What does the empirical level of scientific knowledge mean? Empirical methods of scientific knowledge

Considering specific methods scientific knowledge, it should be understood that the ability to use these methods always requires specialized knowledge. This is important to consider because any shapes and types scientific activity necessarily require appropriate training of those specialists who are involved in it . Empirical methods of cognition - including even the “simplest” of them - observation - for their implementation presupposes, firstly, the presence of certain theoretical knowledge, and, secondly, the use of special and often very complex equipment. Besides, Conducting any scientific research always presupposes the presence of a certain problem situation, in order to resolve which these studies are carried out . Therefore, empirical methods of scientific knowledge are not at all the same as relatively similar methods of studying reality, which are carried out from the point of view of common sense and within the framework of an everyday practical attitude.

Empirical methods of scientific knowledge include:

1. Observation;

2. Experiment;

3. Measurement.

Among the named methods of scientific knowledge, observation is relatively the most simple method, since, for example, measurement, presupposing additional procedures, necessarily presupposes corresponding observation as its basis.

Observation

Scientific observation is the purposeful perception of objects, phenomena and processes, usually the surrounding world. Distinctive feature it is the observation that this is the method passive registration of certain facts of reality. Among the types of scientific observations the following can be distinguished:

Depending on the purpose of observation, it can be divided into test And search engines ;

According to the nature of the existence of what is being studied, observations can be divided into observations of objects, phenomena and processes that exist objectively , i.e. outside the consciousness of the observer, and introspection, i.e. introspection ;

Observation of objectively existing objects is usually divided into immediate And indirect observations.

Within different sciences, the role and place of the observation method is different. In some sciences, observation is practically the only way to obtain initial reliable data. In particular, in astronomy. Although this science is essentially an applied branch of physics and therefore it is based on the theoretical concepts of this fundamental natural science, many data that are relevant specifically for astronomy can only be obtained through observation. For example, knowledge about objects that are located at a distance of several light years. For sociology, observation is also one of the main methods of empirical scientific knowledge.

Scientific observation for its successful implementation presupposes the presence of a problem situation, as well as appropriate conceptual and theoretical support. Scientific observation, as a rule, is based on some hypothesis or theory, to confirm or refute which the corresponding observation is carried out . The role and place of conceptual factors in scientific observation, as well as the specificity of their specific types, can be shown using the following examples.

As you know, people have been observing the movement of objects in the sky since time immemorial and as a result of this they came to the quite natural, within the framework of common sense, conclusion that the Earth with the observers on it stands motionless, and the planets move evenly around it in regular circular orbits. In order to explain why these planets do not fall to the Earth, but float in space, it was suggested that the Earth is located inside several transparent glass-like spheres, in which planets and stars seem to be interspersed. The rotation of these spheres around their axis, which coincides with the center of our planet, leads to the fact that the surface of the spheres begins to move, carrying with it the planets firmly attached to it.

Although this idea is completely incorrect, it is quite consistent with the corresponding common sense logic, according to which in order for a body to constantly move and never fall, it must hold on to something (in this case, be attached to transparent spheres). The idea that constant movement of a body along a closed trajectory without anyone supporting it is possible seems incredible to thinking within the framework of the common sense of the corresponding era. It should be noted that, in its own way, common sense is “right”: the fact is that, indeed, within the framework of the natural, everyday and pre-theoretical perception of the movement of bodies on Earth, we do not see anything that could constantly move along a closed trajectory, hovering and without touching anything, and without falling. Newton, who discovered the law of universal gravitation, naturally also observed the movement of various terrestrial and cosmic bodies, including the Moon. However, he did not just look at them, but used observations to use them to understand what could not be seen. Namely: having compared the data on the speed of movement of the Moon around the Earth and their distance from each other with the characteristics of the movement of bodies falling on the Earth, he came to the conclusion that behind all this there is hidden a single and general pattern, which was called the “law of gravity.”

This example can be considered as a case search engine observations, which resulted in the formulation of the relevant law. The purpose of exploratory observation is to collect facts as primary empirical material, based on the analysis of which the general and essential can be identified. Verification observation differs from search in that here ultimate goal is not the search for new theoretical knowledge, but the verification of existing knowledge. A verification observation is an attempt to verify or refute a hypothesis. An example of such an observation is, for example, an attempt to make sure that the law of gravity is truly universal in nature, i.e. that its action extends to the interaction of any massive bodies. From this law, in particular, it follows that the smaller the mass of interacting bodies, the smaller the force of attraction between them. Therefore, if we can observe that the force of gravity at the surface of the Moon is less than the similar force at the surface of the Earth, which is heavier than the Moon, then it follows that this observation confirms the law of gravity. During the flight of astronauts, one can observe the phenomenon of weightlessness, when people float freely inside the ship, without actually being attracted to any of its walls. Knowing that the mass spaceship is practically negligible compared to the mass of the planets, this observation can be considered as another test of the law of gravity.

The considered examples can be considered cases immediate observations of objectively existing objects. Direct observations are those observations when the corresponding objects can be perceived directly by seeing them themselves, and not just the effects that they have on other objects. Unlike direct observations indirect observations are those when the object of study itself is not observed at all. However, despite this, in the case of indirect observation, one can still see the effects that an unobserved object has on other observable objects. An unusual behavior or state of observable bodies that cannot be explained by assuming that in reality there are only directly observable bodies and is the initial condition for indirect observation. By analyzing the features of the unusual behavior of visible objects and comparing it with cases of the usual behavior of these objects, one can draw certain conclusions about the properties of unobservable objects. Component of unusual behavior visible bodies and there is indirect observation of what is not directly observable. An example of indirect observations would be, for example, the situation associated with “Brownian motion”, as well as the empirical component of knowledge about “black holes”.

Brownian motion is the constant movement of the smallest, but still visually observable with the help of a sufficiently strong microscope, particles of any substance in a liquid. In the case of Brownian motion, the question is quite natural: what is the reason for the observed movement of these particles? Answering this question, we can assume that there are other, invisible particles that collide with visible ones and thereby push them. As is known, the reason for Brownian motion is that objects that are not visually observable using an optical microscope - atoms and molecules - constantly collide with observable particles, causing them to move. Thus, although the atoms and molecules themselves are generally unobservable in the optical range (visible light), even before the invention of the electron microscope, their individual properties could be observed. Naturally, only indirectly.

As for “black holes,” it is impossible to observe them directly. The fact is that the gravitational force that acts in them is so great that no object - including visible light - can overcome the attraction of these objects. However, black holes can be observed indirectly. In particular, in connection with the characteristic change in the picture of the starry sky near them (due to the curvature of space by gravitational forces) or in the case when a black hole and a self-luminous object (star) make up unified system, which, according to the laws of mechanics, rotates around a common center of mass. In the latter case, the unusual motion of the star along a closed trajectory (after all, only it is directly observable) will be a case of indirect observation of the black hole.

Introspection is a person’s observation of the contents of his own consciousness. At the end of the 40s of the XX century. The following study was conducted in the USA. In order to find out whether the functioning of consciousness is possible in case of paralysis of the body, the subject was injected with a derivative of curare, a substance that paralyzes the entire muscular system of a person. It turned out that, despite muscle paralysis (the subject was connected to an artificial respiration apparatus, since he could not breathe on his own), the ability for conscious activity was preserved. The subject was able to observe what was happening around him, understood speech, remembered events and reflected on them. From this it was concluded that mental activity can be carried out in the absence of any muscle activity.

Data obtained as a result of observation can claim scientific status only if their objectivity is recognized. An essential factor in this is the reproducibility of what is once seen by others. If, for example, someone claims that he observes something that others under similar conditions do not observe, then this will be a sufficient reason for not recognizing the scientific status of this observation. If some “observation” also contradicts known and well-established laws in the field of any field of knowledge, then in this case we can say with a significant degree of confidence that the “observed” fact never actually existed at all. Apparently, one of the most widely known cases of such pseudo-observations can be considered the story of the “Loch Ness Monster”.

To give an observation the status of scientifically significant knowledge, an important point is to substantiate that the observed object and certain of its properties exist objectively , and are not merely the result of the influence of the instruments that the observer uses. An example of a gross error is the case when, say, the camera photographs an object that is in fact not a distant object in the exposed panorama, but an artifact that accidentally stuck to the elements of the camera’s optical system (for example, a particle of dust on the lens).

The problem of taking into account and minimizing the influence of the research subject on the object being studied is typical not only for natural sciences, but also for social sciences. In particular, within the framework of sociology there is the concept of “ participant observation ", i.e. such when a researcher who collects data about a certain social group lives nearby or even as part of this group for quite a long time. The latter is done so that those who are the object of observation become accustomed to the presence of an outside observer, do not pay special attention to him and behave in his presence as they usually behave.

Experiment

Main The difference between experiment and observation is that this is not a method of passively recording data, but a way of understanding reality, where, in order to study existing connections and relationships, the flow of relevant processes and phenomena is purposefully organized . During the experiment, the researcher consciously intervenes in the natural course of events in order to identify the existing, but often unobvious, relationship between the phenomena being studied. Experiments are usually classified as empirical methods of cognition because, as a rule, they involve the manipulation of objectively existing objects and processes of the material world, which, naturally, can be observed. However, to a lesser extent the experiment is also associated with certain theoretical concepts. Any experiment is always based on a certain hypothesis or theory, to confirm or refute which a corresponding experiment is carried out.

Among the types of experimental studies, the following can be distinguished:

From the point of view of the purpose of conducting experiments, as well as scientific observations, can be divided into test And search engines ;

Depending on the objective characteristics of the objects with which research is carried out, experiments can be divided into straight And model ;

The experiment is called direct , when the object of study is a really existing object or process, and model , when instead of the object itself, a smaller model of it is used, as a rule. A special type of model experiments is the study of mathematical models of certain objects or processes. Concerning " thought experiments " – i.e. those where real research is not carried out at all, but only the occurrence of certain processes and phenomena is imagined - then the latter, strictly speaking, cannot be attributed to the field empirical knowledge, since at their core they represent a type of theoretical research. However, in many cases, based on a thought experiment, a real experimental study can be carried out, which can be considered as the materialization of the corresponding theoretical concepts.

In order to understand the role of experiment as a method of scientific knowledge it is necessary to imagine that the reality with which the researcher is dealing initially appears before him not as a strictly and systematically organized chain of relationships and cause-and-effect relationships, but only as a more or less ordered whole, within which the role and influence of certain factors are often not entirely obvious. That's why precondition conducting an experiment is formulating a hypothesis about how exactly the factors being studied can be related to each other, and in order to verify this supposed relationship, it is necessary create conditions to exclude the influence of other, relatively random and insignificant factors , the action of which can hide or disrupt the course of the relationships under study. For example, based on everyday perception of the surrounding world, one can notice that a heavier body falls to the surface of the Earth faster than a lighter one. This happens because the air in the atmosphere prevents the movement of bodies. Without knowing this, on the basis of the experience of ordinary observation alone, having previously generalized it, one can come to the “discovery” of a relationship that does not actually exist: the statement that the speed of a body’s fall always depends on its mass. In reality, there is no such connection as a constant dependence, since the mass of the Earth can be considered an infinitely large value compared to the mass of any object that we are able to drop onto it. Because of this, the speed of fall of any ejected body depends only on the mass of the Earth. But how to prove this? Galileo, whose name is usually associated with the beginning of the use of experiment as a method of scientific knowledge, did it as follows. He dropped two objects simultaneously from a height of 60 m (Leaning Tower of Pisa): a musket bullet (200 grams) and a cannonball (80 kg). Since both objects fell to Earth at the same time, Galileo concluded that the hypothesis that the speed of a body's fall is always related to its mass was incorrect.

Galileo's experiment is an example direct experiment to test (refute) the incorrect theory according to which the speed of falling always depends on the mass of the falling body. By slightly changing the initial conditions in Galileo's experiment, it is not difficult to organize such an experiment, the results of which can be interpreted as confirmation of the theory of gravity. For example, if you take a sufficiently large chamber from which all the air has previously been pumped out, and place a loose lump of cotton wool and a lead ball there, and then make them fall inside this chamber, then as a result you can see that the ball and the lump, having significantly different parameters mass, surface area and density, however, in a rarefied environment (in the absence of air) will fall simultaneously. This fact can be interpreted as confirmation of the theory of gravity.

It should be noted that not in all cases scientists have a good theoretical basis for experimental research. The peculiarity of search experiments is due to the fact that they are carried out to collect the necessary empirical information to construct or clarify some assumption or guess. . A clear example Benjamin Rumford's experiments on studying the nature of thermal phenomena can serve as such type of research. Before the creation of the molecular kinetic theory, heat was considered a kind of material substance. In particular, it was believed that the heating of a body is associated with the addition of this substance, which was called caloric. It was well known to the metal cutting specialists of Rumfoord's time that a large amount of heat is generated when drilling metal. Within the framework of the theory of caloric, they tried to explain this fact by the fact that when processing metal, caloric is separated from it and goes into metal chips, which are formed as a result of drilling. Although this explanation seems unconvincing, nothing better could be offered at that time.

Rumfoord naturally knew about the fact of strong heat generation during drilling, but in order to explain it, he performed the following experiment. He took a specially dull drill and used it to make a hole. As a result, even more heat was generated than when using a sharp drill, but a much smaller hole was drilled and very little sawdust was formed. Based on this experiment, it was concluded that the increase in heat is not associated with the formation of sawdust, into which the caloric substance was believed to pass. The cause of heat is not the release and transfer of a special material substance, caloric, but movement. Thus, the experiment carried out by Rumfoord contributed to the understanding that heat is a characteristic of a certain state of matter, and not something added to it.

Not in all cases the experiment is a direct interaction with the object being studied. Very often it is much more economical to conduct research on reduced models of these objects . In particular, examples of such research are experiments to determine the aerodynamic characteristics of an aircraft airframe (hull) or studies of the amount of water resistance that exists for given shapes of a ship's hull. It is obvious that conducting such studies on models, respectively, in a wind tunnel or in a swimming pool, is much cheaper than experiments with real objects. At the same time, one must understand that the reduced model is not an exact copy of the object being studied, since physical effects, arising during blowing or movements of the model, are not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively not identical to those that occur in the case of full-size objects. Therefore, in order for the data obtained from model experiments to be used in the design of full-size objects, they must be recalculated taking into account special coefficients.

Due to the current spread of computers, experiments with mathematical models objects under study. A prerequisite for mathematical modeling is the quantification of any essential properties of the objects under study and the patterns to which these objects are subject. Initial parameters mathematical model– these are the properties of real-life objects and systems that are translated into numerical form. The process of mathematical modeling is the calculation of the changes that will occur to the model if the initial parameters change. Due to the fact that there can be a lot of such parameters, their calculation requires a lot of effort. The use of a computer allows you to automate and significantly speed up the process of relevant calculations. The obvious advantages of mathematical modeling are the ability to obtain (by processing a large number of parameters) a quick calculation of possible scenarios for the development of the simulated processes. An additional effect of this type of modeling is significant cost savings, as well as minimization of other costs. For example, carrying out calculations of the characteristics of nuclear reactions using a computer made it possible to abandon real tests of nuclear weapons.

The clearest and most famous example thought experiment is the "ship of Galileo". In the time of Galileo, it was believed that rest is absolute in nature, and movement is only a temporary process of transition from one state to another under the influence of some force. In an effort to refute this statement, Galileo imagined the following. Let a person who is in the closed hold of a uniformly moving ship and therefore knows nothing about what is happening outside the hold, try to answer the question: is the ship standing still or floating? Reflecting on this question, Galileo came to the conclusion that there was no way for anyone in the hold under the given conditions to know the correct answer. And from this it follows that uniform motion is indistinguishable from rest and, therefore, it cannot be argued that rest is a natural, as if primary, and therefore corresponding to the absolute frame of reference state, and movement is only a moment of rest, something that is always accompanied by the action of any force.

Naturally, Galileo’s thought experiment is not difficult to implement in full-scale execution.

Experimental research can be carried out not only in natural sciences, but also in social sciences and humanities. . For example, in psychology, where based on experiments, data is obtained that is used to substantiate assumptions that, at first glance, are quite difficult to verify. In particular, before any specialized research, at the level of everyday perception, an adult is well aware that his psyche is different from the psyche of a child.

The question is, exactly how different is it? If, for example, characterizing the level mental development adults use such concepts as “personality” and “self-awareness”, then is it possible and in what sense to use them to characterize the level of mental development of a child? At what age, for example, does a person already have self-awareness, and when does he not yet have it? At first glance, it is quite difficult to say anything definite here. Moreover, these concepts themselves are not strictly and unambiguously defined.

Despite these difficulties, psychologist Jean Piaget showed quite convincingly in his works that a small child is much less capable of conscious control of his own mental processes than an adult. As a result of a series of studies, Piaget came to the conclusion that children aged 7-8 years are practically incapable of introspection (without which it is hardly possible to talk about self-awareness in the sense in which adults possess it). This ability, in his opinion, gradually develops in the age interval between 7-8 and 11-12 years. Piaget made these conclusions based on a series of experiments, the content of which boiled down to the fact that children were first offered a simple arithmetic problem (which most children can cope with), and then asked them to explain exactly how they came to the corresponding solution. According to Piaget, the presence of introspective ability can be recognized as existing if the child can conduct retrospection, i.e. is able to correctly reproduce the process of his own solution. If he cannot do this and tries to explain the decision, starting, for example, from the result obtained, as if he knew it in advance, then this means that the child does not have introspective ability in the sense that is inherent in adults.

Within the framework of economics, it is also probably possible to meaningfully talk about experimental research. In particular, if there is a certain tax rate in accordance with which payments are made, but at the same time some taxpayers seek to understate or hide their income, then within the framework of the described situation, actions can be taken that can be called experimental. Suppose, knowing the described state of affairs, the relevant government bodies may decide to reduce the tax rate, assuming that under the new conditions, a significant part of taxpayers will be more profitable to pay taxes rather than evade them, risking fines and other sanctions.

After the introduction of new tax rates, it is necessary to compare the level of taxes collected with that which existed at the previous rates. If it turns out that the number of taxpayers has increased, since some, under the new conditions, agreed to come out of the shadows, and the total number of fees has also increased, then the information obtained can be used to improve the work of tax authorities. If it turns out that no changes in the behavior of taxpayers have occurred and the total amount of taxes collected has fallen, then this information can also be used in the work of the relevant authorities, motivating them, naturally, to search for some other solutions.

Measurement

Measurement is finding the relationship between a certain quantity and another, which is taken as a unit of measurement. The measurement result is expressed, as a rule, by a certain number, which makes it possible to subject the obtained results to mathematical processing. Measurement is an important method of scientific knowledge, since through it it is possible to obtain accurate quantitative data on the magnitude and intensity and on the basis of this, sometimes even make assumptions about the nature of the corresponding processes or phenomena.

Change as a way of determining magnitude and intensity occurs already at the level of everyday perception of the world. In particular, as a subjective experience of “equality”, “greater” or “smaller” magnitude of any phenomenon or process compared to other cases of its manifestation. For example, light can be perceived as more or less bright, and temperature can be assessed by sensations such as “cold”, “very cold”, “warm”, “hot”, “hot”, etc. An obvious disadvantage of this method of determining intensity is its subjectivity And approximation . However, for the level of everyday perception of the world such a “scale” may be sufficient, but within the framework of scientific knowledge such an approximation is serious problem. Moreover, so much so that the lack of methods and practices for accurate measurements can even act as one of the serious factors that hinder scientific and technical development.

You can understand the importance of accurate measurements if, for example, you imagine the problems that designers and technologists must solve when creating a complex technical device (for example, an internal combustion engine). In order for this engine to work and still have a sufficiently high efficiency, it is necessary that its parts - in particular, pistons and cylinders - be made with high precision. Moreover, so much so that the gap between the cylinder walls and the piston diameter should be within only tenths of a millimeter. In turn, in order to produce these engine parts, we need machines that are capable of processing metal with such high precision. If such or approaching accuracy for a given technical equipment cannot be achieved, then the engine either will not work at all, or its efficiency will be so low that its use will be economically impractical. The same can be said for any other somewhat complex technical devices.

Quantification relationships between certain phenomena, which is achieved through their expression in a precise quantitative form (the latter finds its manifestation in the strict formulation of the corresponding laws of nature through the use of mathematical formulas) - this is not just a unique form of recording data, but a special way of expressing knowledge, which has a very specific heuristic meaning . In particular, the expression in this form of the well-known law of universal gravitation, according to which between any two bodies there is an attractive force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, is valuable not just as “exact knowledge”, which can be represented in the form compact formula. The heuristic value of this and other formulas is that using this form of knowledge representation, you can perform an accurate calculation for a specific situation by substituting in the formula certain values. Based on appropriate calculations, it is possible to create, for example, an airplane or a rocket that can rise into the air and not fall, fly beyond the limits of gravity and reach the planned target.

Regarding specific change objects , then for the natural sciences the ability, first of all, to determine numerical characteristics of space and time : magnitude, distance between objects and duration of the corresponding processes.

To measure the distance between two objects means to compare it with a standard. Until recently, as standard used a body made from hard alloy , the shape of which changed slightly when changing external conditions. The meter was chosen as a unit of length - a segment comparable to the dimensions human body. In most cases, this standard does not fit an integer number of times along the length of the measured segment. Therefore, the remaining length is measured using 1/10, 1/100, 1/1000, etc. parts of the standard. In practice, multiple divisions of the original standard are impossible. Therefore, to increase the accuracy of measurement and measurement of small segments, a standard of significantly smaller dimensions was required, which is currently used as standing electromagnetic optical waves .

In nature, there are objects that are significantly smaller in size than the wavelengths of the optical range - these are many molecules, atoms, and elementary particles. When measuring them, a fundamental problem arises: objects whose dimensions are smaller than the wavelength of visible radiation cease to reflect light according to the laws of geometric optics and, therefore, cease to be perceived in the form of familiar visual images. To estimate the size of such small objects, light is replaced a flow of any elementary particles . In this case, the size of objects is estimated by the so-called scattering cross sections, determined by the ratio of the number of particles that have changed the direction of their movement to the density of the incident flux. Shortest distance, currently known is the characteristic size of an elementary particle: 10 -15 m. It makes no sense to talk about smaller sizes.

When measuring distances significantly exceeding 1 m, using the appropriate length standard also turns out to be inconvenient. To measure distances comparable to the size of the Earth, methods are used triangulation And radar . The triangulation method is that, knowing the values of one side of a triangle and two adjacent angles, you can calculate the values of the other two sides. The essence of the radar method is to measure the delay time of the reflected signal, the propagation speed and departure time of which are known. However, for very large distances, for example, for measuring distances to other galaxies, these methods are inapplicable, since the reflected signal is too weak, and the angles at which the object is visible are practically immeasurable. At very large distances, only self-luminous objects (stars and their clusters). The distance to them is estimated based on the observed brightness. Currently, the observable part of the Universe has dimensions of 10 24 m. It makes no sense to talk about large dimensions.

Measuring the duration of a process means comparing it with a standard. As such a standard it is convenient to choose any repetitive process and, for example pendulum swings . The second was chosen as the unit of time measurement - an interval approximately equal to the period of contraction of the human heart muscle. To measure significantly shorter periods of time, new standards became necessary. Their roles were lattice vibrations And movement of electrons in an atom . Even shorter periods of time can be measured by comparing them with the time it takes light to travel through a given interval. Therefore, the smallest meaningful time interval is the time it takes light to travel through the shortest possible distance.

Using pendulum clocks, it is possible to measure time intervals significantly exceeding 1 second, but even here the possibilities of the method are not unlimited. Time periods compared with the age of the Earth (10 17 sec.) are usually estimated from the half-lives of atoms of radioactive elements. According to modern concepts, the maximum period of time that makes sense to talk about is the age of the Universe, which is estimated at a period of 10 18 seconds. (for comparison: a human life lasts about 10 9 seconds).

The described methods of changing space and time and the accuracy that has been achieved in this have great theoretical and practical significance. In particular, extrapolation back in time of the observed and accurately measured expansion of the Universe is one of the important facts that is cited in favor of the theory big bang. Thanks to the possibility of precise measurements, data have been obtained on the movement of the Earth's continents relative to each other by an amount approximately equal to several centimeters per year, which is important for geology.

Knowing how to make precise changes is important. The data that can be obtained as a result of such a change often acts as a significant argument in favor of accepting or rejecting a hypothesis. For example, the measurement by O. Roemer in the 17th century. the speed of light was an important argument in favor of recognizing that the latter is a natural physical process, and not something else, immaterial, the speed of which is “infinite,” as many thought in those and subsequent times. Ability to accurately measure transit period light beam in different directions using a specially designed instrument (the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1880) was an important factor that largely contributed to the abandonment of the ether theory in physics.

Measurement as a method of scientific knowledge is of great importance not only for the natural and technical sciences, but is also significant for the sphere of social and humanitarian knowledge. Based on our own experience, everyone knows that meaningful material is remembered faster than meaningless material. However, how much? Psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus found that meaningful material is remembered 9 times faster than meaningless material. Currently within applied psychology measurements are widely used to assess a person's mental abilities.

Sociologist Emile Durkheim, based on an analysis of statistical data on the number of suicides in various countries Europe established a correlation between this fact and the degree of integration between people in the corresponding social groups. Knowing the population size of a certain country, the dynamics of mortality and fertility are important statistical data for a number of applied sciences about society.

The role of measurements and statistical data is also great for modern economic science, especially in connection with the widespread use of mathematical methods in it. For example, quantifying supply and demand is important in marketing research.

Such empirical methods of cognition as observation, experiment and measurements play a huge role in modern scientific knowledge and their use is inseparable from the corresponding theoretical scientific concepts. This is what distinguishes them from ordinary empirical ways of understanding the world. Empirical methods are significant at all stages of scientific knowledge of the world, since the material obtained through them is used both to confirm and refute the corresponding theoretical concepts, and is taken into account when formulating them.

One of the significant features that is associated with the current stage of development of scientific empirical methods of cognition is that extremely complex and expensive equipment is required to obtain and verify the corresponding results. Apparently, we can say that the further development of natural and technical sciences is largely determined by the possibility and ability to create this equipment . For example, modern research in the field fundamental physics so expensive that only a few countries that have specialists at the appropriate level and the means to participate in the construction and operation of such a complex instrument for experimental research as the recently commissioned Large Hadron Collider are capable of carrying them out.

In science, there are empirical and theoretical levels of research. Empirical research is aimed directly at the object being studied and is implemented through observation and experiment. Theoretical research is concentrated around generalizing ideas, hypotheses, laws, principles. Data from both empirical and theoretical research are recorded in the form of statements containing empirical and theoretical terms. Empirical terms are statements whose truth can be tested experimentally. This is, for example, the statement: “The resistance of a given conductor increases when heated from 5 to 10 °C.” The truth of statements containing theoretical terms cannot be established experimentally. To confirm the truth of the statement “The resistance of conductors increases when heated from 5 to 10 °C,” an infinite number of experiments would have to be carried out, which is impossible in principle. "The resistance of a given conductor" is an empirical term, an observational term. “Conductor resistance” is a theoretical term, a concept obtained as a result of generalization. Statements with theoretical concepts unverifiable, but according to Popper, they are falsifiable.

The most important feature of scientific research is the interplay of empirical and theoretical data. In principle, it is impossible to absolutely separate empirical and theoretical facts. In the above statement with an empirical term, the concepts of temperature and number were used, and these are theoretical concepts. The person measuring the resistance of conductors understands what is happening because he has theoretical knowledge. On the other hand, theoretical knowledge without experimental data has no scientific force and turns into groundless speculation. Coherence and mutual loading of the empirical and theoretical is the most important feature of science. If the specified harmonic agreement is violated, then in order to restore it, a search for new theoretical concepts begins. Of course, the experimental data are also clarified. Let us consider in the light of the unity of the empirical and theoretical the main methods of empirical research.

Experiment- the core of empirical research. The Latin word "experimentum" literally means trial, experiment. An experiment is an approbation, testing of the phenomena being studied under controlled and controlled conditions. The experimenter strives to isolate the phenomenon being studied in its pure form, so that there are as few obstacles as possible in obtaining the required information. The setting up of an experiment is preceded by appropriate preparatory work. An experimental program is being developed; if necessary, special instruments and measuring equipment are manufactured; the theory is clarified, which acts as a necessary experimental toolkit.

The components of the experiment are: experimenter; phenomenon being studied; devices. In the case of instruments, we are not talking about technical devices such as computers, micro- and telescopes, designed to enhance the sensory and rational capabilities of a person, but about detector devices, intermediary devices that record experimental data and are directly influenced by the phenomena being studied. As we see, the experimenter is “fully armed”; on his side, among other things, is professional experience and, most importantly, knowledge of theory. IN modern conditions An experiment is most often carried out by a group of researchers who act in concert, measuring their efforts and abilities.

The phenomenon being studied is experimentally placed in conditions where it responds to detector devices (if there is no special detector device, then the sensory organs of the experimenter himself act as such: his eyes, ears, fingers). This reaction depends on the condition and characteristics of the device. Due to this circumstance, the experimenter cannot obtain information about the phenomenon being studied as such, that is, in isolation from all other processes and objects. Thus, observation tools are involved in the formation of experimental data. In physics, this phenomenon remained unknown until experiments in the field of quantum physics, and its discovery in the 20s - 30s of the 20th century. was a sensation. N. Bohr’s explanation for a long time that observation means influence the results of the experiment, was received with hostility. Bohr's opponents believed that the experiment could be cleared of the disturbing influence of the device, but this turned out to be impossible. The researcher's task is not to present the object as such, but to explain its behavior in all kinds of situations.

It should be noted that in social experiments the situation is also not simple, because the subjects react to the feelings, thoughts, and spiritual world of the researcher. When summarizing experimental data, the researcher must not abstract from his own influence, but rather, taking it into account, be able to identify the general, essential.

The experimental data must somehow be communicated to known human receptors, for example, this happens when the experimenter reads the readings of measuring instruments. The experimenter has the opportunity and at the same time is forced to use his inherent (all or some) forms of sensory cognition. However, sensory cognition is just one of the moments of a complex cognitive process carried out by the experimenter. It is wrong to reduce empirical knowledge to sensory knowledge.

Among the methods of empirical knowledge, they are often called observation, which is sometimes even opposed to the method of experimentation. This does not mean observation as a stage of any experiment, but observation as a special, holistic way of studying phenomena, observation of astronomical, biological, social and other processes. The difference between experimentation and observation basically comes down to one point: in an experiment, its conditions are controlled, while in observation, the processes are left to the natural course of events. From a theoretical point of view, the structure of experiment and observation is the same: the phenomenon being studied - the device - the experimenter (or observer). Therefore, making sense of an observation is not much different from making sense of an experiment. Observation can be considered a unique case of experiment.

An interesting possibility for developing the experimental method is the so-called model experimentation. Sometimes they experiment not on the original, but on its model, that is, on another entity similar to the original. The model can be physical, mathematical or some other nature. It is important that manipulations with it make it possible to transmit the received information to the original. This is not always possible, but only when the properties of the model are relevant, that is, they really correspond to the properties of the original. A complete coincidence of the properties of the model and the original is never achieved, and for a very simple reason: the model is not the original. As A. Rosenbluth and N. Wiener joked, the best material model of a cat will be another cat, but it is preferable that it be exactly the same cat. One of the meanings of the joke is this: it is impossible to obtain as comprehensive knowledge from a model as in the process of experimenting with the original. But sometimes one can be content with partial success, especially if the object being studied is inaccessible to a non-model experiment. Before building a dam across a stormy river, hydraulic engineers will conduct a model experiment within the walls of their institute. As for mathematical modeling, it allows you to relatively quickly “play out” various options for the development of the processes being studied. Math modeling- a method located at the intersection of empirical and theoretical. The same applies to so-called thought experiments when considering possible situations and their consequences.

The most important aspect of the experiment is measurements; they allow one to obtain quantitative data. When measuring, qualitatively identical characteristics are compared. Here we are faced with a situation quite typical for scientific research. The measurement process itself is undoubtedly an experimental operation. But the establishment of qualitative similarity of characteristics compared in the measurement process already relates to the theoretical level of cognition. To choose a standard unit of quantity, you need to know which phenomena are equivalent to each other; in this case, preference will be given to the standard that is applicable to the largest possible number of processes. Length was measured using elbows, feet, steps, a wooden meter, a platinum meter, and now they are guided by the lengths of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum. Time was measured by the movement of the stars, the Earth, the Moon, pulses, and pendulums. Time is now measured according to the accepted standard of the second. One second is equal to 9,192,631,770 periods of radiation of the corresponding transition between two specific levels of the hyperfine structure of the ground state of the cesium atom. Both in the case of measuring lengths and in the case of measuring physical time, electromagnetic oscillations were chosen as measurement standards. This choice is explained by the content of the theory, namely quantum electrodynamics. As you can see, the measurement is theoretically loaded. Measurement can only be carried out effectively after identifying the meaning of what is being measured and how it is being measured. To better explain the essence of the measurement process, consider the situation with assessing students’ knowledge, say, on a ten-point scale.

The teacher talks with many students and gives them grades - 5 points, 7 points, 10 points. Students answer different questions, but the teacher brings all the answers “to a common denominator.” If the test taker informs someone about his grade, then from this brief information it is impossible to determine what was the subject of the conversation between the teacher and the student. Scholarship commissions are not interested in examination specifics either. Measurement, and assessment of students' knowledge is a special case of this process, fixes quantitative gradations only within the framework of a given quality. The teacher “subsumes” different answers from students under the same quality, and only then establishes the difference. 5 and 7 points are equivalent in terms of points; in the first case, these points are simply less than in the second. The teacher, assessing the knowledge of students, proceeds from his ideas about the essence of this academic discipline. The student also knows how to generalize; he mentally counts his failures and successes. In the end, however, the teacher and the student may come to different conclusions. Why? First of all, due to the fact that the student and the teacher have different understandings of the issue of assessing knowledge, they both generalize, but one of them succeeds in this mental operation better. The measurement, as already noted, is theoretically loaded.

Let us summarize the above. Measuring A and B involves: a) establishing the qualitative identity of A and B; b) introduction of a unit of value (second, meter, kilogram, point); c) interaction of A and B with a device that has the same qualitative characteristic as A and B; d) reading the instrument readings. The given measurement rules are used in the study of physical, biological and social processes. In the case of physical processes, the measuring device is often a well-defined technical device. These are thermometers, voltmeters, quartz watch. In the case of biological and social processes, the situation is more complicated - in accordance with their systemic-symbolic nature. Its supraphysical meaning means that the device must also have this meaning. But technical devices have only a physical, and not a systemic-symbolic nature. If so, then they are not suitable for direct measurement of biological and social characteristics. But the latter are measurable, and they are actually measured. Along with the examples already given, the commodity-money market mechanism by which the value of goods is measured is very indicative in this regard. There is no technical device that does not measure the value of goods directly, but indirectly, taking into account all the activities of buyers and sellers, this can be done.

After analyzing the empirical level of research, we have to consider the organically connected theoretical level of research.

Science is the engine of progress. Without the knowledge that scientists convey to us every day, human civilization would never have reached any significant level of development. Great discoveries, bold hypotheses and assumptions - all this moves us forward. By the way, what is the mechanism of cognition of the surrounding world?

General information

In modern science, a distinction is made between empirical and theoretical methods. The first of them should be considered the most effective. The fact is that the empirical level of scientific knowledge provides in-depth study the object of immediate interest, and this process includes both the observation itself and a whole set of experiments. As is easy to understand, the theoretical method involves cognition of an object or phenomenon through the application of generalizing theories and hypotheses to it.

Often the empirical level of scientific knowledge is characterized by multiple terms in which the most important characteristics of the subject under study are recorded. It must be said that this level of science is especially respected because any statement of this type can be verified in a practical experiment. For example, such expressions include this thesis: “A saturated solution table salt can be made by heating water."

Thus, the empirical level of scientific knowledge is a set of ways and methods for studying the surrounding world. They (methods) are based primarily on sensory perception and accurate data from measuring instruments. These are the levels of scientific knowledge. Empirical and theoretical methods allow us to understand various phenomena and open new horizons of science. Since they are inextricably linked, it would be foolish to talk about one of them without talking about the main characteristics of the other.

Currently, the level of empirical knowledge is constantly increasing. Simply put, scientists are learning and classifying ever-increasing amounts of information, on the basis of which new scientific theories are built. Of course, the ways in which they obtain data are also improving.

Methods of empirical knowledge

In principle, you can guess about them yourself, based on the information that has already been given in this article. Here are the main methods of scientific knowledge at the empirical level:

Observation. This method is known to everyone without exception. He assumes that an outside observer will only impartially record everything that happens (in natural conditions), without interfering with the process itself.
Experiment. In some ways it is similar to the previous method, but in this case everything that happens is placed within a strict laboratory framework. As in the previous case, a scientist is often an observer who records the results of some process or phenomenon.
Measurement. This method assumes the need for a standard. A phenomenon or object is compared with it to clarify discrepancies.
Comparison. Similar to the previous method, but in this case the researcher simply compares any arbitrary objects (phenomena) with each other, without the need for reference measures.

Here we briefly examined the main methods of scientific knowledge at the empirical level. Now let's look at some of them in more detail.

Observation

It should be noted that there are several types at once, and the specific one is selected by the researcher himself, focusing on the situation. Let's list all the types of observation:

Armed and unarmed. If you have at least some understanding of science, then you know that “armed” observation is an observation in which various instruments and devices are used that make it possible to record the results obtained with greater accuracy. Accordingly, “unarmed” surveillance is called surveillance that is carried out without the use of something similar.
Laboratory. As the name implies, it is carried out exclusively in an artificial, laboratory environment.
Field. Unlike the previous one, it is performed exclusively in natural conditions, “in the field.”

In general, observation is good precisely because in many cases it allows one to obtain completely unique information (especially field information). It should be noted that this method is not widely used by all scientists, since its successful use requires considerable patience, perseverance and the ability to impartially record all observed objects.

This is what characterizes the main method, which uses the empirical level of scientific knowledge. This leads us to the idea that this method is purely practical.

Is the infallibility of observations always important?

Oddly enough, in the history of science there are many cases when the most important discoveries became possible thanks to gross errors and miscalculations in the process of observation. Thus, in the 16th century, the famous astronomer Tycho de Brahe did his life's work by closely observing Mars.

It is on the basis of these invaluable observations that his student, the no less famous I. Kepler, forms a hypothesis about the ellipsoidal shape of planetary orbits. But! It later turned out that Brahe's observations were extremely inaccurate. Many assume that he deliberately gave his student incorrect information, but this does not change the point: if Kepler had used accurate information, he would never have been able to create a complete (and correct) hypothesis.

In this case, thanks to inaccuracy, it was possible to simplify the subject being studied. By doing without complex multi-page formulas, Kepler was able to find out that the shape of the orbits is not round, as was then assumed, but elliptical.

Main differences from the theoretical level of knowledge

On the contrary, all expressions and terms that operate at the theoretical level of knowledge cannot be verified in practice. Here's an example: "A saturated salt solution can be made by heating water." In this case, an incredible amount of experimentation would have to be carried out, since “salt solution” does not indicate a specific chemical compound. That is, “table salt solution” is an empirical concept. Thus, all theoretical statements are unverifiable. According to Popper, they are falsifiable.

Simply put, the empirical level of scientific knowledge (as opposed to the theoretical) is very specific. The results of experiments can be touched, smelled, held in your hands, or seen as graphs on the display of measuring instruments.

By the way, what forms of the empirical level of scientific knowledge exist? Today there are two of them: fact and law. Scientific law - highest form empirical form of knowledge, since it deduces the basic patterns and rules in accordance with which a natural or technical phenomenon occurs. A fact means only that it manifests itself under a certain combination of several conditions, but scientists in this case have not yet managed to form a coherent concept.

Relationship between empirical and theoretical data

The peculiarity of scientific knowledge in all fields is that theoretical and empirical data are characterized by mutual penetration. It should be noted that it is absolutely impossible to separate these concepts in an absolute way, no matter what some researchers claim. For example, we talked about making a salt solution. If a person has an understanding of chemistry, this example will be empirical for him (since he himself knows about the properties of the main compounds). If not, the statement will be theoretical in nature.

The importance of the experiment

It must be firmly understood that the empirical level of scientific knowledge is worthless without an experimental basis. It is experiment that is the basis and primary source of all knowledge that has currently been accumulated by humanity.

On the other hand, theoretical research without a practical basis generally turns into groundless hypotheses, which (with rare exceptions) have absolutely no scientific value. Thus, the empirical level of scientific knowledge cannot exist without theoretical justification, but even this is insignificant without experiment. Why are we saying all this?

The fact is that the consideration of methods of cognition in this article should be carried out assuming the actual unity and interconnection of the two methods.

Characteristics of the experiment: what is it?

As we have repeatedly said, the features of the empirical level of scientific knowledge lie in the fact that the results of experiments can be seen or felt. But for this to happen, it is necessary to carry out an experiment, which is literally the “core” of all scientific knowledge from ancient times to this day.

The term comes from the Latin word “experimentum”, which actually means “experience”, “test”. In principle, an experiment is the testing of certain phenomena under artificial conditions. It must be remembered that in all cases the empirical level of scientific knowledge is characterized by the desire of the experimenter to influence what is happening as little as possible. This is necessary to obtain truly “pure”, adequate data, from which we can speak with confidence about the characteristics of the object or phenomenon being studied.

Preparatory work, instruments and equipment

Most often, before setting up an experiment, it is necessary to carry out detailed preparatory work, the quality of which will determine the quality of the information obtained as a result of the experiment. Let's talk about how preparation is usually carried out:

Firstly, a program is being developed in accordance with which the scientific experiment will be carried out.
If necessary, the scientist independently produces the necessary apparatus and equipment.
Once again they repeat all the points of the theory, to confirm or refute which the experiment will be carried out.

Thus, the main characteristic of the empirical level of scientific knowledge is the presence necessary equipment and instruments, without which conducting an experiment in most cases becomes impossible. And here we are not talking about common computer equipment, but about specialized detector devices that measure very specific environmental conditions.

Thus, the experimenter must always be fully armed. We are talking here not only about technical equipment, but also about the level of proficiency theoretical information. Without having an idea about the subject being studied, it is quite difficult to conduct any scientific experiments to study it. It should be noted that in modern conditions, many experiments are often carried out by a whole group of scientists, since this approach allows one to rationalize efforts and distribute areas of responsibility.

What characterizes the object being studied under experimental conditions?

The phenomenon or object being studied in the experiment is placed in such conditions that they will inevitably affect the scientist’s senses and/or recording instruments. Note that the reaction may depend both on the experimenter himself and on the characteristics of the equipment he uses. In addition, an experiment cannot always provide all the information about an object, since it is carried out in conditions of isolation from the environment.

This is very important to remember when considering the empirical level of scientific knowledge and its methods. It is precisely because of the last factor that observation is so valued: in most cases, only it can provide really useful information about how a particular process occurs in natural conditions. Such data is often impossible to obtain even in the most modern and well-equipped laboratory.

However, one can still argue with the last statement. Modern science has made a good leap forward. Thus, in Australia they even study ground-level forest fires, recreating their course in a special chamber. This approach allows you not to risk the lives of employees, while obtaining completely acceptable and high-quality data. Unfortunately, this is not always possible, because not all phenomena can be recreated (at least for now) in a scientific institution.

Niels Bohr's theory

The famous physicist N. Bohr stated that experiments in laboratory conditions are not always accurate. But his timid attempts to hint to his opponents that the means and instruments significantly influence the adequacy of the data obtained were met by his colleagues extremely negatively for a long time. They believed that any influence of the device could be eliminated by somehow isolating it. The problem is that it is almost impossible to do this even at the modern level, let alone in those days.

Of course, the modern empirical level of scientific knowledge (we have already said what it is) is high, but we are not destined to bypass the fundamental laws of physics. Thus, the researcher’s task is not only to provide a banal description of an object or phenomenon, but also to explain its behavior under various environmental conditions.

Modeling

The most valuable opportunity to study the very essence of the subject is modeling (including computer and/or mathematical). Most often, in this case, they experiment not on the phenomenon or object itself, but on their most realistic and functional copies, which were created in artificial, laboratory conditions.

If it is not very clear, let us explain: it is much safer to study a tornado using the example of its simplified model in a wind tunnel. Then the data obtained during the experiment is compared with information about a real tornado, after which appropriate conclusions are drawn.

FEATURES OF SCIENTIFIC COGNITION. EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL LEVELS OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.

Human cognitive activity is most clearly manifested in scientific knowledge, because It is science, in relation to other forms of social consciousness, that is most aimed at the cognitive development of reality. This is reflected in the features scientific knowledge.

A characteristic feature of scientific knowledge is its rationality- appeal to the arguments of reason and reason. Scientific knowledge constructs the world in concepts. Scientific thinking, first of all, is a conceptual activity, while in art, for example, an artistic image is a form of exploration of the world.

Another feature is orientation towards identifying objective laws of functioning and development of the objects under study. It follows from this that science strives for substantive and objective knowledge of reality. But since it is known that any knowledge (including scientific) is a fusion of objective and subjective, it is necessary to note the specificity of the objectivity of scientific knowledge. It consists in the maximum possible elimination (removal, expulsion) of the subjective from knowledge.

Science aims to discover and develop future methods and forms of practical exploration of the world, not only today’s. In this way it differs, for example, from ordinary spontaneous-empirical knowledge. Between scientific discovery and its application in practice, in some form, may take decades, but ultimately, theoretical achievements create the foundation for future applied engineering - technical developments, to satisfy practical interests.

Scientific knowledge relies on specialized research tools, which influence the object being studied and allow one to identify its possible states under conditions controlled by the subject. Specialized scientific equipment allows science to experimentally study new types of objects.

Key Features scientific knowledge are his evidence, validity and consistency.

The specificity of the systematic nature of science – in its two-level organization: empirical and theoretical levels and the order of their interaction. This is the uniqueness of scientific cognition and knowledge, since no other form of cognition has a two-level organization.

To the number characteristic features science also applies to her special methodology. Along with knowledge about objects, science forms knowledge about methods of scientific activity. This leads to the formation of methodology as a special branch of scientific research designed to guide scientific research.

Classical science, which emerged in the 16th – 17th centuries, combined theory and experiment, distinguishing two levels in science: empirical and theoretical. They correspond to two interrelated and at the same time specific types of scientific and cognitive activity: empirical and theoretical research.

As was said, scientific knowledge is organized at two levels: empirical and theoretical.

TO empirical level These include techniques and methods, as well as forms of scientific knowledge that are directly related to scientific practice, to those types of substantive activities that ensure the accumulation, fixation, grouping and generalization of source material for the construction of indirect theoretical knowledge. This includes scientific observation, various shapes scientific experiment, scientific facts and ways of grouping them: systematization, analysis and generalization.

TO theoretical level include all those types and methods of scientific knowledge and methods of organizing knowledge that are characterized by one or another degree of mediation and ensure the creation, construction and development of scientific theory as logically organized knowledge about objective laws and other significant connections and relationships in the objective world. This includes theory and such elements and components as scientific abstractions, idealizations, models, scientific laws, scientific ideas and hypotheses, methods of operating with scientific abstractions (deduction, synthesis, abstraction, idealization, logical and mathematical means, etc. )

It must be emphasized that although the difference between the empirical and theoretical levels is due to objective qualitative differences in the content and methods of scientific activity, as well as the nature of knowledge itself, however, this difference is at the same time relative. No form of empirical activity is possible without its theoretical understanding and, conversely, any theory, no matter how abstract it may be, ultimately relies on scientific practice, on empirical data.

The main forms of empirical knowledge include observation and experiment. Observation there is a purposeful, organized perception of objects and phenomena of the external world. Scientific observation is characterized by purposefulness, planning and organization.

Experiment differs from observation in its active nature, interference in the natural course of events. An experiment is a type of activity undertaken for the purpose of scientific knowledge, consisting of influencing a scientific object (process) through special instruments. Thanks to this it is possible to:

– isolate the object under study from the influence of side, unimportant phenomena;

– repeatedly reproduce the process under strictly fixed conditions;

– systematically study and combine various conditions in order to obtain the desired result.

An experiment is always a means to solve a certain cognitive task or problem. There are a wide variety of types of experiments: physical, biological, direct, model, search, verification experiments, etc.

The nature of the forms of the empirical level determines the research methods. So, measurement as one of the types quantitative methods research has the goal of most fully reflecting objective quantitative relationships expressed in number and magnitude in scientific knowledge.

Great importance has a systematization of scientific facts. Scientific fact - this is not just any event, but an event that entered the sphere of scientific knowledge and was recorded through observation or experiment. Systematization of facts means the process of grouping them based on essential properties. One of the most important methods generalization and systematization of facts is induction.

Induction defined as a method of achieving probabilistic knowledge. Induction can be intuitive - a simple guess, the discovery of a commonality during observation. Induction can act as a procedure for establishing the general by listing individual cases. If the number of such cases is limited, then it is called complete.

Reasoning by analogy also refers to inductive inferences, since they are characterized by probability. Typically, analogy is understood as that particular case of similarity between phenomena, which consists in the similarity or identity of relations between elements different systems. To increase the degree of plausibility of conclusions by analogy, it is necessary to increase the diversity and achieve uniformity of the properties being compared, and to maximize the number of compared characteristics. Thus, through the establishment of similarities between phenomena, a transition is essentially made from induction to another method - deduction.

Deduction differs from induction in that it is associated with propositions arising from the laws and rules of logic, but the truth of the premises is problematic, while induction is based on true premises,

But the transition to proposals and conclusions remains a problem. Therefore, in scientific knowledge, these methods complement each other to substantiate theses.

The path of transition from empirical to theoretical knowledge is very complex. It has the character of a dialectical leap in which various and contradictory moments intertwine, complementing each other: abstract thinking and sensibility, induction and deduction, analysis and synthesis, etc. The key point in this transition is the hypothesis, its formulation, formulation and development, its justification and proof.

The term " hypothesis "is used in two senses: 1) in a narrow sense - designating some assumption about a natural order or other essential connections and relationships; 2) in a broad sense - as a system of propositions, some of which are initial premises of a probabilistic nature, while others represent a deductive development of these premises. As a result of comprehensive testing and confirmation of all the various consequences, a hypothesis turns into a theory.

Theory This is a system of knowledge for which the true assessment is completely definite and positive. Theory is a system of objectively true knowledge. A theory differs from a hypothesis in its reliability, and from other types of reliable knowledge (facts, statistical data, etc.) it differs in its strict logical organization and its content, which consists in reflecting the essence of phenomena. Theory is knowledge of the essence. An object at the level of theory appears in its internal connection and integrity as a system, the structure and behavior of which is subject to certain laws. Thanks to this, the theory explains the variety of existing facts and can predict new events, which speaks of its most important functions: explanatory and predictive (foresight function). A theory is made up of concepts and statements. Concepts capture the qualities and relationships of objects from the subject area. Statements reflect the natural order, behavior and structure of the subject area. The peculiarity of the theory is that concepts and statements are interconnected into a logically coherent, consistent system. The set of logical relations between the terms and propositions of a theory forms its logical structure, which is generally deductive. Theories can be classified according to various signs and reasons: according to the degree of connection with reality, according to the area of creation, application, etc.

Scientific thinking operates with many methods. We can distinguish such, for example, as analysis and synthesis, abstraction and idealization, modeling. Analysis is a method of thinking associated with the decomposition of the object being studied into its component parts, development trends with the aim of relative self-study. Synthesis– the opposite operation, which consists in combining previously identified parts into a whole in order to obtain knowledge as a whole about the previously identified parts and trends. Abstraction is the process of mental isolation, isolating individual characteristics, properties and relationships of interest in the process of research in order to understand them more deeply.

In the process of idealization there is an extreme distraction from all the real properties of the object. A so-called ideal object is formed, which can be operated upon in the knowledge of real objects. For example, concepts such as “point”, “straight line”, “absolute black body” and others. Thus, the concept of a material point does not actually correspond to any object. But the mechanic, in terms of this ideal object, is able to theoretically explain and predict the behavior of real material objects.

Literature.

1. Alekseev P.V., Panin A.V. Philosophy. – M., 2000. Section. II, ch. XIII.

2. Philosophy / Ed. V.V. Mironova. – M., 2005. Section. V, ch. 2.

Test questions for self-test.

1. What is the main task of epistemology?

2. What forms of agnosticism can be distinguished?

3. What is the difference between sensationalism and rationalism?

4. What is “empiricism”?

5. What is the role of sensitivity and thinking in individual cognitive activity?

6. What is intuitive knowledge?

7. Highlight the main ideas of K. Marx’s activity concept of cognition.

8. How does the connection between subject and object occur in the process of cognition?

9. What determines the content of knowledge?

10. What is “truth”? What main approaches in epistemology to the definition of this concept would you name?

11. What is the criterion of truth?

12. Explain what is the objective nature of truth?

13. Why is truth relative?

14. Is absolute truth possible?

15. What is the peculiarity of scientific knowledge and scientific knowledge?

16. What forms and methods of the empirical and theoretical levels of scientific knowledge can be distinguished?

Empirical knowledge is the establishment of scientific facts and their subjective processing. This is the initial moment of the process of cognition, in which vital role sensations and feelings play. Thanks to the senses, a human being can be objectively connected with the world around him. They provide direct primary knowledge about things, phenomena and objects, their functions and properties.

Epistemology of sensations

This section of science considers the empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge as a superstructure over the sensory. The latter include perception, sensation and representation. Empirical knowledge is based on sensations. This is a reflection of the properties of individual objects, things during their impact on the senses. This is elementary knowledge that does not have the structure of a cognitive phenomenon. The information capacity of the human senses is based on vision, touch, hearing, smell and taste. Sense organs as means of cognition are formed as a result of practical direct interaction between nature and man. It is through this practice that empirical knowledge is possible. The ideas and images that are created as a result of the acquisition of one or another sensation cannot be separated from the cognitive social actions and preferences of people.

Epistemology of perception

The empirical level of cognition is also built on perception, which is a sensory-structured, concrete image. It arises on the basis of a complex of previously received sensations: tactile, visual, and so on. Empirical knowledge starts from perception, which is thinking contemplation. As a result of the perception and sensation of forms external nature an idea of it is created as an image of a cognitive type. Representation is an intermediate link between thinking and perception.

Comprehension

Empirical knowledge appears at the intersection of sensory perception and consciousness. Sensations leave a deep imprint on the mind. Processes and events, felt subconsciously, orient a person in the flow of life events, but he does not always specifically record them. It is impossible to comprehend all this and penetrate into the essence of things, to find out the causes of phenomena with the help of the senses alone. This can be achieved through mental (rational) cognition, combined with a process such as empirical cognition.

Experienced level

Experience - more high level compared to the sensual. Empirical and theoretical knowledge (without which it will be impossible to apply the experience gained) make it possible to describe experience. They involve the creation of a source of knowledge in the form of scientific, rigorous documents. These can be schemes, acts, protocols, and so on. Empirical knowledge can be both direct and indirect (through the use of all kinds of instruments and devices).

Historical process

Modern empirical scientific knowledge has its source from observation of things, objects and natural phenomena. Our ancestors observed animals, plants, the sky, other people, and the work of the human body. It was the knowledge acquired in this way that formed the basis of astronomy, biology, medicine, physics and other sciences. In the process of development of civilization, the empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge were improved, and the possibilities of perception and observation with the help of tools and devices increased. Purposeful observation differs from contemplation by the selectivity of the process. Preliminary hypotheses and ideas direct the researcher to specific objects of research, which determines the set of technical means, which are necessary to obtain a reliable result.

Methodology

Methods of empirical knowledge are based on living contemplation, sensory perception and rationality. Collection and synthesis of facts is the main task of these processes. Methods of empirical knowledge include observation, measurement, analysis, induction, experiment, comparison, observation.
1. Observation is a passive, purposeful study of an object, which relies on the senses. During this process, the researcher receives general information about the object of knowledge and its properties.

2. An experiment is a purposeful active intervention in the current process being studied. It includes a change in the object and the conditions of its functioning, which are determined by the goals of the experiment. The features of the experiment are: an active attitude towards the subject of research, the possibility of its transformation, control over its behavior, verification of the result, reproducibility of the experiment in relation to the object and conditions being studied, the ability to discover additional properties of phenomena.

3. Comparison is an operation of cognition that reveals the differences or identity of different objects. This process makes sense in one class of homogeneous things and phenomena.

4. Description - a procedure consisting of recording the result of an experiment (experiment or observation) using accepted notation systems.

5. Measurement is a set of active actions that are performed using measuring and computing tools to find the numerical and quantitative values of the quantities being studied.

It must be emphasized that empirical and theoretical knowledge are always realized together, that is, research methods are supported by conceptual theories, hypotheses and ideas.

Technical equipment

Empirical knowledge in science actively uses technical retrofitting in the process of studying phenomena and things. It can be:

Measuring devices and instruments: scales, rulers, speedometers, radiometers, ammeters and voltmeters, wattmeters and so on, helping the researcher to find out the parameters and characteristics of objects;

Instruments that can help in observing things and objects that are virtually invisible to the naked eye (telescopes, microscopes, etc.);

Devices that allow you to analyze the functions and structure of the processes and phenomena under study: oscilloscopes, electrocardiographs, chromatographs, chronometers, etc.

The importance of the experiment

Empirical knowledge and its results today directly depend on experimental data. If they are not obtained or are not possible at this stage, then the theory is considered “naked” - impractical and unconfirmed. Conducting an experiment correctly is a responsible task of building a theory. Only through this process can hypotheses be tested and hypothesized connections established. An experiment differs qualitatively from observation in three conditions:

1. During an experiment, phenomena occur under conditions previously created by the researcher. During observation, we only register a phenomenon in its natural environment.

2. The researcher freely interferes with events and phenomena within the framework of the rules of the experiment. The observer does not have the right and cannot regulate the object of research and its conditions.

3. During the experiment, the researcher has the right to exclude or include various parameters. The observer only records possible new parameters in natural conditions.

Types of experiments

The empirical level of knowledge is based on different types of experiments:

Physical - study of the diversity of natural phenomena;

Psychological - study of the life activity of the subject of research and accompanying circumstances;

Mental - carried out exclusively in the imagination;

Critical - data must be checked according to various criteria;

Computer mathematical modeling.

What does the empirical level of scientific knowledge mean? Empirical methods of scientific knowledge

General information

Methods of empirical knowledge

Observation

Is the infallibility of observations always important?

Main differences from the theoretical level of knowledge

Relationship between empirical and theoretical data

The importance of the experiment

Characteristics of the experiment: what is it?

Preparatory work, instruments and equipment

What characterizes the object being studied under experimental conditions?

Niels Bohr's theory

Modeling

FEATURES OF SCIENTIFIC COGNITION. EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL LEVELS OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.

Epistemology of sensations

Epistemology of perception

Comprehension

Experienced level

Historical process

Methodology

Technical equipment

The importance of the experiment

Types of experiments

Latest

You need to know this