Scientific criticism in geography. Criticism of modern science
AS THE SUBJECT OF A SPECIAL STUDY
(Abstracts of the scientific-practical conference of the Commission of Economic Geography of the Tatar branch of the USSR Civil Defense, April - May 1985). Kazan. 1985. S. 12 - 15.
The role of criticism in development geographical science hard to overestimate. The progress of science as a whole largely depends on what and how it is criticized. To the phenomenon of scientific criticism it is necessary close attention. In geography, however, it has not yet become the subject of special consideration. This, from our point of view, is a significant gap in the scientific substantiation of geographical science, which must be eliminated in the near future.
By scientific criticism, we mean a set of actions related to the perception and evaluation scientific information. This procedure is an inevitable companion of any productive scientific activity. Such an interpretation of scientific criticism affects not only the cases that we deal with in the scientific press. Critical notes that get into print are only a small part of the ongoing critical process that takes place in science. The decision of many depends on how reasonable it proceeds. scientific problems.
To develop the theory of scientific and geographical criticism or, the theory of scientific critical activity in geography, it is important to determine the basis on which it should be built. Theory must come from their concepts more high level community, covering geographical science as a whole. This is necessary to present scientific criticism as part of a larger overall process. System metageography can be presented as such a concept. We will not go into detail on the presentation of the essence of this concept. It is considered in detail in our other works. We only note general idea connecting the study of scientific criticism with metageography. The concept of metageography considers geographical science as a complex dynamic subsystem in which the actual geographical and metageographic blocks of cognition interact. Science is considered not only as scientific knowledge, but also as an activity taking place within certain organizations. These elements - knowledge, activity, organizations - cannot be reduced to each other, since they do not have their own patterns of development and functioning.
The importance of this concept is that it allows us to consider any phenomenon of geographical science from a systematic standpoint, use in unity all logically necessary and practically possible approaches to its study and present geographical science as part of a whole. This is especially important for the analysis of scientific criticism, complex phenomenon in which the objective and the subjective, the rational and the emotional are intertwined. The approach to constructing the theory of scientific-geographical criticism from the standpoint of system metageography is the main principle for solving this problem.
Before developing the theory of scientific-geographical criticism, there are many difficulties. The main ones are connected with the fact that modern training geographers does not allow them to explore this subject at a high scientific level. The ideal way out would be to create a new specialization in metageography, within the system of higher geographical education. Such specialization will be created, but this is a matter for the future. On the present stage a certain role can be played by the setting up of a special course on the fundamentals of scientific-critical activity in geography. This special course can be a good introduction to the problem, introduce the principles and methods of researching scientific criticism in geography. Work in this direction is being carried out at the Faculty of Geography of SSU. M.V. Frunze.
So that the thesis on the theory of scientific-geographical criticism does not look too abstract, let us consider some of the problems and principles that should be reflected in it.
Among the problems of the theory of scientific-geographical criticism is the study of the evolution of scientific criticism in geography. Scientific criticism, like everything in the world, is changing. It goes through a certain evolution, in which, probably, there are patterns. Their research can play essential role in understanding what role criticism should play at the present stage of the development of science and in what direction it should be modified. Complicated and important questions are about scientific criticism as a criterion for the scientific culture of geographers, about the correlation of various critical interpretations in scientific activity, about critical skill, the relationship between the emotional and the rational in criticism, the role of scientific criticism in the pre-publication period, mutual influence critical works, the choice of publications for critical research, the role of taste in critical activity, the influence of a scientist's value system on his critical judgments, and much more.
Subject special attention in the theory of scientific-geographical criticism should be the development and substantiation of the principles of scientific criticism. As examples of such principles, we note the following provisions:
Critical analysis of individual scientific work can be adequate only in connection with taking into account the general trends in the development of science;
· Respect other people's views, regardless of how they coincide with their own views;
· In the process of criticism, one should observe the logical law of sufficient reason;
· It is impossible to divide existing points of view into one's own and wrong ones;
· The choice of works for critical research should be strictly justified;
· Criticism and a positive alternative to the considered point of view should be clearly distinguished;
· In the process of criticism, one should doubt not only the adequacy of the considered point of view, but also whether you yourself are able to understand and evaluate the thoughts of the author;
Refutation of someone else's point of view does not mean proof of one's own views;
The initial premises and requirements should be brought to their logical conclusion, as well as in equally apply them to the assessment of their own views;
· Criticism should be prompt, etc.
We have touched only on some of the problems of developing the theory of scientific-critical activity in geography. There are many of these problems. It seems that none of them is unsolvable. The creation of such a theory is a matter paramount importance. The thought of A.S. Pushkin that "the state of criticism in itself shows the degree of education of all literature in general" ( complete collection essays. M. 1958. T. 7. S. 199), is true not only for literature, but also for science. Modern Soviet geographers can develop a theory of scientific criticism and be guided by it in their activities.
2001 notes
These theses are more than 15 years old, but, nevertheless, the slightest progress has not been made in the development of this problem. Our research in this direction was carried out only in a specific direction related to the analysis of Western geographical science. Other works on the theory of scientific-critical activity in geographical science are not known to us.
The importance of this problem turned out to be very high after 1999. Dramatic changes in the USSR, and the associated disappearance of Marxism-Leninism as a state philosophy - ideology set the task of change in geographical science. The reason is that Soviet geographical science was largely based on Marxism-Leninism. It was not purely external. Many scientific and geographical concepts were actually built precisely on Marxism and Leninism. But no critical work on understanding the recent past has been done. For a long time, they tried to silence the situation. Then, representatives of the older generation began to gradually die out and natural replacements occur. But the problem of understanding the experience of Soviet geographical science remained.
In general, the problems of critical analysis of the development of geographical science have not been mastered by geographers before, and are not being developed on modern level. Probably, the reasons are largely related to the features of reflection on space. Previously, we were inclined to explain them by the peculiarities of the geographical community in the USSR. But now, on the basis of the SCS theory, the main reasons are seen precisely in reflection on space-time.
Behavior of scientists in a stressful situation. 2. Conduct a typology stressful situations and analyze their genesis. 3. Develop an auto-training course for scientists who become the object of social pressure from a small scientific group. The course is aimed at maintaining the efficiency of the scientist, stabilizing the activities of the scientific team. 4. Test the prepared course. Analyze results...
There was no departure from Hartshorne's definition of geography, and "the ultimate goal geographical research, as Hartshorne formulated it, remained the same” (Johnston R. Geography and geographers. M.: Progress, 1987, pp. 100, 133). The geography of modern times and its crisis as a reflection of the socio-economic crisis of society Algorithm of the era. This era of great and dramatic events: the October...
History, has a secondary subject and primary importance” (129, p. 244), it can be said that metageography has a secondary (secondary) subject and is of paramount importance for geography. STRUCTURE OF METAGEOGRAPHY The problem of determining the structure of metageography is very important. It is closely related to the problem of defining the subject of research and therefore many negative traits inherent...
Gg.) N. N. Baransky was a member of the Board People's Commissariat Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate (NK RKI). This work allowed him to get to know economic life countries. During these years, he pays more and more attention to scientific and pedagogical activity in the field of economic geography. Nikolai Nikolaevich began teaching economic geography back in 1918. It was then that he had thoughts about ...
Question: "Is it permissible for some 'those who demand knowledge' to criticize scientists with whose opinion they do not agree, in order to warn and keep people away from them?"
Answer: “There is no doubt that criticism of some scientists in favor of others is forbidden! After all, if a person is not allowed to speak behind the back of his believing brother (gibat), even if he is not a scientist, then what then to say if this is done in relation to scientists?!
It is the duty of the believer to keep his tongue from speaking behind the backs of his believing brethren.
Allah Almighty said: “O you who believe! Avoid many assumptions, for some assumptions are sinful. Do not follow each other and do not gossip behind each other's backs. Would any of you like to eat the meat of your dead brother if you feel disgusted by it? Fear Allah! Indeed, Allah is Receptive, Merciful” (Quran 49:12).
And let the one who got into such trouble know that when he criticizes one of the scientists, this will be the reason for rejecting the Truth that this scientist says. And let him know that when criticizing a scientist, he does not criticize him personally, here the criticism is directed at the heritage of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, because scientists are the heirs of the Prophets. If scientists are discredited and defamed, then people begin to distrust the knowledge that they have, and it was inherited from the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Thus, people no longer trust anything that this criticized scientist tells them.
Of course, I'm not saying that scientists are not wrong. On the contrary, everyone can make mistakes. And if you see something in one of the scientists that, in your opinion, is a mistake, then contact him and give him your explanations. And if it became clear that the truth is with him in this matter, then you should follow him, and if it became clear that his opinion was wrong, then it is your duty to refute and explain his mistake, since it is not allowed to confirm the mistake. However, one should not criticize him as a person, because he, as a scientist, is known for his good intentions. If you can, say in front of him: some say so-and-so, but, however, this opinion is weak, then explain weak side and the correct opinion in this matter, which you know. It will be better this way.
And if we wished to criticize well-meaning scientists for the mistakes they have made in matters of religion, then we would have to criticize the great scientists. However, my answer is what I pointed out above.
So, if you saw a mistake from a scientist, then discuss it with him, and then it will turn out that either the truth is with you, and he will follow it, or the issue will not be resolved in any way, and then there will be a disagreement from acceptable disagreements: he will say that what you said, and you will say what you say.
Disagreements in matters of religion have formed not only in our time. No, such disagreements have been going on since the time of the Companions, and continue to this day.
And if, in a conversation with him, the Truth was revealed, but he became stubborn, wanting his victory, then you need to move away from his mistake. However, this should not be done in order to defame his personality with a desire to take revenge, since perhaps he speaks the Truth in other matters on which there was no discussion between you.
In general, it is important that I advise my brothers to move away from this trouble and disease. And I ask Allah for myself and for them healing from everything that harms us in religion and worldly life.
"al-Sohwa al-Islamiyya, dzawabit wa tavjihat."Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen
Translated site
shshstersp "bo ysiyego and average
special education rshsr ural1sk1sh of the Order of the Red Banner of Labor State University named after A.M. Gorky
As a manuscript
Dimigriy Maksimovich Nikolaev
udk gag + i,17
scientific spika as a study and evaluation of theories /lohiko-matololotichesksh! aspect/
09.00.01 - dialectical and historical shtorialiva
dissertations for competition degree candidate of philosophical sciences
Sverdlovsk - 1988
The work was done in the Ural Order of the Red Banner of Labor state university named after A.M. Gorky at the Department of Dialectical Materialism of the Faculty of Philosophy. /
Scientific adviser - Doctor of Philosophy,
Professor I.Ya. Loydman
Official Opponents
Lead institution
Doctor of Philosophy, Associate Professor D. V. Pivovarov
Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor "T.S. Kuzu<5ова
Yerevan State University
The defense will take place "> I" 1988 at 15 o'clock
at a meeting of the specialized council D.063.78.01 for the defense of dissertations for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the Ural Order of the Red Banner of Labor State University named after A. M. Gorky / 620083, Sverdlovsk, K-83, Lenin Ave., 51 , room 248/.
The dissertation can be found in the library of the Ural University. "
Scientific Secretary of the Specialized Council I
Doctor of Philosophy, Professor | G.P. Orlov
general description of work
■ T Relevance of research topics. At the present stage, the progressive development of science, as well as of society as a whole, is determined by Doctor. l of an intensive order. The scientific cretin undoubtedly plays an important, and moreover, ambiguous role in the development of scientific knowledge, and this role will constantly "increase" with the acceleration of scientific and technological progress. is the creation of a general theory of scientific criticism.An important problem within the indicated framework is to put forward a model of scientific criticism, specific enough that it could be used in scientific practice and modern enough not to ignore the achieved level of research in Russian and Western philosophy of science.
The relevance of the study of scientific criticism is determined by a number of circumstances. With an increase in the scale and volume of scientific research, there is a danger of duplication of scientific work, and under these conditions, scientific criticism becomes indispensable. It allows, on the one hand, to minimize the amount of unpromising research and, on the other hand, to prevent underestimation or irrational restrictions in the most important areas. In the context of an avalanche-like growth of scientific information and problems, scientific criticism in such genres as reviews, reviews, annotations, etc., is absolutely necessary for the normal functioning of science as a social institution. The problem of the foundation and security of education requires, in order to improve the general methodological culture of scientists, the development of a special discipline based on the theory of argumentation and criticism.
The degree of scientific development of the problem. In the Marxist philosophical literature problems of scientific criticism are presented widely. So, we can point to the works of I.A. Bondarchuk, AL1.Karagodin, V.A. Onladny, V.G. Pushkin, G.V. Khomelev, I.A. Yali, M.I. Yankov and others in which the dilosophical-sociological problems of criticism are deeply investigated. In the works of V.F. Berkov, V.N.
Risov, I.G. Gerasimov, B.S. Gryaznov, I.Ya. Loyfyan, K.11.Jbuóytin, J.S. Narsky, Yu.L. A.I. Rakitov, G.I. Ruzavin, V.N. Sadovsky, V.A. Smirnov, V.S. Stepia, E.M. Chudinov, G.G. development of scientific knowledge, interrelationships of the oral and empirical levels of cognition and issues of methodological analysis of cognitive procedures.
The works of G.A. Brutyap, S.A. Vaskliev, ¿.P. Doblaev, R.o. I.Kruchinina, D.A.Mikeshshay, A.I.Novikova, V.V.Odintsova, L.A.Strizhenko and others. Ivan, B.A. Kislov, E.N. Nikitin and in the study of issues of evaluative analysis of scientific knowledge in the works of V.V. Ilyin, A.V. Kezin, V.A. Kolpakov, E.A. Mamchur, Yu.B. Tatarinova and others. And, finally, the studies of foreign philosophers, such as L. Wittgenstein, G. Karnai, T. Hun, I. Ly: atos, are of considerable interest. L. Laudan, K. Pascher, S. Tulmsh, Dk. Holtan, P. SePerabend w in the aspect of analysis
methods, levels and forms of scientific knowledge and the significance of scientific criticism for the development of knowledge.
however, issues related to the study of the structure of scientific criticism, methods of critical research of scientific texts and critical appraisal individual components scientific theories"turning out to be insufficiently developed. Completely absent logically!! analysis of the main methodological procedures of scientific criticism, as well as an analysis of the nature of their implementation in the study. and evaluation of scientific theories and other forms of scientific knowledge. In general, in modern studies of scientific criticism, the philosophical sco-so-Diological approaches prevail, while. works performed in a logical and methodological manner are clearly insufficiently presented to create a theory of scientific criticism.
The purpose and main tasks of the study. The overall goal of the dissertation research is to put forward a logical and methodological model for criticizing scientific theories. Achieving the set goal "involves a preliminary solution of the following tasks:
1. What aspects of scientific knowledge and with the help of what methodological procedures are investigated and evaluated in the process of scientific criticism?
2. How is an understanding of scientific theories achieved in the process of critical inquiry, and how should it be justified?
3. How is the critical evaluation of scientific theories carried out?
Methodological basis of the study. The methodological basis of the dissertation research is the works of K. Marx, 4. Engels, V. I. Lenin, the decisions of the XXII11 Congress of the CPSU. In solving the tasks set, achievements in the field of materialistic dialectics, dialectical and formal logic, history and methodology of science, science of science in general were used. The author also relied on the studies of the above-mentioned Soviet and foreign philosophers. The empirical field of study was represented by materials of the natural and human sciences /physics, mathematics, geology, psychology, psychology, etc./.
Scientific novelty of the research. In the dissertation work, a holistic logical-methodical model of scientific criticism is deployed. Specifically, the elements of scientific novelty are contained in the following results of the study:
The main directions and approaches are analyzed in the study of problems on: criticism in domestic and foreign science of science;
The theoretical incompleteness and unsatisfactory
the applicability of Vernicationism and methodological yalsific-pionism as logical and methodological models of scientific criticism;
The main directions and methodological procedures of scientific criticism are considered and a new model of criticism of scientific theories is proposed;
Within the framework of the proposed model, the problem of criteria for understanding scientific theories is posed and solved in a new way;
What is new is the analysis of the procedures for critical examination and evaluation of scientific problems, as well as the general evaluation of scientific theories.
Provisions for defense
1. Scientific criticism is a process of research and evaluation of the subject of criticism with the aim of changing it, preserving or creating an alternative and is carried out in three main areas: 1 / criticism of problems; 2/ criticism of ways to solve problems; 3/ criticism of the results resolved, 1 l of problems.
2. Scientific theories contain a proolema, a method for solving it, and the solution itself at the level of a text or genus-text; these structures of the theory, as well as its context, can and should be identified in the process of critical research in order to achieve understanding and evaluated using such foundations as scientific research programs, logico-methodological rules and a scientific picture of the world, with the aim of ".) forming a positive or negative attitude towards the theory being criticized.
3. Critical assessments of scientific theories, both positive and negative, due to the non-absolute significance of epistemological foundations, are of an absolute nature. It follows from here: a/ scientific criticism is subject to all exceptions of theory, problems, research methods, since past and present critical assessments are not unconditional and final; b/ scientific criticism should be tolerant, since there are no empirical, methodological, or ontognoseological grounds for a rigid and unambiguous assessment.
Scientific and practical significance of the study. The provisions put forward have a certain scientific and practical significance in the general complex of scientific research. The conclusions obtained in the work must be "used in the organization and management of the development of scientific knowledge. It is advisable to use some results of the dissertation research in the process of lecturing and conducting seminars on dialectical materialism in the" topic "methods and forms of scientific knowledge", and in the process of teaching logic in topic "logical methods of scientific thinking / proof, refutation, argumentation /." The materials of the dissertation can be used in special courses on the criticism of bourgeois philosophy and sociology, in the work of methodological seminars, and in propaganda activities.
Approbation of work. The dissertation was discussed "at the Department of Dialectical Materialism of the Ural" State University. The results of the study are presented in the available publications.
With the main ideas contained in the dissertation, the author spoke at the All-Union seminars for young scientists on the problems of argumentation /Yerevan, 1985, .1986/, at U1 All-Union School of Young Scientists /Tbilisi, 1986/, /Sverdlovsk, 1985, 1566, 19b?/, at the scientific conference "Teo-
ray of social progress and topical problems of improving socialism" / Perm, 1986 /, at), "1U interzonal symposium "Scientific and technological progress and problems of social management in the light of the decisions of the 21st Congress of the CPSU" / Gorky, 19b6 /, at the scientific and theoretical conference " Scientific and technological progress and creativity " / Izhevsk, 1987 /, at scientific conferences ")> U11 Congress of the CPSU on the role fundamental science in accelerating scientific and technological progress", "Systemic science and scientific and technical progress"," The role of the scientific picture of the world in the fundai "pntalieatsmi education" / Ufa, 19LG, 1967, 1988 / etc.
Structure and scope of work. The structure of the work is determined by the research program and the nature of the tasks being solved. The dissertation consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion and a bibliography. The content of the work is set out on pages of typewritten text. The bibliography consists of titles.
The introduction reveals the relevance of the topic, determines the degree of development of problems, substantiates the research program, highlights the provisions submitted for defense.
In the first chapter, "Scientific Criticism as Specific (Topia of Knowledge"), common problems related to the elucidation of the nature of criticism as a special form of cognition, its main directions and methodological procedures are considered.
In the first paragraph, "The subject matter of scientific criticism," the definition of scientific criticism is substantiated as a special form of cognition associated with the study and evaluation of the subject of criticism in order to preserve, transform, or create an alternative one.
The goal of science in the epistemological dimension is the production of knowledge through problem solving. It follows that the main parameters of scientific criticism are:
1/ criticism of problems - erotic criticism;
2/ criticism of ways to solve problems - methodological criticism;
3/ criticism of the results of problem solving / theories, concepts, doctrines, etc. / - ontognoseological criticism.
Theory was chosen as the unit of analysis because it: a/ is considered to be one of the most widespread shorms of scientific knowledge; 6/ is a generally accepted ¡Heap of scientific knowledge, in which the results of research are evaluated by the scientific community and authorized for use in practice; c/ contains implicitly problems and ways to solve them. Therefore, focusing on the theory as a unit of analysis, we simultaneously cover all the above areas of scientific criticism.
Examples of total criticism of problems in the history of philosophy and science are the criticism of scholasticism, the movement of positivism, K. Marx's criticism of the problems of bourgeois political economy, etc. social groups etc. AT modern science all these grounds are realized in criticism from the standpoint of research programs developed by scientific communities.
Methodological criticism also relies on the logical and methodological rules for solving problems accepted in each scientific community, i.e. collection and processing of empirical data, hypotheses and theory building. Examples of methodological criticism are the criticism of theories from the standpoint of paradigms, scientific criteria, codes of scientific honesty.
Research and evaluation of the content of the theory as a result of problem solving are carried out in various aspects. The main aspect is the truth-falsity aspect. In addition, ontognoseological criticism usually seeks to ascertain the level of theory—whether it is fundamental or applied, empirical or non-empirical, as well as the degree of its novelty.
With regard to the aspect of novelty for scientific knowledge developing in an alternative way, the following regularity has been proved: if a theory is new, then it necessarily subject previous theories to negative criticism. The reverse is also true, namely: the presence of grounds for negative criticism indicates the novelty of the theory. It follows from this that tre- . Boaanie innovations within a particular scientific tradition or. program means demanding internal negative criticism. Its absence also unconditionally confirms that the given tradition or program develops without significant internal changes.
The second paragraph "Methodological procedures of scientific criticism" deals with the operational aspect of theory criticism, as well as semantic difficulties and ways to overcome them in the implementation of external criticism procedures.
The author shows that considered in scientific and educational literature The methods of syllogistic, verification and falsification are far from universal in the chains of scientific criticism and do not exhaust the entire arsenal of its means, including logical ones. and the real critical activity of scientists, there are also other, more flexible and complex models of research and evaluation of scientific theories.
The main methodological procedures of scientific criticism, but in the opinion of the dissertator, are the following four: in negative criticism - refutation and rejection, in positive criticism - agreement and acceptance.
the refutation procedure means the establishment of contradictions within the theory under study. Such criticism is sometimes called internal or immanent, usually contradictions are revealed between the main and particular provisions, between the proclaimed principles of scientific character and the real attitude towards them, etc. In the process of implementing the refutation procedure, the inconsistency of the theory under study is revealed and demonstrated, and on this basis its inconsistency is declared, in scientific criticism there are two types of refutation: logical and empirical, logical refutation is carried out using only logical methods, Russell's paradox in naive set theory can serve as an example, a dipyric refutation is carried out in the process of collision of the theory with the facts, nor the explanation of which it claims.
A refutation differs from a refutation in that the assessment is based not on the provisions of the theory being criticized, but on the provisions held by the critic. These provisions can be both an expression of generally accepted statements in the rules of a given scientific community, and an expression of the critic's own views. Rejecting criticism is also called external or transcendent, and the essence of rejection lies in the fact that between the statements of the criticizing and the criticized theories there is a comparative analysis and when significant differences are identified: the criticized theory is declared false and incorrect. At the same time, he argued that the provisions of the critical theory are true and correct, ii since there is only one truth, then everything that is against it.: g<тг"Нгг, Зндагется ложным.
The need for a critical method of coordination appears during the period of scientific revolutions, when old ideas are being broken, and new ones are just appearing and are still somewhat contradictory. Interdisciplinary research also involves the widespread use of the method of agreement to eliminate all sorts of contradictions or inconsistencies in the levels of abstraction between different theories. At the same time, the main provisions of the theory under study are revealed, unacceptable statements are eliminated or blocked with the help of reinterpretation and additional hypotheses, and then, based on the systematization of fundamental statements, a holistic and harmonious concept is built. Any theory formulated in this way becomes internally irrefutable and invulnerable to the arrows of immanent criticism. Agreement, like refutation, has two varieties: logical and empirical. Logical coordination is carried out in the process of eliminating various paradoxes, contradictions, etc. . and empirical - in solving the problem of confirmation for theories of a high level of abstraction.
The critical acceptance procedure is used both in the process of diachronic translation of knowledge, and in the process of synchronous interaction of various conceptual systems and scientific theories. In pursuing one of the avenues of critical inquiry, namely the preservation of scientific theory through positive criticism, the acceptance procedure is also widely used. As a rule, philosophical concepts seek to find justification in natural science by accepting the latest discoveries as evidence of the truth and methodological effectiveness of their statements. Such a practice is quite characteristic of logistic-methodological research oriented towards science and, especially, in the section of philosophical problems of natural science. In turn, the natural sciences and the humanities also carry out procedures for the adoption of theoretical and methodological provisions from philosophical concepts.
At the end of the chapter, the results obtained are summarized and the problems associated with the analysis of the procedures of criticism in the process of their implementation in the critical study and evaluation of scientific theories are formulated.
In the second chapter "Critical study of scientific" theories ", the methodological issues and critical analysis of the "text of a scientific theory in the process of its research are examined in order to achieve an adequate understanding and create conditions for an intellectually sound assessment.
In the first paragraph "Criteria for understanding scientific theories" . the problem of identifying levels, conditions and criteria for understanding scientific theories is solved.
Among the criteria of understanding, which have an influence on the critical analysis of scientific knowledge, the author singles out the criteria formulated in the Western philosophy of science by K. Jopper and in the domestic philosophy by P. Doolaev and S. A. Vasiliev.
one! In general, the author agrees with the approach of S.A. Vasiliev, whose merit is the desire to eliminate elements of psychologism and subjectivism in the interpretation of levels of understanding, but believes that the problem of levels of understanding should be linked to the question of the conditions and criteria for understanding. According to the author, in order to identify generally valid and objective criteria, attention should be paid to the following three levels: text, subtext and context of scientific theory.
The condition for understanding the text is knowledge of the language in which the text is written, or rather: 1/ syntax, including logical and mathematical apparatus; 2/ semantics, including the referential area; 3/ pragmatists, i.e. designated purpose theoretical solution Problems. The criterion for understanding the textual level is the objective ability of the subject, expressed in the text or discourse, to operate with the statements of the theory in the process of reproducing its content.
The second level of understanding of the theory is achieved by penetrating into the subtext of the theory being criticized, which is associated with the identification of implicit structures hidden behind the external "comprehensibility" of the text. Any theory, in addition to explicit statements, contains implicit premises and the re-creation of the meaning of these implicit assumptions, namely: "Ontological, epistemological and methodological prerequisites mean the achievement of a subtext level of understanding. The condition for subtext understanding is the technical ability to use logical-semantic methods of analysis in order to identify implicit the content of implicit assumptions, implications and preoulpoei~tions of the text of scientific theory.
The third level of text understanding, the most difficult one, is connected with revealing the relations of the criticized theory with its context, i.e. with general scientific and philosophical systems in the form of scientific pictures of the world, logical and methodological rules, research programs, the connection with which gives the theory one meaning or another. The condition for contextual understanding of scientific theories is the ability of the subject of criticism to identify in reflection the grounds on which he relies in the process of researching and evaluating the theory being criticized, the objective criterion for contextual understanding is the unambiguous indication and expression in the critical text of specific research programs, logical and methodological rules and scientific pictures of the world that determine the attitude to the criticized theory.
Achieving the above levels of understanding in the process of critical study of the theory requires the use of special logical-semantic means.
In the second paragraph "Methods of critical research of scientific theories" generally valid methods of critical analysis of scientific theories are considered, allowing to find out: 1/ the problem that the criticized theory solves; 2/ methodological ways to solve the problem; 3/ the content of the theory in relation to the context of the theoretical field to which it belongs. This path, in the opinion of the dissertator, leads to the deepest possible understanding of the theory and creates best conditions for a comprehensive assessment.
Traditionally, the presentation of the results of the study begins with the formulation of the problem, for the solution of which this study been taken, this, undoubtedly, a reasonable rule, however, is often ignored, and in order to find out what problem the theory actually solves, it is necessary to conduct a logical-semantic analysis. To do this, one should isolate the main proposition in the theory. Such, usually, is a law in the form of a universal conditional proposition that explains a certain set of facts and predicts new ones. Then affirmative sentence should be translated into interrogative form. The isolation of the problem, the solution of which it is, from the scientific theory creates an opportunity for assessing the problem from the point of view of the truth of its prerequisites, the relevance and meaning and hierarchy of problems that make up the scientific research enemy] amma developed on
The second direction of the critical study of scientific theories is tetodological. As a rule, the presentation of the results of research in the form of scientific theories should be accompanied by a description of the research methodology used in solving the problem. In those cases where the description of the research methodology is presented explicitly, the task of critical study of the theory in the methodological aspect is to compare the proclaimed non-methodological orientations, called the code of scientific integrity, with real application them in the process of scientific research and implement critical analysis the methodology itself.
More difficult is the situation when the presentation of the results of the study in the form of a theory occurs without reference and explicit indication of the methodology used. In this case, the task of criticism is to identify this methodology on the basis of the existing content of scientific theory, i.e.: the grounds for putting forward a hypothesis, methods for processing empirical data, the structure of the theory in comparison with those accepted in scientific community samples and models.
The analysis of the content of the in-relationship theory with the context of the theoretical field to which it belongs includes a number of stages. First, the explicit and implied content of the theory is revealed by analyzing the presuppositions and implications of the text of the theory being criticized and deducting it. consequences. The theory is then related to its context in three ways. possible dimensions: 1/s fundamental theories, forming a particular scientific picture of the world, to which the criticized theory belongs; 2/ with theories from related disciplines, if the empirical basis is at least partially shared; 3/ with its own empirical base, presented by the description of the observation pacts.
In the conclusion of the chapter, the results obtained are summarized, according to which the logical-semantic analysis of the theory, based on objective criteria for understanding the text, subtext and context, creates broad grounds for its critical evaluation.
The third chapter, Critical Appraisal of Scientific Theories, deals with three interrelated questions: 1/structure and logical forms critical appraisal; 2 / grounds for scientific assessments; 3/methods for evaluating scientific theories.
In the first paragraph, "Structure. Logical Forms and the Foundations of Scientific Meadows," it is shown that the logical forms in which assessment is carried out are of a deductive nature and differences in assessments, for example, of the same theory, are entirely determined by the difference in the bases of assessments. The dissertation analyzes the logical-emergetic, model and logical-model approaches to the problem of choosing the grounds for the critical evaluation of scientific theories that exist in Western philosophy of science.
Within the framework of the logical-methodological approach, verification and falsification procedures have been developed, in which observational facts, called "protocol facts" or basic judgments, are used as the basis for the assessment. Common disadvantages These procedures are limited by the limits of empirical knowledge and the unsatisfactory nature of the general philosophical justification.
The model approach is implemented in the standard model of scientific knowledge developed by neopositivists, and in those models of scientific knowledge that are proposed by researchers who are trying to identify the criteria for scientificity based on the selection of one or more formal properties or features inherent only in scientific knowledge. The standard model of scientific knowledge assumes that scientific theories should be expressed in a first-order logical language of three classes: 1/ vocabulary of observation terms; 2/ words of theoretical terms; 3/ dictionary of logical constants. One criticism of the standard model of scientific knowledge has shown that the language of first-tier logic is not rich enough to express many scientific theories in it.
A variation of the model approach is the tradition, which goes back to T. Kuhn, to evaluate scientific theories with the help of such structures of scientific knowledge as paradigms, research traditions, criteria of scientific character, etc. This, generally speaking, is a methodological critique. But it is not universal, because it leaves other aspects of scientific theories in Tei.
The approach of the post-positivist Philosophy of Science should be called logical-model approach, since it synthesizes logical-empirical and model approaches. Within this new tradition, knowledge is defined as follows: 1/ it must be based on natural laws; 2/ it must be explanatory
vom references to laws; 3/ it must be empirically verifiable; 4/ his conclusions must be hypothetical; 5/ it must be rebuttable. But, as L. Laudan showed, these criteria do not allow distinguishing even between creationism and Darwin's theory of the origin of species.
In the domestic philosophical literature, the author identifies studies that can be attributed to the model approach. This is the development of scientific criteria by V.B. Ilyin, A.V. Kezin; construction of tables for assessing the fundamental nature of scientific theories by Yu.B. Tatarinov; nomination statistical model estimates of theories by V.A.Kolpakov™. The results of these studies are partly used by the author in his work.
In the second paragraph, "Methods of Critical Evaluation of Scientific Theories", external and internal assessments of the theory are considered in the erotic, methodological, ontognoseological aspects. The grounds for the external evaluation of the criticized theories are: in the erotic sense - the research program, in the methodological - logical and methodological rules, in the ontognoseological - the scientific picture of the world. grounds internal evaluation are: in athetic criticism - the structure of the problem, in methodological - the code of scientific honesty, in ontognoseological - the internal coherence of the theory. Thus, some methods of evaluating theories existing in Western and Russian philosophical literature, such as methodological and, in part, ontognoseological, are immersed in the presented model due to its greater completeness.
External erotic critique means evaluating the problem that the theory solves in terms of existing research programs. If there are no fundamental discrepancies in the structure of the problem being assessed and the problems of the research program, and the solution of the problem being criticized can contribute to the search for solutions to the main problems of the program, then it is accepted. Otherwise, the problem and the theory along with it are rejected.
1. Laudan L. Science afc the Bar: Causes for Concern // Murphy J, (5. Evolution, morality, and the msaning of li^e. N.-Y.;Totawa. 1932. P. 1*13-150.
In the analysis of internal criticism, the subject of analysis and assessment are possible or real contradictions in the structure of the problem itself between its premises or between the premises and the results obtained. The establishment of such a contradiction and the proof of its irremovability is the basis for refuting the problem, and with it the theory, while bringing the prerequisites of the problem and the results obtained into a logical correspondence between the prerequisites of the problem and the results obtained is the process of reconciling it.
The evaluation of the theory from the standpoint of certain logical and methodological rules is carried out as a comparison of statements with universality quantifiers and operators of obligation and statements with existential quantifiers. positive result such a comparison means the implementation of the acceptance procedure and the negative one - the rejection procedure. In order to carry out an internal assessment in the procedures of refutation and approval, it is necessary to establish the nature of the relationship between the norms of the Code of Scientific Integrity and their actual use in the process of scientific research and the formulation of the results obtained. Detection of contradictions between the proclaimed norms and their implementation in scientific research is the basis for a negative methodological assessment and the implementation of the refutation procedure. The absence of such contradictions testifies to the methodological consistency that causes a "positive assessment and implementation of the approval procedure.
Evaluating a theory as a result of problem solving is the main, if not the decisive, stage in its critique. Here, the theory's own value is evaluated in terms of its truth, novelty, practical applicability, etc. scientific picture of the world, the consequences are derived to the level of the estimated theory and, thereby, the possibility of comparison is achieved. Either the estimated theory is generalized to the level of a scientific picture of the world, which also provides the possibility of conducting critical evaluation procedures, i.e. rejection or acceptance. In the internal ontognoseological assessment, the grounds are the logical and empirical consistency of the theory, i.e., the presence or absence in the theory of contradictions between statements and<Тактами, на объяснение которых она претендует.
The overall assessment of the theory is made up of particular assessments of the problem, the method of solution, and the solution itself. Consequently, the general assessment of the theory is the sanction of three arguments: erotic, methodological and epistemological, which, in turn, can be both positive, technical and negative. All eight variants of such combinations are analyzed. At the end of the chapter, on the basis of this analysis, some philosophical generalizations are made and consequences are introduced that are of direct importance for the entire development of science and scientific knowledge.
In the Conclusion, the results of the study are summarized, their evaluation is given in comparison with the concepts of scientific criticism that exist in the modern Western philosophy of science and the directions and problems of further research are formulated.
2. On the question of the relationship between theory and method // Scientific method and methodological consciousness. Sverdlovsk: Ur1U, 1986. P.15-22 /co-author - V.V.Romanov/.
3. Philosophical kritipizm: stages of historical development // Specificity of philosophical knowledge and social practice. Issue 4. M., ■ 1986. S. 85-89.
4. The problem of synthesis of philosophical and natural science argumentation // Specificity of philosophical knowledge and social practice. Bkp.Z. M., 1986. S.57-60 / co-author -. O.E. Redyanova/.
5. Critical argumentation and reasoned criticism: posing problems // Second seminar of young scientists on the problems of argumentation. Yerevan, 1986. S.23-25.
6. On the Relationship between Philosophical and Natural Science Argumentation // Second Seminar of Young Scientists on Problems of Argumentation. Yerevan, 1986. P.34-35 /co-author - O.E. Redyanova/.
7. Criticism and "self-criticism as criteria for scientific creativity // Actual problems of ideological support of scientific and technical progress: Abstracts of reports Sverdlovsk, 1986. P.107-108.
8. Personal parameters: significance and role in accelerating social progress // Theory of social progress and actual problems of improving socialism: Proceedings of reports. Perm, 1986. P. 182-184 /co-author - O.E. Redyanova/.
9. Dialectical-materialistic criticism in the structure of the communist worldview // NU 11 congress on the role of fundamental science in accelerating scientific and technological progress: Proceedings. report Ufa, 1986. S.61-64.
10 .. The role of criticism in the process of scientific creativity // Scientific and theoretical conference "Scientific and technological progress and creativity": Proceedings. report Izhevsk, 1987. P.40-42 /co-author - V.B.Schneider/
11. The problem of systematic scientific criticism // Systematic science and scientific and technological progress: Proceedings. report Ufa, 1387.S.34-37
12. The role of social criticism in the democratization of management in a socialist society // Communist ideal and philosophical problems of improving socialism: Proceedings. report Ust-Kamenogorsk, 1987. S.184-165.
13. The problem of identifying in the critical analysis of the argumentation of its ideological orientation // Marxist-Leninist concept of man and scientific and technological progress: Proceedings. report Sverdlovsk, 1987. P. 200-201 / co-author - V. Kh. Mnnasyan /.
14. The meaning of the concept of the scientific picture of the world in the theory of argumentation and criticism // The role of the scientific picture of the world in the foundation of Lizatsky education: Proceedings. report Ufa, 1988. S.54-55.
1. The evolution of science and the evolution of society
In today's deliberately wrong capitalist society, the role and significance of science are perceived ambiguously. Despite the fact that the achievements of scientific and technological progress have firmly entered the life of every inhabitant, the legacy of the Middle Ages, on the basis of which modern Western European civilization is built, is hiding nearby. Those times when they were burned at the stake for saying that there are many inhabited worlds, however, have already passed, but medieval obscurantism is close and makes itself felt. In the 60s, when the scientific and technological revolution was gaining momentum, the fruits of scientific and technological progress radically changed people's lives, the future of mankind seemed to many, especially scientists, clear and cloudless. Most of them had no doubt that in twenty years artificial intelligence would be created, and by the beginning of the 21st century, people would begin to create permanent settlements on other planets. However, simple extrapolation turned out to be a mistake. Scientific and technological revolution was the result of outstanding discoveries in the first half of the 20th century, primarily discoveries in the field of physics. However, fundamental breakthroughs in science equal to them in magnitude have not been observed over the past decades. If the first televisions, computers, spaceships were perceived primarily as a symbol of progress, as a result of scientific achievements, now they have become firmly established in everyday life and the fact of their existence - in the mass consciousness, enthusiasts, geniuses, titans - those very scientific and technological revolutionaries have given way to the masses. professional performers for whom their activities are just a way to earn a living. In this regard, apologists for obscurantism crawl out of their caves, who, having become like pigs from Krylov's fable, begin to grunt at the oak tree of scientific and technological progress and undermine its roots. Behind all the delusional and absurdity of statements like "why do we need space, let's better produce more food" or demands, along with the version of the origin of man in the process of evolution, to teach the theory of the creation of the world in 6 days, described in the Bible, at school, there is a fundamental fact that that the basis of the system of values and worldview of a person in modern society is not the desire for self-realization and reason, but the indulgence of emotional impulses and desires. In intellectual terms, the development of the vast majority of people is at the level of kindergarten and below, like children, they are attracted by beautiful wrappers, the promise of magical qualities of goods and the coaxing of popular artists in advertising. The cult of consumerism, selfishness, indulgence in primitive desires, etc., is a thing that directly kills in people the ability to understand at least something and the ability to think rationally.
Along with simple attempts to deny the correctness of scientific ideas, the following statements are heard. "But do not the achievements of scientific and technological progress represent a danger to mankind?" Atomic bombs, environmental problems associated with emissions from enterprises, etc. are cited as examples of such a danger. Indeed, the achievements of scientific and technological progress can be used not only for good. Indeed, new inventions, theoretically, make it possible to cause more harm, and not just benefit. Maybe let's stop progress, ban any machines and mechanisms, even wristwatches, let's spend time in meditation and contemplation of nature, etc., etc.? In proving the absurdity of such a formulation of the question, two points should be singled out. The first is that scientific and technological progress is just a part of the general and constantly ongoing process of evolution, complexity, the process of development of the world, which we observe in many diverse manifestations spaced apart in space and time. You can't ban a part of progress, you can ban either progress in its entirety, or you can ban nothing. Well, if these monkeys, who have not yet fully evolved into a person, these obscurantists and fanatics will forbid progress, what awaits the obscurantists? The only thing that can expect them is extinction and degradation. Another question - what actually should be the solution to the problem? Well, in fact, this decision has also been known to everyone for a long time, only many people do not understand it quite correctly. The solution is in the balance of progress, the usual judgment that is expressed in this regard is this: "Technical progress remains from spiritual progress, more attention should be paid to spiritual development", etc. This is indeed a correct formulation, but when it comes to a specific explanation, you have to be careful. Firstly, many, following the obscurantists, begin to associate spiritual development with religion, with the traditional values of the previous era, they begin to talk nonsense about love for one's neighbor, etc., etc. This spiritual development has ALREADY been passed, this stage of spiritual development has already been completed, and, as I have repeatedly pointed out in all my articles, this system of values, this worldview based on traditional religions, on evaluating the world with the help of emotions, simply elementarily turns out to be inadequate and inoperable in the new conditions. Spiritual development also has its own levels, and it cannot be understood as an extensive pumping up with long-obsolete dogmas, to offer religion and medieval morality, to offer love and humility, to offer an emotional value system as a tool for spiritual development - it’s the same as offering for the development of scientific technical potential and high-tech to start production of Stephenson locomotives and Pascal adding machines. Now reason, science, the desire for self-realization, knowledge of the world and creativity have already proven their effectiveness in mastering the laws of the universe, now we must bring the same things into everyday life, make the basis of the value system of each person, make the basis for correcting defects in the spiritual development of society. Francis Bacon wrote in the early 17th century: It would be too long to enumerate the medicines that science provides for the treatment of individual diseases of the spirit, sometimes clearing it of harmful moisture, sometimes opening blockages, sometimes helping digestion, sometimes causing appetite, and very often healing its wounds and ulcers, etc. Therefore, I want to conclude with the following thought, which, it seems to me, expresses the meaning of the whole reasoning: science attunes and directs the mind so that from now on it will never remain at rest and, so to speak, does not freeze in its shortcomings, but, on the contrary, constantly stimulates himself to action and strived for improvement. After all, an uneducated person does not know what it means to plunge into oneself, to evaluate oneself, and does not know how joyful life is when you notice that every day it gets better; if such a person accidentally possesses some kind of dignity, then he boasts of it and parades it everywhere and uses it, maybe even profitably, but, nevertheless, does not pay attention to developing it and multiplying it. On the other hand, if he suffers from some defect, he will use all his skill and diligence to hide and hide it, but in no case correct it, like a bad reaper who does not stop reaping, but never sharpens his sickle. An educated person, on the contrary, not only uses the mind and all his virtues, but constantly corrects his mistakes and improves in virtue. Moreover, in general, it can be considered firmly established that truth and goodness differ from each other only as a seal and an imprint, for goodness is marked with the seal of truth, and, on the contrary, storms and downpours of vices and unrest fall only from clouds of error and falsehood."
Evil is not atomic bombs and factory emissions. Evil is carried by people driven by their internal vices - stupidity, greed, selfishness, the desire for unlimited power. In the modern world, the danger stems not from scientific and technological progress, but from completely different factors - from selfishness, which allows people to put their narrow interests above the interests of others, and, accordingly, use the achievements of progress to the detriment of others, from the cult of thoughtless consumption, primitive desires, overshadowing the voice of reason, as a result of which capitalist society, not accustomed to limiting its needs, directly leads humanity to disaster. Moreover, the mad magnates are fighting against science, against the publication of reliable data from scientific research, against increasing the education of the population. And now, in the 21st century, the rulers adhere to the well-known slogan, according to which, in order for the people to be easily controlled and manipulated, it is necessary that this people be uneducated, dark, and could not recognize the truth, even if it accidentally seeps into open MEDIA. A typical example of such behavior is the attempt, for example, by the US leadership to prohibit the release of research data on climate change - see "classified climate".
In a rare American film, the scientist does not play the role of a mad professor seeking to destroy the world, or, at best, the role of a freak out of touch with life. In fact, scientists are much more responsible people when it comes to applying the results of their scientific discoveries. Many scientists in the USSR and the USA preferred to refuse to participate in the development of atomic weapons, missing out on the various advantages and benefits that would be guaranteed to them for working on secret projects. In the United States during the Vietnam War, many scientists and programmers refused to take part in work for the military department, although such work was very well funded and was much more profitable than working for any firm. The problem lies in the fact that in modern society, scientists only make discoveries, and politicians rule the world, the military, the heads of corporations are people who are far from both the ability to adequately assess the situation and moral norms. Real scientists don't make their discoveries for money or power. The very possibility of such discoveries, the very necessary condition for effective work in the field of science, is work in accordance with the inner aspirations inherent in a person for knowledge and creativity, the aspirations for understanding the truth and, ultimately, the desire for freedom. A real scientist works only because he is interested. Scientific activity presupposes a special mindset, character, a special worldview, in which the values of the ordinary world, the values of profit, the values of power, the values associated with popularity and a cheap image, etc. are not values. A closer acquaintance with outstanding people of science clearly shows that spirituality, a rich inner world, the ability to create are things that are by no means opposite or additional to science, but, on the contrary, things that accompany it.
However, the problems associated with the establishment of a worthy position of science in society are only the tip of the iceberg. Modern science is a system built on a deeper foundation, and that foundation is values and aspirations. Science is a product of our culture, a product of our civilization, science is a product of a certain epoch. Speaking about the role of science in modern society, we have in mind, generally speaking, somewhat different than the role of science in the society of the future. It would be more correct to talk about two different definitions of science - the science of today, in the narrow understanding that is invested today in this definition, and science, which can become the basis of a value, worldview scheme, the basis of a new world order, the basis of the entire social system in the future. As I noted earlier, the valuable emotional foundation leaves a significant imprint on people's ideas, including those ideas that are considered rational, logical, and even impeccable from the point of view of their compliance with common sense. For modern science, built on this foundation, it is a very important task to free oneself from contamination by dogmatic ideas, free oneself from wrong emotional methods of thinking, from harmful stereotypes and methods developed by representatives of the old type of thinking, the old system of values. And the actual problems of science will be discussed in the second part.
2. Internal problems of science
At present, science, like civilization as a whole, is facing a certain growth limit. And this limit tells us about the inefficiency of the methods of scientific research that have already developed to date, the methods of constructing theories, the methods of searching for truth, in the end. Up to the present time, science has developed along the path of ever greater deepening into the phenomena being studied, ever greater specialization, ever finer staging of experiments, etc. Science has followed the capabilities of experimenters, and ever new, ever larger and more expensive experiments have been the engine of science. More and more powerful telescopes were created, more and more powerful accelerators were built, capable of dispersing particles to ever greater speeds, devices were invented that made it possible to see and manipulate individual atoms, etc. However, now science is approaching a certain natural barrier in this direction of development. Increasingly more expensive projects have ever smaller returns, spending on basic research is being reduced in favor of purely applied developments. Slowly but surely, the enthusiasm of scientists and funding organizations for an early solution to the problems of artificial intelligence or thermonuclear fusion is cooling down. In the meantime, the understanding of the fragility of already established theories is beginning to come to many scientists. Once again, scientists, under the pressure of contradictions and inconsistencies observed between theories and experimental data, have to revise the usual ideas that were once fixed and recognized as the only correct ones, largely arbitrarily, under pressure from the authority of individual celebrities. Recent discoveries in astronomy, for example, have called into question the correctness of the theory of relativity and the picture of the evolution of the universe available in physics. At the same time, as science becomes more and more complex, it becomes more and more difficult to unequivocally make a choice in favor of one or another theory, attempts to explain existing patterns become more and more complex and confusing, and the efficiency of all these theoretical developments is characterized by an ever lower value. All these problems and the inability of science to cope with them clearly show the impasse of further use of the methods and principles that have developed in science so far.
The problem of dogmatism is one of the essential problems of modern science. Dogmatism is a characteristic quality of ordinary emotionally minded people who, adhering to certain interests, desires, preferences, get used to not bothering with argumentation and searching for the right point of view. In everyday life, dogmatism manifests itself as a desire to insist on one's point of view, a desire to defend one's personal interests. A worldview based on dogmas is an integral attribute of religious systems that have dominated the world for thousands of years and continue to exert their influence to this day. The dogmatic worldview has formed in people a special style of thinking, a style in which there are some recognized "truths" that people accept without much thought, despite the fact that these "truths" can be very ambiguous and doubtful. Nevertheless, the presence of such "truths", not only in religious systems, but also in life, is a universal phenomenon that reflects the realities of the modern value system. Many people never understand the intricacies of various political, economic, ideological, etc., issues; for them, an exclusively emotionally colored judgment is a guideline for accepting a particular point of view. The picture of the world given to a modern person does not consist of logically constructed schemes, accompanied by explanations, rational argumentation and evidence. It consists of dogmas, accompanied by labels attached to these dogmas, emotional assessments that are designed for personal acceptance or non-acceptance of certain things by a person, designed to influence his desires, needs, etc. The habit of thinking in dogmas has penetrated so deeply into a person’s consciousness that constitutes an essential feature of the thinking of people employed in modern science. In fact, a very few scientists, scientific workers, are interested in understanding the fundamental provisions of modern science, understanding what constitutes its basis. Many teachers in schools consider coaching to be the best method for preparing high achievers. In science itself, as I have already noted, the arbitrariness and authority of this or that scientist plays a very important role. To a large extent, the attitude of their followers to modern scientific theories exactly repeats the attitude of the followers of religions to religious dogmas. Naturally, in modern society, a class of people has developed who pray for science and education in the same way as adherents of religions pray for things that these religions proclaim. The concepts of "progress", "high technology", "education", etc., unfortunately, have turned into exactly the same labels, considered in the "good-bad" rating system. Under the influence of an emotional-dogmatic worldview, the most important concepts of science, such as truth, reason, understanding, etc. are distorted. logics. Modern scientists do not understand how a person thinks, and even worse, they do not understand that often he thinks wrong. Attempts to create artificial intelligence by stuffing some kind of disparate heap of data into it and shamanic manipulations in order to force the computer to adequately issue something from this disparate heap of data as a reaction to a certain situation reflect the abnormal picture that has developed in modern science, when the criterion of truth, the criterion for the adequacy of understanding the situation and in general the criterion of the mind is the knowledge of specific, rigidly defined in advance, dogmas. The only alternative to the emotional-dogmatic approach in science is a truly reasonable systematic approach, when any provisions are based not on authority, not on speculation, not on some vague subjective considerations, but on a real understanding and comprehension of phenomena.
However, the main problem that characterizes modern science is the method of constructing scientific theories, in fact, the method of divination on coffee grounds. The main method of creating theories in modern science is the method of putting forward hypotheses. In fact, we are talking about the fact that a consistent study, understanding of a phenomenon, comparison of various facts, etc., is replaced by a one-time promotion of some kind of theory, which supposedly should explain all the observed phenomena. How similar it is to making a decision in everyday life! After all, there, too, everything is decided according to the principle "like it - don't like it", within the framework of the black-and-white logic "good - bad". Moreover, in the twentieth century, after the creation of Einstein's theory of relativity, which became a model of confusion and ambiguity, the situation with this problem became even worse. If earlier the criterion by which scientists pre-evaluated any theory was its ease of understanding, compliance with common sense, now everything has become almost the opposite - the more crazy the theory, the better ...
Consider the process of creating a scientific theory of a phenomenon or process. The two fundamental methods in the study are analysis and synthesis. If at first we have a fused, undifferentiated phenomenon or object without understanding the complex internal structure, then we gradually divide it into parts, studying them separately, and then, in order to complete the construction of our theory, we must put these pieces together, into a coherent, consistent a theory that will be a model of the phenomenon under study, taking into account already different deep relationships and processes. True, in fact, the matter is not limited to this, because the created theory, no longer tied to specific examples, is then used for a deeper analysis and study of other similar phenomena that exist in real life. Thus, the scheme of synthesis - analysis - synthesis - analysis works in science. What do we see when we turn to modern science? The methods of analysis have been worked out in it, and the methods of synthesis have not been worked out at all. The situation that takes place is directly analogous to the situation in mathematical analysis, where the operation of differentiation is a craft, and the operation of integration is an art. To replace the stage of synthesis in modern science, it is precisely the flawed method of putting forward hypotheses that serves when synthesis must be carried out all at once, by a gigantic effort of intuition of some genius, after which, however, a lengthy verification of this very hypothesis by some cunning experimental methods is required. , and only a long experience of application can be evidence of its relative correctness. However, this method has been stalling lately. Carried away, like the scholastics of the past, in the creation of gigantic integral theories based on arbitrary assumptions and dogmas, which they call axioms, scientists have lost all connection of their theories with reality, with common sense and with the truth that was still present in previous scientific theories. Obviously, these unfortunate scientists reasoned in such a way that if, using this method, Einstein, Newton, Maxwell and similar great scientists could build plausible (and working) theories, then why not do the same for us? However, copying in their ignorance only the external, formal side of the method, these pseudo-scientists have already completely abandoned that very common sense and that very intuition, which, being inherent in the geniuses of the past, gave them grounds for putting forward correct hypotheses. Superstring theory, and other similar theories, where our space is described by the 11th, 14th, etc. measurements, are characteristic examples of such absurd activity of modern dogmatists, pulling theory out of themselves, like spiders pulling a web out of themselves.
Finally, we must not miss another important feature of modern science, from which very important conclusions can be drawn. We are talking about the division of modern sciences into natural and so-called. "Humanities". Traditionally, the natural sciences were understood as sciences that study nature, and the humanities - those that are related to the study of man, society, etc. In fact, this division is not a division according to the subject, but according to the method and structure of the study. natural sciences, such as physical and mathematical ones, are focused on building a clear, unambiguous, justified and logically verified scheme, the most important thing in the natural sciences is experience, which is the criterion for the truth of certain considerations, constructions, theories. The natural scientist works directly with facts, tries to get an objective picture, only experience is the thing to which he will pay attention in proving the truth. In so-called. In the humanities, the situation is quite different. The obvious difference between this sphere of inefficiency and the natural sciences is that it lacks any at least somewhat adequate and working models, there are no generally understandable criteria for correctness. The field of humanitarian so-called. the sciences is an area of pure clash of opinions. The field of humanitarian sciences is nothing more than a field in which attempts are made to rationalize (either rational explanation, or, more often, justification) of any motives, aspirations, interests of people, etc. As I have repeatedly noted, the main the activities of people in modern society, the entire system of relations as a whole is built on an emotional system of values, and based on this, the humanities "sciences" seem to "study" this very emotional background of relations in society, motives and ideas. How can one evaluate the humanities "sciences"? Well, firstly, the humanities arose by analogy with the natural sciences, and their emergence is based on the thesis that it is possible to study and find objective patterns in various phenomena of social life and human motives, just like in nature. In principle, this thesis is, of course, true, and we are witnessing the emergence of normal, natural sciences, such as psychology, we are witnessing the discovery of truly objective laws, as was done, for example, in psychoanalysis, however, along with the natural sciences that study man and society, unnatural ones also arose, those whose main function was not the study of anything, but, on the contrary, the reverse translation of interests, personal assessments, motives, etc. n. into a rational formulation. That is, it was not the mind in this case that began to study the emotional sphere, but the products of the emotional sphere began to penetrate into rational reasoning, began to become objectified, began to be dogmatized and unreasonably passed off as scientific, justified, etc. A typical example, by the way, of such rationalizations is the Marxist theory. It is impossible to say, of course, that such theories contain only nonsense. Nevertheless, any such theory is just a personal, subjective opinion of a person, the content of which must be evaluated in connection with those motives, those emotional assessments, those desires that guided the person who created this theory and in no case take it for some objective description of reality. Secondly, the humanities, in comparison with the natural sciences, can be considered as underdeveloped, naive constructions, and in this regard, we can notice that, in fact, all sciences, in principle, including physics, went through a similar stage of naive subjective knowledge. In fact, physics was a humanitarian science until methods appeared that brought mathematics into it and made it possible, instead of expressing some subjective arbitrary judgments about this and that, to study and describe natural processes on the basis of unified approaches and criteria. Today's humanities are, in fact, in their naivety and futility of their practical application, similar to the "Physics" written by Aristotle in the 4th century BC. In modern physics, physical quantities are the basis for describing the world. Physical quantities, such as volume, mass, energy, etc., correspond to the main characteristics of various objects and processes, they can be measured and a relationship can be found between them. In the humanities, the absence of such a foundation leads to the fact that each "theorist" at his own discretion determines the range of significant concepts, and the concepts themselves, arbitrarily giving them the most convenient, from his point of view, meaning. Given that the subjective factor plays an important role in the choice of a conceptual system, etc., in contrast to the natural sciences, theorists in the humanities are forced to deal mainly not with the generalization of objective data from experiments, observations, etc., but with the compilation of opinions. The theorist who has come up with some concepts and innovations is copied, generalized, trying to supplement with something of his own, etc. However, all due to the same dependence on motives, desires, interests, subjective ideological, political views, attitudes towards religion and many other factors different authors of different humanitarian theories, of course, cannot find a common language and create their own different theories that contradict each other and describe the same things in completely different ways. The main differences between the humanities and natural sciences I will give in the following table:
tab. Comparison of humanities and natural sciences
Conclusion: science requires liberation from dogmatism and divinatory methods, as well as a transition from the methods of the so-called. "humanities" sciences to natural methods.
Two heads and six legs; four walk, and two lie still
Self-esteem - what is it: concept, structure, types and levels
Cassandra's Path, or Pasta Adventures War on Earth and Underground