The science – it is a sphere of human activity aimed at the production and theoretical systematization of objective knowledge about nature, society and knowledge itself. It is a complex socio-cultural phenomenon, which acts as: 1) a system of reliable knowledge about various spheres of the world; 2) activities for the production of such knowledge; 3) a special social institution.
Like a knowledge system science is a collection of various information about the world, united in a strict and logical orderly integrity. Such a system includes various forms of knowledge - facts, problems, hypotheses, laws, theories, scientific pictures of the world, ideals and norms of science and its philosophical foundations.
Science as a special kind of knowledge is an active purposeful activity of researchers, focused on obtaining fundamentally new knowledge about a particular area of the world, the laws of its functioning and development. This activity is characterized by: the development and use of scientific research methods, the use of special equipment (instruments, tools, laboratories, etc.), the assimilation and processing of extensive information (libraries, databases, etc.).
As social institution science appears as a system of special institutions (Academies, research institutes, higher educational institutions, laboratories, etc.), professional teams and specialists, various forms of communication between them (scientific publications, conferences, internships, etc.). All this taken together ensures the very existence of science in modern society, its functioning and improvement.
As an integral system, science arose in the 16th-17th centuries, in the era of the formation of the capitalist mode of production. The development of industry required the knowledge of objective laws and their theoretical description. With the advent of Newtonian mechanics, science acquired a classical form of an interconnected system of applied and theoretical (fundamental) knowledge with access to practice. Reflecting the diversity of the world, science is divided into many branches of knowledge (private sciences), which differ from each other in what side of reality they study. According to the subject and method of cognition, one can single out the sciences about nature - natural science; society - social science (humanities, social sciences); cognition and thinking - logic and epistemology. Technical sciences and mathematics are separated into separate groups. According to the direction of scientific disciplines, according to their relation to practice, it is customary to distinguish between fundamental and applied sciences. Fundamental sciences are engaged in the knowledge of regular relationships between the phenomena of reality. The immediate goal of applied research is to apply the results of fundamental sciences to solve technical, industrial, social problems.
The role of science in the life of modern society is characterized by the following main features:
– cultural and ideological- science produces true knowledge, which is the foundation of the modern worldview and a significant component of spiritual culture (education and upbringing of a person is impossible today without mastering the main achievements of science);
– immediate productive force- the most important achievements of technical and technological progress are the practical implementation of scientific knowledge;
– social strength- science is being introduced today into various spheres of public life, directs and organizes almost all types of human activity, makes a significant contribution to the solution of social problems (for example, global problems of our time).
The growing role of science and scientific knowledge in the modern world, the complexity and contradictions of this process gave rise to two opposite positions in its assessment - scientism and anti-scientism, which had already developed by the middle of the 20th century. Scientists argue that "science is above all" and it must be implemented in every possible way as a standard and absolute social value in all types of human activity. Anti-scientism is a philosophical and ideological position, the supporters of which sharply criticize science and technology, which are not able to ensure social progress, because they are forces that are hostile to the true essence of man, destroying culture. Undoubtedly, it is equally wrong to both exorbitantly absolutize science and underestimate, and even more so completely reject it. It is necessary to objectively, comprehensively assess the role of science, to see the contradictions in the process of its development.
Ethos of science- a set of values and norms accepted in the scientific community and determining the behavior of scientists. These include:
universalism - a scientist should be guided by the general criteria and rules for scientific research and scientific knowledge (orientation towards objectivity, verifiability and reliability of scientific statements);
generality - the results of scientific research should be considered as the common property of members of the scientific community;
disinterest - the desire for truth should be the main thing in the activity of a scientist and not depend on various extra-scientific factors;
· organized skepticism - criticality and self-criticism in the assessment of scientific achievements.
Today an attempt has been made to develop a kind of moral code of a scientist by including new ethical norms:
Civil and moral responsibility of a scientist for the consequences of his discoveries;
No right to a dangerous experiment;
A conscientious attitude to scientific work, including responsibility for the quality of the information received, a ban on plagiarism, respect for the scientific results of predecessors and colleagues;
Resolving scientific disputes exclusively by scientific means, without developing theoretical disagreements into personal hostility;
Responsibility for the education of scientific youth in the spirit of humanism, democratic norms, scientific honesty and decency.
Scientific revolutions and change of types of rationality. Scientific knowledge is characterized by a tendency to constant development. On the question of the dynamics of scientific knowledge, there are two opposite approaches: cumulative and anti-cumulative. Cumulative- a model for the development of scientific knowledge, according to which it is a continuous process of increasing new knowledge based on the existing one by gradually adding new provisions to the accumulated amount of knowledge. Anticumulativeism believes that there are no enduring components in the development of knowledge. The transition from one stage in the development of science to another is associated with a revision of fundamental ideas and methods. The history of science is presented as a struggle and change of theories and methods, between which there is neither logical nor meaningful continuity; hence the thesis about the incommensurability of scientific theories (T. Kuhn, P. Feyerabend).
Since the 1960s, a prominent role has been played in the philosophy of science Thomas Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions. He singled out periods of "normal science" and periods of scientific revolution in the history of science. In the period of "normal science" research is subject to a paradigm. Paradigms (Greek παράδειγμα - sample, model, example) are “generally recognized scientific achievements that, for a certain time, provide the scientific community with a model for posing problems and their solutions.” During the "normal science" period, members of the scientific community engage in paradigm-based puzzle solving. Exceptional situations in which there is a change in professional norms are scientific revolutions. There is a change in the conceptual grid through which scientists view the world, a new paradigm is established, and the period of normal science begins again.
In the course of scientific revolutions, paradigms (patterns) for explaining and describing research results in entire scientific fields, such as physics, biology, etc., have changed. At the same time, as V. S. Stepin proves, a phenomenon of a more global order was taking place - a change in the types of rationality of all science. Type of scientific rationality – these are the ideals of cognitive activity that prevail at a certain stage in the development of science, in other words, ideas about how to properly build the relationship “subject - means of research - object” in order to obtain objective truth. At different stages of the historical development of science, coming after scientific revolutions, its own type of scientific rationality dominated: classical, non-classical, post-non-classical.
classical rationality characteristic of the science of the XVII-XIX centuries, which sought to ensure the objectivity and objectivity of scientific knowledge. The object style of thinking dominated, the desire to know the subject in itself, regardless of the conditions of its study. Objects were considered as small systems (mechanical devices) having a relatively small number of elements with their force interactions; causality was interpreted in the spirit of mechanistic determinism.
Non-classical rationality prevailed in science in the period from the end of the 19th to the middle of the 20th century. Revolutionary changes took place in physics (the discovery of the divisibility of the atom, relativistic and quantum theories), in cosmology (the concept of a non-stationary Universe), in chemistry (quantum chemistry), in biology (the formation of genetics), cybernetics and systems theory arose. Non-classical rationality moved away from the objectivism of classical science, began to take into account that ideas about reality depend on the means of its cognition and on the subjective factors of research. At the same time, the reproduction of the relationship between the subject and the object began to be considered as a condition for an objectively true description and explanation of reality.
Post-nonclassical scientific rationality has been developing since the second half of the 20th century. It takes into account the fact that knowledge about an object is correlated not only with the features of its interaction with the means (and, therefore, with the subject using these means), but also with the value-target settings of the subject. It is recognized that the subject influences the content of knowledge about the object not only due to the use of special research tools and procedures, but also due to its value-normative attitudes, which are directly related to extra-scientific, social values and goals. In addition, in post-nonclassical rationality, the subject, means and object of cognition are considered as historically changing. A characteristic feature of post-nonclassical rationality is also the complex nature of scientific activity, the involvement in solving scientific problems of knowledge and methods inherent in different disciplines and branches of science (natural, humanitarian, technical) and its different levels (fundamental and applied).
1.1. Social cognition in the system of scientific knowledge and its specificity. The process of acquiring, accumulating, comprehending and developing knowledge about man and society, which is continuously taking place in human history, is built as a multifaceted and multidirectional activity in a number of spheres of life. Among the various types of knowledge, a specific place is occupied by scientific knowledge, focused on obtaining reliable and objective knowledge, posing and critically considering problems related to the life and development of society in space and time, and problems of human development.
Scientific knowledge, considering the natural and social worlds, seeks to rationally and theoretically comprehend them, to identify the general, universal patterns of their existence and development, and to organize the knowledge gained into a system. However, natural science and social scientific knowledge are considered as two special regions of science, having a common unifying fundamental context of rationality, but differing in specifics. social cognition- a special type of scientific and cognitive activity, aimed at developing objective, substantiated and systematized knowledge about social reality, the phenomena and processes occurring in it, as well as about the life and development of a person in society. The general guideline of social cognition is the desire to comprehend the Truth about man and society. Interpretations of truth are varied; understood and how scientific system, which includes objectivity and subjectivity, absoluteness and relativity, universality and concreteness, and how adequate correspondence of knowledge to reality(classical understanding), and how intrinsic property of knowledge according to the theoretical context, and how indefinite concept, which is better to refuse, since it makes it difficult to know. However, this variety of interpretations does not negate the general desire of the researcher for the truth.
Social cognition is brought to life not only by the needs of practical activity, but also by the desire of a person to comprehend the content and meanings of his spiritual and cultural existence. As these needs and aspirations grow, so does the need to increase the amount of scientific knowledge about social and human reality.
Both society and man, “human reality” (E. B. Rashkovsky) are the most complex objects of knowledge. In the object of social cognition, two interrelated aspects can be conditionally defined: 1) development of society as a system, going in accordance with its inherent laws, and 2) human development in the unity of his social, psychological and personal qualities. Therefore, along with the desire for scientific objectivity and reliability, social cognition takes into account the subjective world of a person in its complexity and depth, in its manifestations in social life.
Specific objects of social cognition are the results of human activity and interaction between people in the process of this activity, therefore, the researcher is required not only to describe and interpret material practice, relationships and structures, but also ideal, spiritual relationships in all their complexity, inconsistency and semantic richness. Defining the object of social cognition in its integrity, one can rely on the distinction proposed by E. B. Rashkovsky of three conditional layers - sociotechnics, civilization, spirituality, which form the living fabric of human reality - individual, collective and universal - and are closely related to each other. 1) The world of sociotechnics is “an external, empirical horizon of human activity, a material and institutional praxis”; it is a socio-economic dimension. 2) The world of civilization “is associated primarily with those norms, values, images and concepts that explicitly and implicitly form the basis of the processes of learning and self-learning of people, their continuously ongoing socialization, internal and external transmission of the cultural and historical memory of human communities, their adaptation to changing conditions of existence." 3) The world of spirituality “is associated with partly inexpressible, latent, in many respects even non-verbal relationships of people. It is hardly broadcast, hardly covered by rational training programs. He acts in intersubjective relations…” This is the world of “personal knowledge” (M. Polanyi), culture and human freedom.
The study of such a complex object is historically differentiated by several branches of social knowledge, which are conventionally typified in two versions. The first one divides them into two subsystems - social/social sciences, the object of which is social reality, and the humanities, the object of which is personal reality. The second option seems to be more meaningful. The social sciences are grouped into three groups:
1) Socio-philosophical knowledge- the system-forming basis of all social knowledge, exploring the manifestation of the universal in society, in society. In essence, this knowledge is normative, comprehending both the existent and the proper (including the ideal and utopia). Socio-philosophical knowledge develops general ideas about society, man, their relationship, interaction and mutual influence.
2) Socio-practical knowledge combines the sciences that explore the world of social practice, combining disciplines whose object is the world of sociotechnics (economic sciences) and disciplines that have the object of the world of civilization (sociological, political and historical sciences).
3) Humanitarian knowledge, exploring the world of human subjectivity, "the world of spirituality" - this area includes such sciences as cultural studies, religious studies, psychology, pedagogy, as well as relevant branches of sociological and historical knowledge.
Based on the specifics of society as an object of cognition, we define the features of social cognition as follows.
1. The object of social cognition - society, spheres of social life, culture, man - is qualitatively one with the subject that studies it, since both of them have a human essence. Therefore, in contrast to the natural sciences, in the social sciences an impartial attitude of the researcher to the object is impossible. This means that social cognition is influenced by non-scientific factors, but on the other hand, it acts as self-knowledge of society and man.
2. In social cognition, it is practically impossible to consider a specific object under study outside of its connections and relations with the surrounding social reality.
3. The methods of the social sciences differ from the methods of the natural sciences by being less rigid and rigorous, more flexible, and the possibilities for experimentation and observation are significantly narrowed.
4. The identification of patterns and the definition of concepts in the social sciences is not subject to clear rules, as in natural sciences, and is rather conditional than unambiguous.
5. The process of social cognition is influenced by the subjective world of the researcher, his value attitudes and worldview beliefs, respectively, in social cognition there is always a subjective dimension.
6. Consideration of events, phenomena, processes and phenomena in development plays a huge role in social cognition, therefore its essential characteristic is historicity.
Given these specific features, three aspects are defined in social cognition: ontological, epistemological and axiological.
ontological aspect expressed in the interpretation (explanation) of social and human existence, its content, trends, measurements, patterns and meanings. The interpenetration of personal and social being in its dynamic dimension is the basis for deploying various points of view and interpretations of the existence of society, social, cultural and human phenomena.
Gnoseological aspect correlated both with the ontological aspect and with the features of social cognition mentioned above and lies in the problem of the possibility of formulating one's own social laws, categories, and, consequently, claiming the truth and status of science. Questions about the method, possibilities, boundaries of social cognition, about the role of the subject in social cognition, about the relationship between logical and intuitive cognition, and other similar questions constitute the problematic field of the epistemological aspect.
Axiological aspect social cognition implies the presence in the process of cognition of the values that guide the researcher, as well as the values of the society in the context of which his activity takes place, as well as the values that exist in the object of cognition itself.
Social cognition, like any developed form of knowledge, is characterized not only by the study of its object in its entirety, but also by the understanding of the very process of obtaining and interpreting knowledge. And if in the positivist paradigm the cognition of the social world and the cognition of the research process were distinguished quite unequivocally, then in modern science, to the comprehension of facts (factology) and the thought process itself, an analysis of what E. B. Rashkovsky called "the inner experience of the researcher in his most complex spiritual, social and psychological underpinnings. In other words, it is possible to understand how the discovery, accumulation, increase and development of knowledge about social reality takes place, if we analyze not only scientific activity, but also take into account the characteristics of the subject of knowledge - his personal social and cultural experience, plus the influence of this experience on his scientific - research activities.
This leads to the question of how social cognition is carried out in its entirety and in specific social sciences, that is, the question of methodology.
1.2. Methodology as a theory of scientific activity. Cognitive activity in science is rationally organized by a system of various methods and techniques. The use of methods, based on an understanding of their capabilities and limits, makes it possible to make scientific activity rational and effective. Rene Descartes noted that it is the method, and not a random decision or a random "find" that plays a decisive role in science. Finding a method and substantiating its effectiveness is one of the leading problems in the methodology of science.
The term "methodology" is ambiguous. Most often it is defined as a set of cognitive means and techniques used in the study, or techniques and methods used by a particular science. However, such a definition somewhat simplifies the concept of methodology. E. V. Ushakov offers two meanings for the term “methodology”: “In a broad sense, methodology is a set of basic attitudes that determine a certain type of activity. In a narrow sense… methodology is a special discipline, a special line of research.” Both interpretations matter to us.
Methodology is genetically related to philosophy, since the latter has traditionally developed its problems. First of all, this refers to epistemology, which analyzes the universal characteristics of human cognitive activity. However, if epistemology considers general aspects knowledge, the methodology focuses on special- on the embodiment of the general characteristics of cognition in specific situations of scientific activity and specific areas of cognition, in certain sociocultural conditions. The differentiation of modern knowledge, the complication of the conceptual apparatus, the strengthening of the theorization of scientific thinking, the improvement of cognitive means and methods have led to the emergence of methodology as a project and as a special discipline within each science.
Methodology as a special discipline analyzes cognitive aspects of scientific activity, and in science as such (general methodology of science), and in each specific science (methodology of particular sciences - natural and social). Initially, the methodology was conceived as a project - a special science of the method, which will offer researchers "correct" ways of knowing and norms of activity, and within the framework of these methods and norms, their activity will be as productive as possible. So subject such normative methodology was the identification and development of norms and rules governing the formation and development of scientific knowledge.
Such a methodology-project went back to the traditional theory of cognition, which, according to M. Mamardashvili, is "legislative", since it considers cognition from the standpoint of a proper, and not a real process. An important role in the existence of this methodology-project was played by functional rationalism, which is characteristic of industrial societies and requires clear interpretation schemes. Attempts to implement this project often turned into dogmatization of explanatory schemes and, on the whole, were not crowned with success. The designation of methodology as a theoretical toolkit (a set of methods) of science has remained from it in scientific everyday life. Despite the fact that the norms and rules are part of the apparatus of conscious control and regulation of activities for the formation and development of scientific knowledge, the researcher usually determines them himself - this is especially true for the social sciences.
Normative methodology was oriented, therefore, to impose on scientists ideas about "right" and "wrong" methods, but its supporters did not take into account that the scientist can freely choose the rules, norms and methods for himself. Therefore, in the second half of the 20th century, the normative methodology was replaced by a descriptive (descriptive) methodology. Its main object became scientific achievements and real research activities of scientists, and subject– methodological problems arising in the process of research.
Scientific knowledge is inseparable from the development of methodology, since any scientific discovery, achievement, theory has not only a specific subject, but also a methodological content. A significant scientific result is associated with a critical revision of the previously existing methodological approaches and principles for explaining the subject under study, premises and concepts. The emergence of new scientific theories and conclusions results not only in the growth of new knowledge, but also in the emergence of new theoretical tools - methods, methods, models and methods of research, explanation and understanding. Therefore, each discovery or scientific achievement has a methodological meaning and becomes a subject methodological analysis- research of the content of the scientist's activity. Therefore, methodology acts as a form of self-knowledge of science, as it analyzes the activity that produces knowledge about objective reality.
So, methodology is a theory of scientific activity that analyzes the structure, methods and means of its implementation, as well as the prerequisites and principles of its organization. Methodology is dialectically connected with the logic of scientific knowledge, therefore it analyzes approaches, diverse methods (their content, structure, possibilities and boundaries), methods and operations of scientific research, forms of organization of scientific knowledge, principles of construction and forms of scientific knowledge. If we define the main question that the methodology seeks to answer - how to study this object and what methods will allow us to study it better.
The range of problems and issues studied by the methodology is quite wide; the description and analysis of scientific research, analysis of the language of science, identification of the scope of applicability of procedures and methods in research, analysis of research principles, approaches, concepts, etc. are added to the already mentioned objects of analysis. The functions performed by the modern methodology of science are divided into two groups: 1 ) in the philosophical aspect, the methodology seeks to identify the general meaning of scientific activity and its significance in sociocultural practice, its significance for a person; 2) in the scientific aspect, the methodology solves the problems of improving and rationalizing scientific knowledge.
The methodology is structured differently, dividing it into levels. In one version, the relationship between theory, concept and research practice is emphasized, so the methodology combines three levels of knowledge.
I. Philosophical and epistemological(philosophical) level combines logic, theory of knowledge (epistemology) and the general methodology of scientific research.
II. Theoretical level is a theoretical approach to the study of phenomena within the framework of a given science, which is based on the data of a specific scientific analysis.
III. Empirical level combines methods and techniques for collecting and systematizing research information (usually called research methodology). However, without the first two levels of knowledge, this information does not yet become scientific knowledge.
In another variant of structuring, the methodology refers to the philosophical and theoretical level, and a set of theoretical methods (methods of data analysis) of a particular science is derived from it, which are designed to generalize and structure empirical data. In this case, methodology does not include methods for collecting empirical information.
One way or another, it is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of "methodology" and "methodology". Methodology as a theoretical understanding of the material - both in a specific science and in the practice of researching a specific topic - acts as a stable foundation for any specific research in this science. Methodology- a set of methods, techniques and technical means used by the researcher to collect, systematize and describe empirical information. Methodology, as opposed to methodology, changes depending on the specific object of study, goals, objectives and nature of the study.
Summing up, we define the methodology of science as a dialectical unity of philosophy, theory and practice, i.e. the concept (philosophical level), methods of cognition (theoretical level) and research methods (techniques), as well as the theory of scientific knowledge of the surrounding world.
1.3. Methodology of social cognition. Social cognition is integral in nature and “should grasp the opposite principles in people’s activities – objective and subjective, necessary and random, independent of a person, something substantial, and depending on his consciousness, will, choice, natural and determined by a combination of specific circumstances, general and separate, etc.,” write V. Zh. Kelle and M. Ya. Kovalzon. And further: “Without the initial philosophical and epistemological foundations, research is impossible, without specific facts reflecting opposite principles in human activity, it is impossible to know social reality.”
Cognition of social reality on rational grounds is the integral goal of social cognition, which, as mentioned above, is differentiated by a number of particular social sciences that have their own particular methodologies. However, talking about methodology of social cognition as such, it is possible, given that private social sciences appeared due to the fact that social philosophy, describing the social world in its own language and developing, opened up various areas of knowledge that require rational scientific understanding. Therefore, we define the methodology of social cognition as theory of knowledge of social and human reality, society in its historical development and current state, knowledge of its spheres and dimensions. As her subject it is possible to designate the processes and results of research activities in the social sciences.
Accordingly, the subject field of methodology includes a set of problems and questions about the subject, boundaries and specifics of social cognition, about the relationship of social cognition with other areas of knowledge, the problem of social fact, the problem of logic and the conceptual apparatus of social cognition, the problem of methods of cognition as research tools, the problem of interpreting social processes, the ratio of explanation and understanding, the role of the subject in the cognition of sociocultural reality, etc.
The methodology of social cognition, carrying out methodological analysis, absorbs and perceives the ideas and achievements of all social sciences, but it is also constantly focused on the ideas and concepts of social philosophy. In building the methodology of social cognition, the worldview of the researcher, as well as the level of cultural and social development of society, play a serious role.
Target methodology of social cognition - the creation of theoretical foundations that allow the researcher to identify the content of the processes taking place in society, to reveal the meaning of various events, phenomena, processes and phenomena. To achieve this goal, the methodology of social cognition identifies and develops the principles, means and methods of obtaining, systematizing and interpreting knowledge about society, aspects of its life, about the history of society.
The development of scientific knowledge in the most general terms goes in two directions - from empiricism to theory and from theory to empiricism. This means that the movement of research thought, including in the social sciences, can unfold either inductively - from a huge variety of social facts to intermediate and generalizing conclusions, or deductively - from a built-up general theory to an explanation of phenomena, phenomena and processes of concrete reality. This distinction is rather arbitrary, but this movement can be found in every particular social science. So, from empiricism comes knowledge in applied sociology, in factual historical research and other sciences. This is well reflected in the substantiations of the method of particular sciences. The philosophical sciences are characterized by a deductive approach - from a theoretical concept to an explanation and understanding of reality. So does social philosophy, the philosophy of history, the philosophy of culture.
On the one hand, the methodology of social cognition develops the theoretical foundations for the study and interpretation of specific factual material, specific phenomena, processes, phenomena of social life, on the other hand, it theoretically generalizes the experience of specific studies (finds out how new scientific results and conclusions were obtained). Thus, the methodology of social cognition seeks to answer the question of how sociocultural reality is studied and what other ways of studying are possible.
According to these two aspects of the methodology of social cognition, we can define its tasks(or functions) that it performs: 1) development of theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of social reality; 2) establishing the grounds (principles) for the selection, organization and comprehension of specific material; 3) establishing principles for determining the most significant, secondary and insignificant in the study; 4) development of the categorical apparatus of the social sciences; 5) determination of the possibilities and limits of the methods; 6) determination of research methods, etc.
In the methodology of social cognition, three levels can be conditionally defined: at the philosophical and epistemological level - socio-philosophical concepts (including the provisions of the philosophy of history); at the theoretical level - special theories (theories of the middle level (R. Merton)), acting as the applied logic of research, and at the empirical level - methods for collecting and processing specific factual information.
Thanks to the methodology, the socio-humanitarian sciences interact with each other, and because of this, it is a border area in every science. The methodology ensures the exchange of concepts between various areas of social scientific knowledge, the development and refinement of principles and methods, the enrichment of the methodological tools of various sciences. Above we spoke about the close connection of methodology with philosophy - namely, with epistemology, which develops the theory, principles and methods of cognition, as well as the logical foundations of science. Methodology interacts just as closely with historical science, since an abstract society is only a mental construct; in reality, society exists in the form of specific societies that develop in time and space. History has accumulated extensive experience and tools for studying social reality in development, on concrete material. Sociology is important for the purposes of methodology, because thanks to the categories and theory of this science, theoretical models for the analysis of social reality are developed. Close links exist between the methodology of social cognition and other socio-humanitarian sciences - cultural studies, political science, psychology, religious studies, linguistics, jurisprudence, etc.
So, the methodology of social cognition deals with the problems associated with the choice of theoretical foundations and tools (methods and principles) of scientific analysis and with the organization of research work.
1.4. Basic methodological concepts. The material of science is organized and systematized through the use of concepts. In logic, a concept is defined as a minimal logical form of knowledge representation, a form of thinking that includes a set of features necessary and sufficient to indicate an object (class of objects) (O. V. Suvorov). In science, concepts form the initial basis for interpreting the material and ways of interpreting it, so the development of the categorical apparatus is an indicator of the maturity of any science.
Mastering the methodology of social cognition requires mastering the basic categories that allow you to carry out methodological analysis, as well as choose or develop a methodology for your own research.
The first basic concept is methodological approach . This is the general theoretical basis of the study, which is certain angle of view on a subject or issue. The methodological approach can be based on a certain theoretical concept, or a hypothesis (a system of hypotheses), or a concept. The methodological approach can be defined as fundamental interpretation social reality, its phenomena, events and processes occurring in it, from a certain perspective.
Other methodological concepts can be conditionally divided into four groups.
1) Methods. This category refers, firstly, to method of science as a system of techniques and regulatory principles that guides scientific knowledge and ensures the acquisition of scientific knowledge. Second, special tricks scientific research, existing at different levels of methodology (general logical, scientific theoretical and scientific empirical methods).
2) Principles- the initial foundations that allow organizing the subject under study into a theoretical system, selecting for study facts, phenomena, processes that are significant from the point of view of this science and the chosen methodological approach. A principle is a guiding rule chosen by a scientist in the study of a given subject.
3) Categories- concepts that define the most general and meaningful connections of the real world. In methodology, these include the main terms used in the description and interpretation of the object and subject of research. The formation of scientific concepts is a complex process associated with the use of a number of logical and methodological procedures (abstraction, idealization, inductive generalization, mental design, hypotheses, etc.). Each developed category conceptually (that is, in theoretical unity) describes a certain part of the social world. However, in the social sciences, scientists retain the freedom to form and interpret concepts, moreover content concepts are broad enough. Therefore, the formation of scientific concepts is largely a creative process in which rational-logical, hypothetical and intuitive actions are combined.
4) The laws- this is the most important component of scientific knowledge, which is presented in a concentrated form. “A law is a scientific statement that has a universal character and describes in a concentrated form the most important aspects of the studied subject area.”
Approach, method, principles, categories and laws constitute methodological apparatus of science, or her methodological tools. Being present in each specific study, the toolkit indicates the general scientific background of the researcher, the level of his methodological thinking. A special role in science is played by the ability of a scientist to build and describe his own specific research methodology. Equally important is the ability to comprehensively present the problem under study, accurately, conclusively and logically present the course and results of the study.
1.5. The influence of modernity on the development of social sciences. The subject of scientific knowledge does not work in the “ivory tower” (G. Flaubert); on the contrary, it operates in a concrete, historically and socially determined society, which exerts various kinds of indirect and direct influences on it. The era in which the subject of cognition works, contemporary events and processes in various spheres of public life cannot but influence both his worldview position and his scientific and cognitive practice. In addition, the life of society is permeated with meanings - people give meaning to everything that happens in it, and, consequently, social reality itself is interpretative character. The complex of various interpretations affects the researcher, who is faced with the need to clearly define his worldview and methodological positions. This is especially true for scientists working in the field of social sciences.
On the one hand, the methodology of scientific research of social reality is influenced by various scientific paradigms that replace each other in the history of science. Under paradigms Thomas Kuhn refers to "generally recognized scientific achievements that, over time, provide the scientific community with a model for posing problems and solving them." But on the other hand, paradigms, including those in the social sciences, exist in a specific sociocultural context (in epochs of world history) that influences them. The social sciences are especially susceptible to such influence, and it is possible to understand their problems and methodological approaches by referring to the main features of historical eras.
The development of modern social sciences is inseparable from the development of society in the last three or four centuries. We can talk about modernity using various terms to describe it - such as globalization, information society, post-industrial society, post-modernization, etc. “bourgeois society”, others who study the socio-cultural and spiritual aspects of the development of modern societies prefer the term “modernization”. These categories and approaches complement each other, making it possible to describe all facets of dynamically developing societies.
If modernity is described by the term "postmodern", then first it is necessary to find out the main features of the "modern" society, or "modern project" (J. Habermas). The term " modernization" in social philosophy denote the whole complex of transformations in the economic, social, political, cultural, ideological and spiritual spheres of society, associated with the transition from traditional (agrarian) societies to non-traditional (modernized, industrial). Briefly, the main characteristics of the changes can be summarized as follows.
1. The predominance of the system of industrial-urban relations that developed in the West and spread on a global scale to all countries of the non-Western area.
2. The market economy underlies the social structure of society, which is dominated by class differentiation according to the criterion of attitude to property.
3. The legal system is built on the principles of a contractual, rational and egalitarian sense of justice.
4. The social status of a person is determined by “the unconditional inner dignity of all members of society, determined by formal legislation” (E. B. Rashkovsky) and the possibilities of social mobility.
5. Rational scientific thinking becomes predominant and causes the development of secular scientific knowledge.
6. Orientation to the constant development of the external world and the constant transformation of man.
7. The main political model is democratic institutions (from parliament to local self-government).
8. The spread of individualism, based on freedom and the formal equality of the rights of each individual.
9. In the spiritual and cultural sphere, modernization is characterized by the spread of Eurogenic values.
Together with the positive aspects of the industrialization and urbanization of the world - the development of science and education, the emergence of new technologies, the development of means of communication, the spread of a modern way of life, etc., the implementation of the modern project brings to life colonialism, acute forms of socio-political confrontation, poverty, as well as totalitarian and authoritarian regimes of the twentieth century. For all their ambiguity, the results of the implementation of the modern project on a global scale are 1) an unprecedented universalization of the productive forces; 2) the emergence of globalized information and cultural systems and mass leisure systems based on electronic technologies; 3) an unprecedented change in the ethno-demographic structure of advanced industrial-urban societies as a result of mass migrations; 4) “It is thanks to the modern project that the world has developed ... a hungry minimum of technological, theoretical and legal prerequisites for intercultural communication.”
The general paradigm of scientific knowledge of the modernization period was based on the desire for formalized and deterministic scientific knowledge, constant updating and adjustment of the categories used (thus, K. Popper put forward the principle of testing ideas for “error”), operating with conditional forms and languages of the scientific description of the world. Therefore, the prevailing explanation in the social sciences turned out to be a deterministic explanation - an attempt to search for the causes of phenomena and processes in certain areas of public life (economics, law, culture, etc.). Few have pointed out the irreducibility of explanation to a uniform foundation. The consequence of this determinism in science was the transformation of a number of scientific models, theories and categories into dogmatized ideological constructs oriented towards the mobilization of the masses (for example, the concepts of "progress", "socialism", "revolution"). This gave V. A. Lektorsky reason to talk about “utopias” focused on the liberation of man, but turned into his worst enslavement, or simply did not lead to the desired results (liberal utopia, communist utopia).
But over time, in the second half of the twentieth century, the "modern project", as well as the era of modernization, began to exhaust themselves, as the world began to rapidly become more complex. First, the economy is shifting from industrial production to the service sector (J. Fourastier calls this process the development of a "civilization of services"), and science-intensive industries begin to dominate in industry. Secondly, in a market economy, along with industry, the service sector and agriculture, an information sector appears, in which knowledge plays a leading role as capital and a resource, including power. The former class stratification begins to be replaced by a professional one, conditioned by the presence or absence of knowledge and, accordingly, by professionalism or incompetence. Thanks to this, modernity can be described by the term "information society", in which the importance of knowledge (primarily theoretical), higher education, individualism and the ability to quickly adapt to a transforming reality is growing. Thirdly, modern capitalism has become the basis of globalization - the transformation of all spheres of society's life under the influence of the trend towards interdependence and openness on a global scale. In the conditions of the information economy, globalization forms the common needs and interests of the population of all countries, and thereby shows a trend of economic and value-normative unification of the world. The opposite trend of the modern world is the so-called fragmentation, or the strengthening of the desire of the peoples of different countries for identity and the preservation of their unique cultural image.
The cultural state of modern society is most often described by the concept of "postmodern" in order to show the combination of contradictory principles in it: the heritage of modernization and the desire for traditionalism and the restoration of totalitarianism, the opposition of the image and imaginative thinking (virtual world) to the word and categorical thinking (book), individual and collective self-determination, universal communication and xenophobia.
To designate the modern type of philosophizing, which unites different directions in the context of postmodern culture, the term "postmodernism" is adopted. The philosophy of postmodernism in its value and social dimension has a contradictory effect on the modern development of the social sciences: on the one hand, it indicates new specific ways of cognition and new scientific topics, on the other hand, it has destructive tendencies, consisting in the desire to emphasize the discontinuous / discrete nature (or, in the language of postmodernists, “graininess”) of the world, culture, sociality and man. Where does this contradictory impact of postmodern philosophy on social cognition come from?
Postmodernists challenged the ontological and epistemological aspects as irrelevant, and with them the old, “modernist” philosophy of science, focused on building knowledge on the basis of observed facts and dating back to the philosophy of the European Enlightenment. Postmodernists stand on the positions of agnosticism, believing that the essence of the studied phenomena and processes, man and society as such are unknowable; and on the positions of relativism, arguing that there are no universal foundations and values in the social world, and extremely exaggerating the importance of the local in the development of societies. In terms of content, such a rejection of philosophy is nothing more than a kind of modern restoration of the positivist rejection of theorizing as metaphysics (abstraction), which, nevertheless, raises with renewed vigor the question of the importance of the philosophical and epistemological level of the methodology of the social sciences.
Postmodern philosophy is an ideological philosophy, and therefore quickly perceived by those who interpret social phenomena and processes, including scientists. Ideologization is primarily manifested in anti-Westernism and, accordingly, harsh criticism of European culture for bourgeoisness, rationalism, individualism, formalism, legalism, idealism, the primacy of the word over the image, etc. Postmodernists appeal to a real or sometimes even imaginary infringement of the dignity of the really destitute or seemingly destitute regions, classes, peoples, social, cultural and other minorities, and these ideological moments affect the interpretation of historical and contemporary events, phenomena and processes. Such ideologization raises questions about the possibility for scientists to distance themselves from ideological pseudo-rational explanations that replace adequate middle-level theories. At the same time, social sciences already offer a response to the ideological challenge of postmodernism in the form of a tendency to strengthen rationality in a broad sense, but taking into account the specifics of social and humanitarian knowledge.
The idea of “human death” declared by postmodernists has turned into a kind of sociocentrism in philosophy: group social structures that have their own values and aspirations are shown as primary; however, these values and aspirations cannot even be correlated with each other due to their uniqueness. This moment of the philosophy of postmodernism actualizes the question of the human dimension of social reality and the new substantiation of personalism in social philosophy. In this regard, the interest of many social sciences in understanding a person (as well as culture, tradition, mentality) using hermeneutic rather than empirical and quantitative methods.
The emphasis by postmodernists on the discreteness of the world and the denial of the universal (universal) foundations of the existence of a person, society, and culture has found its highest expression in the concept of "cultural polymorphism". It declares the absolute dissimilarity of cultures (primarily in the sphere of values and norms) and the impossibility of any kind of mutual understanding - interethnic, interreligious, intercultural, intercivilizational. However, according to E. B. Rashkovsky, “having recognized the idea of polymorphism as unconditional, we will not get away from moral surrender to a cannibal or a terrorist.” The question raised by postmodernism for the social sciences is the question of the possibility of combining the emphasis on universality and universality, characteristic of the former philosophy of science of the period of modernization, with an understanding of the national and civilizational specifics of the societies under study and the processes taking place in them.
In addition to the described influence of postmodernism, we note other aspects of the influence of modernity on the social sciences. First of all, these are questions about sense socio-humanitarian knowledge. E. V. Ushakov formulates them as follows: “In what direction should the humanities develop? What are the life-sense guidelines of a person and society? What are the fundamental values and significant guidelines that should guide the cognitive interest and practical orientation of the humanities?
Modernity has marked more sharply a tendency towards differentiation and integration of social knowledge and the social sciences. Historically, social and humanitarian scientific knowledge had a common origin in philosophy, which was engaged in understanding the existence of man and society and discovered many dimensions of this existence. From the integral vision of man and society, declared by philosophy, and the areas of knowledge discovered by it, various sciences gradually grew, differentiated by the subject of study (different aspects of society, different aspects of human being). Within the framework of each of the differentiated sciences, the number of approaches that claim to have a common vision of the subject of interpretation is constantly increasing (E. V. Ushakov calls this the trend of "increasing eclecticism"). Along with this, a powerful trend of interdisciplinarity arises - a research strategy and a situation of fruitful combination and interpenetration of the social and human sciences, for which there are many measurements in the fields of sociology, history, economics, psychology, cultural studies, ethnology, etc. Many scientists associate the future of social and humanitarian sciences with the increase in interdisciplinarity. sciences, since the interaction of approaches, theories, concepts, models, their positive competition, as well as mutual positive criticism advance scientific knowledge.
Such an example of differentiation and integration, a pronounced trend towards interdisciplinarity, which has been challenged in a number of discussions, is the development of the historical and sociological sciences. Sociology took shape in the 19th century. as an independent science that arose, on the one hand, due to the development of social philosophy, and on the other hand, the accumulation of large-scale factual material and the development of the historical method by historical science. Claiming the greatest scope of coverage of the object of knowledge (society) and the discovery of the laws of its functioning and dynamics (mainly in the positivist and Marxist version), sociology finally separated from history by the 1920s, despite the fact that its founders advocated the convergence of sociology and history. So, E. Durkheim in 1898 spoke about their mutual tendency towards convergence and the possibility of unification into a common discipline that combines elements of both. At the same time, history was developed by some schools as an idiographic science (studying the unique), by others as a sociologized science in terms of describing and explaining historical events, phenomena and processes (positivist historians, Marxists, the French Annales school).
The discussion about the relationship between sociology and history unfolded in 1950-1970; As a result, two points of view on their relationship took shape. essence first point of view- substantiation of the displacement of historical science into the field of studying the problems of the origin and development of phenomena and events and the comprehensive nature of sociology, which should replace history and deal with issues of the present or phenomena and relations of the near past. The method of sociology uses "all forms of attracting people to identify the data necessary for scientific knowledge, namely, surveys, interviews, all types of observation of social processes and their carriers" (T. Schieder), and therefore its methods certainly surpass the methods of history, which is subjective creativity of the historian due to the irreproducible nature of the historical process. Second point of view lies in the assertion that history and sociology are methodologically close and need each other, so it is necessary to synthesize their approaches and techniques and build a common methodology. In the current situation, there is a tendency towards interdisciplinary interaction between history and sociology, which, however, continue to be independent sciences. Sociological terminology and concepts are actively used in history, and sociology is unthinkable without taking into account the historical conditions and dynamics of the development of the studied social phenomena and processes.
The actualization of the "East-West" problem in the social, cultural and political life on a global scale also has an undoubted impact on the social sciences. The differences between societies and peoples in the spatial and temporal dimensions are expressed in the real diversity of social life. In the most general terms, this diversity runs along the conditional line "East - West", which arose in history from the era of Ancient Greece (the 2nd half of the 1st millennium BC). This dichotomy in economic the area is associated with the absence (East) or presence (West) of the market, private property and free economic activity of the individual; v social and cultural areas - with a predominance, respectively, of collective or individual forms of life, in the area political- with the dominant or strictly limited by the legal framework of the role of the state in the life of a person, group, society. At first, the civilizations of Asia and Africa belonged to the East, and Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome to the West. In the course of the formation and development of a market / modernized society in Europe and America, economic, social, political, legal, scientific and cultural institutions and achievements spread during the era of colonialism in the countries of the East and, more broadly, in the countries of the non-Western area (Latin America). The arrival of the West in traditional Eastern societies sharply raised the problem of their modernization, which has acquired the greatest significance for the fate of the whole world in the post-colonial period of development of non-Western countries.
Economic, social and political problems of development and integration of non-Western countries into the modern world have an increasing influence on the events, phenomena and processes taking place in it, and it is hardly possible to study them in detail without knowing and taking into account their context - the East-West dichotomy and its corresponding interactions of traditional and modernized, eastern and western in the life of most peoples. At the same time, it is important to take into account the heterogeneity and specificity of what is called by the general terms "East" or "Non-West" - the differences between Chinese civilization from the Indian, the Arab world from the Turkic area, etc. On the one hand, Oriental knowledge in general (both classical and researching the modern East) is required to understand and explain global social processes and the development of specific societies, on the other hand, there is a problem of interaction between specialists engaged in the study of sociality and culture of the West, and their Orientalist colleagues, who, performing the general task of understanding the modern world, work in within the problem fields separated from each other and broadcast the acquired knowledge only in narrow circles of specialists and like-minded people.
The listed aspects of the impact of modernity on the social sciences constitute the general socio-cultural context of their development and have an ambiguous impact on the methodology and topics of research.
Questions to prepare for the seminar
1. Subject, ideological and methodological specificity of natural, humanitarian, social, technical sciences.
2. The influence of modernity on social cognition. Globalization. Information society. East-West problem.
3. Methodology as a theory of social cognition.
4. The problem of interdisciplinarity and directions of research in modern social sciences. Differentiation and integration of social knowledge.
Essay topics
1. Methodological specificity of the social sciences.
2. Methodology as a theory of scientific knowledge of society.
3. Methodological apparatus of modern humanitarian knowledge.
4. The problem of social law in modern science.
5. The problem of interdisciplinarity in the social sciences.
6. Correlation between sociological and historical approaches in the study of social reality.
7. Oriental themes in modern socio-humanitarian knowledge.
8. Eurocentrism as a methodological problem.
Since the relationship between science and society is growing, the social and moral problems of the development of science are aggravating, the requirements for scientists are increasing both as specialists and as citizens of their country, and in the end - as representatives of all mankind. Now not only the influence of science on society is growing sharply, but also the dependence on politics and ideology of the entire course of the development of science, the choice of research topics, the very approach to determining the goals and means of achieving them, to assessing the nature of the use of scientific and technological achievements, to identifying environmental, genetic and other consequences of certain practical ones proposed by science - technological, medical, psychological, etc. - decisions.
For the most reasonable choice of his position, a scientist must be well versed not only in professional and special, but also in socio-political, philosophical (ideological and methodological), humanistic, moral and ethical issues of the development of science.
Any activity, including scientific knowledge and artistic creation, is characterized by a contradiction between a subjectively biased striving for a goal and the objective content of the results of activity. At the same time, not only individual-personal, but also group partiality is manifested, expressing the interests, positions of the most diverse social groups, associations of people - social-class, party-political, national, ideological-theoretical and others. In principle, supporters of any philosophical, scientific and artistic idea (method, style, direction, school, etc.) can be considered as representatives of a certain ideological party. Group partiality, the interest of the group subject of action in certain results of his activity can both contribute to and hinder the achievement of truth, can lead the researcher, the creator with irresistible force to a multifaceted, holistic reflection of reality, and can limit his horizons with the same force.
A truly democratic society presupposes not only pluralism of opinions, freedom to put forward points of view, but also a socially responsible attitude to word and deed. In particular, this means an increased need for a scientific substantiation of the chosen position. It is important to avoid absolute pluralism, to see subordination to its monism. Everyone has not only the right to his position, but also the obligation to limit his choice to the requirements of scientific truth (or the truth of life, displayed by art).
In interpreting the social role of science, such opposite approaches as scientism and anti-scientism, technism and technophobia collide. Scientism is expressed in an exaggerated assessment of natural science, the so-called exact knowledge, and an underestimation of the social sciences, the humanities, and other areas of culture. Close to this is technicism, which recognizes technology as the driving force of the historical process, without taking into account the role of dominant social relations. Technicism is characterized by technocratic approaches to solving socio-economic problems, in fact, without taking into account their consequences for everyday life, leisure, and cultural traditions of people. Anti-scientism sees in science a force that is alien and hostile to the true essence of man, makes science responsible for social antagonisms, breaks truths and values. Technophobia manifests itself in pessimistic views on the role of technology and the prospects for scientific and technical progress, in calls to abandon the widespread use of the achievements of science and technology in people's lives.
Literature for Chapter 7
Vernadsky V.I. Biography. Selected works. Memoirs of contemporaries. Judgments of descendants. - M., 1993. - S. 520-555.
Volkov G.N. Three faces of culture. - M., 1986.
Mendeleev D.I. Treasured thoughts. - M., 1995.
Science and its place in culture. - Novosibirsk, 1990.
Scientific and technical progress. Dictionary. - M., 1987.
Sachkov Yu.V. Natural science in the system of culture // Philosophy, natural science, social development. - M., 1989.
Snow Ch. Two cultures. - M., 1973.
Filatov V.P. Scientific knowledge and the human world. - M., 1989.
Philosophy and Methodology of Science / Ed. IN AND. Kuptsova. - M., 1997.
CHAPTER 8 MODERN SCIENCE AND MYSTICISM
General concept of mysticism. Socio-ideological origins
and aspects of mysticism. Gnoseological, cognitive roots
mystics. Modern scientific picture of the world
and mystical worldview.
General concept of mysticism
The powerful development of science in the 20th century, oddly enough at first glance, is combined with the widespread dissemination of mysticism, irrationalism, occult, esoteric (secret) knowledge. The 15-volume Encyclopedia of Religion, published in the West in 1987, defines mystical experience as "a type of intense religious experience" in which the subject feels merged with the "cosmic totality." Mystical consciousness, be it thoughts or feelings, always includes faith in the direct connection of man with the supernatural, faith in a miracle. The most ancient historical manifestation of mysticism can be seen in the primitive shamanic-orgiastic cults. And in modern culture, for a number of reasons, shamanism is being revived. The ethnographer D. Schroeder gives the following definition: “Shamanism is an ecstatic connection between people and the other world, established by society and expressed in a certain form, serving the interests of the whole society.” The shaman himself is a person who has experienced a personality crisis, who has undergone a course of special mental training, as a result of which he reaches an "unusual state of consciousness" and develops a special "way of perceiving reality." The shaman performs the functions of a priest, sorcerer and sorcerer; in the course of meditation, he creates the illusion of a journey to the “other world” for the participants. “The state of ecstasy must be allowing the shaman to focus on those signals of the senses that usually pass by consciousness. Such an explanation makes understandable the seemingly strange ability of shamans to find people and animals lost somewhere far from their homes.
Any monotonously repeated sounds can cause the higher centers of the brain to turn off and give rise to hallucinations. Visions (from spots of light and geometric shapes to scenes of animals and people) can create the illusion that all this is actually happening. Similar hallucinations also occur as a result of taking drugs. Researchers of these phenomena admit that “travels to other worlds” achieved in various ways actually mean penetration into the depths of consciousness filled with primitive instincts, childhood memories of the human race and elements of the collective unconscious.
Question #45
The category of value in the philosophy of science:
values in cognition as a form of manifestation of the socio-cultural conditioning of knowledge
The term " value"extremely meaningful,today, but in most cases value is understood as significance for the individual and society.
As a rule, the subject of a value relationship is a person, a social group, society as a whole, but with the advent of system-structural methodology, the concept of value began to be applied to systems that do not include a person, as a parameter of a goal-setting system.carrying out evaluation and selection procedures.
As applied to the cognitive process, the concept of "value" also turned out to be ambiguous, multifaceted, fixing different axiological content.
- This is, firstly, emotionally chargedattitude containing interests, preferences, attitudes etc., formed by a scientist under the influence moral, aesthetic, religious — sociocultural factors in general.
- Secondly, this value orientations within cognition itself, including worldview painted, on the basis of which the forms and methods of description and explanation, evidence, organization of knowledge are evaluated and selected, for example scientific criteria, ideals and norms of research .
- Thirdly, values in knowledge is objectively true subjectknowledge (fact, law, hypothesis, theory) and effective operational knowledge (scientific methods, regulatory principles), which, precisely because of the truth, correctness, information content, acquire significance and value for society.
Throughout the 20th century, there was a discussion in the philosophy of science about the role of values in science: are they a necessary “driving force” for the development of science, or is it a condition for the successful activity of scientists to free them from all possible value orientations? Is it possible to completely exclude value preferences from judgments of facts and to know the object as such, in itself? Answers to these questions and the introduction of terminology and ways of reasoning about this problem are presented by Kant, who distinguished between the world of existence and the world of due, by neo-Kantians, in the works of M. Weber, who studied the difference between scientific and value.
|
By Cantu, theoretical (scientific) reason is aimed at the knowledge of the "world of existence", practical reason(moral consciousness) addressed to the "world of due" - norms, rules, values. This world is dominated by the moral law, absolute freedom and justice, human striving for goodness. So, a scientist as a carrier of theoretical reason must have a moral way of thinking, have critical self-esteem, a high sense of duty and humanistic convictions. The doctrine of values, or axiology as applied to scientific knowledge, was fundamentally developed by the German philosopher G. Rickert. The philosopher proceeds from the fact that values are an "independent kingdom", respectively, the world does not consist of subjects and objects, but of reality as the original integrity of human life and values. Recognition of an independent world of values is a metaphorically expressed desire to affirm the objective (non-subjective) nature of values, a way of expressing its independence from the subject's everyday evaluative activity, which depends, in particular, on upbringing, taste, habits, availability of information and other factors. The special role of historical science, which studies the process of crystallization of values in the benefits of culture, is revealed, and only by examining historical material can philosophy approach the world of values. One of the main procedures for the philosophical comprehension of values is to extract them from culture, but this is possible only with their simultaneous interpretation and interpretation. Renowned German historian, sociologist and economist M. Weber studied the problem of values also directly at the level of scientific knowledge, distinguishing between the natural and social sciences and the humanities and their ways of solving the problem of "science's freedom from values". There are various possibilities for the value correlation of an object, while the attitude towards the object correlated with value does not have to be positive. If in qualityThe nature of the objects of interpretation will be, for example, “Capital” by K. Marx, “Faust” by J. Goethe, the Sistine Chapel by Raphael, “Confession” by J.J. Rousseau, then the general formal element of such an interpretation - the meaning will be to reveal to us possible points of view and the direction of assessments. If the interpretation follows the norms of thought adopted in any doctrine, then this forces us to accept a certain assessment as the only "scientifically" acceptable one in such an interpretation, as, for example, in Marx's "Capital". Value analysis, considering objects, refers them to a value independent of a purely historical, causal meaning, which is outside the historical. |
Today, values are understood not only as the “world of due”, moral and aesthetic ideals, but also any phenomena of consciousness and even objects from the “world of existence” that have one or another worldview and normative significance for the subject and society as a whole. A significant expansion and deepening of axiological issues as a whole also occurred due to the recognition that various cognitive and methodological forms - truth, method, theory, fact, principles of objectivity, validity, evidence, etc. - themselves received not only a cognitive, but also a value status. Thus, it became necessary to distinguish two groups of values functioning in scientific knowledge
:
- first - sociocultural, worldview values conditioned by the social and cultural-historical nature of science and scientific communities, the researchers themselves;
- second - cognitive-methodological values , performing regulatory functions, determining the choice of theories and methods, methods of nominating, substantiating and testing hypotheses, evaluating the grounds for interpretations, the empirical and informative significance of data.
D In recent decades, science has been predominantly viewed only asthe static structure of knowledge that has become, i.e. activity and socio-historical aspects were eliminated.Today the situation is significantly different. Studies of science as a unity of knowledge and activities to develop this knowledge have brought to the forefront the problem of regulators of cognitive activity, i.e. its value-normative prerequisites and driving forces, as well as the mechanisms of their change and replacement of some by others.
The desire to identify the structure of developing scientific knowledge and consider it systematically led to the realization of the need to connect new "units" of methodological analysis - a system of various conceptual prerequisites ( sociocultural, worldview) vshape and form philosophical and general scientific methodological principles for constructing a scientific picture of the world, the style of scientific thinking, ideals and norms of cognitive activity, common sense etc.
Thus XX century proved that science cannot bestrictly objective, independent of the subject of knowledge, free from value aspects, because as a social institution it is included in the system of economic, socio-political, spiritual relations that exist in a particular historical type of society. Science, going hand in hand with humanistic morality, turns into a great blessing for all living, while science, indifferent to the consequences of its own deeds, unambiguously turns into destruction and evil.(for example, the creation of weapons of mass destruction, the use of genetically modified substances, the growing pollution of air, water, soil, the depletion of natural resources, etc.).
One of the fruitful ways of meaningful concretization values and value orientations in science is their interpretreat as a historically changing system of norms and ideals of knowledge . Values of this kind underlie scientific research, and one can trace a fairly definite relationship between cognitive attitudes proper and social ideals and norms; establish the dependence of cognitive ideals and norms both on the specifics of the objects studied at one time or another by science, and on the characteristics of the culture of each historical era.
In this case, scientific knowledge is already understood as an active reflection of the objective world, determined in its development not only by the features of the object, but also by historically established prerequisites and means; as a process oriented by worldview structures and values that lie at the foundation of a historically defined culture.
Such an understanding makes it possible to reveal deeper levels of value conditioning of cognitive processes, to substantiate their organic "merging".
|
EPISTEMOLOGY (Greek episteme - knowledge, logos - teaching) - philosophical - methodological discipline that studies knowledge as such, its structure, structure, functioning and development. Traditionally identified with the theory of knowledge. |
The epistemological problem is to understand how the value-laden activity of the subject can perform constructive functions in cognition. To solve this problem, the most fruitful is the search and identification of adequate means and mechanisms which are developed within the very scientific knowledge and can serve to eliminate deformations coming from the subject, distortions under the influence of personal and group tendentiousness, prejudices, addictions, etc. However activity itself
value-oriented subject of knowledge based on the objectlaws, becomes a decisive determinative factor in the field of scientific knowledge and the main condition for obtaining objectively true knowledge in specificsocio-historical conditions.
The "presence of man" in the traditional forms and methods of scientific knowledge is becoming more and more recognized; discovered axiological, value aspects in the formation and functioning of scientific methods. |
To understand the dialectics of the cognitive and the value, one must first of all be aware of the existing in society and science methods and methods of formation of the subject of scientific activity - its socialization
. One of the fundamental characteristics of the subject of scientific activity is its sociality, which has an objective basis in the universal nature of scientific work, which is due to the cumulative work of previous and contemporary scientists of the subject. Sociality is not a factor external to a person, it is from within determines his consciousness, penetrating and "naturalizing" in the process of personality formation as a whole.
General form of socialization
Socialization is carried out through language and speech; through knowledge systems, which are theoretically conscious and formalized as a result of social practice; through the value system, and finally through the organization of individual practice society forms both the content and the form of the individual consciousness of each person.
Rational-regulatory form of socialization
subject of scientific activity
Along with general laws, the socialization of the subject of scientific activity includes a number of special ones. The most important mechanism of socialization of the subject of scientific activity is the assimilation by him of generally recognized and standardized norms and rules of this activity. in which the historical experience of society in scientific and cognitive activity and communication in the field of this activity is generalized and crystallized. The scientist is prescribed certain ways to achieve goals, the proper form and nature of relations in a professional group are set, and his activities and behavior are evaluated in accordance with the samples and standards accepted in the scientific team. Thus, to a large extent, subjective-irrationalistic, indefinitely-arbitrary moments in his professional behavior are removed, primarily directly in the research process.
Socio-historical form of socialization
subject of scientific activity
Obviously, rational forms of such regulation of the activity of the subject of scientific activity are necessary and, in addition, require their coordination with other methods of ordering activity that are not reduced to direct, immediate regulation and regulation as such. This refers to the system of both cognitive and worldview, ethical and aesthetic values that perform orienting functions in the search activity of the researcher, as well as the way of seeing (paradigm) - one of the most important socio-psychological characteristics of the subject of scientific activity from the point of view of his belonging to the scientific community . The scientist's way of seeing is not limited to purely psychological features of perception. It is also conditioned by social factors, primarily professional and cultural-historical ones.
Science is in the same space of culture and society with all other activities that pursue their own interests, are influenced by power, ideologies, political choices, require recognition of responsibility - hence the impossibility of neutrality and detachment for science itself. But at the same time, one kind of neutrality must be preserved - the neutrality of science as knowledge, which requires objectivity and a certain autonomy.
- Specialty HAC RF09.00.01
- Number of pages 185
CHAPTER I. SOCIALITY - VALUE - TRUTH.
§one. The sociality of knowledge. Methodological and ontological aspects
§2. The social mechanism of cognition and the problem of value
§3. Truth and Value in the Structure of the Activity-Purpose Relationship
CHAPTER P. CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND
COGNITIVE VALUES.
§one. Conceptuality of scientific knowledge and the problem of its foundations.
§2. Values in the structure of the foundations of scientific knowledge.
§3. The nature of scientific and educational values
Recommended list of dissertations in the specialty "Ontology and Theory of Knowledge", 09.00.01 VAK code
The problem of correlation between truth and value in scientific knowledge 1984, candidate of philosophical sciences Demyanchuk, Nikolai Petrovich
Relationship between methodology and worldview in modern epistemology 2012, Doctor of Philosophy Koskov, Sergey Nikolaevich
Rationality of scientific knowledge: Content, aspects, levels, types 2001, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences Khadzharov, Magomed Khandulaevich
Dynamics of the ideological foundations of the study of human nature (epistemological and sociocultural aspects) 1984, candidate of philosophical sciences Levkovich, Anatoly Iosifovich
Correlation of methodological and axiological determinations of historical knowledge: philosophical analysis 2004, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences Loseva, Olga Anatolyevna
Introduction to the thesis (part of the abstract) on the topic "Philosophical analysis of the value content of scientific knowledge"
The relevance of the research topic is determined by the place given to science in the process of its transformation into a direct productive force of the 21st century and the previous congresses of the CPSU and the role of social sciences in this process, which follows from the decisions of the June 1983 plenum of the CPSU Central Committee.
In the eleventh five-year plan, the development of science and technology should be even more subordinated to solving the economic and social problems of Soviet society, accelerating the transfer of the economy to the path of intensive development, and increasing the efficiency of social production " / 5, p. 143 /.
Deepening the decisions of the 27th Congress, the June 1983 plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU emphasizes the increased responsibility of the social sciences for achieving this goal, linking the further development of socialist society with the upbringing of a new style of thinking, presenting to the social sciences the demand for "ideological clarity" and "methodological discipline of thought" / 6, p. .35/.
In a situation where science is turning into a direct productive force, when the development of society is increasingly determined by the level of development of all scientific knowledge, it is necessary to investigate the mechanism of assimilation by science of social needs as material as well as spiritual ones.
Further advancement of knowledge in this direction requires an approach in which the process of knowledge development is analyzed in the unity of objective and subjective determinants, in the mutual dependence of conditions and goals generated by the complex interweaving of the needs of science itself. One of the points of this approach is the study of the value content of scientific knowledge.
This kind of research, firstly, penetrates the connections between cognition and society from the side of the internal mechanism of determining cognition, within which the development of science is determined by its own state, its own results of activity. Without knowledge of this mechanism, the management of science cannot be placed on a scientific basis.
Secondly, the study of the value content of scientific knowledge involves the analysis of internal factors in the development of cognition from the side of their perception and evaluation by the cognizing subject himself. With all their diversity, in the process of conscious formation of the goals of cognition, the scientist relies on those that he himself considers decisive, which have the highest subjective significance for him. The specificity of scientific activity consists, among other things, in the fact that for a scientist in the above-named quality, knowledge appears first of all. To answer the question of how exactly it can direct human cognitive activity means not only theoretically, but also, to a certain extent, practically expanding the arsenal of the most effective means of managing science.
The degree of development of the topic. The relationship between knowledge and values is far from a new problem for philosophy in general and Marxist philosophy in particular. But its current state makes the insufficiency, incompleteness, and limitations of existing solutions more and more obvious.
One of the directions of the study of this relationship in Marxist philosophy is to identify the factors and mechanisms of the dependence of science and scientific knowledge on the social and economic conditions of society and the level of its historical development. Its main results are presented in the works of G.N. Volkov, G.N. Dobrov, Sh.I. Leiman, I.A. Maisel, N.V. Motroshilova, A.M. Telunts and others, as well as in collections of articles and monographs of the Institute of the History of Natural Science and Technology and the Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences /119,264,298,299,358/. Their main result is the theoretical reconstruction of the social mechanisms for using science as a means of meeting the needs of society at each stage of its history and their connection with the mechanisms of socio-economic stimulation of scientific activity.
Another direction of research is science as a cultural phenomenon, which has been developing most actively in the last decade. A special round table meeting of the journal "Problems of Philosophy", a scientific conference in Obninsk, a number of articles, monographs /130, 173-175,183,211,237,238,240,341,342/ were devoted to the above-mentioned questions.
During the discussion, at least two groups of value problems of scientific knowledge emerged. The first is connected with the study of general cultural general social values that guide the scientific activity of researchers and relevant institutions. The second developed around the analysis of the dependence of the goals of society on the state of science, attitudes towards its results, the nature of their use, in other words, around the analysis of the value of science as a socio-economic and cultural phenomenon.
The most important outcome of this kind of research is necessary; consider the disclosure of the universal nature, the universal significance of scientific results as a consequence of the universality of scientific work and the disclosure of the value nature of the spiritual factors in the use of scientific achievements.
However, this range of value problems cannot be considered specific to scientific knowledge. It is impossible not to recognize the need to study it in order to restore the entire set of patterns that determine the development of science, because without taking into account the value factors that are genetically external to scientific knowledge, it is impossible to manage science as a social institution.
But science develops not only on the basis of external social conditions, needs and goals. The main means of its development is the level of knowledge achieved and the dependence of science on it constitutes a special area of philosophical analysis of science, which is associated with another group of value problems of scientific knowledge. In recent years, it has accounted for the bulk of science research in line with value issues.
In line with this kind of research, the problem of values in the content of scientific knowledge can be resolved in the process of searching for internal structural elements of science that perform value functions directly in the ford of scientific knowledge (E.A. Mamchur, L.A. Mikeshina, V.S. Stepin, A.I. Zelenkov, A.P. Ogurtsov). But this is possible only if the value aspect of cognition is analyzed in its unity with the social and epistemological. The desire of researchers to follow this unity led to the appearance of a special monograph, which is called: "Science in social, epistemological and value aspects." However, to date, an attempt to solve the problem that follows from the name cannot be considered successful, because the three named aspects are considered, as was rightly noted in philosophical criticism, /180/, essentially out of touch with each other and, constituting three parts of one monograph, are combined only common name.
The disclosure of the essential unity of the three aspects stated in the monograph encounters a number of difficulties.
The first of these is that the existing use of the principle of sociality is reduced to its two aspects - the social nature of cognition and its social conditioning. But cognition is social and in terms of the way it is realized, in terms of the nature of the internal cognitive mechanism. This side of the sociality of cognition has so far been studied mainly only within the framework of psychology and partly within the framework of logic and semiotics. Gnoseology, in essence, has only just begun to master it. For this reason, the very sociality of cognition has not yet been revealed in the unity of all its aspects.
Under these conditions, attempts to identify the value components of scientific knowledge often come down either to the study of the socialization of the latter, as if it could be unsocialized and exist outside the social (V.G. Ivanov, M.L. Lezgina, Yu.A. Zinevich, V. G. Fedotova and others), or to the identification of values in the content of knowledge with any of the structural elements of scientific knowledge in general (L.A. Mikeshina), which, in essence, removes the problem. One of the steps to resolving this difficulty is to shift the attention of researchers to the non-empirical foundations of scientific knowledge, in an attempt to single out those theoretical components of science through which it is connected with society and its values.
In this regard, the most fruitful is the appeal to phenomena fixed in terms of prerequisite knowledge, scientific picture of the world, style of thinking, worldview, scientific program, image of science, scientific ideal, carried out in a number of recent works, among which the most important place belongs to the works of PL Gaidenko , A.F. Zotova, E.A. Mamchur, L.A. Mikeshina, V.S. Stepina, N.S. Yulina, collective monographs of the Institute of the History of Natural Science and Technology of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and the Belarusian State University / 136,216 /.
However, all the concepts listed above, having appeared in Marxist philosophical literature at different times, are still very weakly coordinated with each other and, therefore, are completely insufficiently mastered.
This is the second reason that makes it difficult to identify the value aspect of scientific knowledge in unity with the social and epistemological.
Philosophical assimilation of the phenomena of cognition, realizing the sociality of the latter, implies a clear differentiation not only of the various structural levels of its determination, but also of the forms in which it is realized in scientific knowledge.
To date, there is one work where an attempt is made to solve this problem by studying the interaction of norms, principles and ideals of scientific knowledge. We are talking about the work "Ideals and norms of scientific research", prepared in H1U and published in Minsk in 1981.
Such a study, with a clear differentiation of the above-mentioned norms, would make it possible to identify at least one of them with the values of scientific knowledge. However, with all the importance and epistemological significance of what was done in the work, it, which did not go unnoticed by philosophical criticism /353/, still does not offer criteria for distinguishing norms, ideals and principles.
This is the third difficulty on the way of studying the values of knowledge in unity with the social and epistemological aspects of the latter.
Finally, the answer to the question about the boundary of cognitive values presupposes a certain, and not any, idea of the meaning of the concept of "value" itself.
In Marxist works, one way or another related to the topic of cognitive values, two trends in the understanding of values surprisingly coexist. Within one of them, value is considered as irreducible to truth and utility (G.B. Bazhenov, B.S. Batishchev, S.N. Mareev, E. Mamchur, I. S. Narsky and others).
Another trend is to consider as a value all significant, and therefore, any knowledge, if it is useful and true (B.V. Dubovik, N.V. Duchenko, M.L. Lezgina, L.A. Mi- Keshin, V.V. Naletov, A.Ya. Khapsirokov and others).
Attempts by epistemologists to understand this concept are very few. These include the works of I.S. Narsky, L.A. Mikeshina and, to a certain extent, A.Ya. As I.S. Narsky rightly notes, this problem does not have an extragnoseological solution.
The purpose of this study is to reveal the value content of scientific knowledge from the point of view of its nature, mechanism and fosch expression in knowledge in unity with social and epistemological aspects, which involves the solution of the following tasks:
Identification of certain aspects of the social mechanism of the genesis of knowledge; I
Analysis of the forms of manifestation of the dialectical connection of these parties in the mechanism of the functioning of cognition;
Identification of a common ontological basis for the connection between knowledge and values; - disclosure of the specifics of this connection in the content of scientific knowledge;
Analysis of the place of value ideas in the structure of scientific and theoretical knowledge;
Identification of the specific nature of scientific and cognitive values.
The methodological basis of the work is the provisions of Marx and Engels on the sociality of cognition, on the specifics of man and human activity, on the dialectic of freedom and necessity in the process of cognition, the Leninist theory of reflection and the concept of practice, materials of the CPSU congresses and plenums of the CPSU Central Committee.
The theoretical basis of the work are:
Philosophical-anthropological and psychological studies of the specifics of human activity and thinking in the works of K.A. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya, A.D. Brudny, V.G. , B.V. Lomov, K.A. Megrelvdze, B. Florshnev, V.S. Tyukhtin, E. VLer-nosvitov, R. G. Natadze, L. A. Radzikhovsky and others;
Philosophical studies of the structure of human activity and communication in the works of G.S. Arefyeva, A.A. Brudny, LL. Buyeva, B.N. .Lyubutin, E.S. Markaryan, V.I.S. Agatovsky, V.M. Sokovnin and others;
The study of the subjectivity and sociality of human cognitive activity in classical German philosophy, in the works of Zh.M. Abdilvdin, K.A. Abishev, A.S. Balgimbaev, V.S. F.Zotova, V.G. Ivanov, A.M. Korshunov, V.A. Ya.Rezhabek, I.T.Frolov, P.N.Fedoseev and others; works by A.M.Gendin, M.G.Makarov, E.V.Osichnyuk, O.Ya. Stechkin, A.I. Yatsenko and others, devoted to the study of the essence and structure of the goal and the relationship of the latter to value;
Studies of value and its relationship to knowledge in the works of G.S. Batshtsev, O.M. Bakuradze, V. Brozhik, V.V. Grechany, V.M. Demin, O.G. .S.Kvetnoy, K.N. Lyubutin, I.S. Narsky, V.N. Sagatovsky, V.P. Tutarinov,
A.F. Ursula, A.Ya. Khapsirokov and others;
The results of the analysis of the specifics of the content and mechanism of development of scientific knowledge in the studies of I. D. Andreeva, A.S. Arsenyev, V.F. Berkova, I.V. Bychko, PL. Gaidenko, M.G. Terasimova, A.F. Zotova, V.G. P.I.Kopnina, B.G.Kuznetsov, E.F.Levin, V.A.Lektorsky, E.A.Mamchur, L.A.Mikeshina, V.S.Stepina, G.I.-ruzavin, Yu .V. Sachkov, A.V. Slavin, V.A. Smirnov, A.I. Rakitov, I.D. Rozhansky, E. Mludinov, V.S. Shvyrev, B.G.
Studies of the structure of scientific knowledge and differences in the functions of its structural components in the works of L.B. Bazhenov,
V.P. Bransky, G.A. Brutyan, M.A. Bulatov, VL. Vizgin, B.C. Gott, DLD*ribanova, B.S. Gryaznova, N.V. Duchenko, P.S. A. Mamchur, L.A. Mikeshina, M.V. Mostepanenko, A. Ogurtsova, M.Z. Omelyanovsky, T.I. Oizerman, V.S. Stepin, A.F. Ursula, V.F. Chernovolenko, N.S.Yupina and others;
The results of the analysis of modern bourgeois philosophy in the works of B.S. Gryaznov, L.E. Ventskovskiy, B.T. Grigoryan, A.F.
Zotov, M.A. Kissel, V.F. Kuzmina, Yu.K. Melville, L.N. Moskshchev, I.S. I. Rodny, V.S. Shvyrev, N.S. Yulina and others.
The scientific novelty of the work lies in the fact that for the first time it highlights the ontological basis of the unity of the social, axiological and epistemological aspects of cognition.
Accordingly, the process of cognition is presented not only as the relation of the subject to the object, but also as a moment of a deeper connection - the relation of the subject to the subject.
Within the boundaries of this relation, a dialectical difference and identity of the informative and normative aspects of the process of cognition, as well as perception and evaluation in the content of knowledge, are revealed.
The ontological basis of value is revealed in a new way.
The non-empirical normative foundations of scientific knowledge are differentiated into three structural levels: the level of rules, the level of ideals and the level of principles, each of which is defined.
The place of value bases in the structure of scientific knowledge is determined*
The following provisions are put forward for defense:
1. The ontological basis for the unity of the social epistemological and value aspects of cognition is the dialectical connection between objectivity and communication in the system of human activity.
2. Sociality in the unity of its aspects is realized in cognition as a differentiated normativity, within which different levels of differentiation serve as the basis for assessments of a different order.
3. The evaluative side of cognition builds its results in relation to the highest criterion level of norms, which is formed, on the one hand, by the norms of truth, and on the other, by values. The normativity of knowledge in relation to the latter to the object leads to truth, in relation to the subject - to value.
4. Value is an activity-oriented attitude that exists, on the one hand, objectively, as a person’s attitude to his own family and its history, and subjectively, as a conscious reflection of this attitude in the form of criteria for choosing goals and means that are acceptable from the standpoint of the interests of a historically defined society and his history.
5. In the conceptual structure of scientific knowledge of value! exist in the form of scientific ideals and images of science.
6. According to the specifics of their content, they are methodological statements that perform the functions of fundamental principles, constitute the philosophical content of scientific knowledge, which is included in it as scientific self-reflection.
7. Cognitive values are immanent to scientific knowledge, because they arise from the specific needs of knowledge, but they realize the fundamental initial subordination of knowledge to the practical interests of society.
In other words, the subordination of scientific cognition to the interests of society is realized through an internal, immanent to science social mechanism that assimilates social values in the form of methodological principles of cognition and transforms the latter into general cultural values through the process of using the results of scientific cognitive activity.
Dissertation conclusion on the topic "Ontology and theory of knowledge", Dederer, Lyudmila Petrovna
CONCLUSION
So, we can sum up the results of the methodological analysis of values in the structure of scientific knowledge from the standpoint of the principle of sociality, considered not only in terms of the genetic connection between society and cognition and in terms of the totality of more or less external conditions for scientific cognition, but, first of all, in terms of internal mechanism of development and epistemological functioning of knowledge.
With this approach, the process of cognition appears as determined not only by the object on the one hand and the subject on the other, but as a moment and means of interaction between subjects in the process of objective transformational activity.
As a side of human activity, knowledge turns out to be a unity of perception and evaluation, and knowledge, respectively, is a unity of informative and normative moments.
Understood in this way, the process of cognition and knowledge make it possible to see that evaluation is a necessary moment in the process of cognition and leads to normativity as an essential and also necessary property of knowledge. Knowledge in its relation to activity is nothing but the ideal expression of a norm. Therefore, to the extent that evaluation is related to value, the latter is related to the process of cognition. In other words, the formation of values in general is not a process outside of cognition and cannot be opposed to it either in character or in the subject of activity. By virtue of their not only social, but also epistemological nature, values, on the one hand, are a characteristic of things and phenomena according to their position in the system of subject-subject interaction, on the other hand, they are knowledge and, therefore, at a certain level - scientific knowledge.
But values are not just norms. An analysis of the historical and philosophical formation of the problem and approaches to its solution, as well as an analysis of the place of value norms from the standpoint of the dialectical materialistic concept of activity makes it possible to conclude that in their ideal expression they are ideal means of goal-setting the norm for evaluating things and their properties from the standpoint of freedom , their universal historical significance for the subject as a systemic unity of various structural components and levels of organization of society.
The mode of existence of value is the value relation, the ideal expression of which is knowledge.
In this regard, values as a special content of knowledge in general and scientific knowledge in particular should be more stable than any other knowledge. The goal-setting side of cognition deals not with the acts of history, but with history in its integrity, unity, and hence its constancy.
Value differs from truth in that it reflects in knowledge the objective social relation of the properties of a thing to a social person, reflects it from the side of social universality, while truth reflects universal universality. In other words, while coinciding in the mode of being, truth and value differ in their aspect of reflecting reality.
Another important difference between value and truth is that truth cannot exist before the properties of things reflected in it. Value, on the other hand, always precedes the mode of activity, the ideal analogue of which it is. It is this circumstance that makes it a factor of human activity, which has a social nature and social orientation.
In the real process of cognition, value norms are intertwined with all the others in the most complex way, constituting an integral part of the system of theoretical foundations of scientific cognition.
Behind the complex hierarchy of theoretical foundations of cognition lies the process of development of explanation and understanding, which can be represented as an epistemological connection of one structural formation of knowledge of society with another, as a path from subject to subject. Being a necessary condition for the development of knowledge, this process is a sequence of steps of interaction between the representation and assimilation of knowledge.
Climbing these steps in the process of analyzing the foundations makes it possible to divide all scientific and cognitive norms that form the direct content of scientific knowledge into norms-rules, norms-ideals and norls-principles.
The rules include norms that serve as a model, a standard, a template, in relation to which a cognitive action can be considered a copy, cast, repetition. The limits of applicability of the rules may be different. They can be both elements of private scientific methods and general scientific methods.
Norsh ideals can only be defined in terms of principles.
Principles are the initial methodological assumptions that unite the theoretical constructions of various levels, various research programs and underlie the image of science. They cannot be used in cognition as specific patterns and must be preliminarily interpreted. They set only the direction of the search, connecting into a common picture of the world. Unlike rules, they always have a general scientific meaning, general scientific significance and keep it beyond the historical limits of applicability of the theories based on them.
The principles of scientific knowledge, united in a historically defined system and interpreted in terms of specific theoretical constructions, can be called epistemological ideals.
Ideals include theoretical constructions that specify a specific historical research strategy. Ideals can have general scientific significance, but only within the historical life of the theory that gave rise to them. These include the level of theoretical constructions at which the principle can be implemented with the help of rules.
Principles, unlike ideals, being the basis of the image of science, connect any theoretical construction with science as a whole, with its history, with the historically developing spiritual life of society, with the total social culture. They constantly transform a person's relationship to natural and social reality from partial and differentiated to integral and syncretic. They serve as means of goal-setting as processes of changing the final goals achieved or rejected.
These properties of the principles allow them and only them to be classified as value norms that are part of the direct content of scientific knowledge.
The foregoing allows us to conclude that the peculiarity of philosophy as a science lies precisely in the value essence of its statements. In other words, the value character of philosophy not only does not exclude its scientific nature, but makes philosophy a science.
Values, as a means of goal setting, are not the monopoly of science alone. But an analysis of the process of the emergence of science, as a specific form of activity, shows that with a close connection with the values of society and a certain causal dependence on the latter, the values that are part of the direct content of scientific knowledge, science owes itself. Science develops on the basis of its own epistemological foundations. This does not mean that values that develop outside of scientific knowledge do not participate in the process of knowledge production. But the philosophical and methodological principles of scientific knowledge are formed only at the level of scientific and theoretical understanding of reality and therefore are immanent to science.
The dialectical connection between the values of science and society can historically be represented in the following scheme:
The first historical link is the knowledge of values in the process of social practice. The second is the recognition of knowledge as a social value and its allocation to a special field of activity, which leads to the emergence of science as a special form of social activity. The third is the allocation of scientific values. The fourth is the acceptance by society of scientific and cognitive values as general social values.
The above stages of the value evolution of cognition for modern science represent four groups of value problems, which, having a certain autonomy, are in close interconnection and mutually determine each other.
Obviously, for the era of scientific and technological revolution, it is the fourth group of problems that has the greatest significance. But it is she who depends on it the most. the elaboration of issues related to internal cognitive values immanent to scientific knowledge. In the same area of research lies, in essence, the problems of the first of the selected groups, because for modern society, which has recognized the scientific nature of knowledge as a value, only scientific knowledge of values can be considered optimal. Finally, the question of managing the process of scientific cognition, of the assimilation of general social values by science, can only be resolved if the mechanism of value regulation of the cognition process that is immanent in science is known.
Therefore, the value content of scientific knowledge should be recognized as the central link in the value interaction between science and society in all the manifestations that have been considered.
The results of studies of values in the content of scientific knowledge make it possible to expand the analytical possibilities of the methodological principles of the analysis of human activity operating in Marxist philosophy in the dialectical unity of its material and ideal aspects.
Identification of the place of value and value attitude in the system of human activity and, as a result, the refusal to reduce activity only to subject-object interaction makes it possible in subsequent studies, firstly, to expand the existing understanding of the content and structure of human activity.
Such a change in the concept of activity leads, secondly, to clarifying the boundaries and specifics of its various forms, in particular, cognitive activity and the mechanism of communication of cognition.
I I with other forms of human activity. |
List of references for dissertation research candidate of philosophical sciences Dederer, Lyudmila Petrovna, 1983
1. Marx K., Engels F. Soch., ed. 2nd. .
2. Marx K., Engels F. From early works. M.: Gospo-litizdat, 1956. - 689 p.
3. Marx K., Engels F. Feuerbach. The Opposite of Materialistic and Dialectical Views (New publication of the "German Ideology"). M.: Politizdat, 1966. - 152 p.
4. Lenin V.I. Full coll. op.
5. Materials of the XXII Congress of the CPSU. M .: Politizdat, 1981. - 223a
7. Abdilvdin Zh.M., Abishev K.N. Formation of the logical structure of thinking in the process of practical activity. - Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1981. 212 p.
8. Abdilvdin Zh., Balgimbaev A.S. The dialectic of the subject's activity in scientific knowledge. Alma-Ata: Science, 1977. - 303 p.
9. Abramova N.T. Monistic tendency of development of knowledge. - Questions of Philosophy, 1982, No. 9, pp. 78-86.
10. Abramyan L.A. Kant and the problem of knowledge. Yerevan: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the ArmSSSR, 1979. - 253 p.
11. Abramyan L.A. The concept of reality. Questions of Philosophy, 1980, Sh, pp. 96-104,
12. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya K.A. Activity and personality psychology. M.: Nauka, 1979. - 334 p.
14. Abulkhanova K.A. 0 subject of mental activity. -M.: Nauka, 1973. 288 p.
15. Avtonomova N.S. The concept of "archaeological knowledge". M. Foucault, Mr. Questions of Philosophy, .1972, GEO, pp. 142-150.
16. Agazzi E. Realism in science and the historical nature of science. knowledge. Questions of Philosophy, 1980., p. 136-144.
17. Agudov V.V. Betrays Philosophy": the unity of the scientific-cognitive and ideological aspects. Philosophical sciences, 1981, no., pp. 34-45.
18. Ackoff R., Emery F. On Purposeful Systems. M.: Soviet radio, 1974. - 272 p.
19. Alekseev P.V. Subject, structure and functions of the dialectic. whom materialism. M.: Publishing House of Moscow. un-ta, 1978. -336s.
20. Andreev I.D. On the style of scientific thinking. Philosophical Sciences, 1982, No. 3, pp. 45-54.
21. Andreev I.D. Theory as a form of organization of scientific knowledge. M.: Nauka, 1979, - 301 p.
22. Anthology of world philosophy in four volumes, v.Z. M.: Thought, 1971. - 760 p.
23. Arbib M. Metaphorical brain. M.: Mir, 1976. - 296 p.
24. Arefieva G.S. Social activity (The problem of subject and object in social practice and cognition). M.: Politizdat, 1974. - 230 p.
25. Arseniev A.S., Bibler B.C., Kedrov B.M. Analysis of the developing concept. M.: Nauka, 1967. - 439 p.
27. Arkhangelsky L.M. Science and norms: alternative. or unity. - Questions of Philosophy, 1979, J63, pp. 119-127.
28. Asseev V.A. Extreme principles in natural science and their philosophical content. L.: Publishing House of Leningrad State University, 1977.-232 p.
29. Astronomy, methodology, outlook. Moscow: Nauka, 1979. 397 p.
30. Akhlibinsky B.V., Sidorenko V.M. Scientific picture of the world as a form of philosophical synthesis of knowledge. Philosophical Sciences, 1979, No. 2, pp. 46-52.
31. Bazhenov L.B. The structure and functions of natural science theory. M.: Nauka, 1978. - 231 p. .
32. Bazhenov L.B. Consistency as a methodological regulator of scientific theory. Questions of Philosophy, 1979, $6, p. 81-89.
33. Bakuradze O.M. Truth and value. Questions of Philosophy, . 1966, No. 7, pp. 45-48.
34. Batalov A.A. On the philosophical characterization of practical thinking. Questions of Philosophy, 1982, M, pp. 64-72.
35. Batenin S.S. Man in his story. L .: Publishing house L1U, 1976. - 294 p.
36. Berkov V.F. Controversy in science. Minsk: Higher school, 1980. - 93 p.
37. Berkov V.F., Terlyukevich I.I. The relationship between the forms of development of scientific knowledge. Philosophical Sciences, 1983, H, pp. 55-60.
38. Bibler B.C. Thinking as creativity (Introduction to the logic of mental dialogue). M.: Politizdat, 1975. - 399 p.
39. Bobneva M.I. Social norms and regulation of behavior. -M.: Nauka, 1978. 311 p.
40. Bogolyubov A.N. Mechanics in the history of mankind. M.: Nauka, 1978. - 161 p.
41. Bogomolov A.S. English bourgeois philosophy of the XX century.-M.: Thought, 1973. 317 p. . . .
42. Bogomolov A.S. Bourgeois philosophy of the USA of the XX century. M.: Thought, 1974. - 343 p.
43. Bogoraz V.G. Chukchi. T.2. L .: Publishing house of the Glavsevmorput, 1939. - 196 p.
44. Bolotovsky B.M. There were no winners in this dispute. - Questions of Philosophy, 1979, Zh, pp. 109-111.
45. Born M. My life and views. M.: Progress, 1973. -176 p.
46. Borodai Yu.V. The role of the social factor in the origin of knowledge. In: Social nature of knowledge. Issue. P.-M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1973, pp. 3-21.
47. Bransky V.P. Philosophical foundations of the problem of synthesis of relativistic and quantum principles. L .: Publishing house L1U, 1973. - 176 p.
48. Brozhik V. Marxist theory of evaluation. M.: Progress, 1982. - 261 p.
49. Brudny A.A. Understanding as a philosophical and epistemological problem. Questions of Philosophy, 1975, No. 10, pp. 109-117.
50. Brutyan G.A. Argumentation. Questions of Philosophy, 1982, HI, pp.43-52.
51. Brutyan G.A. Essays on the analysis of philosophical knowledge. - Yerevan: Hayastan, 1979. 274 p.
52. Bueva L.P. Man: activity and communication. M.: Thought, 1978. - 216 p.
53. Bulatov M.A. Activity and structure of philosophical knowledge. Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1976. - 216 p.
54. Bunge M. Conceptual presentation of facts. Questions of Philosophy, 1975, No. 4, pp. 115-131.
55. Elunge M. Philosophy of Physics. M.: Progress, 1975. - 347 p.
56. Bur M, Fichte. M.: Thought, 1965. - 166 e.
57. Boer M., Irrlitz G. The claim of reason: from the history of classical German philosophy and literature. Moscow: Progress, 1978. 327 p.
58. Vystritsky E.K. The concept of understanding in the historical school of the philosophy of science. Questions of Philosophy, 1982, HI, p.142.149. .
59. Bychko I.V. Knowledge and freedom. M.: Politizdat, 1969. -215 p.
60. Varden BD. Awakening Science. Mathematics of the Ancient
61. Egypt, Babylon and Greece. M.: Fizmatgiz, 1959. - 459s,
63. Vasil'eva T.E., Panchenko A.I., Stepanov N.I. To the formulation of the problem of understanding in physics. Questions of Philosophy, 1978, No. 7, pp. 124-134.
64. Vedin Yu.P. Cognition and knowledge. Riga: Zinatne, 1983. -309 p.
65. Velichkovsky B.M. Modern cognitive psychology. -M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1982. 336 p.
66. Ventskovsky L.E. Philosophical problems of the development of science. -M.: Nauka, 1982, 190 p.
67. Veselovsky I.N. Introductory article. In: Archimedes. Works. - M.: Publishing House of Phys.-Math. literature, 1962, p.5-62.
68. Vizgin Vl.P. The origins of the dispute in the difference between research programs. Questions of Philosophy, 1979, I, pp.104-106.
69. Vizir P.I., Ursul AD. Dialectics of certainty and uncertainty. Kishinev: Shtiintsa, 1976. - 124 p.
70. Vozhov G.N. W. the cradle of science. M .: Young Guard, 1971. - 224 p.
71. Vozhov G.N., Origins and horizons of progress. Sociological problems of the development of science and technology. M.: Politizdat, 1976, - 335 p.
72. Voronovich B.A. Cognition as a tool of practice. Philo-. Sofia Sciences, 1980, Sh, pp. 37-40.
73. In search of the law of development of science. M.: Nauka, 1982. -296 p.
74. Gaidenko P.P. Cultural and historical aspect of the evolution of science. - In the book: Methodological problems of historical "scientific research. M .: Nauka, 1982, pp. 58-74.
75. Gaidenko P.P. Fichte's philosophy and modernity. M.: Thought, 1979. - 288 p.
76. Gaidenko P.P. The evolution of the concept of science. M.: Nauka, 1980.568 p.
77. Gevorkyan G,A. 0 problem of understanding. Questions of Philosophy, 1980, Zh1, pp. 122-131.
78. Hegel G. Science of logic in 3 volumes. M.: Thought, 1972,
79. Hegel G.W.F. Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences in 3 volumes.-M.: Thought, 1975.
80. Hegel G.W.F. Aesthetics in 4 volumes. M.: Art, 1968.
81. Heisenberg V, Development of concepts in physics of the XX century. - Questions of Philosophy, 1975, Zh, pp. 79-88.
82. Heisenberg V. The meaning and significance of beauty in the exact sciences. - Questions of Philosophy, 1979, Sh2, pp. 49-60.
83. Gendin A.M. Foresight and purpose in the development of society. -Krasnoyarsk, 1970. 436 p.
84. Gerasimov M.G. Scientific research. -M.: Politizdat, 1972. 279 p.
85. Ginzburg V.L. Remarks on the methodology and development of physics and astrophysics. Questions of Philosophy, 1980, H2, pp. 24-45.
86. Ginzburg V.L. How is science developing? Remarks on T. Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Nature,86
Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for review and obtained through recognition of the original texts of dissertations (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors related to the imperfection of recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.
