Science as a specific type of knowledge. Extra-scientific types of knowledge

Scientific knowledge, like all forms of spiritual production, is ultimately necessary in order to regulate human activity. Different kinds cognition perform this role in different ways, and the analysis of this difference is the first and necessary condition for identifying the features scientific knowledge.

An activity can be considered as a complexly organized network of various acts of transformation of objects, when the products of one activity pass into another and become its components. For example, iron ore just as the product of a mining industry becomes an object that is transformed into a steelmaker's activities, the machines produced in a factory from the steel mined by the steelmaker become the means of activity in another industry. Even the subjects of activity - people who transform objects in accordance with the goals set, can to a certain extent be presented as the results of training and education, which ensures that the subject acquires the necessary patterns of actions, knowledge and skills of using certain means in the activity.

The structural characteristics of an elementary act of activity can be represented as the following scheme:

Right part This scheme depicts the subject structure of activity - the interaction of means with the subject of activity and its transformation into a product due to the implementation of certain operations. The left part represents the subject structure, which includes the subject of activity (with its goals, values, knowledge of operations and skills), which performs expedient actions and uses certain means of activity for this purpose. Means and actions can be attributed to both objective and subjective structures, since they can be considered in two ways. On the one hand, the means can be presented as artificial organs human activity. On the other hand, they can be considered as natural objects that interact with other objects. In a similar way, operations can be presented in various ways both as human actions and as natural interactions of objects.

Activities are always governed by certain values and goals. Value answers the question: “what is the purpose of this or that activity”. The goal is to answer the question: “what should be obtained in the activity”. The goal is perfect image product. It is embodied, objectified in the product, which is the result of the transformation of the subject of activity.

Since activity is universal, the function of its objects can be not only fragments of nature that are transformed in practice, but also people whose “properties” change when they are included in various social subsystems, as well as these subsystems themselves, interacting within society as whole organism. Then, in the first case, we are dealing with the “objective side” of human change in nature, and in the second case, with the “objective side” of practice aimed at changing social objects. From this point of view, a person can act both as a subject and as an object of practical action.

On the early stages development of society subjective and objective aspects practical activities are not dissected in cognition, but are taken as a single whole. Cognition reflects the ways of practical change of objects, including in the characteristics of the latter the goals, abilities and actions of a person. Such an idea of the objects of activity is transferred to the whole nature, which is viewed through the prism of the practice being carried out.

It is known, for example, that in the myths of ancient peoples, the forces of nature are always likened to human forces, and its processes are human action. Primitive thinking, in explaining the phenomena of the external world, invariably resorts to their comparison with human actions and motives. Only in progress long evolution society, knowledge begins to exclude anthropomorphic factors from the characteristics of objective relations. Important role this process was played by the historical development of practice, and above all by the improvement of means and tools of labor.

As the tools became more complex, those operations that were previously directly performed by a person began to “reify”, acting as a consistent impact of one tool on another and only then on the object being transformed. Thus, the properties and states of objects that arise due to these operations ceased to seem caused by the direct efforts of man, but more and more acted as the result of the interaction of the natural objects themselves. So, if in the early stages of civilization the movement of goods required muscular effort, then with the invention of the lever and block, and then the simplest machines, it was possible to replace these efforts with mechanical ones. For example, using a block system, it was possible to balance a large load with a small one, and by adding a small weight to a small load, raise a large load to the desired height. Here, to lift a heavy body, no human effort is needed: one load independently moves the other.

Similar transfer human functions mechanisms leads to a new understanding of the forces of nature. Previously, forces were understood only by analogy with the physical efforts of a person, but now they are beginning to be considered as mechanical forces. The above example can serve as an analogue of the process of "objectification" of the objective relations of practice, which, apparently, began already in the era of the first urban civilizations of antiquity. During this period, knowledge begins to gradually separate the objective side of practice from subjective factors and consider this side as a special, independent reality. This consideration of practice is one of the necessary conditions for the emergence of scientific research.

Science sets as its ultimate goal to foresee the process of transformation of objects of practical activity (an object in the initial state) into the corresponding products (an object in the final state). This transformation is always determined by the essential connections, the laws of change and development of objects, and the activity itself can be successful only when it is consistent with these laws. Therefore, the main task of science is to reveal the laws in accordance with which objects change and develop.

With regard to the processes of transformation of nature, this function is performed by natural and Technical science. The processes of changing social objects are being investigated social sciences. Since a variety of objects can be transformed in activity - objects of nature, a person (and the state of his consciousness), subsystems of society, sign objects that function as cultural phenomena, etc. - to the extent that all of them can become subjects of scientific research.

The orientation of science towards the study of objects that can be included in activity (either actual or potentially as possible objects of its future transformation), and their study as obeying the objective laws of functioning and development constitutes the first main feature scientific knowledge.

This feature distinguishes it from other forms of human cognitive activity. So, for example, in the process of artistic assimilation of reality, objects included in human activity are not separated from subjective factors, but are taken in a kind of "gluing" with them. Any reflection of objects of the objective world in art at the same time expresses the value attitude of a person to an object. An artistic image is a reflection of an object that contains an imprint human personality, its value orientations, which are fused into the characteristics of the reflected reality. To exclude this interpenetration means to destroy the artistic image. In science, the features of the life activity of a person who creates knowledge, value judgments are not directly part of the generated knowledge (Newton's laws do not allow us to judge what Newton loved and hated, while, for example, Rembrandt's portraits depict the personality of Rembrandt himself, his attitude and his personal attitude to the depicted social phenomena; a portrait painted by a great artist always acts as a self-portrait).

Science is focused on the subject and objective study of reality. The foregoing, of course, does not mean that personal moments and value orientations scientists do not play a role in scientific creativity and do not affect the results.

The process of scientific knowledge is determined not only by the characteristics of the object under study, but also by numerous factors of a sociocultural nature.

Considering science in its historical development, it can be found that as the type of culture changes, the standards of presentation of scientific knowledge, the ways of seeing reality in science, the styles of thinking that are formed in the context of culture and are affected by its most diverse phenomena change. This impact can be represented as the inclusion of various socio-cultural factors in the process of generating proper scientific knowledge. However, the statement of the links between the objective and the subjective in any cognitive process and the need comprehensive research Science in its interaction with other forms of human spiritual activity does not remove the question of the difference between science and these forms (ordinary knowledge, artistic thinking, etc.). The first and necessary characteristic of such a difference is the sign of objectivity and objectivity of scientific knowledge.

Science in human activity singles out only its objective structure and examines everything through the prism of this structure. Like King Midas from the famous ancient legend- whatever he touches, everything turns into gold, - and science, whatever it touches - everything for it is an object that lives, functions and develops according to objective laws.

Here the question immediately arises: well, what then to be with the subject of activity, with his goals, values, states of his consciousness? All this belongs to the components of the subjective structure of activity, but science is able to study these components, because for it there are no prohibitions on the study of any really existing phenomena. The answer to these questions is quite simple: yes, science can explore any phenomena of human life and consciousness, it can explore activity, the human psyche, and culture, but only from one point of view - as special objects that obey objective laws. Science also studies the subjective structure of activity, but as a special object. And where science cannot construct an object and present it " natural life”, determined by its essential connections, and there its claims end. Thus, science can study everything in human world but from a different perspective and from a different point of view. This special perspective of objectivity expresses both the infinity and limitations of science, since a person as an independent, conscious being has free will, and he is not only an object, he is also a subject of activity. And in this his subjective being, not all states can be exhausted by scientific knowledge, even if we assume that such a comprehensive scientific knowledge about a person, his life activity can be obtained.

There is no anti-scientism in this statement about the limits of science. It is simply a statement of the indisputable fact that science cannot replace all forms of knowledge of the world, of all culture. And everything that escapes her field of vision is compensated by other forms of spiritual comprehension of the world - art, religion, morality, philosophy.

Studying objects that are transformed into activities, science is not limited to the knowledge of only those subject relations that can be mastered within the framework of the available, historically established on this stage development of society types of activities. The purpose of science is to foresee possible future changes in objects, including those that would correspond to future types and forms of practical change in the world.

As an expression of these goals in science, not only research is formed that serves today's practice, but also layers of research, the results of which can only find application in the practice of the future. The movement of cognition in these layers is already determined not so much by the direct demands of today's practice as by cognitive interests through which the needs of society are manifested in predicting future methods and forms of practical development of the world. For example, the formulation of intrascientific problems and their solution within the framework of fundamental theoretical research physics led to the discovery of laws electromagnetic field and prediction electromagnetic waves, to the discovery of the laws of division atomic nuclei, quantum laws of radiation of atoms during the transition of electrons from one energy level to another, etc. All these theoretical discoveries laid the foundation for future methods of mass practical development of nature in production. A few decades later, they became the basis for applied engineering research and development, the introduction of which into production, in turn, revolutionized equipment and technology - radio-electronic equipment, nuclear power plants, laser installations, etc. appeared.

The focus of science on the study of not only objects that are transformed in today's practice, but also those that may become the subject of mass practical development in the future, is the second hallmark scientific knowledge. This feature makes it possible to distinguish between scientific and everyday, spontaneous-empirical knowledge and to derive a number of specific definitions that characterize the nature of science.

The words

The desire to distinguish between two types, or methods, of knowledge - intuitive and logical - appeared already in antiquity. The beginning of this can be found in Plato's doctrine of ideas, in which there is the concept of non-discursivity (without reasoning) of their comprehension. The Epicureans fixed this phenomenon of direct knowledge or comprehension in the word επιβολή. The terms for designating the two types of knowledge appeared in Philo of Alexandria, and then in Plotinus, who distinguished between επιβολή (direct, instant comprehension (vision, insight)) and διεξοδικός λόγος (consecutive, discursive knowledge, with the help of logical conclusions).

Translation of the concept επιβολή into Latin language the term “intuitus” (from the verb intueri, meaning “to peer”, “to penetrate with a look (vision), “to instantly comprehend”) was made in the 5th century by Boethius.

In the 13th century, the German monk Wilhelm of Mörbecke (1215-1286) repeated the translation of Boethius, and the term "intuition" became part of Western European philosophical terminology.

The English, French, Italians, Spaniards translate Anschauung with the term "intuition" (French, English - intuition, Italian - intuizione, Spanish - intuicion). The Kantian Anschauung is also translated into Russian by the term “contemplation” to convey the meaning of direct comprehension, non-discursiveness, instantaneous “vision”.

Intuition in terms of philosophy

In some currents of philosophy, intuition is interpreted as a divine revelation, as a completely unconscious process, incompatible with logic and life practice (intuitionism). Various interpretations of Intuition have something in common - emphasizing the moment of immediacy in the process of cognition, in contrast (or in opposition) to the mediated, discursive nature of logical thinking.

Materialist dialectics sees the rational grain of the concept of Intuition in the characteristic of the moment of immediacy in cognition, which is the unity of the sensible and the rational.

The process of scientific knowledge, as well as various forms of artistic development of the world, are not always carried out in a detailed, logically and factually demonstrative form. Often the subject seizes with a thought difficult situation, for example, during a military battle, determining the diagnosis, guilt or innocence of the accused, etc. The role of Intuition is especially great where it is necessary to go beyond existing techniques knowledge to penetrate the unknown. But Intuition is not something unreasonable or superreasonable. In the process of intuitive cognition, all the signs by which the conclusion is made, and the methods by which it is made, are not realized. Intuition does not constitute a special path of cognition that bypasses sensations, ideas and thinking. It is a peculiar type of thinking, when individual links of the process of thinking are carried in the mind more or less unconsciously, and it is the result of the thought - the truth - that is most clearly realized.

Intuition is enough to perceive the truth, but it is not enough to convince others and oneself of this truth. This requires proof.

Intuition in decision making from the point of view of psychology

The formation of an intuitive solution proceeds outside of direct conscious control.

AT psychological concept K.Jung's intuition is considered as one of the possible leading functions of a person, which determines a person's attitude to himself and the world around him, the way he makes vital decisions.

Intuition - the ability of direct, immediate comprehension of the truth without preliminary logical reasoning and without evidence.

Another interpretation of intuition is a direct comprehension by the mind of the truth, not derived by logical analysis from other truths and not perceived through the senses.

Computer simulation of intuition

Adaptive AI programs and algorithms, based on learning methods for automatic systems, exhibit behavior that mimics human intuition. They produce knowledge from data without a logical formulation of the ways and conditions for obtaining it, due to which this knowledge appears to the user as a result of “direct discretion”. Elements of such intuitive analysis are built into many modern automatic systems, such as systems computer service, chess programs, etc. Teaching such systems requires the teacher to choose the optimal learning strategy and tasks.

To simulate intuitive decision-making, neural-like devices called neural networks and neurocomputers, as well as their software simulators, are convenient. M. G. Dorrer with co-authors created a non-standard for computer techniques intuitive approach to psychodiagnostics , which consists in developing recommendations with the exception of the construction of the described reality . For classical computer psychodiagnostics, it is important formalizability psychodiagnostic technique, while the experience gained by researchers in the field of neuroinformatics shows that using the apparatus neural networks it is possible to satisfy the needs of practicing psychologists and researchers in the creation of psychodiagnostic methods based on their experience, bypassing the stage of formalization and building a diagnostic model.

Development of intuition

Many authors offer various trainings for the development of intuition, however, it is worth remembering that some of them have not been experimentally proven, i.e. are the "reflections" of the authors on the topic. One of the hypostases of intuition is based on life experience, so the only way to develop it is to accumulate experience in a certain field of knowledge. “Positive thoughts and the conviction that you deserve not just an answer, but the very best answer, move intuition to positive activity.” - one of these trainings based on affirmation or self-hypnosis in order to remove barriers. Discovery by D. I. Mendeleev periodic law chemical elements, as well as the definition of the benzene formula developed by Kekule, made by them in a dream, confirm the value of life experience and knowledge for the development of intuition, for obtaining intuitive knowledge.

Sometimes trainers offer, for example, such exercises for the development of intuition, which are rather exercises for the development of clairvoyance or clairaudience. Here is one of those exercises:

“Before the start of the working day, try to introduce each of your employees. Feel what is hidden behind the words, and what is hushed up. Before you read the letter, intuitively imagine what it is about and how it will affect you. Before picking up the phone, try to intuitively guess who is calling, what and how this person will talk. ... "

An ideal way to develop intuition is the well-known game of hide and seek. The game of "blind man's buff" is less preferable. during the game, the host uses the sense of smell and hearing, i.e. 2 and 5 senses "prompt". But in "hide and seek" all 5 senses are powerless and the sixth sense turns on.

Other meanings

The term "intuition" is widely used in various occult, mystical and parascientific teachings and practices.

Literature

Intuition // Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Notes

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

See what "Intuitive Knowledge" is in other dictionaries:

This term has other meanings, see Knowledge (meanings). This article or section needs revision. Please improve ... Wikipedia

Knowledge is a form of existence and systematization of the results of human cognitive activity. There are different types of knowledge: scientific, ordinary ( common sense), intuitive, religious, etc. Ordinary knowledge serves as the basis for a person’s orientation in ... Wikipedia

Hidden, silent, implicit (from Latin implicite in a hidden form, implicitly; the opposite of explicite), peripheral in contrast to the central, or focal, i.e. in the focus of consciousness. Empirical the basis of the personal silent ... ... Encyclopedia of cultural studies

KNOWLEDGE IN ARAB MUSLIM PHILOSOPHY. Due to the fusion of the procedural and substantial aspects in the category of masdar (verbal noun), Arabic linguistic thinking tends to consider the process and the result as something ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

KNOWLEDGE IN ARAB MUSLIM PHILOSOPHY. Due to the fusion of the procedural and substantial aspects in the category of masdar (verbal noun), Arabic linguistic thinking tends to consider the process and result as something ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

Introduction

Scientific knowledge, like all forms of spiritual production, is ultimately necessary in order to regulate human activity. Different types of cognition fulfill this role in different ways, and the analysis of this difference is the first and necessary condition for identifying the features of scientific cognition.

Science as a specific type of knowledge

Science as a specific type of knowledge is explored by the logic and methodology of science. The main problem here is the identification and explication of those features that are necessary and sufficient to distinguish scientific knowledge from the results of other types of knowledge ( various forms non-scientific knowledge). The latter include everyday knowledge, art (including fiction), religion (including religious texts), philosophy (in large part), intuitive-mystical experience, existential experiences, etc. In general, if by “knowledge” we understand even only textual (discourse) information, then it is obvious that scientific texts (even in modern era « big science”) constitute only a part (and, moreover, a smaller part) of the total volume of discourse that uses modern humanity in its adaptive survival. Despite the great efforts of philosophers of science (especially representatives of logical positivism and analytical philosophy) to clearly define and explicate the criteria of scientificity, this problem is still far from an unambiguous solution. Usually such criterial signs of scientific knowledge are called: objectivity, unambiguity, certainty, accuracy, consistency, logical evidence, testability, theoretical and empirical validity, instrumental usefulness (practical applicability). The observance of these properties should guarantee the objective truth of scientific knowledge, therefore, "scientific knowledge" is often identified with "objectively true knowledge".

Of course, if we talk about "scientific knowledge" as a certain theoretical constructor of the methodology of science, then one can hardly object to the criteria of scientificity listed above. But the question is precisely to what extent this “scientific ideal” is adequate, realizable and universal in relation to the “everyday” nature of scientific knowledge, real history science and its modern diverse existence. Unfortunately, as an analysis of the vast literature of the positivist and postpositivist schools of philosophy, methodology, and the history of science in the second half of the 20th century and their critics shows, the answer to this question is generally negative. Actual science in its functioning does not at all obey (does not implement) uniform and “pure” methodological standards. Abstraction within the framework of the methodology of science, from the social and psychological context of its functioning does not bring us closer, but moves us away from an adequate vision of real science. The ideal of logical evidence (in the strictest, syntactic sense) is not realizable even in the simplest logical and mathematical theories. It is obvious that in relation to richer mathematical, natural-science and social-humanitarian theories in terms of content, the requirement of their logical evidence is all the more unrealizable to any significant extent. The same, with certain reservations, can be said about the possibility of any complete implementation of all other "ideal" criteria of scientificity, in particular, absolute empirical verifiability or validity. scientific theories in natural sciences, technical and social sciences and humanities. Everywhere there is a context that has not been clarified to the end, the organic element of which is always a specific scientific text; everywhere - reliance on fundamentally irremovable implicit collective and personal knowledge, always - making cognitive decisions in conditions of incomplete certainty, scientific communications with the hope of adequate understanding, expert opinions and scientific consensus. However, if the scientific ideal of knowledge is unattainable, should it be abandoned? No, for the purpose of any ideal is to indicate the desired direction of movement, moving along which we have a greater probability of achieving success than following in the opposite or random direction. Ideals make it possible to understand, evaluate and structure reality in accordance with the accepted system of goals, needs and interests. Obviously, they are a necessary and most important regulatory element in ensuring the adaptive existence of a person in any sphere of his activity.

Intuitively, it seems clear how science differs from other forms of human cognitive activity. However, a clear definition of the specific features of science in the form of signs and definitions turns out to be a rather difficult task. This is evidenced by the diversity of science, the ongoing debate on the problem of the connection between it and other forms of knowledge.

An activity can be considered as a complexly organized network of various acts of object transformation, when the products of one activity pass into another and become its components. For example, iron ore, as a product of mining, becomes an object that is transformed into the activity of a steelmaker; machine tools produced at the plant from the steel mined by the steelmaker become the means of activity in another production. Even the subjects of activity - people who carry out these transformations of objects in accordance with the goals set, can to a certain extent be presented as the results of training and education, which ensure that the subject acquires the necessary patterns of actions, knowledge and skills of using certain means in the activity.

Means and actions can be attributed to both objective and subjective structures, since they can be considered in two ways. On the one hand, the means can be presented as artificial organs of human activity. On the other hand, they can be considered as natural objects that interact with other objects. Similarly, operations can be presented in different ways, both as human actions and as natural interactions of objects.

Activities are always governed by certain values and goals. Value answers the question: why do we need this or that activity? The goal is to answer the question: what should be obtained in the activity? The goal is the ideal image of the product. It is embodied, objectifying in the product, which is the result of the transformation of the subject of activity.

Since activity is universal, the functions of its objects can be not only fragments of nature that are transformed in practice, but also people whose “properties” change when they are included in various social subsystems, as well as these subsystems themselves, interacting within society as an integral organism. Then, in the first case, we are dealing with the “objective side” of human change in nature, and in the second case, with the “objective side” of practice aimed at changing social objects. A person, from the point of view, can act both as a subject and as an object of practical action.

At the early stage of the development of society, the subjective and objective aspects of practical activity are not dissected in cognition, but are taken as a single whole. Cognition reflects the ways of practical change of objects, including in the characteristics of the latter the goals, abilities and actions of a person. This idea of the objects of activity is transferred to the whole nature, which is viewed through the prism of the practice being carried out.

It is known, for example, that in the myths of ancient peoples, the forces of nature are always likened to human forces, and its processes - to human actions. Primitive thinking, in explaining the phenomena of the external world, invariably resorts to their comparison with human actions and motives. Only in the process of the long evolution of society does knowledge begin to exclude anthropomorphic factors from the characterization of objective relations. An important role in this process was played by the historical development of practice, and, above all, the improvement of means and tools of labor.

As the tools became more complex, those operations that were previously directly performed by a person began to “reify”, acting as a consistent impact of one tool on another and only then on the object being transformed. Thus, the properties and states of objects that arise due to these operations ceased to seem caused by the direct efforts of man, but more and more acted as the result of the interaction of the natural objects themselves. So, if in the early stages of civilization the movement of goods required muscular effort, then with the invention of the lever and block, and then the simplest machines, it was possible to replace these efforts with mechanical ones. For example, using a system of blocks, it was possible to balance a large load with a small one, and by adding a small weight to a small load, raise a large load to the desired height. Here, to lift a heavy body, no human effort is needed: one load independently moves the other.

This transfer of human functions to mechanisms leads to a new understanding of the forces of nature. Previously, forces were understood only by analogy with the physical efforts of a person, but now they are beginning to be considered as mechanical forces. The above example can serve as an analogue of the process of "objectification" of the objective relations of practice, which, apparently, began already in the era of the first urban civilizations of antiquity. During this period, knowledge begins to gradually separate the objective side of practice from subjective factors and consider this side as a special, independent reality. Such consideration of practice is one of the necessary conditions for the emergence of scientific research.

With regard to the processes of transformation of nature, this function is performed by the natural and technical sciences. The processes of change in social objects are studied by the social sciences. Since a variety of objects can be transformed in activity - objects of nature, a person (and the state of his consciousness), subsystems of society, sign objects that function as cultural phenomena, etc. - to the extent that all of them can become subjects of scientific research.

The orientation of science towards the study of objects that can be included in activity (either actually or potentially as possible objects of its future transformation), and their study as obeying the objective laws of functioning and development, constitute the first main feature of scientific knowledge.

This feature distinguishes it from other forms of human cognitive activity. Thus, for example, in the process of artistic assimilation of reality, objects included in human activity are not separated from subjective factors, but are taken in a kind of "gluing" with them. Any reflection of objects of the objective world in art at the same time expresses the value attitude of a person to an object. An artistic image is such a reflection of an object that contains the imprint of a human personality, its value of orientation, which are fused into the characteristics of the reflected reality. To exclude this interpenetration means to destroy the artistic image. In science, the features of the life activity of a person who creates knowledge, its value judgments are not directly part of the generated knowledge (Newton's laws do not allow one to judge what and what Newton hated, while, for example, Rembrandt's portraits depict the personality of Rembrandt himself, his worldview and his personal attitude to the depicted social phenomena; a portrait painted by a great artist always acts as a self-portrait).

Science is focused on the subject and objective study of reality. The foregoing, of course, does not mean that the personal aspects and value orientations of a scientist do not play a role in scientific creativity and do not affect its results.

The process of scientific knowledge is determined not only by the characteristics of the object under study, but also by numerous factors of a sociocultural nature.

Considering science in its historical development, it can be found that as the type of culture changes, the standards for presenting scientific knowledge, the ways of seeing reality in science, the styles of thinking that are formed in the context of culture and are affected by its most diverse phenomena change. This impact can be represented as the inclusion of various socio-cultural factors in the process of generating proper scientific knowledge. However, the statement of the connections between the objective and the subjective in any cognitive process and the need for a comprehensive study of science in its interaction with other forms of human spiritual activity do not remove the question of the difference between science and these forms (ordinary knowledge, artistic thinking, etc.). The first and necessary characteristic of such a difference is the sign of objectivity and objectivity of scientific knowledge.

Science in human activity singles out only its objective structure and examines everything through the prism of this structure. Like King Midas from the famous ancient legend - whatever he touches, everything turns into gold, - so science, whatever it touches, is everything for it an object that lives, functions and develops according to objective laws.

Here the question immediately arises: well, what then to be with the subject of activity, with his goals, values, states of his consciousness? All this belongs to the components of the subjective structure of activity, but science is capable of investigating these components too, because there are no prohibitions for it to study any really existing phenomena. The answer to these questions is quite simple: yes, science can explore any phenomena of human life and consciousness, it can explore activity, the human psyche, and culture, but only from one point of view - as special objects that obey objective laws. Science also studies the subjective structure of activity, but as a special object. And where science cannot construct an object and present its "natural life" determined by its essential connections, then its claims end. Thus, science can study everything in the human world, but from a special perspective and from a special point of view. This special perspective of objectivity expresses both the infinity and limitations of science, since a person as an independent, conscious being has free will, and he is not only an object, he is also a subject of activity. And in this his subjective being, not all states can be exhausted by scientific knowledge, even if we assume that such a comprehensive scientific knowledge about a person, his life activity can be obtained.

The purpose of science is to foresee possible future changes in objects, including those that would correspond to future types and forms of practical change in the world.

As an expression of these goals in science, not only research is formed that serves today's practice, but also layers of research, the results of which can only find application in the practice of the future. The movement of cognition in these layers is already determined not so much by the direct demands of today's practice as by cognitive interests through which the needs of society are manifested in predicting future methods and forms of practical development of the world. For example, the formulation of intrascientific problems and their solution within the framework of fundamental theoretical research in physics led to the discovery of the laws of the electromagnetic field and the prediction of electromagnetic waves, to the discovery of the laws of fission of atomic nuclei, the quantum laws of radiation of atoms during the transition of electrons from one energy level to another, etc. All these theoretical discoveries laid the foundation for future methods of mass practical development of nature in production. A few decades later, they became the basis for applied engineering research and development, the introduction of which into production, in turn, revolutionized equipment and technology - radio-electronic equipment, nuclear power plants, laser installations, etc. appeared.

Great scientists, creators of new, original directions and discoveries, have always paid attention to this ability of theories to potentially contain entire constellations of future new technologies and unexpected practical applications.

K.A. Timiryazev wrote about this: “Despite the absence in modern science narrowly utilitarian direction, it was in its free development, independent of the pointers of worldly sages and moralists, that it became, more than ever, a source of practical, everyday applications. That astonishing development of technology, by which superficial observers are blinded, who are ready to recognize it as the most outstanding feature of the 19th century, is only the result of the development of science, which is not visible to everyone, unprecedented in history, free from any utilitarian oppression. Striking evidence of this is the development of chemistry: it was both alchemy and iatrochemistry, in the service of both mining and pharmacy, and only in the 19th century, the "century of science", becoming simply chemistry, i.e. pure science, it was the source of innumerable applications in medicine, and in technology, and in mining, it shed light both on physics and even astronomy, which are higher in the scientific hierarchy, and on younger branches of knowledge, such as physiology, say, developed only during this century.

Similar thoughts were expressed by one of the creators quantum mechanics French physicist Louis de Broglie. “Great discoveries,” he wrote, “even those made by researchers who did not have any practical application in mind and were exclusively engaged in theoretical solution problems, then quickly found their application in the technical field. Of course, Planck, when he first wrote the formula that now bears his name, did not think at all about lighting technology. But he had no doubt that the enormous efforts of thought expended by him would allow us to understand and foresee a large number of phenomena that would quickly and in ever-increasing numbers be used by lighting technology. Something similar happened to me. I was extremely surprised when I saw that the concepts developed by me very quickly find specific applications in the technique of electron diffraction and electron microscopy.

The focus of science on the study of not only objects that are transformed in today's practice, but also those objects that can become the subject of mass practical development in the future, is the second distinguishing feature of scientific knowledge. This feature makes it possible to distinguish between scientific and everyday, spontaneous-empirical knowledge and to derive a number of specific definitions that characterize the nature of science. It allows us to understand why theoretical research is a defining characteristic of developed science.

Philosophy of science and technology Stepin Vyacheslav Semenovich

The main distinguishing features of science

An activity can be considered as a complexly organized network of various acts of transformation of objects, when the products of one activity pass into another and become its components. For example, iron ore as a product of mining production becomes an object that is transformed into the activities of a steelmaker, machine tools produced at a plant from steel mined by a steelmaker become means of activity in another production. Even the subjects of activity - people who transform objects in accordance with the goals set, can to a certain extent be presented as the results of training and education, which ensures that the subject acquires the necessary patterns of actions, knowledge and skills of using certain means in the activity.

The structural characteristics of an elementary act of activity can be represented as the following scheme:

Activities are always governed by certain values and goals. Value answers the question: “what is the purpose of this or that activity”. The goal is to answer the question: “what should be obtained in the activity”. The goal is the ideal image of the product. It is embodied, objectified in the product, which is the result of the transformation of the subject of activity.

Since activity is universal, the function of its objects can be not only fragments of nature that are transformed in practice, but also people whose “properties” change when they are included in various social subsystems, as well as these subsystems themselves, interacting within society as an integral organism. Then, in the first case, we are dealing with the “objective side” of human change in nature, and in the second case, with the “objective side” of practice aimed at changing social objects. From this point of view, a person can act both as a subject and as an object of practical action.

At the early stages of the development of society, the subjective and objective aspects of practical activity are not dissected in cognition, but are taken as a single whole. Cognition reflects the ways of practical change of objects, including in the characteristics of the latter the goals, abilities and actions of a person. Such an idea of the objects of activity is transferred to the whole nature, which is viewed through the prism of the practice being carried out.

It is known, for example, that in the myths of ancient peoples, the forces of nature are always likened to human forces, and its processes - to human actions. Primitive thinking, in explaining the phenomena of the external world, invariably resorts to their comparison with human actions and motives. Only in the process of the long evolution of society does knowledge begin to exclude anthropomorphic factors from the characterization of objective relations. An important role in this process was played by the historical development of practice, and above all by the improvement of means and tools of labor.

The orientation of science to the study of objects that can be included in activity (either actual or potentially as possible objects of its future transformation), and their study as obeying the objective laws of functioning and development, constitutes the first main feature of scientific knowledge.

This feature distinguishes it from other forms of human cognitive activity. So, for example, in the process of artistic assimilation of reality, objects included in human activity are not separated from subjective factors, but are taken in a kind of "gluing" with them. Any reflection of objects of the objective world in art at the same time expresses the value attitude of a person to an object. An artistic image is such a reflection of an object that contains the imprint of a human personality, its value orientations, which are fused into the characteristics of the reflected reality. To exclude this interpenetration means to destroy the artistic image. In science, however, the features of the life of a person who creates knowledge, its value judgments are not directly part of the generated knowledge (Newton's laws do not allow one to judge what Newton loved and hated, while, for example, Rembrandt's personality is depicted in Rembrandt's portraits, his worldview and his personal attitude to the depicted social phenomena; a portrait painted by a great artist always acts as a self-portrait).

Science is focused on the subject and objective study of reality. The above, of course, 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 its results.

The process of scientific knowledge is determined not only by the characteristics of the object under study, but also by numerous factors of a sociocultural nature.

Considering science in its historical development, it can be found that as the type of culture changes, the standards of presentation of scientific knowledge, the ways of seeing reality in science, the styles of thinking that are formed in the context of culture and are affected by its most diverse phenomena change. This impact can be represented as the inclusion of various socio-cultural factors in the process of generating proper scientific knowledge. However, the statement of the connections between the objective and the subjective in any cognitive process and the need for a comprehensive study of science in its interaction with other forms of human spiritual activity do not remove the question of the difference between science and these forms (ordinary knowledge, artistic thinking, etc.). The first and necessary characteristic of such a difference is the sign of objectivity and objectivity of scientific knowledge.

Science in human activity singles out only its objective structure and examines everything through the prism of this structure. Like King Midas from the famous ancient legend - whatever he touched, everything turned into gold, - so science, whatever it touches - everything for it is an object that lives, functions and develops according to objective laws.

Here the question immediately arises: well, what then to be with the subject of activity, with his goals, values, states of his consciousness? All this belongs to the components of the subjective structure of activity, but science is able to study these components, because for it there are no prohibitions on the study of any really existing phenomena. The answer to these questions is quite simple: yes, science can explore any phenomena of human life and consciousness, it can explore activity, the human psyche, and culture, but only from one point of view - as special objects that obey objective laws. Science also studies the subjective structure of activity, but as a special object. And where science cannot construct an object and present its "natural life" determined by its essential connections, then its claims end. Thus, science can study everything in the human world, but from a special perspective, and from a special point of view. This special perspective of objectivity expresses both the infinity and limitations of science, since a person as an independent, conscious being has free will, and he is not only an object, he is also a subject of activity. And in this his subjective being, not all states can be exhausted by scientific knowledge, even if we assume that such a comprehensive scientific knowledge about a person, his life activity can be obtained.

Studying objects that are transformed into activities, science is not limited to the knowledge of only those subject relations that can be mastered within the framework of the types of activities that have historically developed at a given stage in the development of society. The purpose of science is to foresee possible future changes in objects, including those that would correspond to future types and forms of practical change in the world.

As an expression of these goals in science, not only research is formed that serves today's practice, but also layers of research, the results of which can only find application in the practice of the future. The movement of cognition in these layers is already determined not so much by the direct demands of today's practice as by cognitive interests through which the needs of society are manifested in predicting future methods and forms of practical development of the world. For example, the formulation of intrascientific problems and their solution within the framework of fundamental theoretical research in physics led to the discovery of the laws of the electromagnetic field and the prediction of electromagnetic waves, to the discovery of the laws of fission of atomic nuclei, the quantum laws of atomic radiation during the transition of electrons from one energy level to another, etc. All these theoretical discoveries laid the foundation for future methods of mass practical development of nature in production. A few decades later, they became the basis for applied engineering research and development, the introduction of which into production, in turn, revolutionized equipment and technology - radio-electronic equipment, nuclear power plants, laser installations, etc. appeared.

The focus of science on the study of not only objects that are transformed in today's practice, but also those that can become the subject of mass practical development in the future, is the second distinguishing feature of scientific knowledge. This feature makes it possible to distinguish between scientific and everyday, spontaneous-empirical knowledge and to derive a number of specific definitions that characterize the nature of science.

From the book of Sri Chaitanya Shikshamrita author Thakur Bhaktivinoda

From the book Philosophy author Lavrinenko Vladimir Nikolaevich

1. The main directions of modern philosophy Philosophy of the XX century. is a complex spiritual formation. Its pluralism has been expanded and enriched both by further development science and practice, and through the development of philosophical thought itself in previous

From the book An Anthology of Philosophy of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance author Perevezentsev Sergey Vyacheslavovich

CHAPTER 9 Distinctive Concepts of the Spirit, Conforming to the Teachings of Scripture Let us now examine what are our general concepts and about the Spirit, both collected by us about Him from the Scriptures, and taken from the unwritten tradition of the fathers. And first, who, having heard the name of the Spirit, does not perk up in soul and

From the book Libertarianism in One Lesson author Bergland David

Chapter 5 Features libertarianism The libertarian worldview differs significantly from the political philosophy of liberalism and conservatism. All libertarian views are derived and derived from basic libertarian principles. Libertarianism

From the book The End of Science: A Look at the Limits of Knowledge at the End of the Age of Science author Horgan John

John Horgan The End of Science: A Perspective on the Limits of Knowledge at the End of the Age of Science Introduction Finding the Answer Horgan THE END OF SCIENCE Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age 1996

From the book Justification of Intuitionism [edited] author Lossky Nikolai Onufrievich

V. Main characteristics intuitionism Philosophical direction, substantiated by us, can be called mystical. This name is justified primarily by the following consideration. Philosophical mysticism, which until now has usually had a religious coloring, has always

From the Book of Tao star wars» by Porter John M.

Characteristics of a true teacher He acts without doing anything. Acts without expecting anything in return. Teaches without speaking. Does not take sides. He owns everything, although he has nothing. himself the way he is

From the book Rise of the Masses (compilation) author Ortega y Gasset Jose

From the book of Ideas to pure phenomenology and phenomenological philosophy. Book 1 author Husserl Edmund

§ 56. The question of the scope of the phenomenological reduction. The sciences of nature and the sciences of the spirit Turning off the positing of the world, of nature, we used this methodological means in order to make it generally possible to turn our gaze towards the transcendental pure consciousness. Now,

From the book Empiriomonism author Bogdanov Alexander Alexandrovich

A. Main lines of development The principle of "social selection" for social sciences is by no means something essentially new. Already classical economists in the study economic life, undoubtedly, stood on the basis of this principle, although, of course, they did not formulate it definitely;

From the book Philosophy of Health [Collection of Articles] author Medicine Team of authors --

The main functions of stem cells Ensuring the processes of growth and development of the embryo and renewal-regeneration of organs and tissues of the adult organism. Two types of stem cells are involved in the regeneration of organs and tissues - specialized tissue cells (give rise to cells

From book Selected works author Natorp Paul

§ 14. The main forms of inference A. Immediate inference general rules deriving new judgments from data, i.e. rules of inference. In this case, direct inferences are called

From the book Mirology. Volume I. Introduction to Mirology author Battler Alex

4. Distinctive features of science It is quite difficult for laymen to distinguish scientific work from unscientific. Surprisingly, even many scientists, even with Ph.D. and doctoral degrees, do not always distinguish between science and non-science, since many

From the book Jewish Wisdom [Ethical, spiritual and historical lessons according to the works of the great sages] author Telushkin Joseph

Key Questions At the hour when a person is brought before the heavenly court for sentencing, he is asked: Have you conducted your business honestly? Did you leave time to study Torah? Have you sought to produce children? Did you expect the world to be saved? Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat

From the book Quantum Mind [The Line Between Physics and Psychology] author Mindell Arnold

49. Mitzvah (commandment) and some distinctive features Judaism It is better to do what is obligatory than what is optional. Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 31a Most people consider voluntary actions to be higher than obligatory ones from a moral point of view. Therefore, the above

From the author's book

People are not the main thing in the Universe important place we humans occupy in the universe? The answer to this question depends on how we define what is meant by a person. If we exist only as observers of the PR, then the answer is no, we are not in charge. But if we

Intuitively, it seems clear how science differs from other forms of human cognitive activity. However, a clear explication of the specific features of science in the form of signs and definitions turns out to be a rather difficult task. This is evidenced by the variety of definitions of science, the ongoing discussions on the problem of demarcation between it and other forms of knowledge.
Scientific knowledge, like all forms of spiritual production, is ultimately necessary in order to regulate human activity. Different types of cognition fulfill this role in different ways, and the analysis of this difference is the first and necessary condition for identifying the features of scientific cognition.
An activity can be considered as a complexly organized network of various acts of transformation of objects, when the products of one activity pass into another and become its components. For example, iron ore as a product of mining production becomes an object that is transformed into the activities of a steelmaker, machine tools produced at a plant from steel mined by a steelmaker become means of activity in another production. Even the subjects of activity - people who transform objects in accordance with the goals set, can to a certain extent be presented as the results of training and education, which ensures that the subject acquires the necessary patterns of actions, knowledge and skills of using certain means in the activity.
The structural characteristics of an elementary act of activity can be represented as the following scheme:

The right side of this scheme depicts the subject structure of activity - the interaction of funds with the subject of activity and its transformation into a product due to the implementation of certain operations. The left part represents the subject structure, which includes the subject of activity (with its goals, values, knowledge of operations and skills), which performs expedient actions and uses certain means of activity for this purpose. Means and actions can be attributed to both objective and subjective structures, since they can be considered in two ways. On the one hand, the means can be presented as artificial organs of human activity. On the other hand, they can be considered as natural objects that interact with other objects. In a similar way, operations can be presented in various ways both as human actions and as natural interactions of objects.
Activities are always governed by certain values and goals. Value answers the question: “what is the purpose of this or that activity”. The goal is to answer the question: “what should be obtained in the activity”. The goal is the ideal image of the product. It is embodied, objectified in the product, which is the result of the transformation of the subject of activity.
Since activity is universal, the function of its objects can be not only fragments of nature that are transformed in practice, but also people whose “properties” change when they are included in various social subsystems, as well as these subsystems themselves, interacting within society as an integral organism. Then, in the first case, we are dealing with the “objective side” of human change in nature, and in the second case, with the “objective side” of practice aimed at changing social objects. From this point of view, a person can act both as a subject and as an object of practical action.
At the early stages of the development of society, the subjective and objective aspects of practical activity are not dissected in cognition, but are taken as a single whole. Cognition reflects the ways of practical change of objects, including in the characteristics of the latter the goals, abilities and actions of a person. Such an idea of the objects of activity is transferred to the whole nature, which is viewed through the prism of the practice being carried out.
It is known, for example, that in the myths of ancient peoples, the forces of nature are always likened to human forces, and its processes - to human actions. Primitive thinking, in explaining the phenomena of the external world, invariably resorts to their comparison with human actions and motives. Only in the process of the long evolution of society does knowledge begin to exclude anthropomorphic factors from the characterization of objective relations. An important role in this process was played by the historical development of practice, and above all by the improvement of means and tools of labor.
As the tools became more complex, those operations that were previously directly performed by a person began to “reify”, acting as a consistent impact of one tool on another and only then on the object being transformed. Thus, the properties and states of objects that arise due to these operations ceased to seem caused by the direct efforts of man, but more and more acted as the result of the interaction of the natural objects themselves. So, if in the early stages of civilization the movement of goods required muscular effort, then with the invention of the lever and block, and then the simplest machines, it was possible to replace these efforts with mechanical ones. For example, using a block system, it was possible to balance a large load with a small one, and by adding a small weight to a small load, raise a large load to the desired height. Here, to lift a heavy body, no human effort is needed: one load independently moves the other.
This transfer of human functions to mechanisms leads to a new understanding of the forces of nature. Previously, forces were understood only by analogy with the physical efforts of a person, but now they are beginning to be considered as mechanical forces. The above example can serve as an analogue of the process of "objectification" of the objective relations of practice, which, apparently, began already in the era of the first urban civilizations of antiquity. During this period, knowledge begins to gradually separate the objective side of practice from subjective factors and consider this side as a special, independent reality. Such consideration of practice is one of the necessary conditions for the emergence of scientific research.
Science sets as its ultimate goal to foresee the process of transformation of objects of practical activity (an object in the initial state) into the corresponding products (an object in the final state). This transformation is always determined by the essential connections, the laws of change and development of objects, and the activity itself can be successful only when it is consistent with these laws. Therefore, the main task of science is to reveal the laws in accordance with which objects change and develop.
With regard to the processes of transformation of nature, this function is performed by the natural and technical sciences. The processes of change in social objects are studied by the social sciences. Since a variety of objects can be transformed in activity - objects of nature, a person (and the state of his consciousness), subsystems of society, sign objects that function as cultural phenomena, etc. - to the extent that all of them can become subjects of scientific research.
The orientation of science to the study of objects that can be included in activity (either actual or potentially as possible objects of its future transformation), and their study as obeying the objective laws of functioning and development, constitutes the first main feature of scientific knowledge.
This feature distinguishes it from other forms of human cognitive activity. So, for example, in the process of artistic assimilation of reality, objects included in human activity are not separated from subjective factors, but are taken in a kind of "gluing" with them. Any reflection of objects of the objective world in art at the same time expresses the value attitude of a person to an object. An artistic image is such a reflection of an object that contains the imprint of a human personality, its value orientations, which are fused into the characteristics of the reflected reality. To exclude this interpenetration means to destroy the artistic image. In science, however, the features of the life of a person who creates knowledge, its value judgments are not directly part of the generated knowledge (Newton's laws do not allow one to judge what Newton loved and hated, while, for example, Rembrandt's personality is depicted in Rembrandt's portraits, his worldview and his personal attitude to the depicted social phenomena; a portrait painted by a great artist always acts as a self-portrait).
Science is focused on the subject and objective study of reality. The above, of course, 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 its results.
The process of scientific knowledge is determined not only by the characteristics of the object under study, but also by numerous factors of a sociocultural nature.
Considering science in its historical development, it can be found that as the type of culture changes, the standards of presentation of scientific knowledge, the ways of seeing reality in science, the styles of thinking that are formed in the context of culture and are affected by its most diverse phenomena change. This impact can be represented as the inclusion of various socio-cultural factors in the process of generating proper scientific knowledge. However, the statement of the connections between the objective and the subjective in any cognitive process and the need for a comprehensive study of science in its interaction with other forms of human spiritual activity do not remove the question of the difference between science and these forms (ordinary knowledge, artistic thinking, etc.). The first and necessary characteristic of such a difference is the sign of objectivity and objectivity of scientific knowledge.
Science in human activity singles out only its objective structure and examines everything through the prism of this structure. Like King Midas from the famous ancient legend - whatever he touched, everything turned into gold, - so science, whatever it touches - everything for it is an object that lives, functions and develops according to objective laws.
Here the question immediately arises: well, what then to be with the subject of activity, with his goals, values, states of his consciousness? All this belongs to the components of the subjective structure of activity, but science is able to study these components, because for it there are no prohibitions on the study of any really existing phenomena. The answer to these questions is quite simple: yes, science can explore any phenomena of human life and consciousness, it can explore activity, the human psyche, and culture, but only from one point of view - as special objects that obey objective laws. Science also studies the subjective structure of activity, but as a special object. And where science cannot construct an object and present its "natural life" determined by its essential connections, then its claims end. Thus, science can study everything in the human world, but from a special perspective, and from a special point of view. This special perspective of objectivity expresses both the infinity and limitations of science, since a person as an independent, conscious being has free will, and he is not only an object, he is also a subject of activity. And in this his subjective being, not all states can be exhausted by scientific knowledge, even if we assume that such a comprehensive scientific knowledge about a person, his life activity can be obtained.
There is no anti-scientism in this statement about the limits of science. It is simply a statement of the indisputable fact that science cannot replace all forms of knowledge of the world, of all culture. And everything that escapes her field of vision is compensated by other forms of spiritual comprehension of the world - art, religion, morality, philosophy.
Studying objects that are transformed into activities, science is not limited to the knowledge of only those subject relations that can be mastered within the framework of the types of activities that have historically developed at a given stage in the development of society. The purpose of science is to foresee possible future changes in objects, including those that would correspond to future types and forms of practical change in the world.
As an expression of these goals in science, not only research is formed that serves today's practice, but also layers of research, the results of which can only find application in the practice of the future. The movement of cognition in these layers is already determined not so much by the direct demands of today's practice as by cognitive interests through which the needs of society are manifested in predicting future methods and forms of practical development of the world. For example, the formulation of intrascientific problems and their solution within the framework of fundamental theoretical research in physics led to the discovery of the laws of the electromagnetic field and the prediction of electromagnetic waves, to the discovery of the laws of fission of atomic nuclei, the quantum laws of atomic radiation during the transition of electrons from one energy level to another, etc. All these theoretical discoveries laid the foundation for future methods of mass practical development of nature in production. A few decades later, they became the basis for applied engineering research and development, the introduction of which into production, in turn, revolutionized equipment and technology - radio-electronic equipment, nuclear power plants, laser installations, etc. appeared.
The focus of science on the study of not only objects that are transformed in today's practice, but also those that can become the subject of mass practical development in the future, is the second distinguishing feature of scientific knowledge. This feature makes it possible to distinguish between scientific and everyday, spontaneous-empirical knowledge and to derive a number of specific definitions that characterize the nature of science.