expert must exclude dishonesty, bias, bias. Objectivity implies that the conclusions drawn will follow from objectively conducted research and will reflect the circumstances of the case in accordance with the way it happened in reality.
The law establishes that the objectivity of an expert presupposes the conduct of research on a strictly scientific and practical basis. This basis should be based on provisions that make it possible to verify the validity and reliability of the conclusions drawn on the basis of generally accepted scientific and practical data. The scientific basis involves the use of only evidence-based methods applicable to this particular study. Practical basis conducting an expert study means:
Availability of not only evidence-based, but also practically tested methodology used in the study;
Carrying out in the course of the examination of specific practical actions to study the submitted materials based on theoretical knowledge. In this regard, it is unacceptable instead of implementing real research be limited to theoretical calculations and conclusions and conclusions drawn on their basis.
The objectivity of an expert study largely depends on the availability and objectivity of the available methods for conducting a particular examination and the quality of the materials submitted for examination. Compliance with the requirements for the objectivity of the conducted expert studies implies that the expert must refuse to give an opinion in cases where the materials presented to him are insufficient for giving an opinion (clause 6, part 3, article 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), unsuitable for conducting research, the current level of science is not allows you to answer the questions posed (part 1 of article 16 of FZ-73). At the same time, the Law gives the expert the right to apply for additional materials necessary for giving an opinion (clause 2, part 3, article 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; part 3, article 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation; part 3, article 55 of the APC of the Russian Federation).
One of the main conditions for the objectivity of the research being conducted, the law calls the implementation of expertise within the relevant specialty. A specialty is a field of special knowledge, skills and abilities in a certain branch of science, which is owned by the corresponding expert. It is obvious that the expert is not able to give an objective conclusion in the event that the research necessary for the performance of the examination goes beyond the expert's special knowledge. In this regard, the law establishes the right of an expert to refuse to give an opinion on issues that go beyond the expert's special knowledge (clause 6, part 3, article 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; part 5, article 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). And part 1 of article 16 calls it no longer a right, but an expert's duty. Obviously, in this case, the decision to refuse to conduct an examination and give an opinion depends on the expert himself, his level of knowledge and inner conviction. However, if there are established conditions (lack of knowledge, narrowness of the expert's specialty for conducting a specific expert study), this right acquires the character of an obligation, and the expert must exercise it. The exception is cases where the expert does not refuse to give an opinion, but petitions the head of the relevant forensic institution to involve other experts in the forensic examination (part 1 of article 17 of the Federal Law-73; paragraph 2 of part 3 of article 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure RF), and this request is granted. Otherwise, the principle of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of the research will be violated, the results of the examination will be called into question, and the expert's conclusion may be recognized as inadmissible evidence.
The comprehensiveness of the expert study involves the clarification from all sides of the specific issues that are significant for resolving the case, posed to the expert on the basis of the study of the materials submitted for examination. Comprehensive means exploring all the most important properties, qualities and features of the presented materials, their connections, relationships and dependencies. Comprehensiveness involves the study of all objectively options during the examination, thereby preventing the one-sidedness and subjectivity of the expert study. The completeness of the expert study lies in the study of all the qualities and properties of the materials submitted for examination, carried out deeply and completely. Completeness involves the study of such a set of properties of the submitted materials, which allows not only to fully and objectively answer the questions posed, but also, possibly, to draw deeper conclusions and find out the circumstances that are relevant to the case, but about which the expert was not asked questions ( part 2 of article 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; part 2 of article 86 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).
Comprehensiveness and completeness of the expert study apply only to those circumstances, properties and qualities of the objects under study that are important for resolving the case. In fact, comprehensiveness and completeness are limited by the framework of those circumstances that are subject to proof in a particular case (Article 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; Part 2 of Article 65 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; Article 26.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation; Part 2 of Article 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation ).
The principle of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of expert research is directly reflected in Article 16 of the Federal Law-73, where one of the main duties of an expert is the obligation to conduct a full study of the objects and materials of the case presented to him, to give a reasonable and objective conclusion on the questions posed to him .
The principle of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of the expert study is not absolute, it, having great independent significance, is ultimately still subject to the principles of legality and observance of human rights and freedoms during the examination. So, if the tasks of carrying out a complete and comprehensive study can be implemented only using means and methods that affect the honor and dignity of the individual, dangerous to life and health, violate personal and family secrets and unlawfully restrict other important constitutional rights, then the interests of a particular individual, tasks protection of human rights and freedoms will take precedence over the requirements of comprehensiveness and completeness of the study. For example, the law prohibits the use of research methods associated with severe pain or that can adversely affect the health of a person, methods of surgical intervention, etc. in the production of a forensic examination of living persons. (Art. 35 FZ-73).
The principle of objectivity, completeness and comprehensiveness of an expert study can be fully implemented only if the requirements of the procedural law are observed when collecting and providing the expert with materials for examination. Thus, the materials provided to the expert must be of a procedural nature, be collected by the appropriate subjects of the procedural activity in compliance with the norms of the procedural law governing the collection of such materials. The materials submitted for research should be objective in a certain sense - reflect the properties and qualities of objects and phenomena in accordance with the way it actually took place, and in certain cases - have the properties of representativeness, reflect all aspects of the object or phenomenon under study. As one of the guarantees of the objectivity of the expert in the implementation of the study, there is a ban on independently collecting materials for the production of a forensic examination (part 3 of article 16 of the Federal Law-73; paragraph 2 of part 4 of article 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). The expert is not a subject of proof, the materials collected by him are not of a procedural nature and cannot become the subject of an expert study.
The principle of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of research conducted by an expert is closely related to the principle of expert independence. Only a procedurally independent expert, disinterested in the outcome of the case and impartial, can give a fully objective and comprehensive opinion. Indeed, in fact, what is important is not the independence of an expert in itself, but the ability of an expert to give an objective, unbiased and comprehensive opinion used as evidence in civil, arbitration, criminal and administrative cases. In this regard, all guarantees of the expert's independence (see the commentary to Article 7 of Federal Law-73) are ultimately aimed at achieving objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of the research conducted by the expert.
The principle of objectivity, completeness and comprehensiveness of research is closely related to the provisions that provide the expert with the opportunity to make statements to be entered in the protocol of the investigative action or court session regarding the misinterpretation of the participants in the process of his conclusion or testimony (part 1 of article 17 of the Federal Law-73), as well as allowing to interrogate an expert in order to clarify the conclusion given by him (Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).
Among the guarantees of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of expert research should include a number of procedural rights granted to the expert in order to fully familiarize themselves with the materials related to the ongoing research: the right to get acquainted with the materials of the criminal case related to the subject of the examination; apply for the provision of additional materials necessary for giving an opinion; participate with the permission of the interrogating officer, investigator, prosecutor and court in the proceedings and ask questions related to the subject of forensic examination (part 3 of article 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). Similar procedural rights are granted to the expert by the arbitration procedural legislation (Part 3, Art. 55 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation) and civil procedural legislation (Art. 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).
Other guarantees of the principle of objectivity, completeness and comprehensiveness of research should also include the rules on the challenge of an expert who is interested in the outcome of the case or for other reasons unable to give a complete, comprehensive and objective opinion (see the commentary on this to Article 7 of the Federal Law-73), norms providing for the possibility of recognizing the conclusion and testimony of an expert as evidence that has no legal force (Article 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; Part 3 of Article 64 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; Part 2 of Article 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).
Subject to the principle of objectivity, completeness and comprehensiveness of research, the expert fully and reasonably gives answers to all questions put to him, and possibly reveals other circumstances that are relevant to the case, about which no questions were raised. The expert opinion contains a description of the content and results of the research, indicating the methods used, an assessment of the research results, justification and formulation of conclusions on the issues raised, as well as materials illustrating the expert opinion and being an integral part of the opinion (Article 25 of the Federal Law-73).
Incompleteness, unreasonableness and bias of the expert examination act as grounds for the production of additional or repeated examinations, as well as for questioning the expert. Thus, the production of additional expertise is carried out in the case when the previously given conclusion is not clear enough or not complete. Additional expertise is carried out by the same or another expert. A repeated examination is appointed in connection with the doubts that have arisen in the court, judge, investigator, interrogating officer, prosecutor about the correctness or validity of the earlier conclusion. She is appointed on the same issues and entrusted to another expert or another commission of experts (Article 20 of the Federal Law-73; Article 87 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; Article 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation; Article 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).
The interrogation of the expert is carried out to clarify the conclusion given by him (Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).
Verification of the expert opinion in terms of the validity and reliability of the conclusions drawn on the basis of generally accepted scientific and practical data can be carried out by a person who owns special knowledge, in particular, specific generally accepted scientific and practical data necessary to verify one or another expert opinion. The law does not provide for a special procedure for such verification, although it does not exclude such a possibility. It is obvious that verification of the scientific and practical side of the expert's opinion in the framework of legal proceedings can only be carried out indirectly, when the conclusion of the expert who carried out the re-examination does not give reason to doubt its correctness and validity. Accordingly, if the conclusions made by the expert as a result of the initial examination differ significantly from the conclusions presented by the expert as a result of the re-examination, it is possible with sufficient probability to speak of the groundlessness and unreliability of the conclusion of the first expert.
The provision of the Law on the basis of an expert opinion on the basis of generally accepted scientific and practical data has the character of a limitation that establishes the framework for the use of means and methods in the implementation of an examination. This allows you to check the validity and reliability of the conclusions made by the expert, but within the framework of the procedural activity, it has no real effect.
It is obvious that such a check cannot be carried out by a judge, court, prosecutor, investigator, interrogating officer, the person conducting the proceedings on an administrative offense, since they do not have special knowledge for this. For persons responsible for the proceedings, the expert opinion has the nature of evidence, and its verification and evaluation are carried out according to general rules established by the relevant procedural act to verify and evaluate all the evidence available in the case. This means that it is not the essence of the expert's opinion, but its legal meaningful properties and quality. So, in accordance with Articles 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the expert’s opinion is subject to verification, which consists in comparing it with other evidence available in the criminal case, obtaining other evidence confirming or refuting the expert’s opinion, as well as assessing from the point of view of its relevance , admissibility and reliability. At the same time, the assessment of evidence is carried out according to internal conviction, based on the totality of all evidence available in the case, guided by the law and conscience. The rules for assessing evidence in civil and arbitration proceedings, as well as administrative proceedings are similar (Articles 59, 60, 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation; Articles 67, 68, 71 of the APC of the Russian Federation; Article 26.11 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).
What are the criteria of scientific knowledge, its characteristic features? One of the important distinctive qualities of scientific knowledge is its systematization. It is one of the criteria of scientific character. But knowledge can be systematized not only in science. Cookbook, phone book, travel atlas, etc. and so on. - everywhere knowledge is classified and systematized. Scientific systematization is specific. It is characterized by the desire for completeness, consistency, clear grounds for systematization. Scientific knowledge as a system has a certain structure, the elements of which are facts, laws, theories, pictures of the world. Separate scientific disciplines are interconnected and interdependent.
The desire for validity, evidence of knowledge is an important criterion of scientific character. Justification of knowledge, bringing it into a single system has always been characteristic of science. The very emergence of science is sometimes associated with the desire for evidence-based knowledge. There are different ways to justify scientific knowledge. Empirical knowledge is substantiated by repeated checks, reference to statistical data, etc. When substantiating theoretical concepts, their consistency, compliance with empirical data, and the ability to describe and predict phenomena are checked.
In science, original, "crazy" ideas are valued. But the orientation towards innovations is combined in it with the desire to eliminate from the results of scientific activity everything subjective, associated with the specifics of the scientist himself. This is one of the differences between science and art. If the artist had not created his creation, then it simply would not exist. But if a scientist, even a great one, had not created a theory, then it would still have been created, because it is a necessary stage in the development of science, it is intersubjective.
18. Methods of scientific knowledge.
It is important to distinguish between such concepts as methodology and method.
Methodology - this is the doctrine of the structure, logical organization, methods and means of activity.
Methodology natural science - the doctrine of the principles of construction, forms and methods of natural science knowledge. So, for example, methodological significance in natural science conservation laws. In any research, theoretical constructions, 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 development of reality, based on the laws of behavior of the object under study. F. Bacon 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 general methods, i.e. universal methods of thinking, general scientific methods and methods of specific sciences. Methods can also be classified according to the ratio of 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.
It should be borne in mind that each branch of natural science, along with general scientific ones, applies its own specific scientific, special methods, conditioned by the essence of the object of study. However, often methods specific to 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 the objects of biological research include in one form or another the physical and chemical forms of the movement of matter and, therefore, are subject to physical and chemical laws.
SYSTEMIC JUSTIFICATION
It is difficult to name a statement that would justify itself, in isolation from other statements. Justification is always systemic. The inclusion of a new provision in a system of other provisions that gives stability to its elements is one of the most important steps in its justification.
So, in our society, polemicism, problematicness as a norm of ideological-theoretical, spiritual life is becoming more and more established. The demand to discuss problems in the spirit of truth, openness, in an atmosphere of a really free, creative exchange of opinions acquires a solid foundation, being included in the system of ideas about socialism as a democratic society, which implies diversity in people's judgments, relationships and activities, a wide range of beliefs and assessments.
Confirmation of the consequences arising from a theory is at the same time a reinforcement of the theory itself. On the other hand, the theory imparts certain impulses and strength to the propositions put forward on its basis, and thereby contributes to their justification. The statement, which has become part of the theory, is no longer based only on individual facts, but also in many respects also on a wide range of phenomena explained by the theory, on its prediction of new, previously unknown effects, on its connection with other scientific theories, etc. theory, we thus extend to it the empirical and theoretical support that the theory as a whole has.
This moment has been noted more than once by philosophers and scientists who have been thinking about the justification of knowledge.
Thus, the Austrian philosopher L. Wittgenstein wrote about the integrity and systemic nature of knowledge: “It is not an isolated axiom that strikes me as obvious, but a whole system in which consequences and premises mutually support each other.” Consistency extends not only to theoretical positions, but also to the data of experience: “It can be said that experience teaches us some statements. However, he does not teach us isolated statements, but a whole set of interdependent propositions. If they were scattered, I might doubt them, because I have no experience directly related to each of them. The foundations of a system of assertions, Wittgenstein notes, do not support this system, but are themselves supported by it. This means that the reliability of the foundations is determined not by them in themselves, but by the fact that an integral theoretical system can be built on top of them. The "foundation" of knowledge appears to be hanging in the air until a stable building is built on it. The claims of scientific theory are mutually intertwined and support each other. They hold on like people on a crowded bus when they are propped up on all sides and they don't fall because there is nowhere to fall.
The Soviet physicist I. E. Tamm spoke about the formation of the principles of L. Maxwell's electromagnetic theory: , however, cannot give a completely rigorous proof of their validity), but by agreement with experience of the totality of the consequences arising from the theory and covering all the laws of the macroscopic electromagnetic field.
Since the theory gives additional support to the statements included in it, the improvement of the theory, the strengthening of its empirical base and the clarification of its general, including philosophical premises, is at the same time a contribution to the substantiation of the statements included in it.
Among the methods of clarifying a theory, a special role is played by revealing the logical connections of its statements, minimizing its initial assumptions, constructing it in the form of an axiomatic system, and, finally, if possible, formalizing it.
When a theory is axiomatized, some of its provisions are chosen as initial ones, and all other provisions are derived from them in a purely logical way. The initial provisions accepted without proof are called axioms (postulates), the provisions proved on their basis are called theorems.
The axiomatic method of systematization and clarification of knowledge originated in antiquity and gained great fame thanks to Euclid's "Principles" - the first axiomatic interpretation of geometry. Now axiomatization is used in mathematics, logic, as well as in certain sections of physics, biology, etc. The axiomatic method requires high level development of an axiomatizable content theory, clear logical connections of its statements. Associated with this is its rather narrow applicability and the naivety of attempts to rebuild any science along the lines of Euclid's geometry.
In addition, as shown by the Austrian logician and mathematician K. Gödel, quite rich scientific theories(for example, arithmetic natural numbers) do not admit full axiomatization. This indicates the limitations of the axiomatic method and the impossibility of a complete formalization of scientific knowledge.
This text is an introductory piece.6. Limits of justification Insufficient attention to the justification of statements, the lack of objectivity, consistency and specificity in the consideration of objects and phenomena lead ultimately to eclecticism - an uncritical combination of heterogeneous, internally unrelated and,
Social revolutions: regularity, consistency, cardinality The concept of "social revolution" here and in all other chapters is used in a strictly defined sense as the content of the era of transition to a new, more progressive stage of development. Thus we
§ 9. The methodological methods of the sciences are partly justifications, partly auxiliary means for justification. However, some more additions are necessary, primarily regarding the fact that we are limited to justifications, while they do not yet exhaust the concept
11.1. Consistency of social technologies * The people - the human potential of the country, can be considered as a social environment that forms a complex and large-scale complex of spiritual, moral, intellectual and bodily needs for ideas, knowledge, goods and
2.1. Consistency human development We study the consistency of human development on the basis of the Principle of consistency, as well as the rules of the “triad model”, “model of the system”, “reasonable egoism” and other rules of the Law of consistency, the rule of “harmony of development” and other rules
2.2. Consistency of national development Application of Laws and principles of consistency and development. The laws and principles of consistency and development obtained in the previous section of the work for human activity global level, based on the same approach can be
3. The problem of substantiation in scientific knowledge Substantiation, or proof, of the truth of one or another position, concept is the most important component of the formation and development of a theory. Protecting the researcher from delusions and errors, it allows assumptions,
LIMITS OF JUSTIFICATION “At present, science is becoming the main one,” wrote Leo Tolstoy. “But this is contrary to the truth, we must begin with morality, the rest will come later, more naturally, easily, with new forces that have grown during this time.” Science, for all its importance, is not
§ 12. The idea of a transcendental justification of knowledge Our reflections now need further development, in which what was established earlier can only be correctly used. What can I do, thinking Cartesian, with the help of
Procedures for constructive substantiation of theoretical schemes physical quantities mathematical apparatus of the theory. It is thanks to the procedures of constructive
1. 1. Consistency and manufacturability of management (the principle of manufacturability of innovations, the principle of systematic innovation, systemic philosophy of scientific theories and practical projects, systemic ideas of development, professional systemicity government controlled, meaning
2. 2. Consistency of global and public administration (global and public administration, application of the rule of the triad model, the initial formula of the system principle, the task of transition to a new formula of the system principle, the complex potential of mankind,
2. 3. Consistency of national and public administration (national and public administration, application of the rule of the triad model, the initial formula of the principle of consistency, the task of moving to a new formula of the principle of consistency, the integrated potential of the nation,
3. 4. Consistency of the structure of public administration (a triad of structures of the public administration system; the main components of the structure of public administration; development of the structure of public administration; the structure of public administration technologies;
Science as a specific type of knowledge is explored by the logic and methodology of science. Wherein the main problem here it is connected with the selection of signs that are necessary and sufficient for distinguishing between science and other forms of a person's spiritual life - art, religion, everyday consciousness, and others.
Relative nature of scientific criteria. The boundary between scientific and non-scientific forms of knowledge is flexible and changeable, therefore, huge efforts to develop scientific criteria did not give an unambiguous solution. First, in the course of the historical development of science (see Chapter 3), the criteria for being scientific have constantly changed. So, the main features of science in Ancient Greece were considered to be accuracy and certainty, logical evidence, openness to criticism, and democracy. In the science of the Middle Ages, theologism, scholasticism and dogmatism were the essential features, the "truths of reason" were subordinated to the "truths of faith". The main criteria of scientific character in modern times are objectivity and objectivity, theoretical and empirical validity, consistency, and practical usefulness. Science itself has turned from a contemplative observational activity into a complex theoretical and experimental activity, creating its own specific language and methods.
Over the past 300 years, science has also made its own adjustments to the problem of identifying signs of scientificity. Such characteristics, originally inherent in scientific knowledge, as accuracy and certainty, began to give way to the hypothetical nature of scientific knowledge, i.e. scientific knowledge becomes more and more probabilistic. In modern science, there is no longer such a rigid distinction between the subject, object and means of scientific knowledge. When assessing the truth of the obtained knowledge about an object, one has to take into account the correlation of the results obtained scientific research with the features of the means and operations of activity, as well as with the value-target settings of the scientist and the scientific community as a whole. All this suggests that the criteria of scientificity are not absolute, but change with changes in the content and status of scientific knowledge.
Secondly, the relative nature of the criteria of scientificity is determined by its multidimensionality, the variety of subjects of study, the methods of constructing knowledge, the methods and criteria for its truth. In modern science, it is customary to distinguish at least three classes of sciences - natural, technical, and social and humanitarian. The natural sciences are dominated by methods of explanation based on various types logic, and in social and humanitarian knowledge, the methods of interpretation and understanding become decisive (see Chapter 11).
However, the relative nature of scientific criteria does not negate the presence of certain invariants, the main features of scientific knowledge that characterize science as an integral specific phenomenon of human culture. These include: objectivity and objectivity, consistency, logical evidence, theoretical and empirical validity.
All other necessary features that distinguish science from other forms of cognitive activity can be represented as derivatives, depending on these main characteristics and due to them.
The objectivity and objectivity of scientific knowledge are an inseparable unity.
Objectivity is the property of an object to consider itself as the studied essential connections and
laws. The objectivity of scientific knowledge is accordingly based on its objective character. Science sets as its ultimate goal to foresee the process of transforming the subject of practical activity into a product. Scientific activity can be successful only when it meets these laws. Therefore, the main task of science is to reveal the laws and connections according to which objects change and develop. The orientation of science to the study of objects is one of the main features of scientific knowledge. Objectivity, like objectivity, distinguishes science from other forms of human spiritual life. So, if in science means are constantly developing that can level the role of the subjective factor, its influence on the result of cognition, then in art, on the contrary, value attitude the artist's attitude to the work is directly included in the artistic image. Of course, this does not mean that the personal moments and value orientations of a scientist do not play a role in scientific creativity and do not affect scientific results at all. But the main thing in science is to design an object that would obey objective connections and laws, so that human activity based on the results of research on this subject would be successful. According to the apt remark of V.S. Stepin, where science cannot construct an object determined by its essential connections, there its claims end.
The systematic nature of scientific knowledge, which characterizes all aspects of science (its content, organization, structure, expression of the result obtained in the form of principles, laws and categories), is a specific feature that distinguishes scientific knowledge from the ordinary. Ordinary knowledge, like science, seeks to comprehend the real objective world, but unlike scientific knowledge, it develops spontaneously in the process of human life. Ordinary knowledge, as a rule, is not systematized: it is, rather, some fragmentary ideas about objects obtained from various sources of information. Scientific knowledge is always and in everything systematized. As you know, a system is a set of subsystems and elements that are in relationships and connections with each other, forming a certain integrity, unity. In this sense, scientific knowledge is a unity of principles, laws
and categories consistent with the principles and laws of the world under study itself. The system nature of science is also manifested in its organization. It is built as a system of certain areas of knowledge, classes of sciences, etc. Consistency is increasingly included in the theory and methodology of modern science. So, the subject of a relatively young science - synergetics - is complex self-organizing systems, and among the methods of science, system analysis is most widely used, systems approach that implement the principle of integrity.
Logical evidence. Theoretical and empirical validity. It makes sense to consider these specific features of scientific knowledge together, since logical evidence can be represented as one of the types of theoretical validity of scientific knowledge. Specific ways of substantiating scientific truth also distinguish science from ordinary knowledge and religion, where much is taken for granted or based on direct everyday experience. Scientific knowledge necessarily includes theoretical and empirical validity, logic and other forms of proving the reliability of scientific truth.
Modern logic is not a homogeneous whole, on the contrary, it is possible to single out relatively independent sections or types of logics that arose and developed in different historical periods with different goals. Thus, traditional logic, with its syllogistics and schemes of proofs and refutations, arose in the early stages of scientific knowledge. The complication of the content and organization of science led to the development of the logic of predicates and non-classical logics - modal logic, the logic of time relations, intuitionistic logic, etc. The means by which these logics operate are intended to confirm or refute any scientific truth or its basis.
Proof is the most common procedure for the theoretical validity of scientific knowledge and is a logical derivation of a reliable judgment from its foundations. Three elements can be distinguished in the proof: o thesis - a judgment that needs to be substantiated;
О arguments, or grounds, are reliable judgments from which the thesis is logically derived and substantiated;
About demonstration - reasoning, including one or more conclusions. During the demonstrations, conclusions of propositional logic, categorical syllogisms, inductive reasoning, analogy can be used. The use of the last two types of inference leads to the fact that the thesis will be substantiated as true only with a greater or lesser degree of probability.
Empirical validity includes procedures for confirmability and repeatability of an established relationship or law. The means of confirming a scientific thesis include scientific fact, revealed empirical regularity, experiment. Repeatability as a criterion of scientific character is manifested in the following: the scientific community does not accept as reliable phenomena recorded by instruments observed by experts - representatives of academic science, if there is no possibility of their repetition; therefore, such phenomena are not included in the subject of scientific research; first of all, this concerns such areas of knowledge as parapsychology, ufology, etc.
Criteria of logical proof of a scientific theory, as well as other criteria of scientific character, are not always and not fully realizable, for example, the results of A. Church regarding the provability of the calculus of second-order predicates, K. Gödel's theorem on the unprovability of the formal consistency of the arithmetic of natural numbers, etc. . . In such cases, additional logical and methodological principles are introduced into the arsenal of scientific tools, such as the principle of complementarity, the principle of uncertainty, non-classical logics, etc.
The criteria of scientific character may not be realizable if it is impossible to construct the very subject of scientific research. This applies to any integrity, when behind the “brackets of evidence” there remains something fundamentally not objectivable (the context is not fully clarified) or, in the words of Husserl, a certain “horizon”, “background” as a preliminary understanding that cannot be expressed by logical means. Then scientific knowledge is supplemented by hermeneutical procedures as a kind of method of understanding and interpretation. Its essence is as follows: you must first understand the whole, so that then the parts and elements become clear.
The relativity of scientific criteria indicates the constant development of science, the expansion of its problem field, the formation of new, more adequate means of scientific search. Scientific criteria are important regulatory elements in the development of science. They allow you to systematize, evaluate and adequately understand the result of scientific research.
So, science as an objective and substantive knowledge of reality is based on controlled (confirmed and repeated) facts, rationally formulated and systematized ideas and provisions; asserts the need for proof. The criteria of scientific character determine the specifics of science and reveal the direction of human thinking towards objective and universal knowledge. The language of science is logical and systematic (the exact use of concepts, the certainty of their connection, the rationale for their following, deducibility from each other). Science is a holistic education. All elements scientific complex are in mutual relations, combined into certain subsystems and systems.
REFERENCES
1. Nenashev M.I. Introduction to logic. M., 2004.
2. Stepin V.S. Philosophical anthropology and philosophy of science. M., 1992.
3. Philosophy: problem course: textbook; ed. S.A. Lebedev. M., 2002.
Aggregate scientific criteria determines quite specific model science, which is denoted by the term classical science. The system of selected criteria can be represented as follows. Firstly, scientific identified with objectivity. Objectivity is understood as focusing on an object, as objectivity. For science, everything is an object comprehended through experience.
The second feature of science - experienced the nature of knowledge. Observation, experiment, measurement are the main methods of obtaining and confirming knowledge. In this regard, the scientific experiment is required reproducibility And repeatability. Experience at any time and in any place can be repeated and its result will not change. The scientific result does not depend on who received it.
Finally, scientific knowledge is knowledge aimed at finding the truth. The deep connection between classical scientificity and truth is expressed by the common statement: to be scientific means to be true. Truth is the litmus test for science. No other knowledge is evaluated for truth: neither poetry, nor a piece of music, nor a religious treatise ... It is the truth of scientific knowledge that makes them universal and universal, allows them to be implemented and applied in technology, in control systems.
Scientific criteria - objectivity, truth, intersubjectivity, universalism, reproducibility, reliability and experience of knowledge characterize the classical model of science. This is a kind of ideal model, which in real history science hardly fully corresponded to any theoretical construction. As a rule, not all of the criteria of scientific character listed here are given in textbooks, but only some of them, for example, the experimental nature and reliability of scientific statements, or universalism and fundamentalism. The fact is that these criteria are a system of restrictions that are extremely closely related to each other, in a sense, tautological. It is worth abandoning one, as all the others will turn out to be impossible. The system of requirements for knowledge being tested for scientific character is far from accidental, but is conditioned by that socio-cultural situation.
Several criteria demarcations scientific and pseudoscientific ideas- This:
The principle is used in the logic and methodology of science to establish the truth of scientific statements as a result of their empirical verification.
Distinguish:
Direct verification - as a direct verification of the statements that formulate the data of observation and experiment;
Indirect verification - as the establishment of logical relationships between indirectly verified statements.
The principle of verification allows, as a first approximation, to limit scientific knowledge from clearly extra-scientific knowledge. However, he cannot help where the system of ideas is tailored in such a way that absolutely all possible empirical facts can be interpreted in its favor - ideology, religion, astrology, etc.
2. The principle of falsification.
Its essence: the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutation, that is, only that knowledge can claim the title of "scientific", which is refutable in principle. The principle of falsification makes knowledge relative, depriving it of immutability, absoluteness, completeness.
falsifiability (refutability, Popper's criterion) - scientific criterion empirical theory formulated by K. Popper. A theory satisfies Popper's criterion (it is falsifiable) if there is a methodological possibility of refuting it by setting up one or another experiment, even if such an experiment has not been set up. The philosophical doctrine, according to which the falsifiability of a theory is a necessary condition for its scientific character, is called falsificationism .
The essence of the criterion.
The criterion of falsifiability requires that a theory or hypothesis not be fundamentally irrefutable. According to Popper, a theory cannot be considered scientific just on the basis that there is one, a few, or an unlimited number of experiments that confirm it. Since almost any theory formed on the basis of at least some experimental data allows the statement a large number confirming experiments, the presence of evidence cannot be considered a sign of the scientific nature of the theory.
According to Popper, theories differ in relation to the possibility of setting up an experiment that can, at least in principle, give a result that will disprove a given theory. The theory for which this possibility exists is called falsifiable. A theory for which there is no such possibility, that is, within a framework that can explain any result of any conceivable experiment (in the area that the theory describes), is called unfalsifiable.
Popper's criterion is only a criterion for classifying a theory as scientific, but is not a criterion for its truth or the possibility of its successful application. The ratio of the falsifiability of a theory and its truth can be different. If an experiment that calls into question a falsifiable theory, when staged, really gives a result that contradicts this theory, then the theory becomes falsified, that is, false, but this will not stop being falsifiable, that is scientific.
“At that time, I was not interested in the question of “when is a theory true?”, And not in the question of “when is a theory acceptable?”. I set myself another problem. I wanted to make a distinction between science and pseudoscience, knowing full well that science is often wrong and that pseudoscience can stumble upon the truth by chance."
Justifying just such a criterion of scientificity, Popper cited as an example the difference between such theories as Einstein's general theory of relativity, historical Marx's materialism and the theories of psychoanalysis by Freud and Adler. He drew attention to the fact that these theories are very different with respect to the possibility of their experimental verification and denials. Theories of psychoanalysis such verification is impossible in principle. No matter how a person behaves, his behavior can be explained from the standpoint of psychoanalytic theories, there is no such behavior that would refute these theories.
Unlike psychoanalysis, general theory of relativity allows verification. So, according to general relativity, bodies of large mass (for example, stars) bend the course of light rays with their attraction. As a result, light distant star, seen near the sun, changes direction, and the star appears to be displaced from where it is when observed away from the solar disk. This effect can be observed during full solar eclipse when the light of the Sun does not interfere with seeing the stars near it. If, as a result of the verification, it turns out that the effect is not observed, its absence will become evidence of the inconsistency of general relativity, i.e. such an experiment, theoretically, could falsify general relativity. This prediction was tested by Eddington during an eclipse on May 29, 1919, with the previously predicted effect.
“In the example under consideration, the risk associated with such a prediction is impressive. If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply rejected. This theory is inconsistent with certain possible outcomes of observation - outcomes that anyone before Einstein would have expected. This situation is quite different from that previously described, where the relevant [psychological] theories were found to be compatible with any human behavior and it was practically impossible to describe any form of human behavior, which would not be a confirmation of these theories."
More difficult is the matter With Marxist theory . In its original form, it was completely falsifiable, and therefore scientific. She gave predictions that could be tested: she predicted future social revolutions, their dates and states in which they will occur. However, all these predictions did not come true. Thus, Marxism was falsified, but its adherents, instead of accepting the refutation and recognizing the theory as false, took a different path: they reinterpreted the theory and its predictions so that the conclusions of the theory were in agreement with practice. As a result, they "saved" the theory, but did so at the cost of losing falsifiability - Marxism turned from a scientific theory into pseudoscience. Subsequently, as K. Yeskov noted, “in the USSR, Marxism turned into pure theology, that is, the interpretation of sacred texts.”
The criterion of falsifiability does not require that already at the moment of putting forward a theory, it is possible to actually set up an experiment to test the theory. He only requires that the possibility of staging such an experiment exists in principle.
“Einstein's theory of gravity obviously satisfies the falsifiability criterion. Even if at the time of its advancement, our measuring instruments did not yet allow us to speak about the results of its tests with complete certainty, the possibility of refuting this theory undoubtedly existed even then.
Astrology is not tested. Astrologers are so delusional about what they consider to be supporting evidence that they pay no attention to examples that are unfavorable to them. Moreover, by making their interpretations and prophecies sufficiently vague, they are able to explain everything that could prove to be a refutation of their theory, if it and the prophecies that follow from it were more accurate. To avoid falsification, they destroy the testability of their theories. This is the usual trick of all soothsayers: to predict events so indefinitely that the predictions always come true, that is, that they are irrefutable.
The two previously mentioned psychoanalytic theories belong to a different class. They are simply untestable and irrefutable theories... This does not mean that Freud and Adler did not say anything correct at all... But it does mean that those "clinical observations" that psychoanalysts naively believe confirm their theory, do so no more than the daily confirmations found by astrologers in their practice. As for Freud's description of the I (Ego), Super-I (Super-Ego) and It (Id), it is essentially no more scientific than history. Homer about Olympus. The theories under consideration describe some facts, but do so in the form of a myth. They contain very interesting psychological assumptions, but they express them in an unverifiable form.
An interesting result of the application of Popper's criterion: some statements can be considered scientific, but their negations cannot, and vice versa. So, for example, the assumption of the existence of God (not of any particular god, but of God in general) is not falsifiable, and therefore cannot be accepted as a scientific hypothesis (non-falsifiability is due to the fact that it is impossible to refute the existence of God - any refutation can be rejected by stating that God is outside the physical world, physical laws, outside logic, and so on). At the same time, the assumption of the non-existence of God is falsifiable (to refute it, it is enough to present God and demonstrate his supernatural features), therefore, it can be accepted as a scientific hypothesis.
Falsifiability of claims about the existence of anything at all.
If we have an internally consistent idea of some physical object, then we can question whether it exists anywhere in the universe.
There are two theories:
1) it exists somewhere;
2) it doesn't exist anywhere in the universe.
These two theories are fundamentally different from the point of view of the principle of falsifiability.
The theory of non-existence is naturally falsifiable: to refute it, it is enough to present something whose existence is denied. Thus, the theory of the non-existence of anything will always be scientific, regardless of the existence of which is denied.
With falsifiable theory existence is much more difficult. We need to come up with an experiment to refute it. But all our experiments are always limited both in space and in time. As for space: in principle, the universe can have an infinite extent (if its average density is less than some critical one). In this case, at any age of the earth's civilization, we will have only a finite number of people (who lived or are living at this moment in time) and, of course, a finite number of all possible experiments carried out to present moment time. And since each experiment covers a limited space, then all of them will cover a limited space. Well, in the space not covered by our experiments, theoretically, there can be anything, including that, the existence of which is refuted.
Thus, when the average density of matter in the universe is less than the critical one, any theory of existence cannot be refuted at any stage of the development of civilization (i.e., never), and therefore cannot be recognized as scientific, as unfalsifiable.
3. rational principle is the main means of validating knowledge. It acts as a guide to certain norms, ideals of scientific character, standards of scientific results.
Within the rational style of thinking, scientific knowledge is characterized by the following methodological criteria:
Universality, that is, the exclusion of any specifics - place, time, subject, etc.;
Consistency, or consistency, provided by the deductive way of deploying a knowledge system;
Simplicity; a theory that explains the widest possible range of phenomena, based on the minimum number of principles, is considered good;
explanatory potential;
Science Criteria
There are 6 criteria for scientific knowledge:
1. systematic knowledge - scientific knowledge always has a systematic, orderly character;
2. target - any scientific knowledge is the result of a scientific goal;
3. activity - scientific knowledge is always the result of the activities of scientists to achieve the set scientific goal;
4. rationalistic - scientific knowledge is always based on reason (in the traditions of the East, the priority of intuition as a supersensory perception of reality has been established);
5. experimental - scientific knowledge must be confirmed experimentally;
6. mathematical - mathematical apparatus should be applicable to scientific data.
The knowledge accumulated by people has three levels: ordinary, empirical (experimental) and theoretical (level of scientific knowledge).
The result of scientific activity is scientific knowledge, which, depending on the content and application, is divided into:
1. factual - are a set of systematized facts of objective reality;
2. theoretical (fundamental) - theories that explain the processes occurring in objective reality;
3. technical and applied (technology) - knowledge about practical application acquired knowledge;
4. practically applied (praxeological) - knowledge about the economic effect obtained as a result of the application of scientific achievements.
The forms of scientific knowledge are: scientific concepts, programs, typologies, classifications, hypotheses, theories.
Solution to any scientific problem includes the promotion of various conjectures, assumptions. A scientific assumption put forward to eliminate a situation of uncertainty is called a hypothesis. This is not certain, but probable knowledge. The truth or falsity of such knowledge needs to be verified. The process of establishing the truth of a hypothesis is called verification. A hypothesis confirmed experimentally is called a theory.
1. Ideals and norms n. research - a scheme for the development of objects, the characteristics of which are presented in a theoretical-empirical form. Ideals and norms express the values and goals of science, answering the questions: why are certain cognitive actions needed, what type of product (knowledge) should be obtained as a result of their implementation, and how to get this product.
Allocate:
1) ideals and norms explanations and descriptions;
2) evidence and substantiation of knowledge;
3) building a knowledge organization.
It is necessary to distinguish scientific knowledge from non-scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge must also be distinguished from pre-scientific knowledge.
The problem of demarcation. Demarcation - drawing a dividing line. The problem of the demarcation of science is the problem of the lines of distinction separating science from non-science. The problem of demarcation leads us to the problem scientific criteria ; difference between true knowledge and false knowledge.
The main features of scientific knowledge
The listed features also act as ideals and norms of science and together form scientific criteria . A criterion is a way to determine what is scientific and what is not.
Scientific norms- these are the requirements that science, scientific knowledge satisfies, the requirements have imperativeness, imperativeness.
Since there are many sciences, different sciences to varying degrees satisfy one or another norm of scientific character.
The norms of scientific character are the validity of knowledge, empirical confirmation, logical sequence.
Ideals are not fully achievable. Ideal - this is the state of scientific knowledge to which science should strive, a kind of perfection of science, in truth, the proper state.
Truth is the ideal.
Objectivity - scientific knowledge is objective. Signs of scientific knowledge act as norms and ideals. Norms can act as ideals and vice versa.
Scientific criteria (signs)
1. Presence in scientific knowledge of the laws of science.
Laws are essential recurring stable connections between properties, processes, etc.
The laws of science fix effective connections in a special form with the help of the language of science. Science strives to cognize the essence of the studied processes of phenomena. The essence is expressed through the law. Laws are a fundamental component of scientific knowledge. Not all sciences formulate laws. Nomothetic - legislating. There are nomothetic sciences. For a long time it was believed that the real mature sciences were the nomothetic sciences. In some sciences, instead of laws, the presence of stable tendencies is formulated - the trend of development.
2. scientific knowledge.
This is systemically organized built knowledge. The systemic organization of scientific knowledge manifests itself at various levels. Systems are individual scientific theories and concepts, individual sciences, scientific disciplines strive for systemicity, science as a whole strives for systemicity. The requirement of consistency is sometimes clarified through the requirement of coherence of scientific knowledge. Coherence - consistency. Scientific knowledge must be self-consistent, it excludes internal contradictions.
3. Empirical validity of scientific knowledge.
Scientific knowledge must be confirmed by experience, that is, by the results of observations and experiments.
Verification(verificism from Lat words truth and do) Verification - to do the truth; Verification is empirical confirmation. Neopositivists of the 20th - 50th of the 20th century formulated the principle of verification, with the help of which, in their opinion, scientific knowledge is distinguished from non-scientific. Scientific knowledge is the knowledge that can be verified - empirically confirmed. In this way they tried to solve the problem of demarcation. Indeed, the neopositivist approach has shown its limitations. The edge of criticism was directed against the philosophy of metaphysics.
It turned out that the most important fundamental elements of scientific knowledge itself do not fully satisfy this principle. The laws of science, from a logical point of view, are universal necessary judgments. The wording of the laws includes phrases.
In other words, neo-positivists underestimated the independence (autonomy) of theoretical knowledge, they absolutized the meaning of empirical knowledge; for them, it is only a convenient form of representation of empirical knowledge.
falsification is the opposite of verification. Falsification - to make false. When the limitations of verifiability became obvious, they began to look for a different approach to solving the problem of demarcation of scientific knowledge. This approach was proposed by K. Popper.
Popper formulated the principle of falsifiability - scientific knowledge must be falsifiable - refutable, if some system of knowledge is not falsifiable, it is not scientific.
Popper drew attention to fundamental asymmetry, a huge number of confirmations of a certain element of knowledge does not guarantee its truth, at the same time, the only falsification of this element is sufficient to assert its falsity. Criticism K. Popper directed against Marxism, and Freudianism. Popper sought to show that Marxism and Freudianism are not scientific because they do not have the principle of falsifiability. The essence of Popper's approach - denies the existence of universal theories and concepts applicable everywhere, any theory and concept has a limited area of applicability. In a sense, any statement, any concept can be empirically confirmed, reality is infinitely rich. The facts are theoretically loaded.
4. Logical sequence, validity, evidence of scientific knowledge.
Scientific texts should be compiled taking into account the requirements, rules, laws logical thinking, logic. This feature is especially clearly presented in the logical and mathematical sciences, in general, thinking should be logically consistent in any science. Reality cannot be represented as a linear system. Albert Schweitzer. Validity of scientific knowledge. Justify - Provide an appropriate justification. To substantiate some statement, which we consider justified.
The strictest kind of justification is proof, and more or less strict proof is found in logical or mathematical disciplines. Some judgment is empirical evidence on the other hand more or less theorized statements. This sign of rational knowledge concentrates
5. Specialization, objectivity, discipline of scientific knowledge.
Scientific knowledge is knowledge about a certain subject, about a certain subject area, disciplinary organized scientific knowledge. Science exists as a set of aggregates of sciences or scientific disciplines. The development of science is accompanied by the differentiation of scientific cognition and knowledge, i.e., the emergence of ever new, highly specialized scientific disciplines. Identification of the subject of science or scientific discipline is often a difficult task. The history of this science, including the history of the subject self-determination of science: the development of science is accompanied by a refinement of the subject area. The subject of science is often created by people, researchers.
6. Objectivity, adequacy, truth, scientific knowledge.
Truth is both the greatest value and the greatest problem of both philosophy and science. The complexity of this problem has brought to life the position of both philosophy and science, whose representatives call for abandoning the concept of truth.
At a certain stage of his creative way Popper also defended this position. Abandon the concept of a true theory, even if we somehow construct a true theory, we cannot prove that it is true. True knowledge is knowledge corresponding to its subject. In place of the concept of true knowledge, he proposed the concept of plausible knowledge.
Later, when Popper got acquainted with the works, A Tarski created a semantic concept of truth. The problem of meaning and meaning. Semiotics is the science of sign systems. Semantics is a branch of semiotics. Objectification - the transition from thoughts, ideas, plans, through activity to the subject. Deobjectification is the transition from the logic of objects to the logic of concepts. In real, actual scientific knowledge, elements of the objective and the subjective are intertwined. convention. Conventionalism - the importance of conventions in science.
7. Necessity of methods and means of scientific knowledge.
Diversification - the growth, quantity and rise in the cost of methods and means of knowledge.
8. Specific language.
Scientific knowledge is expressed in special language. The narrow specialization of manufacturability, the language of science strives for rigor and unambiguity. The language of science is necessary to express the deep properties of the corresponding subject area. To master a science, one must master its language. Not only every science has its own language, but also every scientific concept. The understanding of the term is determined by the context.
9. Economy of scientific knowledge.
Thrift - the desire to get by with a minimum of means (theoretical and linguistic) Occam's "blade or razor": do not invent the essence beyond what is necessary. This rule cuts off everything superfluous - that's why a blade or a razor. Minimax - using a minimum of theoretical means to describe, explain, the widest possible area of \u200b\u200bthinking, this is the beauty of scientific theories.
Science seeks to bring unity into diversity.
10. Openness of scientific knowledge to criticism and self-criticism.
It is dogmatic in nature. In science, any element of knowledge must be criticized. This is true in relation to those elements of knowledge that the subject contributes. Each element of knowledge is part of scientific knowledge if it satisfies the norms and ideals of scientific character that take place in science at a given stage of its development. Any element of knowledge will sooner or later be ousted from the composition of science. Categories of being and due. Science must be real and non-dogmatic. In real science there are both dogmatists and conservatives; criticism and self-criticism of science is carried out in scientific disputes.
Eristic- the art of argument. Distinguish between discussion and polemic. The controversy comes from other Greek. war. Disputes in science must have a definite purpose, scientific goal advancement to adequate, objective, true knowledge. Disputes in science should not have false goals. Victory at any cost defense scientific interests this grouping. Disputes in science must meet the requirements of the ethics of science. Criticism and self-criticism is an integral part. The dogmatists are opposed to the relativists. Dogmatists absolutize certain truths, relativists prove that everything is relative.
11. The cumulative nature of scientific knowledge
Cumulativeness - comes from the word accumulation, in science there is an undoubted progress, an expansion of the circle of the known, from less detailed to more detailed. The development of science is the growth of the volume of scientific knowledge. True, in the 20th century, in the 2nd half of the 20th century, a trend was formed which was called anticumulativeism, which called into question the movement of science. Anticumulativeism, Karl Popper, T. Kuhn, the thesis was put forward about the incommensurability of successive scientific paradigms (theories, concepts) exemplary theory. These signs can act as ideals and norms of science . The combination or system of these features can act as scientific criteria.
CRITERIA AND NORMS OF SCIENCE
theory is the highest form organization of scientific knowledge, which gives a holistic view of the essential connections and relationships in any area of reality. The development of a theory is accompanied, as a rule, by the introduction of concepts that fix directly unobservable aspects of objective reality. Therefore, the verification of the truth of a theory cannot be directly carried out by direct observation and experiment.
Such a "separation" of theory from directly observed reality gave rise in the 20th century. there are many discussions on the topic of what kind of knowledge can and should be recognized as scientific, and what kind of this status should be denied. The problem was that the relative independence of theoretical knowledge from its empirical basis, the freedom to construct various theoretical constructions involuntarily create the illusion of the unthinkable ease of inventing universal explanatory schemes and complete scientific impunity of authors for their stunning ideas.
Honored authority science is often used to give more weight to the revelations of all kinds of prophets, healers, researchers of "astral entities", traces of extraterrestrial aliens, etc. The external scientific form and the use of semi-scientific terminology give the impression of being involved in the achievements of great science and the still unknown secrets of the Universe at the same time.
Critical remarks about “non-traditional” views are beaten off in a simple but reliable way: traditional science is conservative in nature and tends to persecute everything new and unusual - after all, they burned Giordano Bruno, and Mendel was not understood, etc. The question arises: “Can Is it possible to clearly distinguish pseudoscientific ideas from the ideas of science proper? Verification principle. For these purposes, several principles have been formulated by different areas of the methodology of science. One of them is called the principle of verification: any concept or judgment has a value if it is reducible to direct experience or statements about it, i.e. empirically verifiable.
If you find something empirically fixed for such a judgment fails, then it is either a tautology or 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 of the concept of "quark". But the quark theory predicts a number of phenomena that can already be fixed empirically, experimentally. And thereby indirectly verify the theory itself. However, in this case, such a verification with respect to quarks is a delusion. Between elementary particles and quarks, there is the following form of duality: To understand the essence of this identity, consider the relationship between the geocentric and geocentric systems of motion of the planets of the solar system
The theoretical model for describing the motion of the planets here can be represented adequately to observations, but physical meaning is diametrically opposed. The principle of verification makes it possible, as a first approximation, to delimit scientific knowledge from clearly extra-scientific knowledge. However, he cannot help where the system of ideas is tailored in such a way that absolutely all possible empirical facts are able to interpret in their favor - ideology, religion, astrology, etc.
In such cases it is useful to resort to another principle of distinguishing between science and non-science, proposed by the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. K. Popper, - the principle of falsification. The principle of falsification states that the criterion for the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability or falsification. In other words, only that knowledge can claim the title of "scientific", which is refutable in principle. Despite the outwardly paradoxical form, and perhaps because of it, this principle has a simple and deep meaning. K. Popper drew attention to the significant asymmetry of the procedures of confirmation and refutation in cognition.
No amount of falling apples is enough to finally confirm the truth of the law. gravity. However, just one apple flying away from the Earth is enough to recognize this law as false. Therefore, it is attempts to falsify, i.e. disprove 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 action of the same divine plan, all the complexity and unpredictability of which is simply too tough for us.
But since this idea is irrefutable, therefore, it is outside of science. However, it should be noted that the consistent principle of falsification makes any knowledge hypothetical, i.e. deprives it of completeness, absoluteness, immutability. Therefore, the constant threat of falsification keeps science "in good shape", does not allow it to stagnate, rest on its laurels. Criticism is the most important source growth of science and an integral feature of its image. But criticism is good when it is not about a fundamental change in the existing scientific paradigm. Therefore, criticism in relation to qualitatively new knowledge has always generated (and still generates) rejection of the new. Scientists working in science consider the issue of distinguishing between science and non-science not too difficult.
The thing is, that they intuitively feel the truly and pseudo-scientific nature of knowledge, as they are guided by certain norms and ideals of scientific character, certain standards research work. These ideals and norms of science express ideas about the goals of scientific activity and ways to achieve them. And these ideals and norms bear the imprint of the existing scientific paradigm. Suffice it to recall the rejection of cybernetics and genetics, and it will become clear to us that classifying cybernetics and genetics as pseudosciences is not the result of a subjective decision of one or another scientific institute. The accepted scientific decisions, as a rule, are of an objective nature, but they reflect the essence of the existing scientific paradigm.
Scientists are well aware that these ideals and norms of scientific character are historically changeable, but nevertheless, in all epochs, a certain invariant of such norms remains, due to the unity of the style of thinking formed back in Ancient Greece. It is called rational.
This style of thinking is essentially based on two fundamental ideas:
Natural order, i.e. recognition of the existence of universal, regular and accessible to reason causation;
Formal proof as the main means of justifying knowledge.
Versatility, i.e. exclusion of any specifics - place, time, subject, etc.;
explanatory potential;
The presence of predictive power.
These general criteria
The principle of global deductionism. The principle of global deductionism is a completely different way of thinking. It reflects the essence of the new scientific thinking. This principle is a consequence of the consistent multi-level application of simple rules for deriving consequences from causes, in the image and likeness, reflecting the interconnection and complementarity of dual relations.
This forms a double chain. genetic code systems of any kind. This chain is fully applicable to the methods of Cognition, if we replace the abstract dual relationship in it with the following identity. This identity reflects the unity of the methods of deduction and induction at all levels of the hierarchy of scientific Cognition. modern science uses double chaining
Here, scientific knowledge begins with induction (the numerator of the left side) and ends with deduction (the denominator of the right side of the identity). At the same time, deduction performs the role of generalizing the received Private Knowledge and deriving new knowledge from it, within the framework of this Unified, but Private knowledge. Attention should be paid to the following feature of scales with two "beam arms". One of them reflects the manifested side of the relationship. This is what an external observer sees: "Induction" - "Deduction". Other - reflects the inner essence external form: "deduction" - "induction".
Thus, the inner essence of the category "Induction" on the left side of the identity is "deduction", while the inner essence of the category "Deduction" is "induction". Such an interpretation of the essence of "external" and "internal" applies in general to any identity that reflects the relationship of the laws of conservation of the symmetry of relations in systems of any nature. But the laws of evolution of the dual relation give rise to the following identity
From which the paradigm of new thinking follows. Therefore, such a double chain will be able to most naturally verify the existing scientific knowledge in any field of scientific activity, cutting off all scientific conjectures and fabrications from the Knowledge of the One, separating true scientific Knowledge from False knowledge.
Criteria and norms of scientific character
Theory is the highest form of organization of scientific knowledge, which gives a holistic view of the essential connections and relationships in any area of reality. The development of a theory is accompanied, as a rule, by the introduction of concepts that fix directly unobservable aspects of objective reality. Therefore, the verification of the truth of a theory cannot be directly carried out by direct observation and experiment. Such a "separation" of theory from directly observed reality gave rise in the 20th century. there are many discussions on the topic of what kind of knowledge can and should be recognized as scientific. The problem was that the relative independence of theoretical knowledge from its empirical basis, the freedom to construct various theoretical constructions involuntarily create the illusion of the ease of inventing universal explanatory schemes and the scientific impunity of authors for their stunning ideas.
The well-deserved authority of science is often used to give greater weight to the revelations of all kinds of prophets, healers, researchers of "astral entities", traces of extraterrestrial aliens, etc. In this case, semi-scientific terminology is also used. Critical remarks about "non-traditional" views are beaten off in a simple but reliable way: traditional science is conservative in nature and tends to persecute everything new and unusual - D. Bruno was burned, Mendel was not understood, etc.
The question arises: Is it possible to clearly distinguish between pseudoscientific ideas and science proper? For these purposes, several principles have been formulated by different areas of the methodology of science. One of them was named verification principle: any concept or judgment has a 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 fixable for such a judgment, then it is considered that it either represents a tautology or is meaningless.
Since the concepts of the 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 of the concept of "quark" (a hypothetical particle). But the quark theory predicts a number of phenomena that can already be fixed empirically, experimentally. And thereby indirectly verify the theory itself. The principle of verification makes it possible, as a first approximation, to delimit scientific knowledge from clearly extra-scientific knowledge. However, it will not help where the system of ideas is tailored in such a way that absolutely all possible empirical facts can be interpreted in its favor - ideology, religion, astrology, etc.
In such cases, it is useful to use to another principle of distinguishing between science and non-science, proposed by the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. K. Popper, - principle of falsification. It states that the criterion for the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability or refutation. In other words, only that knowledge can claim the title of "scientific", which is refutable in principle. Despite the outwardly paradoxical form, and perhaps because of it, this principle has a simple and deep meaning. K. Popper drew attention to the significant asymmetry of the procedures of confirmation and refutation in cognition.
No amount of falling apples is sufficient to finally confirm the truth of the law of universal gravitation. However, just one apple is enough to fly away from the Earth in order to recognize this law as false. Therefore, it is attempts to falsify, i.e. disprove a theory should be most effective in terms of confirming its truth and scientific character. It can be noted, however, that the consistent principle of falsification makes any knowledge hypothetical, i.e. deprives it of completeness, absoluteness, immutability. But this is probably not bad: it is the constant threat of falsification that keeps science "in good shape", does not allow it to stagnate, as they say, rest on its laurels.
Criticism is essential a source of science growth and an integral feature of its image. At the same time, it can be noted that scientists working in science consider the issue of distinguishing between science and non-science not too complicated. They intuitively feel the true and pseudo-scientific nature of knowledge, as they are guided by certain norms and ideals of scientific character, certain standards of research work. These ideals and norms of science express ideas about the goals of scientific activity and ways to achieve them. Although they are historically changeable, a certain invariant of such norms remains in all eras, due to the unity of the style of thinking formed back in Ancient Greece. It is called rational. This style of thinking is based, in fact, on two fundamental ideas: - natural order, i.e. recognition of the existence of universal, regular and accessible to reason causal relationships; and formal proof as the main means of justifying knowledge.
Within the rational style of thinking, scientific knowledge is characterized by the following methodological criteria:
- universality, i.e. the exclusion of any specifics - place, time, subject, etc.;
Consistency or consistency provided by the deductive way of deploying a knowledge system;
Simplicity; a theory that explains the widest possible range of phenomena, based on the minimum number of scientific principles, is considered good;
explanatory potential;
The presence of predictive power.
These general criteria, or norms of scientific character, are constantly included in the standard of scientific knowledge. More specific norms that determine the schemes of research activity depend on the subject areas of science and on the socio-cultural context of the birth of a particular theory.
