Features of scientific knowledge. Basic approaches to the problem of scientific criteria in modern philosophy of sciences. Problems of scientific knowledge

essay on Yuki's philosophy
Moscow, 2003

1. Introduction
2. Problems of scientific knowledge
1. The emergence of science
2. The problem of justifying knowledge
3. The problem of rationality
4. Development theories scientific knowledge
3. Conclusion
4. Bibliography

1. Introduction

The entire history of the 20th century demonstrates to us the enormous transformative power and cognitive value of science. Many abstract theoretical constructions were realized in material objects that not only changed the utilitarian-material life of a person, but reflected on culture as a whole. The most odious example of this series is nuclear weapons and the chemical industry, less popular, but no less significant, are electricity, electronics, and medicine.

But it was the 20th century that gave rise to the most acute philosophical disputes in the field of scientific knowledge. These are reincarnations of eternal questions: what is truth? What is the source of our knowledge? Do we know the world? What is the difference between science and system religious beliefs, philosophy or art?

There are no unambiguous answers to these questions, but this only means that everyone decides them on their own. In the activities of different philosophers, different facets of the general problem of cognition have been embodied. The topic is far from exhausted as long as it exists thinking person, thinking itself will not cease to be a most interesting area for research.

2. Problems of scientific knowledge

2.1 Emergence of science

There is no consensus on what exactly is considered science: according to one approach, science is a method of cognition, according to another, it is a kind of religion. However, there is no doubt that the emergence of scientific knowledge is associated with a sharp increase in human capabilities to influence the environment. It is by changing the transforming abilities that one can trace the stage of the birth of science, which took place not only within the framework of European civilization, but then the beginning of the actual scientific and technological progress in Europe.

In my opinion, it would be wrong to say that the emergence of science is associated with some specific economic conditions. In our time, science can be regarded as a kind of production, but at the beginning of its development it was not so. Isaac Newton, for example, saw no practical use for his work in optics. In this matter, we find ourselves in a "grey zone": did material conditions require the emergence of science, or did scientific activity create certain material conditions? One way or another, work on comprehending the accumulated empirical material was carried out even before it began to bring a visible economic effect. This was facilitated, so to speak, by the ideological attitudes that existed among European thinkers of the 16th and 17th centuries. The foundations of the scientific worldview were formed in the period preceding the emergence of the natural sciences. This was facilitated by the popularity of Greek philosophy, which would not have been possible without the specific mechanism of the functioning of medieval philosophy. Church scholasticism became the prototype of scientific activity, the first "paradigm", a research program, albeit operating within the framework of a very peculiar theory.

Much has been said about the influence of Greek philosophy on European thinkers. This does not mean that outside of Greece people did not think about anything. The underlying motive for acquiring knowledge is the desire for security. Only by knowing and explaining what is happening can a person use the most powerful tool for survival - his brain. Various explanations of reality have been put forward. Some of them took the form of harmonious philosophical or religious systems, magical practices, prejudices. This does not mean that they were useless or ineffective - it is not even necessary to use logic to create a guide to action, many useful habits do not have a clear explanation at all. A distinctive feature of ancient philosophy was the allocation of the role of reason in the process of cognition. Without denying religious practice, the Greeks designated reflection as a way by which a person can independently reach the Truth. Moreover, ancient philosophers approached the intuitive knowledge of what became essential and obvious a millennium later: only the human mind is able to single out the objectively general in the chaos of sensory images. Eternal and unchanging is by its nature intelligible. The ancient authors were inclined to absolutize the principle they discovered, but this allowed them to attribute to reflections special value. Unlike the more contemplative worldview systems of India and China, Greek philosophy refers to the understanding of the very process of obtaining knowledge. The result is the emergence of disciplines devoted to the organization of mental activity: dialectics, rhetoric and, above all, logic. It is not surprising that in the philosophy of ancient Greece, the main problems of cognition that are still relevant today are identified: the inclination of the mind to inconsistency (Zeno's aporias) and relativism (sophists and in particular Gorgias) judgments. European philosophy will inherit from the ancient setting of rationality, but just acquaintance with the works of predecessors for the emergence of science would not be enough (philosophers of the Arab East were also familiar with the works of Greek authors). In order to go beyond arithmetic and geometry, a systematic approach was needed, so to speak. It was the practice of medieval philosophy that contributed to the development of such a tradition.

Some authors considered and still consider it good form to dissociate themselves from medieval ecclesiastical philosophy, declaring it metaphysics and verbiage. The term "scholasticism" itself was introduced by the humanists of the 16th century to derogately refer to the entire period, from the ancient "classics" to the Renaissance. With all the variety of schools and trends that fall under this inaccurate definition, in general, scholasticism can be characterized as a movement that flourished in the period from the 13th to the 15th centuries, paying special attention to the rational justification of religious faith. Scholasticism is not characterized by specific views, but rather by a way of organizing theology based on a highly developed method of presenting materials. The works of scholastic theologians were distinguished by reasoning, attention to terms, knowledge of previous authors, and the desire to cover all aspects of reality. It was the first attempt at a rational systematization of human knowledge in any one area. Under the auspices of the Church in Europe, a system of higher education was created. Universities become a breeding ground for the emergence of a new tradition, since, in essence, science is associated with learning. Researchers of scientific knowledge note this function of it, we can say that the requirements for the "simplicity" and "beauty" of theories, which facilitate their memorization and teaching, follow from it. In addition, it is impossible to overestimate the influence that the tradition of disputes had on the development of philosophy as a whole, in which the most important problems of theology were resolved. Perhaps the original premises of scholasticism were vulnerable, but the experience of the work done could not just go to the sand. It is characteristic that the first steps in the field of natural sciences were also the systematization of a huge amount of factual material, often sinning with subjectivity and inaccuracy. It is difficult to say whether such work could have been done without the experience of previous attempts.

The underestimation of the role of medieval philosophy, in my opinion, is an echo of the struggle of freethinking with the dominance of the official church, which can be clearly seen in the example of the French materialists. By this point, the program of rational explanation of faith had failed and was replaced by dogmatic tendencies. However, one should not forget that at a certain stage church scholasticism became a necessary stage in the development of European philosophy.

The rational approach alone does not allow theology to get rid of heresies. To resolve contradictions in worldviews, some other means besides logic is required, and in relation to knowledge of nature, experiment becomes such a means. Roger Bacon was the first to use the phrase "experimental science" in the 13th century, gradually this approach is gaining more and more popularity. There is a kind of rehabilitation of "sensory experience", which is especially characteristic of the English philosophical tradition.

The combination of passive observation, theoretical reflection, and controlled experiment resulted in the emergence of science as we understand it. After realizing the importance of the experiment, adding mathematics to this bunch, abandoning the "qualitative" Aristotelian physics in favor of "quantitative", was a completely natural step (astronomy has used such methods since ancient times). In my opinion, the use of mathematics in natural science was not decisive, since it is possible only if the object could be described in numbers (some sciences still use mathematical methods very poorly). An attempt to consider internal processes development of scientific knowledge will be undertaken in Section 2.4.

2.2 The problem of justifying knowledge

At all times, knowledge was considered to be evidence-based, but thinkers doubted that this could be done already two thousand years ago. The problem of substantiating knowledge began to be developed most deeply and in detail with the advent of the natural sciences, since the declared goal of the activities of scientists was initially the search for objective truth about the world around them.

The problem includes two aspects: determining the source of knowledge and determining the truth of knowledge. And with that, and with the other, everything is not so simple.

All attempts to determine the source of human knowledge can be divided into two directions. The first can be described as an approach from within, since it is assumed that all the initial premises of true knowledge are inside a person. At the same time, it doesn’t matter whether they manifest themselves in the form of divine insight, communication with the “world of ideas” or are innate, the main thing is that in order to receive them there is no need for external activity, only internal spiritual work (rational reflection, introspection, meditation or prayer) . Within the framework of this concept, there are many variants of philosophical systems. For the problem of scientific knowledge, the position of rationalism, formulated by Rene Descartes and called Cartesianism, is important. Descartes seeks to build a comprehensive picture of the universe, in which the universe appears as separate material bodies, separated by emptiness and acting on each other by means of a push, like parts of a once-wound clockwork. With regard to knowledge, Descartes believes that by critically analyzing the content of his own beliefs and using intellectual intuition, an individual can approach some indestructible foundation of knowledge, innate ideas. However, this raises the question of the source of the innate ideas themselves. For Descartes, that source is God. For such a system to work, everyone's innate ideas must be the same, and such that they accurately reflect the external world. This is the weak point of the “from within” approach as a whole – the unresolved problem of choosing between theories. If the opponents do not come to a consensus with the help of intellectual intuition, the choice of position will turn out to be purely a matter of taste.

The second direction of the search for the source of knowledge is “external”. Human cognition of reality comes exclusively through feelings, experiences. With the advent of the natural sciences, this approach takes on a new meaning. In the development of these views in England, the concept of empiricism is being formed, the importance of which for the development of scientific knowledge cannot be overestimated. In fact, the empirical approach underlies all scientific practice. Its basis is well formulated by Francis Bacon: knowledge is obtained by gradual ascent from facts to law, by induction. Classical empiricism is characterized by treating the scientist's mind as a tabula rasa, a blank slate free from prejudices and expectations.

Consistently adhering to the ideas of empiricism, David Hume also indicates the limits of its applicability. With a purely empirical approach, a term that is not associated with sensory experience does not make sense. The content of the mind is clearly divided into synthetic statements (relationships between ideas) and facts (single statements, knowledge about the world, the truth of which is determined in an extralogical way). Turning to the origin of facts, Hume discovers that they are based on the relationship of cause and effect, obtained from experience, and in fact - habit. From this follows the restriction, characteristic of empiricism, on the fundamental knowability general principles(last reasons) and a skeptical attitude towards attempts at such knowledge. One can only believe that such principles in the next moment of time will not change arbitrarily. However, can all knowledge be reduced to experience? The process of generalization itself turns out to be inexpressible in empirical terms. Starting with the rejection of vague terms, the empiricist inevitably ends up rejecting knowledge in general. Hume substantiates the existence of a habit by its necessity for the survival of the human race, but the mechanism for the emergence of such an infallible instinct is still beyond the scope of consideration. Thus, strict empiricism does not allow one to obtain empirical knowledge.

The first serious attempt to take into account the external, empirical and internal, rational principle is the philosophical system of Kant. Trying to resolve those raised by Hume, Kant assumes that sensory experience is ordered with the help of a priori forms of cognition, not innate, but formed under the influence of culture and environment. Without these initial mechanisms, no knowledge is simply possible. Kant distinguishes two components of mental activity: reason, as the ability to make judgments based on sensory experience, and reason, always directed to the concepts of reason. Since the mind is not directly connected with feelings, it is able to operate with abstract concepts, ideas. Sensory experience is considered as the limit of possible knowledge, beyond which the mind is doomed to fall into contradictions.

We come to the conclusion that human knowledge has its sources both in the work of the mind and in the testimony of the senses. In an array of knowledge, elements of both are inevitably mixed in some way. But what is the relationship between these two components and can they be clearly separated? Anyone who does not risk trusting "innate instincts" or believing that a priori forms of cognition are ideal inevitably tries to evaluate the result of the mental process and approaches the issue of substantiating the truth of knowledge. Any attempt to manage the process of thinking rests on the issue of evaluating the results. How to distinguish true conclusions from false ones? Apart from subjective arguments such as intellectual intuition or brilliant insight, since ancient times philosophers have used logic to do this. Logic is a tool that transfers truth from premises to conclusions. Thus, only that which is inferred from true premises is true. This conclusion was the basis of the concept that had a fundamental impact on the current state of the theory of scientific knowledge. I mean positivism in all its varieties.

This concept arises in the 19th century under the influence of the success of the natural sciences and combines classical empiricism and formal logic. In fact, this is an attempt to ignore the questions raised by Hume. The first formulation of such an approach is associated with the name of Auguste Comte. Through some changes, positivism reaches highest point development in the early 20th century in the form of logical positivism. Within the framework of this approach, science is seen as the only way to achieve objective truth, and the distinguishing feature of science is its method. All branches of human knowledge that do not use the empirical method cannot claim to be true and therefore are equivalent (or equally meaningless). What, according to positivism, is the peculiarity of the scientific method? First, a clear distinction is made between an empirical basis and a theory. The theory must be proven, verified, and the elements of the empirical basis do not need logical proof. These elements correspond to Hume's "facts", their truth is determined in an extralogical way (in different interpretations they are "given in the senses", "certainly known", "directly observable"). Each such element takes the value "true" or "false". Only such propositions are considered scientific theory that are reducible to an empirical basis by means of certain rules, by which existential logic is usually meant. Everything that is not reducible to sensory experience is declared metaphysics and nonsense. From a positivist point of view, no big difference between religion, all previous philosophy, and most common scientific theories. The task of science is not in explanation, but in the phenomenological description of the totality of experimental facts, the theory is considered solely as a tool for ordering data. In fact, science is identified with an axiomatic logical system, and philosophy is seen as a theory of the scientific method. It is clear that this approach is too narrow. In addition, positivism raises a number of problems that it cannot solve on its own.

First, there is the problem of the empirical basis. What is considered directly observable, “given in the senses”? Any observation is psychologically loaded with expectation, the sense organs of different people are different, moreover, most measurements are carried out indirectly, through measuring instruments. Consequently, in obtaining the result, at least the “theory of observation” is involved, according to which the device is built (for astronomy, this will be optics). But what about experiments that became possible only because their result was predicted by theory? In addition to psychological objections, there is a purely logical one: any statement about observed facts is already a generalization. Upon a detailed examination of the problem, it turns out that there is no insurmountable natural boundary between observation and theory.

Second, even if an empirical basis existed, other logical problems would remain. The problem of inductive logic (verification) is that logic only allows transferring truth from premises to conclusions, it is impossible to prove a universal statement like "x" (for any x) with any number of singular statements. An attempt to demarcate (demarcate science and other forms of consciousness) according to the principle verifiability came across the need to reject recognized scientific theories as unprovable. All this required a consistent weakening of all criteria, the introduction of the controversial term “meaningfulness”. The problem of reducing theoretical language terms to protocol sentences remained unresolved (for example, the difficulty of formulating the meaning of dispositional predicates). Attempts to develop a special “ the language of science” ended in failure.

Thirdly, an attempt to reduce the functions of theory to purely instrumental ones comes up against serious objections. According to the positivist interpretation, interpretation is a means of obtaining knowledge that can be dispensed with. Upon closer examination, it turns out that theoretical terms do not just simplify the theory and make it more convenient. Terms can be thrown out only from a ready-made theory, and how to separate theory and experience, etc., etc. Moreover, if a theory is a tool, why does it need to be proven at all?

As a result, philosophy approached the middle of the 20th century with the conviction that the largest scientific theories are fiction, and scientific knowledge is the result of an agreement. Real science stubbornly did not fit into such a framework. Domestic developments of the problem based on the Leninist theory of reflection, in my opinion, give an overly general interpretation of the problem and are useless in practice. In addition, dialectical materialism insists on the consistent approach of relative truth to absolute truth, on progress, accumulation, and not just the growth of knowledge. There are serious objections to the cumulative theory of the development of knowledge, which will be discussed in detail in section 2.4. The only interesting development of dialectical materialism is the attitude to knowledge as an ideal plan of activity and the orientation of all knowledge to practice. The current state of the philosophy of science in general and the problem of substantiating truth in particular is a reaction to the collapse of the concept of positivism.

The first attempt to revise the tradition of knowledge verification is made by Karl Popper. He shifts the emphasis from the logic of scientific action to the logic of the development of scientific knowledge. In his approach, the influence of positivism is felt, in particular, Popper draws a clear line between experiment and theory. In the question of determining truth, the key point of Popper's concept is the rejection of inductive logic. A singular proposition cannot prove a universal proposition, but it can disprove it. A popular example of this is that no amount of white swans can prove that ALL swans are white, but the appearance of one black swan can disprove it. According to Popper, the growth of knowledge proceeds as follows: a certain theory is put forward, consequences are deduced from the theory, an experiment is set up, if the consequences are not refuted, the theory is temporarily preserved, if the consequences are refuted, the theory is falsified and discarded. The task of a scientist is not to search for evidence of a theory, but to falsify it. The criterion for the scientific character of a theory is the presence of potential falsifiers. Truth is understood as correspondence to facts. Later, Popper develops his concept, considers scientific theories as more complex formations with false and true content, but the principle that any change in a theory requires considering it as a completely new theory remains. The cumulative law of the progress of knowledge becomes optional. Falsificationism successfully explains some of the features of real science, in particular, why the prediction of facts is more important for science than explaining them in hindsight, but does not avoid criticism. First, all questions about the use of the concept of “empirical basis” remain. It turns out that without agreement on what part of knowledge to consider as a basis, no science is possible. Second, by forbidding any observable state, the theory proceeds from the initial conditions, a consistent theory of observation, and a ceteris paribus constraint (ceteris paribus). Which of the three elements is considered a refuted observation depends on the decision of the observer. Third, it remains unclear at what point a falsified theory should be discarded. Why do we still use Newton's theory even though it was disproved AT THE MOMENT when Mercury's perihelion precession was discovered (long before Einstein's theory)? It turns out that the most significant scientific theories are not only unprovable, but also irrefutable.

Popper's concept gave rise to a whole range of theories of the development of science, which will be discussed in Section 2.4. In the question of substantiating the truth of knowledge, the methodology of science came to the conclusion that knowledge is not possible without certain agreements. This prompts the most consistent proponents of conventionalism to claim that all knowledge is nothing more than a figment of the imagination. For example, Paul Feyerabend comes to a complete relativism of truth and considers science as a kind of religion. Starting with the proclamation of science as the main value, philosophers have come to a complete devaluation of its results.

The fact is that in the interpretation of science as a method, the importance of truth as a regulative principle has fallen out of consideration. The scientist embarks on a search for truth, not being sure that he will find it, nor that it exists in principle. Consciously or unconsciously, but he makes a choice between advantages in case of success and losses in case of failure. Anyone who is sure that the truth, as he understands it, is unattainable, does not participate in the scientific enterprise or drops out of it. This dictates a biased attitude towards the issue among scientists - belief in the attainability of truth scientific methods is an ideological prerequisite for choosing a profession, therefore, it must be justified as a value.

A comprehensive concept of substantiating the truth of knowledge does not yet exist. It is clear that such a concept, if it appears, should be considered as an objective reality not only the world of things around us, but also our beliefs. But the question of whether it is possible to substantiate the truth of the worldview has to be left open.

2.3 The problem of rationality

As the consideration of the problem of substantiating the truth of knowledge shows, the subjective moment is inseparable from scientific knowledge. The main feature of science is not a monopoly on the ultimate Truth, but a focus on achieving knowledge by rational methods. At some point, science was regarded as a model of rational activity, and this was precisely the pathos of positivism. But when trying to formulate the laws of science, the whole picture crumbled like a house of cards. The collapse of the positivist program of rationality is perceived as a catastrophe precisely because it was formulated not just a method, but a regulative principle, the basis of a worldview. The reality has once again turned out to be more complicated than we imagined, this is a very typical picture, but trying to take the edge off the problem with such an argument means abandoning attempts to solve it.

On the one hand, rationality is an ideological problem concerning the relationship of man with man and man with Being, and in this role is within the competence of philosophy. On the other hand, within the boundaries of the general approach, particular problems of rational behavior, the rationality of history, the rationality of knowledge, etc., are distinguished. It is quite obvious that without solving the problem at the philosophical level, the consideration of particular problems encounters serious difficulties. Meanwhile, in the philosophical literature there is no unambiguous definition of rationality, specific interpretations of the concept depend on the position of the author, if he seeks to define this concept at all. Some perceive this as evidence of the phantom nature of the problem, in my opinion, everything is just the opposite. We can reason much more definitely about abstract problems, like the customs of the Papuans of New Guinea, but the closer the subject is to us, the more subjective our judgment becomes. Rationality is an integral part of our culture, so it is extremely difficult to talk about it objectively. Apparently, it makes sense to consider the attitude of the author to the problem of reason as a whole, in order thus to try to find something in common in the discordance of opinions.

The definition of the boundaries and possibilities of the mind largely depends on how the rational principle itself is understood. The idea of ​​the need to divide reason into practical and theoretical can be traced already in Kant. Developing this idea, we can say that within the boundaries of the human mind there are two abilities: reason as the ability to set rules, and reason as the ability to rebuild the system of rules. The activity of the mind is distinguished by clarity, consistency and articulation. The mind is capable of a critical revision of the initial mindsets of reason, resolving contradictions, it is characterized by some spontaneity and extranormality. Naturally, with two abilities all human activity not described, but, apparently, they are characteristic of humans. Such, at least, the duality of the carrier of a rational principle leads to a huge range of options for its interpretation. Depending on which of the abilities the author focuses on, two approaches to rationality can be traced.

First, it is a pragmatic-functional approach, which includes the philosophy of science and positivism in all its forms. Measures and criteria, rules for different types of reason act as the main content of reason. Rationality is considered as a method, a description of the norms of the validity of opinions, the choice of practical action. The main characteristic of rational activity is consistency; any normalized human activity, for example, magic, can fall under the definition. Due to the difficulty of substantiating general theories, the emphasis is shifted from explanations to typology and description, which leads to blurring of concepts and, if carried out consistently, to complete nihilism. Such an approach is characterized by the conventionalism of definitions and bringing rationality to the position of a pseudo-problem. Range options: from the dogmatization of the rules of logic to the relativism of truth.

The second approach can be designated as a value-humanitarian one. This approach is characterized by belittling the value of rational forms of reason and science. The supporters of this position include existentialists and followers of Nietzsche. Within this approach, rationality, as a rule, is not interpreted. Often, any form of consciousness is summed up under the definition of mind, and the emphasis is on spontaneity and non-logic (“creative intelligence”, “innovative ability”). Consistent rejection of the rational forms of reason leads to the rejection of attempts at comprehension in general, the emphasis is shifted to the search for new means of expression that exclude the word and concept. There is also some ideological moment: the mind is declared an instrument of violence against the individual by the apparatus of power, true freedom - the rejection of any concepts as imposed by society (goes back to Nietzsche). Such categoricalness is largely a reaction to the dictates of positivism and totalitarian tendencies in society.

Both of these tendencies in their pure form gravitate toward relativism and irrationality. Logic gives in to development, the moment of going beyond the established system of rules. The flight of thought perishes, not fixed by a word. In the first case, normativity reaches pseudo-problematicity, in the second - spontaneity to utopia. It must be clearly understood that the dialogue about rationality is not between rationalism and irrational delirium, but between different versions of the rational position, even if the authors deny it. Life is opposed not by thought, but by the absence of any thought. At some point, attempts to glorify the impulsive, inexpressible, bodily, lead to the triumph of the animal nature in man. At this level, thought is absent and discussion is impossible.

The essence of the problem is that so far, any attempt to formulate the criteria of rationality has been immediately refuted, and the introduction of certain "relative" criteria inevitably led to relativism and irrationality. Relativism, the denial of the existence of an objective position, leads to the destruction of all social institutions. Irrationality means the death of society as we understand it. For most people, such alternatives to rationality are unacceptable, a sense of self-preservation requires us to bring our views into line with reality in some more acceptable way.

The situation of "challenge to reason" can be solved in two ways. The synthetic solution is to try to combine the two approaches to the mind within one concept. Empiricists are becoming more interested in situations of creative mind and imagination (G. Anderson comes to the conclusion that creative and critical mind are complementary), subjectivists are more appreciative of the moments of objectivity (it is not only about the emergence of new concepts, but also about changing existing ones towards analyticity) . Often, such a synthesis is attempted on the basis of linguistic problems. At the same time, the authors proceed from the fact that any meaningful thought is public and requires symbolism, which is best seen in the example of language. In this case, rationality becomes a solution to the question of the interpersonal significance of argumentation, when rational thought goes beyond the personality. For Y. Khabrams, such a way out is a communicative action, a transition from the individual to the social, for P. Riker it is the development of the personality not through self-deepening, but through inclusion through language into culture. An original approach to rationality is offered by A.L. Nikiforov. In his opinion, rationality is a two-place predicate, the meaning of which is contained in the phrase: action A is rational in relation to goal B under conditions C. Rationality arises at the time of drawing up an ideal plan of activity, the degree of rationality can be considered the degree of approximation of the result to the goal. Thus, the conclusion about the rationality of the activity can be made only when the activity is completed and the result is obtained. An attempt to introduce intermediate criteria is the creation of rules of rational activity that summarize all previous experience of successfully achieving goals. This approach is good as the basis of the theory, but in practice the question arises of the criterion for approaching the result to the goal, especially in a situation where the totality of the acting forces is unknown. In addition, the author considers rational activity as deterministic (with respect to goals, methods and conditions) and, in fact, not free. The very appearance of a goal determines the course of action, which implies that free activity should not have a goal at all (in the manner of waving hands).

An alternative to the synthetic approach is immersion in "pre-conceptuality". In fact, this is an attempt to resolve the issue by removing the subject of the dispute. Such views are characteristic of P. Feyerabend, cognitive sociology. The complexity of describing the phenomenon of rationality is often explained by the fact that rationality is different for everyone, but we have no indication of the existence of fundamentally different forms of rationality. The discovery of "features" of the rationality of exotic societies is often explained by the fact that the researcher concentrates precisely on the exotic, ignoring the commonality of housekeeping, agriculture, and the rules of the hostel. Non-European philosophers tend to challenge the monopoly of European civilization on rationality, while emphasizing that not a single human community could not exist for a long time without "observation, experiment and reason". But, perhaps, the main argument against such an approach is that, in principle, it does not give hope for a description of the phenomenon.

Despite the abundance of theories and the avalanche of literature, there is still no single approach to rationality in general and scientific rationality in particular. This does not mean that there is no mind, it only means that every thinking person has to solve this problem anew. It is necessary to realize the importance of such a decision: rationality is the attitude that a person is able to independently achieve the Truth (opinions regarding the nature of Truth may be different), thus, the antithesis of rationality will be the statement about the existence of boundaries that the human mind is not able to overcome without being open to action some external force. The final refusal to trust the intellect would be the end of human development. The new concept, when it appears, will have to clarify the relationship between rationality and the phenomenon of the mind in general. It is obvious that it will not be possible to reduce rationality to logic: the mind is always balancing on the verge of the new and the repetitive, any interpretation of it must include a dynamic element. Another important point will be to clarify the role of rationality in interpersonal communication. It is clear that the rational organization of knowledge is important primarily for the convenience of its transfer. It is not for nothing that educational institutions have so often become centers of rational thinking. The third point should be the consideration of the question of the growth of the efficiency of rational activity. In one isolated case, a spontaneous decision may be more effective than a rationally planned one (especially in a very typical situation of lack of information). However, under conditions of repetitive action, the efficiency of rationally organized activity grows, while the other one remains at the initial level. And, finally, the question of the applicability of rationality to the interpretation of higher values ​​must be resolved, since serious rationalist philosophers have never denied their existence. According to Peter Abelard, without them, human thought is blind and aimless, and the founder of positivism, Auguste Comte, was guided by the idea of ​​creating a new religion, in the center of which would be man. What is the relationship between values ​​and reason?

Only a comprehensive solution to the problem can rehabilitate rationality as a worldview position. The crisis of the concept of rationality is closely connected with the crisis of modern civilization. The point is not the viciousness of the system, but the fact that it is losing its ability to change, yielding to the tendencies of traditionalism. A new round of development will inevitably be associated with a new understanding of many philosophical problems, including the concept of rationality.

2.4. Theories of the development of scientific knowledge

What has been said in the previous paragraphs makes one wonder how the development of scientific knowledge is possible at all. How to understand the term "development"?

The comparative novelty of the phenomenon of science and the tendency of scientists to document their actions provide us with a gigantic material describing the state of affairs in various branches of knowledge in the last three hundred years. However, the interpretation of this material encounters significant difficulties. Modern theories of the development of scientific knowledge bear the imprint of which of the branches of science the author focuses on - each has some uniqueness, each asks its own range of questions and answers. Why is the choice so difficult? At the dawn of science, its development could be traced by the appearance of such fundamental works as Newton's Elements and Optics or Lavoisier's Chemistry. The history of science could be limited to describing the circumstances of the appearance of these works and the study of personalities. Such a "personal" approach created the prerequisites for dividing the content of science into true theories and delusions. Obsolete theories were either misconceptions (like the phlogiston theory of combustion, which preceded Lavoisier's concept), or were considered as the first approximations of the true one (the systems of celestial mechanics of Copernicus and Kepler). Over time, the number of scientists working in one area or another has grown. The paths indicated in the writings of the founders were refined and developed. The belief that science would continue to follow the path of progress, accumulating its successes (the cumulative model of development), received significant reinforcement. A reflection of such sentiments was the emergence of the "positive philosophy" of Auguste Comte, which was considered by the creator as "the last philosophy." However, by working through recognized theories, scientists simultaneously marked the limits of their applicability and created the conditions necessary for new breakthroughs. In this regard, the 19th and early 20th centuries became significant: shifts similar to those made by Lavoisier began to occur in other branches of science. These shocks include the discovery of the divisibility of the atom, the creation of Einstein's theory of relativity, Boltzmann's molecular-kinetic theory of gases, and the successes of quantum physics. Tracing the line of "continuous progress" became more and more problematic. If we do not consider calls to abandon the search for patterns in the development of science or the vague statements of dialecticians that "relative truth strives for absolute truth in a dialectical way", the current state of the theory of the development of scientific knowledge is as follows.

To understand the current moment, the works of Karl Popper are significant, most authors, if they do not use his developments, then argue with them, whether they want it or not. Popper was the first to speak out against the "obviousness" of science and turned his attention to its real history.

The cumulative model of the development of science looked something like this: some theory is derived from experimental data, as the array of experimental data increases, the theory improves, and knowledge is accumulated. Each subsequent version of the theory includes the previous one as a special case. It is assumed that the discarded theories were accepted by mistake or due to prejudice. The reason for the falsity of a theory must lie either in an incorrect inference procedure, or in the fact that the theory was not based on facts. Scientific activity is a process of continuous approximation to the truth. As shown in Section 2.2, it is impossible to unambiguously reduce theory to experimental data. An attempt to introduce the concept of "probable" (in the sense of calculating probability) truth faces the difficulty of determining the degree of probability. Thus, within the framework of the cumulative model, there is no way to determine the true theory and there is no justification for refuting the theory.

At the forefront of his scheme for the development of science, Popper puts the principle that every scientist certainly uses in practice - the need for criticism. Scientific development occurs through the advancement and refutation of theories. First the theory is formulated and it does not matter what forces are involved in this process. Further, consequences are deduced from the theory, which contain specific statements regarding the nature of things, and therefore are capable, in principle, of entering into conflict with reality. These consequences are called potential falsifiers. The presence of such falsifiers is a criterion for the scientific character of a theory. An experiment is set up; if the statements of the theory contradict the facts, it is ruthlessly discarded; if not, it is temporarily preserved. The main task of the scientist becomes the search for rebuttals. Popper reveals the reason why the growth of scientific knowledge is the fundamental condition for its existence. However, falsificationism is also unable to describe real science. Firstly, it is also not so easy to refute a theory (see Section 2.2), and secondly, it is not clear why we continue to use theories that clearly contradict the facts (for example, Newton's theory of gravitation). At what point should the theory be discarded? Why (even temporarily) hold on to false theories? Feeling the discrepancy between such a scheme and the realities of science, Popper introduces into his concept the concept of the structure of the theory. The theory should be based on a complex of independent statements (postulates), some of which may be true, and some may be false. Thus, each new theory must either have less false content or more true content, only in this case it creates a progressive shift in the problem. However, building bridges between these principles and real science is quite difficult. Despite a number of important achievements, Popper's model of the development of scientific knowledge does not correspond to practice.

The reaction to Popper's criticism of inductivism in general and the cumulative theory of the development of science in particular, as well as to the shortcomings of falsificationism, was the strengthening of the position calling for abandoning the search for patterns in the development of science and focusing on the study of the Scientific Mind, i.e. on the psychology of science. One of the options for such a position is the theory of T. Kuhn. It is based on the identification of two main "regimes" of scientific development: periods of "normal science" and scientific revolutions. During periods of normal science, scientists work within a recognized "paradigm." Kuhn's concept of a paradigm is rather amorphous: it is both a scientific theory and a method of experiment, and in general - the whole set of existing statements regarding the structure of reality, what questions a scientist can pose about it and what methods he should seek answers to these questions. A characteristic consequence of the presence of a paradigm is the creation of textbooks and the introduction of educational norms. The presence of a system of rules turns science into "puzzle solving". The scientific community is doing its best to impose its rules on nature for as long as possible, ignoring any contradictions, but there comes a time when such activities cease to bring the expected result. The scientific revolution begins. If during the period of paradigm dominance it was considered almost sacrilege to criticize it, now it has become commonplace. There is a proliferation of ideas - the creation of many competing theories, differing in varying degrees of reliability or elaboration. Which of these theories will take the place of the paradigm depends on the opinion of the scientific community. This is an important point - only the scientific community, and not society as a whole, should participate in the decision-making, the opinion of non-professionals is not taken into account. Disputes can continue indefinitely (including with the use of non-scientific means) until the entire scientific community converts to a new faith. The old paradigm disappears completely only with the death of its last supporter (usually natural). Kuhn indicates the importance of the emergence of theory for the development of science: it allows you to systematize facts, organize work, direct research. But, on the other hand, the change of paradigms becomes an exclusively subjective matter, depending on the number of persistence of supporters of a particular theory. A similar position is brought to the absolute by Paul Feyerabend, who persistently likens science to a kind of religion. In Feyerabend's presentation, truth in general turns out to be exclusively an object of belief. To the attempt to draw insurmountable boundaries between the content of past and present theories, it may be objected that for some infantile persons this may be so, but the serious scientist is expected to be able to keep in mind a more complex picture of reality. It is a fact that a person of a European mindset is capable, in principle, of learning foreign languages ​​that have a completely different structure of grammar, not to mention vocabulary. There is not a single living language that, at least in general terms, did not lend itself to translation into English. Thus, there is no reason to talk about the insurmountability of the boundaries between paradigms. As well as the absence of any general patterns in science.

In my opinion, the most acceptable, although far from final, at the moment is the theory of the structure and development of science by Imre Lakatos. Lakatos calls himself a follower of Popper, but goes far beyond his concept. The key point is that the theory should not just be falsified and discarded, but must be replaced by another theory. Lakatos recognizes both the importance of proof and the importance of refutation. Such theories are accepted (considered scientific) for consideration, which, in comparison with the previous one, have additional empirical content, form a "theoretically progressive shift of the problem" (lead to the discovery of new facts, although how long it will take to confirm them is unknown). An old theory is considered falsified if a new theory is proposed that a) has additional empirical content, b) explains the success of the previous theory within observational error, c) some of the additional content is reinforced. The last point is understood as "an empirically progressive shift of the problem." It is necessary to consider not separate theories, but some larger formations - research programs. Theories that succeed each other within the framework of the research program should form a "progressive shift" both theoretically and empirically. Only the entire sequence of theories can be called scientific or non-scientific. Activities within the framework of the research program are reminiscent of activities under the conditions of Kuhn's "paradigm". The program consists of rules about what to avoid (negative heuristic) and where to strive (positive heuristic). A negative heuristic is a "hard core" of a program that cannot be refuted. "Auxiliary hypotheses" are subject to change, with the help of which they "rescue" the theory as long as this ensures a progressive shift of the problem. A positive heuristic sets a work plan within which success can be achieved. A progressive shift creates confidence in the program while it exists, even contradictions are forgiven the theory (with the condition that they will be resolved later). Anomalies are not taken into account and become painful only in the phase of the regressive shift or at the "start" stage of the program by trial and error. The reason for replacing the research program is not even a regressive shift, but the success of a rival program. The most difficult moment is when you should stop protecting an outdated program.

Lakatos sees a way out of most of the difficulties of his predecessors in the adoption of certain "decisions" that form a complex system for him. A decision is made on what to consider as an empirical basis. Deciding which part of the "theory of prediction-theory of observation-conditions of observation" should be considered refuted (the right to appeal). Deciding what techniques to avoid when protecting a program (limiting conventionalist tricks). It is explained how within the framework of the research program the theorist can move ahead of the experimenter.

The adoption of the theory of research programs allows Lakatos to divide the history of science into several stages: 1) the accumulation of empirical material, 2) the development of hypotheses by trial and error (according to Popper), 3) the development of research programs.

The strength and weakness of Lakatos's theory is that it describes well the events that have already happened and says almost nothing about the future (except for the observation that the research program of quantum physics has exhausted its explanatory power as a prediction). This allows Jan Haginen to say: “Lakatos is said to be talking about epistemology. Indeed, he is generally thought to be developing a new theory of method and rationality, and therefore he is admired by some and criticized by others. But if one considers his theory of rationality as its main achievement, then it seems to be rather chaotic. It does not help us in any way to decide what is reasonable to think or do at the present time. It is entirely retrospective. It can indicate which decisions in past science were rational, but cannot help us in the future ". In a sense, by its own definition, Lakatos's theory is unscientific.

It seems to me that a real change in science in the coming decades will be essential for the theory of the development of scientific knowledge. The material of past years is no longer enough for an unambiguous choice between theories.

3. Conclusion

In conclusion, I want to repeat what I said at the beginning: the deepest motive for acquiring knowledge is the desire for security. We seek not the triumph of reason, but the triumph of ourselves. Compared with the Delphic oracle, science has an undeniable advantage - it predicts at least something unambiguously, but promises to predict even more. This, in my opinion, is the reason for the great prestige of science. The titanic array of amorphous “experience” has been transferred to the sphere of “reliable knowledge”, faceless and replicated. The latest masterpiece of this approach is the computer, sitting at which I write all these words. Having once experienced the opportunity to move the border of the unknown away from itself, the opportunity NOT to THINK, humanity will never refuse it. In this case, the limit of the human will be precisely the rejection of the last effort. The unknown will still remain, somewhere out there. At least in the image of the notorious asteroid, which, in full accordance with the laws of celestial mechanics, will cross the Earth's orbit in n hours m minutes plus or minus three seconds. There will always be things in the world that cannot be avoided, impossible to prevent, but you can learn about them and, ultimately, use them.

Is it fair to say that we are able to answer all questions NOW? Cognition is guaranteed not possible only if the universe is in a state of complete chaos or the duration of the laws is comparable to the duration of a human life. At the same time, stars burn for billions of years, and apples stubbornly fall to the ground throughout the existence of mankind. There is every reason to believe that the human mind has less inertia than the universe. It is possible that modern man is in principle unable to cognize the world as it is, but on this basis it cannot be concluded that this will continue to be the case. It is possible that over time, some other form of thinking will arise, not comparable to ours, and not one, but any number of such forms, because the living has an advantage over the inanimate - the living can change its behavior without changing the carrier, and the inanimate is not capable of change at will. In any case, giving up trying to know the world would be a tragic mistake. It must be understood that the current crisis of trust in science is not connected with material, but rather with moral problems of knowledge.

The fundamental philosophical questions raised by science in its development are still waiting to be resolved.

4. References

1. Alistair McGrad "The Theological Thought of the Reformation"
2. T. Kuhn “Logic and methodology of science. The structure of scientific revolutions”, M., 1977
3. P.S. Taranov “120 Philosophers”, Simferopol, Tavria, 1996
4. D. Hume “Research on human understanding”, M., Progress, 1995
5. Bourgeois philosophy of the twentieth century. M., 1974
6. I. Lakatos “Falsification and methodology of research programs”, DoctoR, 2001-2002
7. A.L. Nikiforov “From formal logic to the history of science”, M., Nauka, 1983
8. "Introduction to Philosophy", ed. I.T. Frolov, M., Publishing house of political literature, 1990
9. K. Popper “Logic and growth of scientific knowledge”, M., Progress, 1983
10. P. Feyerabend “Selected works on the methodology of science”, M., Progress, 1986
11. E.A. Mamchur " Relativism in the interpretation of scientific knowledge and the criteria of scientific rationality”, Philosophical Sciences, 1999. N5
12. “Rationality as a subject of philosophical research” ed. B.I. Pruzhinin, V.S. Shvyrev, M., 1995
13. A. Migdal “Is the truth different from a lie?”, Science and Life, No. 1, 1982

Features of scientific knowledge. Main approaches to the problem of scientific criteria

in modern philosophy of sciences

The problem of distinguishing science from other forms cognitive activity is a problem of demarcation, i.e. search for criteria for distinguishing between scientific and non-scientific knowledge.

Criteria for differences in scientific knowledge:

1) the main task of scientific knowledge -discovery of objective laws of reality- natural, social, laws of knowledge itself, thinking

2) Based on knowledge of the laws of functioning and development of the objects under studyscience predicts the futurefor the purpose of further practical development of reality.

3) The immediate goal and highest value of scientific knowledge -objective truthcomprehended mainly by rational means and methods.

4) An essential feature of scientific knowledge is its consistency, i.e. a body of knowledge put in order on the basis of certain theoretical principles that combine individual knowledge into a coherent system.

5) Science is characterized by constant methodological reflection.

6) Scientific knowledge is characterized by strict evidence, the validity of the results obtained, the reliability of the conclusions.

7) Scientific knowledge is a complex, contradictory process of production and reproduction of new knowledge.

8) Knowledge, claiming the status of scientific, must allow the fundamental possibility of empirical verification.

9) In the process of scientific knowledge, such specific material means as instruments, tools and other scientific equipment are used.

10) The subject of scientific activity has specific characteristics - an individual researcher, the scientific community, a collective subject.

Since the Enlightenment, scientific knowledge and its results have gained more and more influence in the world in comparison with pre- and extra-scientific knowledge.

Unscientific ideas should, in principle, include all ideas that do not meet the criteria of scientificity. Such are, for example, ordinary, mythological, religious and, possibly, philosophical knowledge.

However, in the XX century. a clear understanding arose and gradually established itself that extrascientific knowledge is not only ineradicable, but, moreover, it is absolutely necessary as a prerequisite for scientific knowledge.

One of the first to realize this was E. Husserl. He spoke about the crisis of European humanity, science and philosophy, which arose due to the neglect by scientists of the "life world", given in direct experience before and outside of scientific knowledge. But it is precisely the "life world" for the scientist that is "the soil, the field of his activity, in which only his problems and ways of thinking make sense."

At the third stage of the evolution of the philosophy of science, the representatives of the Vienna Circle tried to clearly separate scientific knowledge as reliable from non-scientific knowledge as unreliable through the principle of verification, but their attempt failed. In contrast to them, K. Popper proposed to solve the problem of demarcation, i.e., the distinction between scientific and non-scientific knowledge, based on the principle of falsification. At the same time, the judgment of knowledge as scientific or non-scientific should not mean that it is true or false.

In the current, post-positivist, philosophy of science, the position on the impossibility of a strict distinction between scientific and non-scientific knowledge has been recognized. One of the most radical representatives of the modern philosophy of science, P. Feyerabend, argues that science, as the ideology of the scientific elite, must be deprived of its dominant position in society and equated with religion, myth, and magic.

It is unlikely that scientific knowledge can be unequivocally and unconditionally delimited from non-scientific knowledge. The features listed below can be, to one degree or another, characteristic not only of scientific knowledge, but also of other types of knowledge. However, the totality of these features is specific to scientific knowledge, as it is understood today.

- Scientific knowledge means obtainingpractically useful, ultimately, knowledge that allows you to manage natural and social processes on the basis of knowledge of their laws and with the aim of satisfying human needs. "Knowledge is power."

- Scientific knowledge shouldbe consistent with experienceand suggests the possibilitypilot testconcepts and theories, their confirmation or refutation by facts (see: principles of verification and falsification).

— Scientific knowledge requires severity , i.e. empirical validity, logical coherence and consistency of the course of the study and the formulation of its results.

— Scientific knowledge is organized methodically , that is, it is conducted with a specific purpose and according to a specific plan, a conscious method of action.

— Scientific knowledge is an evolving system , which strives for internal order, consistency, coherence, logical consistency. The system may periodically experience fundamental shocks, collapses, but after the crisis, systematically ordered knowledge is formed again, although it is already ordered on new principles (see: scientific revolutions).

— Scientific knowledge predominantlyexpressed in conceptual formand is realized through reason in contrast to religious or poetic ideas expressed in a figurative, allegorical form and comprehended with the help of emotions, irrational intuition.

— Scientific knowledge tends to objectivity , i.e., to the expression of the actual relationship of things, independent of human consciousness.

- Scientific knowledge seeks to identify the necessary causal connections in the world. The knowledge and use of causal connections is replacing magic formulas incantations of spirits and prayers to the gods.

- Scientific knowledge in fullopen to criticism. In this it differs, for example, from theological knowledge, which is based on dogmas closed to doubt and criticism.

— Scientific knowledge is reflective or reflective , i.e., it is aware of and controls itself, its rational and empirical validity and validity. In this it differs, for example, from mythological knowledge, which is characterized by a trusting, uncritical perception of any narratives.

— Scientific knowledgeallows you to predictthe course of events, purposefully cause or forestall them.

- The results of scientific knowledge and the course of their achievement should bereproducibleto deserve the recognition of the scientific community. If no one can reproduce the results obtained by someone in their experiments, calculations, reasoning, then they do not inspire confidence. Someone's personal belief in the correctness of their statements is not scientific evidence.

— Results of scientific knowledgedo not claim absolute truth, as, for example, religious "truths", allegedly eternal and unchanging. Scientific knowledge implies the possibility of their change, improvement or radical revision.

This problem of the philosophy of science has three aspects (questions).

First. What is the essence of the dynamics of science? Is it just an evolutionary change (expansion of the scope and content of scientific truths) or development (change with leaps, revolutions, qualitative differences in views on the same subject)?

Second question. Is the dynamics of science a process as a whole cumulative (accumulative) or anti-cumulative (including the constant rejection of old views as unacceptable and incommensurable with the new ones that replace them)?

Third question. Is it possible to explain the dynamics of scientific knowledge only by its self-change or also by the significant influence of non-scientific (socio-cultural) factors on it?

Obviously, answers to these questions cannot be obtained on the basis of a philosophical analysis of the structure of consciousness alone. It is also necessary to draw on material from the real history of science. However, it is just as obvious that the history of science cannot speak for itself. The discussion of the questions formulated above occupied a central place in the works of post-positivists (K. Popper, T. Kuhn, I. Lakatos, St. Toulmin, P. Feyerabend, M. Polanyi, etc.), in contrast to their predecessors - logical positivists, who considered the only “ legitimate” subject of the philosophy of science is the logical analysis of the structure of scientific knowledge that has become (“ready-made”). But the models of the dynamics of scientific knowledge proposed by the post-positivists not only relied on the history of science, but also offered (“imposed”) a certain vision of it.

Speaking about the nature of scientific changes, it is necessary to emphasize that although they all take place in the scientific consciousness and with its help, their content depends not only and not so much on consciousness, but on the results of the interaction of scientific consciousness with a certain, external to it objective reality, which it seeks. comprehend. Further, as the real history of science convincingly shows, the cognitive changes taking place in it are evolutionary, i.e. directed and irreversible. This means, for example, that the general Riemannian geometry could not appear earlier than the Euclidean one, and the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics - simultaneously with classical mechanics. Sometimes this is explained from the standpoint of interpreting science as a generalization of facts; then the evolution of scientific knowledge is interpreted as a movement towards ever greater generalizations, and the change of scientific theories is understood as a change from a less general theory to a more general one.

The view of scientific knowledge as a generalization, and of its evolution as an increase in the degree of generality of successive theories, is, of course, an inductivist conception of science and its history. Inductivism was the dominant paradigm in the philosophy of science until the middle of the 20th century. As an argument in its defense, the so-called correspondence principle was put forward, according to which the relationship between the old and the new scientific theory (must be) is such that all the provisions of the previous theory are derived as a special case in the new theory that replaces it. Classical mechanics, on the one hand, and the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, on the other, were usually cited as examples; synthetic theory of evolution in biology as a synthesis of the Darwinian concept and genetics; arithmetic natural numbers, on the one hand, and the arithmetic of rational or real numbers, on the other, Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry, etc. However, with a closer, more rigorous analysis of the relationship between the concepts of the above theories, there is no “special case” or even “limiting case” in the relationship between them does not work.

It is clear that the expression "limiting case" has a very loose and rather metaphorical meaning. Obviously, the mass of a body either changes its value in the process of movement, or not. There is no third. Classical mechanics says one thing, relativistic - just the opposite. They are incompatible and, as postpositivists have shown, incommensurable, since they do not have a common neutral empirical basis. They say different and sometimes incompatible things about the same thing (mass, space, time, etc.). Strictly speaking, it is also incorrect to assert that the arithmetic of real numbers is a generalization of the arithmetic of rational numbers, and the latter is a generalization of the arithmetic of natural numbers. It is said that the set of natural numbers can be "isomorphically embedded" in the set of rational numbers. The reverse is not true. But being "isomorphically nested" does not mean being a "special case". Let us finally consider the relationship between Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries. The latter are not a generalization of the former, since syntactically many of their statements simply mutually contradict each other. There is no need to talk about any generalization of the geometries of Lobachevsky and Riemann in relation to the geometry of Euclid, since they simply contradict the latter. In a word, the concept of "limiting case" is intended to hide the qualitative difference between different phenomena, because, if desired, everything can be called the "limiting case" of the other.

Thus, the principle of correspondence with its reliance on the "limiting case" cannot be considered as an adequate mechanism for the rational reconstruction of the evolution of scientific knowledge. The theoretical cumulative theory based on it is actually a reductionist version of the evolution of science, which denies qualitative leaps in the change of fundamental scientific theories.

It must also be emphasized that the incompatibility of the old and new theories is not complete, but only partial. This means, firstly, that many of their statements not only do not contradict each other, but completely coincide. Secondly, this means that the old and new theories are partially commensurable, since they introduce some of the concepts (and the objects corresponding to them) in exactly the same way. New theories deny the old ones not completely, but only partially, offering in general a significant A New Look to the same subject area.

So, the development of scientific knowledge is a continuous-discontinuous process, characterized by qualitative leaps in the vision of the same subject area. Therefore, in general, the development of science is non-cumulative. Despite the fact that as science develops, the amount of empirical and theoretical information is constantly growing, it would be very rash to conclude from this that there is progress in the true content of science. It can only be firmly said that the old and succeeding fundamental theories see the world not only in essentially different ways, but often in the opposite way. A progressive view of the development of theoretical knowledge is possible only if the philosophical doctrines of preformism and teleologism are adopted in relation to the evolution of science.

In modern philosophy and the history of science, there are two concepts of driving factors - internalism and externalism. The most complete internalist concept is presented in the works of A. Koire. The very name "internalism" is determined by the fact that the main importance in this concept is given to intrascientific factors. According to Koira, since science is a spiritual activity, it can only be explained from itself, especially because the theoretical world is completely autonomous, separated by an abyss from the real world.

Another approach to understanding the driving forces of the development of science - externalism comes from the recognition of the leading role of external science factors, primarily socio-economic ones. Externalists tried to derive such complex elements of science as content, themes, methods, ideas and hypotheses directly from economic causes, ignoring the features of science as spiritual production, specific activities to obtain, substantiate and verify objectively true knowledge.

In early human societies, cognitive and production moments were inseparable, the initial knowledge was of a practical nature, acting as a guide to certain types of human activity. The accumulation of such knowledge was an important prerequisite for future science. For the emergence of science proper, appropriate conditions were needed: a certain level of development of production and social relations, the division of mental and physical labor, and the existence of broad cultural traditions that ensure the perception of the achievements of other peoples and cultures.

Corresponding conditions first developed in ancient Greece, where the first theoretical systems arose in the 6th century BC. BC. Thinkers such as Thales and Democritus already explained reality through natural principles as opposed to mythology. The ancient Greek scientist Aristotle was the first to describe the laws of nature, society and thinking, bringing to the fore the objectivity of knowledge, logic, and persuasiveness. At the moment of cognition, a system of abstract concepts was introduced, the foundations of a demonstrative way of presenting the material were laid; separate branches of knowledge began to separate: geometry (Euclid), mechanics (Archimedes), astronomy (Ptolemy).

A number of areas of knowledge were enriched in the Middle Ages by scientists of the Arab East and Central Asia: Ibn Sta, or Avicenna, (980-1037), Ibn Rushd (1126-1198), Biruni (973-1050). In Western Europe, due to the dominance of religion, a specific philosophical science- scholasticism, and also developed alchemy and astrology. Alchemy contributed to the creation of the basis for science in the modern sense of the word, since it relied on the experimental study of natural substances and compounds and prepared the ground for the development of chemistry. Astrology was associated with the observation of heavenly bodies, which also developed an experimental base for future astronomy.

The most important stage in the development of science was the New Age - XVI-XVII centuries. Here, the needs of emerging capitalism played a decisive role. During this period, the dominance of religious thinking was undermined, and experiment (experiment) was established as the leading method of research, which, along with observation, radically expanded the scope of cognizable reality. At this time, theoretical reasoning began to be combined with the practical development of nature, which dramatically increased the cognitive capabilities of science. Scientific revolution of the 17th century. connected with the revolution in natural science. The scientific revolution went through several stages, and its formation took a century and a half. Its beginning was laid by N. Copernicus and his followers Bruno, Galileo, Kepler. In 1543, the Polish scientist N. Copernicus (1473-1543) published the book "On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres", in which he approved the idea that the Earth, like other planets solar system, revolves around the Sun, which is the central body of the solar system. Copernicus established that the Earth is not an exclusive celestial body, which dealt a blow to anthropocentrism and religious legends, according to which the Earth supposedly occupies a central position in the universe. The geocentric system of Ptolemy was rejected. Galileo owns the largest achievements in the field of physics and the development of the most fundamental problem - motion, his achievements in astronomy are enormous: the justification and approval of the heliocentric system, the discovery of the four largest satellites of Jupiter out of 13 currently known; the discovery of the phases of Venus, the extraordinary appearance of the planet Saturn, now known to be created by the rings representing the totality solids; a huge number of stars not visible to the naked eye. Galileo achieved success in scientific achievements to a large extent because he recognized observations and experience as the starting point for the knowledge of nature.

Newton created the foundations of mechanics, discovered the law of universal gravitation and developed on its basis the theory of motion of celestial bodies. This scientific discovery glorified Newton forever. He owns such achievements in the field of mechanics as the introduction of the concepts of force, energy, the formulation of the three laws of mechanics; in the field of optics - the discovery of refraction, dispersion, interference, diffraction of light; in the field of mathematics - algebra, geometry, interpolation, differential and integral calculus.

In the XVIII century, revolutionary discoveries were made in astronomy by I. Kant (172-4-1804) and Platas (1749-1827), as well as in chemistry - its beginning is associated with the name of A. Lavoisier (1743-1794). This period includes the activities of M.V. Lomonosov (1711-1765), who anticipated much of the subsequent development of natural science.

In the 19th century, there were continuous revolutionary upheavals in science in all branches of natural science. The reliance of modern science on experiment, the development of mechanics laid the foundation for establishing a connection between science and production. At the same time, by the beginning of the XIX century. the experience accumulated by science, the material in certain areas no longer fit into the framework of a mechanistic explanation of nature and society. A new round of scientific knowledge and a deeper and broader synthesis were required, combining the results of individual sciences.

By the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. there were major changes in the foundations of scientific thinking, the mechanistic worldview has exhausted itself, which led the classical science of modern times to a crisis. This was facilitated, in addition to those mentioned above, by the discovery of the electron and radioactivity. As a result of the resolution of the crisis, a new scientific revolution took place, which began in physics and covered all the main branches of science. It is associated primarily with the name of A. Einstein (1879-1955). The discovery of the electron, radium, the transformation of chemical elements, the creation of the theory of relativity and quantum theory marked a breakthrough into the realm of the microworld and high speeds. The advances in physics have had an impact on chemistry. Quantum theory, by explaining the nature of chemical bonds, has opened wide possibilities for the chemical transformation of matter before science and production; penetration into the mechanism of heredity began, genetics was developed, and the chromosome theory was formed.

Science was the main reason for such a rapidly flowing scientific and technological revolution, the transition to a post-industrial society, the widespread introduction information technologies, the appearance of " new economy”, for which the laws of the classical economic theory, the beginning of the transfer of human knowledge into an electronic form, so convenient for storage, systematization, search and processing, and many others.

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

However, science would not be so productive if it did not have such a developed system of methods, principles and imperatives of knowledge inherent in it. It is the correctly chosen method, along with the talent of a scientist, that helps him to understand the deep connection of phenomena, reveal their essence, discover laws and patterns. The number of methods that science develops to understand reality is constantly increasing.

Specificity and structure of scientific knowledge.

The structure of scientific knowledge includes the main elements of scientific knowledge, the levels of knowledge and the foundations of science. Various forms of organization of scientific information act as elements of scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is realized in a special research activity, which includes a variety of methods for studying an object, which, in turn, are divided into two levels of knowledge - empirical and theoretical. And finally the most important moment structures of scientific knowledge are currently considered the foundations of science, which act as its theoretical basis.

Scientific knowledge is a complexly organized system that combines various forms of organization of scientific information: scientific concepts and scientific facts, laws, goals, principles, concepts, problems, hypotheses, science programs etc. The theory is the central link of scientific knowledge.

Depending on the depth of penetration into the essence of the studied phenomena and processes, two levels of scientific knowledge are distinguished - empirical and theoretical.

There is a close relationship and interdependence between theoretical and empirical knowledge, which are as follows: theoretical knowledge relies heavily on empirical material, so the level of theory development largely depends on the level of development of the empirical basis of science; on the other hand, the very development of empirical research is largely determined by the goals and objectives that were set by theoretical knowledge.

Before turning to the consideration of methodology, let us briefly characterize the third element in the structure of scientific knowledge - its foundations. The foundations of scientific knowledge are: 1) ideals, norms and principles of research, 2) the scientific picture of the world, 3) philosophical ideas and principles. They constitute the theoretical basis of science on which its laws, theories and hypotheses are based.

The ideals and norms of research are requirements for scientific rationality recognized in science, expressed in the validity and evidence of scientific statements, as well as methods of description and scientific explanation, construction and organization of knowledge. Historically, these norms and ideals have changed, which was associated with qualitative changes in science (scientific revolutions). Thus, the most important norm of the rationality of scientific knowledge is its systematic and organized nature. This is expressed in the fact that each new result in science is based on its previous achievements, each new position in science is derived based on previously proven statements and provisions. A number of principles act as ideals and norms of scientific knowledge, for example: the principle of simplicity, the principle of accuracy, the principle of identifying the minimum number of assumptions when building a theory, the principle of continuity in the development and organization of scientific knowledge into a single system.

The logical norms of scientific thinking have come a long way of development. In the XVIII century. G.V. Leibniz formulated the principle of sufficient reason in logic, which became the fourth law of logic after the three laws of correct thinking, derived by Aristotle - the law of identity (preserving the meaning of a term or thesis throughout the argument), the principle of consistency in reasoning, and the law of the excluded middle, stating that about one and the same object in the same relation (sense) can exist either an affirmative or a negative judgment, while one of them is true and the other is false, and the third is not given). All the ideals and norms of science are embodied in the methods of scientific research that dominate one or another historical era.

The scientific picture of the world is a holistic system of ideas about general properties and laws of nature and society, arising from the generalization and synthesis of the basic principles and achievements of science in a given historical era. The picture of the world plays the role of systematization of scientific ideas and principles in cognition, which allows it to perform heuristic and prognostic functions, to more successfully solve interdisciplinary problems. The scientific picture of the world is closely connected with the worldview guidelines of culture, largely depends on the style of thinking of the era and, in turn, has a significant impact on them, while it acts as guidelines for the research activities of scientists, thus fulfilling the role of a fundamental research program.

The significance of the philosophical foundations of science is great. As you know, philosophy was the cradle of science in the early stages of its formation. It was within the framework of philosophical reflection that the origins of scientific rationality were laid. Philosophy set general worldview guidelines for science and, responding to the needs of the development of science itself, comprehended its methodological and epistemological problems. In the depths of philosophical knowledge, a tradition of dialectical knowledge of the world was formed, embodied in the works of Hegel, Marx and Engels in the science of the dialectical method of studying nature, society and thinking itself. In the history of the development of society, one can observe the mutual influence of the philosophical and scientific pictures of the world: a change in the foundations and content of the scientific picture of the world has repeatedly influenced the development of philosophy.

Basic methods of empirical and theoretical knowledge

In science, there are empirical and theoretical levels of research (cognition). Empirical research is aimed directly at the object under study and is realized through observations and experiments. Theoretical research is concentrated around generalizing ideas, laws, hypotheses and principles. "This difference is based on the dissimilarity, firstly, of the methods (methods) of cognitive activity itself, and secondly, the nature of the scientific results achieved." Some general scientific methods are applied only at the empirical level (observation, experiment, measurement), others - only at the theoretical level (idealization, formalization), and some (for example, modeling) - both at the empirical and theoretical levels. The data of both empirical and theoretical research are recorded in the form of statements containing empirical and theoretical terms. The difference between them is that the truth of statements containing empirical terms can be verified experimentally, while the truth of statements containing theoretical terms cannot be verified. The empirical level of scientific knowledge is characterized by a direct study of real-life, sensually perceived objects. The special role of empiricism in science lies in the fact that only at this level of research do we deal with the direct interaction of a person with the studied natural or social objects. Live contemplation prevails here ( sense cognition), the rational moment and its forms (judgments, concepts, etc.) are present here, but have a subordinate meaning. Therefore, the object under study is reflected mainly from the side of its external connections and manifestations, accessible to living contemplation and expressing internal relations. At this level, the process of accumulating information about the objects and phenomena under study is carried out by conducting observations, performing various measurements, and delivering experiments.

The theoretical level of scientific knowledge is characterized by the predominance of the rational moment - concepts, theories, laws and other forms and "mental operations". The absence of direct practical interaction with objects determines the peculiarity that an object at a given level of scientific knowledge can be studied only indirectly, in a thought experiment, but not in a real one. However, living contemplation is not eliminated here, but becomes a subordinate (but very important) aspect of the cognitive process. At this level, the most profound essential aspects, connections, patterns inherent in the studied objects, phenomena are revealed by processing the data of empirical knowledge. This processing is carried out with the help of systems of "higher order" abstractions - such as concepts, inferences, laws, categories, principles, etc. When distinguishing these two different levels in a scientific study, one should not, however, separate them from each other and oppose them. After all, the empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge are interconnected. The empirical level acts as the basis, the foundation of the theoretical one. Hypotheses and theories are formed in the process of theoretical understanding scientific facts, statistical data obtained at the empirical level. In addition, theoretical thinking inevitably relies on sensory-visual images (including diagrams, graphs, etc.) with which the empirical level of research deals. The most important task theoretical knowledge - the achievement of objective truth in all its concreteness and completeness of content. At the same time, such cognitive techniques and means as abstraction, idealization, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, and others are especially widely used. This class of methods is actively used in all sciences.

Consider the main methods of empirical research. The most important component of empirical research is the experiment. The word "experiment" comes from the Latin experement, which means "test", "experience". An experiment is a test of the studied phenomena under controlled and controlled conditions. An experiment is an active, purposeful method of cognition, which consists in the repeatedly reproduced observation of an object in specially created and controlled conditions. The experiment is divided into the following stages:

· Collection of information

・Observation of the phenomenon

Developing a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon

· Development of a theory explaining the phenomenon based on assumptions in a broader sense.

In modern science, the experiment occupies a central place and acts as a link between the empirical and theoretical levels knowledge. The main task of the experiment is to test the hypotheses and predictions put forward by theories. The value of the experimental method lies in the fact that it is applicable not only to cognitive, but also to practical activities person.

Another important method of empirical knowledge is observation. Here we mean not observation as a stage of any experiment, but observation as a way of studying various phenomena. Observation is a sensory perception of the facts of reality in order to obtain knowledge about the external aspects, properties and features of the object in question. The result of the observation is a description of the object, fixed with the help of language, diagrams, graphs, diagrams, drawings, digital data. The difference between experiment and observation is that in the course of an experiment its conditions are controlled, while in observation the processes are left to the natural course of events. An important place in the process of observation (as well as experiment) is occupied by the measurement operation. Measurement - is the definition of the ratio of one (measured) quantity to another, taken as a standard. Since the results of observation, as a rule, take the form of various signs, graphs, curves on an oscilloscope, cardiograms, etc., the interpretation of the data obtained is an important component of the study. Observation in the social sciences is especially difficult, where its results largely depend on the personality of the observer and his attitude to the phenomena being studied.

Let us consider in more detail the above-mentioned means of theoretical knowledge.

Abstraction is a method of mental separation of the cognitively valuable from the cognitively secondary in the object under study. Objects, phenomena and processes have many various properties and characteristics, not all of which are important in this particular cognitive situation. The method of abstraction is used both in everyday and in scientific knowledge.

· Analysis and synthesis are interrelated methods of cognition that provide a holistic knowledge of the object. Analysis is the mental division of an object into its constituent parts for the purpose of their independent study. This division is not carried out arbitrarily, but in accordance with the structure of the object. After the parts that make up the object are studied separately, it is necessary to bring the acquired knowledge together, to restore integrity. This happens in the course of synthesis - combining previously distinguished features, properties, aspects into a single whole.

Induction and deduction are common methods of obtaining knowledge in both everyday life and in the course of scientific knowledge. Induction is a logical technique for obtaining general knowledge from a set of particular premises. The disadvantage of induction is that the experience on which it relies can never be completed, and so inductive generalizations are also of limited validity. Deduction is inferential knowledge. In the course of deduction, conclusions of a particular nature are deduced (deduced) from the general premise. The truth of inferential knowledge depends primarily on the reliability of the premise, as well as on compliance with the rules of logical inference. Induction and deduction are organically linked and complement each other. Induction leads to the assumption of causes and general patterns observed phenomena, and deduction allows us to derive empirically verifiable consequences from these assumptions and thereby confirm or refute these assumptions.

· The method of analogy is a logical technique by which, on the basis of the similarity of objects in one way, a conclusion is drawn about their similarity in other ways. Analogy is not an arbitrary logical construction, but is based on the objective properties and relations of objects. The rule of inference by analogy is formulated as follows: if two single objects are similar in certain features, then they can be similar in other features found in one of the compared objects. On the basis of inference by analogy, a modeling method is constructed, which is widespread in modern science. Modeling is a method of studying an object through the construction and study of its analogue (model). The knowledge gained during the study of the model is transferred to the original based on its analogy with the model. Modeling is used where the study of the original is impossible or difficult and involves high costs and risks. A typical modeling approach is to study the properties of new aircraft designs on their reduced models placed in a wind tunnel. Modeling can be subject, physical, mathematical, logical, symbolic. It all depends on the choice of the nature of the model. With the advent and development of computers, computer modeling has become widespread, which uses special programs.

In addition to universal and general scientific methods, there are special research methods used in specific sciences. These include the method spectral analysis in physics and chemistry, the method of statistical modeling in the study of complex systems, and others.

The problem of the development of scientific knowledge.

There are some discrepancies in the definition of the central problem of the philosophy of science. According to famous philosopher science F. Frank, “the central problem of the philosophy of science is the question of how we move from the statements of ordinary common sense to general scientific principles". K. Popper believed that the central problem of the philosophy of knowledge, starting at least with the Reformation, was how it is possible to judge or evaluate the far-reaching claims of competing theories or beliefs. “I,” wrote K. Popper, “call it the first problem. It has historically led to the second problem: how can we justify our theories and beliefs. At the same time, the range of problems of the philosophy of science is quite wide, they include questions like: are general provisions science unambiguously or one and the same set of experimental data can give rise to different general provisions? How to distinguish scientific from non-scientific? What are the criteria of scientific character, the possibility of substantiation? How do we find reasons why we believe one theory is better than another? What is the logic of scientific knowledge? What are the models of its development? All these and many other formulations are organically woven into the fabric of philosophical reflections on science and, more importantly, grow out of the central problem of the philosophy of science - the problem of the growth of scientific knowledge.

It is possible to divide all the problems of the philosophy of science into three subspecies. The former include problems that go from philosophy to science, the direction vector of which is repelled from the specifics of philosophical knowledge. Since philosophy strives for a universal comprehension of the world and knowledge of its general principles, the philosophy of science also inherits these intentions. In this context, the philosophy of science is occupied with reflection on science in its ultimate depths and true principles. Here, the conceptual apparatus of philosophy is fully used; a certain worldview position is necessary.

The second group arises within science itself and needs a competent arbiter, in the role of which philosophy turns out to be. In this group, the problems of cognitive activity as such, the theory of reflection, cognitive processes, and actually “philosophical clues” for solving paradoxical problems are very closely intertwined.

The third group includes the problems of interaction between science and philosophy, taking into account their fundamental differences and organic interweaving in all possible planes of application. Research on the history of science has convincingly shown what a huge role the philosophical worldview plays in the development of science. Especially noticeable is the radical influence of philosophy in the era of the so-called scientific revolutions associated with the emergence of ancient mathematics and astronomy, the Copernican revolution - the heliocentric system of Copernicus, the formation of the classical scientific picture of Galileo-Newton's microphysics, the revolution in natural science at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. etc. With this approach, the philosophy of science includes the epistemology, methodology and sociology of scientific knowledge, although the boundaries of the philosophy of science outlined in this way should not be considered as final, but as tending to be refined and changed.

Conclusion

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

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

Theory is not constructed by direct inductive generalization of experience. This, of course, does not mean that theory is not related to experience at all. The initial impetus to the creation of any theoretical construction is given just by practical experience. And the truth of theoretical conclusions is checked again by their practical applications. However, the very process of constructing a theory, and its further development, is carried out relatively independently of practice.

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

One can draw a peculiar conclusion to what has been said: our “cognitive apparatus” loses its reliability in the transition to areas of reality that are far from everyday experience. Scientists seem to have found a way out: to describe the reality inaccessible to experience, they switched to the language of abstract notation and mathematics.

References:

1. Modern Philosophy of Science: Reader. – M.: high school, 1994.

2. Kezin A.V. Science in the mirror of philosophy. – M.: MGU, 1990.

3. Philosophy and methodology of science. – M.: Aspect-Press, 1996.

1. 
   "The whole world is a text," says the philosophical school... hermeneutics
2. 
   "Truth is an agreement," the representatives of... conventionalism
3. 
   From the point of view of conventionalism, the main criterion of truth is ... an agreement between scientists
4. 
   From the point of view of pragmatism, the main criterion for truth is ... success
5. 
   The author of the concept of a "single industrial society" is ... R. Aron
6. 
   The author of the concept of "justified rationalism" is ... G. Bashlyar
7. 
   The author of the concept of "stages of economic growth" is ... W. Rostow
8. 
   The author of the first typology of human characters (sanguine, choleric, etc.) is ... Claudius Galen
9. 
   The author of the work "The State" is ... Plato
10. 
    The author of the work "Truth and Method" is ... H.-G. Gadamer
11. 
    The author of the work "Historical Letters" is ... P. L. Lavrov
12. 
    The author of the work "On the Question of the Role of Personality in History" is ... G. V. Plekhanov
13. 
    The author of the work "Primitive Culture" is ... E. Tylor
14. 
    The author of the work "The Meaning and Purpose of History" is ... K. Jaspers
15. 
    The author of the work "The Fate of Russia" is ... N. A. Berdyaev
16. 
    The author of the work "The Third Wave" is ... E. Toffler
17. 
    The author of the work "Being and Time", which reveals the existentialist understanding of being, is ... M. Heidegger
18. 
    The author of the work "Reflections on Technology" is ... J. Ortega y Gasset
19. 
    The author of the theory of cultural-historical types is ... N. Ya. Danilevsky
20. 
    Analysis of the dynamics of scientific knowledge becomes one of the central problems in the philosophical school... post-positivism
21. 
    The attributes of matter are... universal and inalienable properties of material objects
22. 
    B. Spinoza believed that there is only one substance that is the cause of itself - this is ... nature
23. 
    The basic concept of the materialistic approach to history is ... socio-economic formation
24. 
    The existence of a certain class of natural objects (microorganisms, plants and animals, including humans) is called ... life
25. 
    In Italian philosophy, the image of a utopian state - the city of the Sun - was created ... T. Campanella
26. 
    In Marxist philosophy, the science of the most general laws of the development of nature, society and thinking is ... dialectics
27. 
    The following levels are distinguished in thinking: mind reason
28. 
    In modern European philosophy, the question of the fundamental principle of the world is solved with the help of the concept ... substance
29. 
    The basis of the modern biological picture of the world is the principle of ... evolution
30. 
    At the heart of the modern scientific picture of the world lies ... theory of relativity
31. 
    At the heart of the philosophical picture of the world lies the solution to the problem of ... being
32. 
    Unlike idealism, materialism considers the ideal as ... a subjective image of objective reality
33. 
    Within the framework of Chinese philosophy, there is an idea that the world arose as a result of the interaction of five principles (Wu-xing), such a position in philosophy is called ... pluralism
34. 
    In medieval philosophy, the source and highest form of being was considered (-as, -axis) ... God
35. 
    In medieval philosophy, the special status of a person in the system of the world order is determined by the fact that he was created ... in the image and likeness of God
36. 
    In the philosophy of postmodernism, the concept of "simulacrum" was introduced, denoting copy of non-existent original
37. 
    In the philosophy of the Enlightenment, the main sign of a person was considered (-as) ... reason
38. 
    In philosophy, various historical theories, a certain "philosophy of history" are denoted by the term ... historicism
39. 
    In the philosophical system of G. Hegel, the central concept that guides and implements the process of development of everything that exists is ... absolute idea
40. 
    In the twentieth century, the opposition of two social systems - socialism and capitalism, was designated by the term ... "bipolar world"
41. 
    In the ethics of I. Kant, the universal and necessary moral law, which does not depend on the actual conditions of human will and therefore is unconditionally obligatory for execution, is called ... the categorical imperative
42. 
    The most important social value is... human
43. 
    A. Camus considers the most important essential characteristic of being ... absurdity
44. 
    The most important component of the material and production sphere is ... labor
45. 
    An important characteristic development is ... the irreversibility of change
46. 
    Man's faith in the world of divine revelation, ideal values ​​is characteristic of _ cognition. religious
47. 
    The relationship of the problem of truth with the analysis of the logical structure of language is the subject of research in the philosophical school ... neopositivism
48. 
    The internal content of an object, expressed in the stable unity of all the diverse and contradictory properties of being, is called ... the essence
49. 
    The internal dismemberment of material existence is called ... structural
50. 
    The ancient school called for refraining from judgment... skepticism
51. 
    Questions - is the world cognizable, is truth achievable? - relate to ___________ problems of philosophy. epistemological
52. 
    Questions - what comes first? what is being, substance, matter? - relate to _____________ problems of philosophy. ontological
53. 
    Questions - what is good and evil? what is morality, morality, dignity? - relate to __________ problems of philosophy. ethical
54. 
    Upbringing and education belong to __________ culture. spiritual
55. 
    Perception is a form of reflection of reality at the level of cognition. sensual
56. 
    Whole collection, immutability and fullness of being and life, endless duration is called ... eternity
57. 
    Any inanimate system tends to the most probable state for it, that is, to chaos, - says the law ... of entropy
58. 
    Putting forward a theory about the presence of many spiritual entities - "monads" that make up the fundamental principle of the world, G. V. Leibniz becomes a representative of ontological ... pluralism
59. 
    Performing an ideological function, philosophy formulates ... a system of certain values
60. 
    The expression "Man is a wolf to man" belongs to ... T. Hobbes
61. 
    The saying “Man is the measure of all things: those that exist in that they exist, and those that do not exist in that they do not exist” belongs to ... Protagoras
62. 
    The highest degree of value, or the best, complete state of any phenomenon is called ... ideal
63. 
    The highest form of mental activity inherent in the human way of life is called ... consciousness
64. 
    The highest level of knowledge and ideal development of the world in the form of theories, ideas, human goals is ... thinking
65. 
    The highest good for a person, from the point of view of Renaissance humanism, is ... pleasure, happiness
66. 
    Hegel considered world history as a natural process of development ... of an absolute idea
67. 
    L. Feuerbach sees the main obstacle to happiness in ... alienation of human nature
68. 
    The main difference between faith and knowledge is... subjective significance
69. 
    Global problems associated with the catastrophic destruction of the natural basis for the existence of world civilization, pollution environment, climate change, are called ... environmental
70. 
    The global problems associated with an excessive increase in the population of the Earth, the deterioration of the health of the population, the aging of the population in developed countries, the high birth rate in underdeveloped countries, are called ... demographic
71. 
    The epistemological trend that doubts the reliability of human knowledge and recognizes the relativity of all knowledge is called ... skepticism
72. 
    The driving force of any development, according to dialectics, is ... contradiction
73. 
    The motto "Know thyself" is associated in the history of philosophy with the name of ... Socrates
74. 
    The activity of receiving, storing, processing and systematizing conscious concrete-sensual and conceptual images is called ... cognition
75. 
    The activities of the philosophers of the Enlightenment, aimed at criticizing the vices of society and the state, existing on the basis of church institutions, can be designated as ... anti-clericalism
76. 
    Dialectics appeared as an opposition... metaphysics
77. 
    Dialectical materialism singles out ... practical activity as the essence of man
78. 
    The duration and sequence of successive events is called ... time
79. 
    To distinguish between scientific and non-scientific knowledge, K. Popper proposed the principle ... falsifications
80. 
    Medieval philosophy associated with the Christian religion is characterized by ... monotheism
81. 
    A sufficient condition for moral action, according to Socrates, is ... knowledge of good
82. 
    The spiritual value of the human personality in the context of the realities of the twentieth century is defended by the religious-idealistic trend ... personalism
83. 
    The natural end of a single living being, which only for a person acts as a defining moment of his life and worldview, is called ... death
84. 
    The defense of Christian truths from criticism from the later ancient schools was called ... apologetics
85. 
    Knowledge that is directly given to the consciousness of the subject and is accompanied by a feeling of direct contact with the cognized reality is called ... experience
86. 
    Knowledge that deliberately distorts the idea of ​​reality is called ... anti-scientific
87. 
    The game as a general principle of the formation of human culture was proposed ... J. Huizingoy
88. 
    The ideas of Marxist philosophy on Russian soil were developed by ... A. A. Bogdanov
89. 
    The ideology that absolutizes the role of the state in society and involves extensive and active state intervention in the economic and social life of society is called ... statism
90. 
    The idea of ​​the "end of history" in the modern global world was proposed by ... F. Fukuyama
91. 
    The idea as the fundamental principle of the world was proposed by ... Plato
92. 
    The idea of ​​regression of historical development was proposed by ... Hesiod
93. 
    Changing an object under the influence of its inherent contradictions, factors and conditions is called ... self-propulsion
94. 
    The historically evolving set of man-made tools that allow people to use natural materials, phenomena and processes to meet their needs is called ... technology
95. 
    A historically stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, material and spiritual culture, is called ... a nation
96. 
    History is a linear progressive movement, the logic of which is expressed in a change in socio-economic formations, according to representatives of the ____________ approach. formational
97. 
    The history of the culture of mankind, in which there were many original cultural traditions, is called ... world culture
98. 
    The global problems of interstate relations include the problem of ... war and peace
99. 
    The natural sciences are... physics chemistry biology
100. 
     The ideal objects of scientific knowledge are ... geometric point, ideal of justice
101. 
     General scientific methods include ... abstraction, analysis, induction
102. 
     The main forms of theoretical knowledge include ... problem, hypothesis, law
103. 
     The features of personal cognition include ... dependence on the abilities of the subject
104. 
     The formal-logical criteria of truth include the principle ... consistency
105. 
     Among the Socratic schools is the school of ... cynics
106. 
     K. Jaspers believes that the peculiarity of modern technical civilization is that ... technology is only a tool in the hands of man
107. 
     The picture of the world that arose in the 17th century, based on the principles of deism, is called ... mechanistic
108. 
     The categories of the beautiful, the sublime, the tragic, the comic are related to ... aesthetics
109. 
     The category denoting a reality that exists objectively, outside and independently of human consciousness, is called "_________". Being
110. 
     Classical science is based on the principle of ... objectivity
111. 
     The classical definition of personality in Western European philosophy was given by ... Boethius
112. 
     A quantitative measure of possibility is called ... probability
113. 
     The concept of modern science and philosophy, which considers it necessary to consider the evolution of human society and the biosphere in a single scientific system, is called ... co-evolution
114. 
     The concept according to which a person is considered as the highest value, the meaning of earthly civilization, is called ... personalism
115. 
     The concept that man was created by God is called...creationism
116. 
     The criterion of the truth of knowledge, from the point of view of R. Descartes' rationalism, is ... obviousness, clarity
117. 
     A cultural community with its own limited circle of adherents, with its own values ​​and ideas, style of clothing, language, norms of behavior, is called ... subculture
118. 
     Personality as a special individual entity became the object of philosophical analysis in the period Middle Ages
119. 
     Personality as a subject of social relations is characterized by ... activity
120. 
     Materialistic dialectics was developed and substantiated by ... F. Engels
121. 
     An interdisciplinary direction that studies the process of evolution and self-organization of complex systems is called ... synergetics
122. 
     International public organization dedicated to scientific research global problems, is called a ___________ club. Roman
123. 
     Metaphysics as a model of development absolutizes ... stability
124. 
     The ideological position, which limits the role of God to the act of creating the world and setting it in motion, is called ... deism
125. 
     The variety of objects produced by man, as well as natural things and phenomena changed by human influence, are called ... material culture
126. 
     The thinker who introduced the concept of "world-historical spirit" into scientific circulation was ... G. Hegel
127. 
     The thinker who substantiated the concept of "post-industrialism" is ... D. Bell
128. 
     The thinker who defended the priority of geographical factors in social development was ... C. Montesquieu
129. 
     The thinker defending the priority of the demographic factor in social development was ... T. Malthus
130. 
     The thinker who develops the theory of the social contract of the origin of the state is ... T. Hobbes
131. 
     The thinker who considers culture as a product of the sublimation of unconscious mental processes is ... Z. Freud
132. 
     The thinker who considers the scientific and technological potential as the main indicator of historical development is ... D. Bell
133. 
     The thinker who considers the course of development of civilizations through the "challenge - and - response" scheme is ... A. Toynbee
134. 
     The thinker who believed that “in the modern social life of Europe ... all power in society has passed to the masses” is ... J. Ortega y Gasset
135. 
     The thinker who argued that an outstanding person must have three decisive qualities: passion, a sense of responsibility and an eye, was ... M. Weber
136. 
     The most general laws and values ​​of social life are studied by ... social philosophy
137. 
     The most significant achievements of the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas were developed by the school ... Thomism
138. 
     The direction in medieval scholasticism, which affirmed the real (physical) existence of things and recognized general concepts only as the names of things, is called ... nominalism
139. 
     The direction in the theory of knowledge, whose representatives consider sensory experience the main source of knowledge, is called ... empiricism
140. 
     The direction in philosophy, which considers the spiritual fundamental principle of the world, nature, being, is called ... idealism
141. 
     The direction of development from the lowest to the highest is called ... progress
142. 
     The direction that considers science and scientific and technological progress to be the main cause of global problems and criticizes them is called ... anti-scientism
143. 
     The focus on the chosen consumer, who has artistic susceptibility and material means, is characteristic of ___________ culture. Elite
144. 
     Directed, irreversible qualitative changes in the system are called ... development
145. 
     The science that studies all forms social behavior living beings, including humans, based on the principles of genetics and evolutionary biology, is called ... sociobiology
146. 
     science in the system of culture, the spiritual life of society, is called ... scientism
147. 
     The science of the forms and methods of rational thinking is ... logic
148. 
     The beginning of the dispute between the Slavophiles and the Westernizers was laid by the publication of "Philosophical Letters" ... P. Ya. Chaadaeva
149. 
     An indivisible, non-composite unity, the beginning of being, a measure and a prototype of a number is called ... a monad
150. 
     
151. 
     The need to defend the consistency of religious truths in the context of the dominant scientific picture of the world becomes a prerequisite for the formation of a philosophical school ... neo-Thomism
152. 
     The Danish philosopher ... S. Kierkegaard is considered the immediate predecessor of existentialism
153. 
     The field of knowledge about the systemic organization of society, which studies the structural aspect of social life, is called ... sociology
154. 
     The field of knowledge in which the regularities of the “second nature” are described and studied is called ___________ sciences. Technical
155. 
     The field of research aimed at understanding the nature of technology and assessing its impact on society, culture and man is called ... philosophy of technology
156. 
     The area of ​​philosophical knowledge that seeks to rationally comprehend the integrity of nature and its origin, to comprehend nature as a general, ultimate concept, is called ... natural philosophy
157. 
     The field of knowledge, historically the first to make the transition to the actual scientific knowledge of the world, is ... mathematics
158. 
     The image of a person as a set of instincts, drives, conflicts arises in ... psychoanalysis
159. 
     Social being determines social consciousness, according to representatives of the _ approach. Marxist
160. 
     Social being determines social consciousness, representatives of the _______________ approach believe. Marxist
161. 
     A society that has achieved partnership relations with the state, capable of putting the state under its control, while ensuring the safety of its citizens, is called ... civil
162. 
     Society, its structure and historical development are determined by the laws of nature, according to representatives of the ____________ approach. naturalistic
163. 
     Objective reality that exists outside and independently of human consciousness and is reflected by it is called ... matter
164. 
     The limited knowledge of the historical conditions of society is reflected in the category "_____". Relative truth
165. 
     One of the most prominent representatives of ancient Greek atomism was ... Democritus
166. 
     One of the most prominent representatives of Roman Stoicism is ... Marcus Aurelius
167. 
     One of the most prominent representatives of the "philosophy of life" is ... F. Nietzsche
168. 
     One of the hallmarks of pseudoscientific theories is... uncritical use of facts
169. 
     One of the principles of non-classical science is ... irrationalism
170. 
     One of the fundamental principles of modern cosmology, which fixes the connection between the large-scale properties of our Universe and the existence of man in it, is the ______________ principle. Anthropic
171. 
     One of the brightest representatives of the Russian Enlightenment is ... A. N. Radishchev
172. 
     One of the greatest achievements of the German classical philosophy is the development of laws of objective ... dialectics
173. 
     One of the natural science prerequisites for the formation of Marxist philosophy is ... Ch. Darwin's theory of evolution
174. 
     One of the first scientific pictures of the world was ___________ picture of the world. Mathematical
175. 
     One of the essential characteristics of the Hegelian philosophical system is... panlogism
176. 
     One of the theories that influenced the spread of the concept of "system" in all areas of scientific knowledge was ... evolutionary
177. 
     One of the characteristics of truth is... concreteness
178. 
     The ontological position of B. Spinoza, who claimed the existence of a single substance underlying the world, can be characterized as ... monism
179. 
     The definition of man as a political (social) being belongs to ... Aristotle
180. 
     The basis of existence, acting as unchanging principles and principles, is called ... substrate
181. 
     The founder of objective idealism is ... Plato
182. 
     The founder of the first system of objective idealism in the ancient tradition is the philosopher ... Plato
183. 
     The main feature of the scientistic direction in philosophy is ... faith in the limitless possibilities of science
184. 
     The basic laws and categories of idealistic dialectics were developed by ... G. Hegel
185. 
     The main methods of empirical research are ... scientific observation, experiment, object description
186. 
     The main principles of dialectics, from the standpoint of dialectical materialism, are ... universal communication and development
187. 
     The main features of the space are… 3D structure and reversibility
188. 
     The basis of every value is ... an ideal
189. 
     The basis of self-awareness is... reflection
190. 
     The founder of Russian cosmism N. F. Fedorov understood the philosophy of the common cause as ... resurrection project
191. 
     The founder of the rationalistic method in modern European philosophy is the philosopher ... R. Descartes
192. 
     The founder of the theory of the social contract is the philosopher ... T. Hobbes
193. 
     The founder of the philosophical school of Neoplatonism is ... Plotinus
194. 
     A special type of cognitive activity aimed at developing objective, systematically organized and justified knowledge about the world is called ... science
195. 
     Attitude towards someone or something as unconditionally valuable, association and connection with someone (what) is perceived as a blessing, is called ... love
196. 
     The denial of the socio-historical nature of the individual is characteristic of ... existentialism
197. 
     Defending the idea of ​​a special status of the head of state, standing outside the system of narrow-minded morality, N. Machiavelli becomes the founder of such a socio-political trend as ... real politics
198. 
     The first scientific picture of the world (XVII-XIX centuries) was called ... mechanical
199. 
     The transfer of culture occurs according to the principle ... "social relay races"
200. 
     The transmission of false knowledge as true or true knowledge as false is called ... disinformation
201. 
     The period of "Big" science begins from ... the end of the 19th - the beginning of the 20th centuries.
202. 
     The period of medieval philosophy, marked by the concentration of philosophical life around universities and the dominant desire to rationally substantiate and systematize Christian doctrine, was called ... scholastics
203. 
     According to M. Heidegger, _________ is the house of being. Language
204. 
     According to Descartes, the criterion for the truth of scientific knowledge is the correct ... deduction
205. 
     According to J.-P. Sartre, the specificity of human existence lies in the fact that ... existence precedes essence
206. 
     According to I. Kant, the basis of personality is ... moral law
207. 
     According to C. G. Jung, the unconscious components of the fundamental values ​​of culture are called ... archetypes
208. 
     According to Confucius, a person must transform himself, become ... noble husband
209. 
     According to N. Ya. Danilevsky, an original civilization, a closed self-sufficient education is called ... a cultural-historical type
210. 
     According to Pythagoras, the harmony of the Cosmos can be comprehended with the help of ... numbers
211. 
     According to T. Hobbes, before the emergence of the state, the natural state of society was ... war of all against all
212. 
     The activity of consciousness is understood as its ... selectivity and purposefulness
213. 
     An approach to the problem of the development of scientific knowledge, which affirms the principle of incommensurability of scientific theories, is called ... anti-cumulative
214. 
     The approach to the problem of the development of scientific knowledge, which states that the main driving forces for the development of science are in the internal factors of scientific knowledge (the internal logic of the development of science, etc.), is called ... internalism
215. 
     The approach according to which the role of science in the system of culture, the spiritual life of society is absolutized is called ... scientism
216. 
     The approach according to which culture is a system of information codes that fix life social experience, as well as the means of fixing it, is called ... semiotic
217. 
     The approach according to which a person is a natural being, an animal, is called ... naturalization
218. 
     The position in epistemology, according to which the basis of knowledge is experience, is characteristic of ... empiricism
219. 
     The position proceeding from the recognition of equality and irreducibility to each other of the two principles of being (spirit and matter) is called ... dualism
220. 
     The position according to which matter was identified with matter, with atoms, with a complex of their properties, was called ... physicalist
221. 
     The position according to which the world in relation to a person has two forms - will and representation, belongs to ... A. Schopenhauer
222. 
     The position according to which experience not processed by the mind cannot underlie cognition is characteristic of ... rationalism
223. 
     The position according to which there are two worlds - noumenal (“things in themselves”) and phenomenal (representations of things) belongs to ... I. Kant
224. 
     The position according to which only moral value determines the value of human individuality belongs to ... I. Kant
225. 
     Cognition of the world through works of art and literary values ​​is characteristic of cognition. Artistic
226. 
     Knowledge of the world through works of art and literary values ​​is characteristic of ______________ knowledge. artistic
227. 
     Complete exhaustive knowledge, which is identical to its subject and cannot be refuted with the further development of knowledge, is understood as _____________ truth. Absolute
228. 
     The concept of "scientific community" introduces ... T. Kuhn
229. 
     The concept of "value" appears in the works of ... I. Kant
230. 
     The concept is a form of reflection of reality at the ______________ level of cognition. rational
231. 
     An attempt to distinguish between scientific and non-scientific knowledge, to determine the boundaries of the field of scientific knowledge is called the problem ... demarcation
232. 
     An attempt to synthesize philosophy and art was made by a representative of German classical philosophy ... F. Schelling
233. 
     A potential form of being is called ... a possibility
234. 
     The appearance of the first original philosophical texts in Russia is attributed to ... XI-XII centuries
235. 
     The subject of the philosophy of science at the present post-positivist stage of development is ... dynamics of knowledge
236. 
     The intentional erection of deliberately wrong ideas into the truth is called ... lies
237. 
     The representative of the English Enlightenment, who substantiated the principle of separation of powers, was the philosopher ... J. Locke
238. 
     The representative of the hermeneutic tradition in philosophy is ... V. Dilthey
239. 
     The representative of modern philosophy, who believed that the growth of scientific knowledge occurs as a result of putting forward bold hypotheses and refuting them, is ... K. Popper
240. 
     The idea of ​​being as a nature-mechanism that opposes man arose in the philosophy of ... Modern times
241. 
     The idea that being is formed as a unity of matter and form belongs to ... And Christotle
242. 
     The idea that the world exists only in the mind of one perceiving subject is called ... solipsism
243. 
     The advantages of empiricism as a universal method of scientific knowledge were defended by the English philosopher ... F. Bacon
244. 
     Recognition of the existence of a single beginning of being is called ... monism
245. 
     To accept one's destiny as a manifestation of a good providence, to follow duty and virtue in spite of desires and passions is called by the ancient philosophical school of ... stoicism
246. 
     The principle of verification was proposed by ... L. Wittgenstein
247. 
     The principle of determining the significance of knowledge by its practical consequences was formulated in the philosophical school of ... pragmatism
248. 
     The principles of dialectics as a universal method of cognition are ... the principle of objectivity, the principle of consistency
249. 
     Problems related to the problem of resources, energy, food, environment, are classified as _____________ problems. natural and social
250. 
     Problems related to disarmament, prevention of thermonuclear war, world social and economic development are classified as ___ problems. intersocial
251. 
     The process of the emergence and development of man as a biological species is called ... anthropogenesis
252. 
     A pseudo-scientific theory associated with attempts to obtain a perfect metal (gold, silver) from imperfect metals is called ... alchemy
253. 
     The psychological attitude, which consists in recognizing the unconditional existence and truth of something, is ... faith
254. 
     The equality of all possible directions of space is called ... isotropy
255. 
     Development is a process characterized by a change in ... quality
256. 
     Development is a process characterized by change... quality
257. 
     The development of anthropological problems in medieval philosophy was associated, first of all, with the solution of the question of ... free will