CPU automated control systems and industrial safety. Scientific theory

In psychology, generally the same forms of scientific knowledge as in other sciences: concepts, judgments, conclusions, problems, hypotheses, theories. Each of them represents a relatively independent way of reflection by a subject of an object, a way of recording knowledge that has developed in the course of the development of universal human spiritual activity.

Among all forms of knowledge, the highest, most perfect and complex in the methodology of science is recognized theory. Indeed, if concepts or conclusions, problems or hypotheses are often formulated in one sentence, then an interconnected, ordered system of statements is necessary to express the theory. Entire volumes are often written to present and substantiate theories: for example, Newton substantiated the theory of universal gravitation in the voluminous work “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy” (1687), which he spent more than 20 years writing; S. Freud outlined the theory of psychoanalysis not in one, but in many works, and over the last 40 years of his life he constantly made changes and clarifications to it, trying to adapt it to changing social conditions, assimilate new facts from the field of psychotherapy, and reflect the criticism of opponents.

However, this does not mean that the theories are super complex and therefore beyond the understanding of the “man on the street.” Firstly, any theory can be presented in a concise, somewhat schematized version, removing the secondary, insignificant, and bracketing out the supporting arguments and supporting facts. Secondly, ordinary people(i.e., those who are not professional scientists) even from school, master many theories along with their implicit logic, and therefore in adulthood they often build their own theories based on generalization and analysis of everyday experience, differing from scientific ones in the degree of complexity and lack of mathematization and formalization, insufficient validity, less systemic and logical harmony, in particular, insensitivity to contradictions. Thus, a scientific theory is a somewhat refined and complicated version of everyday theories.

Theories act as methodological units, a kind of “cells,” of scientific knowledge: they represent all levels of scientific knowledge along with methodological procedures for obtaining and substantiating knowledge. Scientific theory includes and combines all other forms of scientific knowledge: its main “building material” is concepts, they are connected with each other by judgments, from which inferences are made according to the rules of logic; Any theory is based on one or more hypotheses (ideas) that are the answer to a significant problem (or set of problems). If a particular science consisted of only one theory, it would nevertheless possess all the basic properties of science. For example, geometry for many centuries was identified with the theory of Euclid and was considered at the same time an “exemplary” science in the sense of accuracy and rigor. In a word, theory is science in miniature. Therefore, if we understand how the theory is structured, what functions it performs, then we will comprehend the internal structure and “working mechanisms” of scientific knowledge as a whole.

In the methodology of science, the term “theory” (from the Greek theoria - consideration, research) is understood in two main senses: broad and narrow. In a broad sense, a theory is a complex of views (ideas, concepts) aimed at interpreting a phenomenon (or a group of similar phenomena). In this sense, almost every person has his own theories, many of which relate to the field of everyday psychology. With their help, a person can organize his ideas about goodness, justice, gender relations, love, the meaning of life, posthumous existence, etc. In a narrow, special meaning, theory is understood as the highest form of organization of scientific knowledge, giving a holistic idea of the patterns and essential connections of a certain area of reality. A scientific theory is characterized by systemic harmony, the logical dependence of some of its elements on others, and the deducibility of its content according to certain logical and methodological rules from a certain set of statements and concepts that form the initial basis of the theory.

In the process of developing knowledge, the emergence of theories is preceded by the stage of accumulation, generalization and classification of experimental data. For example, before the emergence of the theory of universal gravitation, a lot of information had already been collected both in astronomy (ranging from individual astronomical observations to Kepler’s laws, which are empirical generalizations of the observed motion of planets) and in the field of mechanics ( highest value for Newton were Galileo’s experiments in studying the free fall of bodies); In biology, the evolutionary theories of Lamarck and Darwin were preceded by extensive classifications of organisms. The emergence of a theory resembles an insight, during which an array of information is suddenly clearly organized in the theorist’s head thanks to a suddenly emerging heuristic idea. However, this is not entirely true: an innovative hypothesis is one thing, and its justification and development is quite another. Only after the completion of the second process can we talk about the emergence of a theory. Moreover, as the history of science shows, the development of a theory associated with its modifications, refinements, and extrapolation to new areas can last tens and even hundreds of years.

There are several positions on the question of the structure of theories. Let's highlight the most influential of them.

According to V.S. Shvyrev, scientific theory includes the following main components:

1) original empirical basis, which includes many facts recorded in this field of knowledge, achieved through experiments and requiring theoretical explanation;

2) the original theoretical basis -- a set of primary assumptions, postulates, axioms, general laws that collectively describe idealized object of theory;

3) logic of theory - a set of rules of logical inference and proof acceptable within the framework of the theory;

4) a set of statements derived in theory with their evidence, forming the main body theoretical knowledge.

The central role in the formation of a theory, according to Shvyrev, is played by the underlying idealized object - a theoretical model of the essential connections of reality, presented with the help of certain hypothetical assumptions and idealizations. In classical mechanics, such an object is a system of material points; in molecular kinetic theory, it is a set of chaotically colliding molecules closed in a certain volume, represented as absolutely elastic material points.

It is not difficult to demonstrate the presence of these components in developed subject-centric psychological theories of personality. In psychoanalysis, the role of the empirical basis is played by psychoanalytic facts (clinical observation data, descriptions of dreams, erroneous actions, etc.), the theoretical basis is made up of the postulates of metapsychology and clinical theory, the logic used can be characterized as “dialectical” or as the logic of “natural language”, in a “multidimensional” model of the psyche (topological, energetic, economic) acts as an idealized object. From here it is clear that psychoanalytic theory is more complex than any physical theory, since it includes more basic theoretical postulates, operates with several idealized models at once, and uses more “subtle” logical means. Coordination of these components and elimination of contradictions between them represents an important epistemological task, which is still far from being resolved.

A different approach to explicating the structure of the theory is proposed by M.S. Burgin and V.I. Kuznetsov, identifying four subsystems in it: logical-linguistic(language and logical means), model-representative(models and images describing the object), pragmatic-procedural(methods of cognition and transformation of an object) and problem-heuristic(description of the essence and ways to solve problems). The identification of these subsystems, as the authors emphasize, has certain ontological grounds. “The logical-linguistic subsystem corresponds to the existing orderliness of the real world or some part of it, the presence of certain patterns. The pragmatic-procedural subsystem expresses the dynamic nature of the real world and the presence of interaction with it by the cognizing subject. The problem-heuristic subsystem appears due to the complexity of the cognizable reality, which leads to the emergence of various contradictions, problems and the need to solve them. And, finally, the model-representative subsystem primarily reflects the unity of thinking and being in relation to the process of scientific knowledge.”

The comparison of the theory with the organism made by the above-mentioned researchers is worthy of attention. Like a living being, theories are born, develop, reach maturity, and then grow old and often die, as happened with the theories of caloric and ether in the 19th century. As in a living body, the subsystems of the theory are closely interconnected and are in coordinated interaction.

The question of the structure of scientific knowledge is addressed somewhat differently by V.S. Stepin. Based on the fact that the methodological unit of knowledge analysis should not be a theory, but a scientific discipline, he identifies three levels in the structure of the latter: empirical, theoretical and philosophical, each of which has a complex organization.

Empirical level includes, firstly, direct observations and experiments, the result of which are observational data; secondly, cognitive procedures through which the transition from observational data to empirical dependencies and facts is carried out. Observation data are recorded in observation protocols, which indicate who observed, the time of observation, and describe the devices, if they were used. If, for example, a sociological survey was conducted, then the observation protocol is a questionnaire with the answer of the respondent. For a psychologist, these are also questionnaires, drawings (for example, in projective drawing tests), tape recordings of conversations, etc. The transition from observational data to empirical dependencies (generalizations) and scientific facts presupposes the elimination from observations of the subjective aspects contained in them (related to possible errors observer, random interference distorting the behavior of the phenomena under study, instrument errors) in order to obtain reliable intersubjective knowledge about the phenomena. Such a transition involves rational processing of observation data, searching for stable invariant content in them, and comparing multiple observations with each other. For example, a historian establishing the chronology of past events always strives to identify and compare a multitude of independent historical evidence, which for him serves as observational data. Then the invariant content identified in the observations is interpreted (interpreted), using known theoretical knowledge. Thus, empirical facts, constituting the bulk of the corresponding level of scientific knowledge, constituted as a result of the interpretation of observational data in the light of a particular theory.

Theoretical level is also formed by two sublevels. The first consists of particular theoretical models and laws, which act as theories relating to a fairly limited area of phenomena. The second consists of developed scientific theories that include particular theoretical laws as consequences derived from the fundamental laws of the theory. Examples of knowledge of the first sublevel can be theoretical models and laws that characterize individual species mechanical motion: model and law of pendulum oscillation (Huygens’s laws), planetary motion around the Sun (Kepler’s laws), free fall of bodies (Galileo’s laws), etc. In Newtonian mechanics, which is a typical example of a developed theory, these particular laws, on the one hand, are generalized and, on the other hand, derived as consequences.

A unique cell for organizing theoretical knowledge at each of its sublevels is double layer construction, consisting of theoretical model and formulated regarding it law. The model is built from abstract objects (such as a material point, a reference system, an absolutely solid surface, an elastic force, etc.), which are in strictly defined connections and relationships with each other. The laws express the relationship between these objects (for example, the law of universal gravitation expresses the relationship between the mass of bodies, understood as material points, the distance between them and the force of attraction: F = Gm1m2/ r2).

The explanation and prediction of experimental facts by theories is connected, firstly, with the derivation of consequences from them that are comparable with the results of experience, and, secondly, with the empirical interpretation of theoretical models achieved through establishing a correspondence between them and the real objects that they reflect. Thus, not only are facts interpreted in the light of theory, but also the elements of the theory (models and laws) are interpreted so as to be subject to experimental verification.

Level foundations of science is the most fundamental in the structure of scientific knowledge. However, until the mid-20th century, it did not stand out: methodologists and scientists simply did not notice it. But it is precisely this level that “acts as a system-forming block that determines the strategy of scientific research, the systematization of acquired knowledge and ensures its inclusion in the culture of the corresponding era.” According to V.S. Stepin, at least three main components of bases can be distinguished scientific activity: ideals and norms of research, the scientific picture of the world and the philosophical foundations of science.

In paragraph 2 of Chapter 1, we already looked at the first two components of this level, so we will focus on the third. According to V.S. Stepin, philosophical foundations– these are the ideas and principles that substantiate the ontological postulates of science, as well as its ideals and norms. For example, Faraday's justification for the material status of electric and magnetic fields was carried out by reference to the metaphysical principle of the unity of matter and force. Philosophical foundations also ensure the “docking” of scientific knowledge, ideals and norms, the scientific picture of the world with the dominant worldview of a particular historical era, with the categories of its culture.

The formation of philosophical foundations is carried out by sampling and subsequent adaptation of ideas developed in philosophical analysis to the needs of a specific area of scientific knowledge. In their structure, V.S. Stepin identifies two subsystems: ontological, represented by a grid of categories that serve as a matrix of understanding and cognition of the objects under study (for example, the categories “thing”, “property”, “relationship”, “process”, “state”, “causality”, “necessity”, “accident”, “ space", "time", etc.), and epistemological, expressed by categorical schemes that characterize cognitive procedures and their results (understanding of truth, method, knowledge, explanation, evidence, theory, fact).

Noting the validity and heuristic nature of the positions we have outlined on the issue of the structure of scientific theory, in particular, and scientific knowledge in general, we will try to identify them weak sides and determine your own vision of the problem. The first, naturally arising question is related to whether to include empirical level science to the content of the theory or not: according to Shvyrev, the empirical level is included in the theory, according to Stepin - not (but is part of the scientific discipline), Burgin and Kuznetsov implicitly include the empirical level in the pragmatic-procedural subsystem. Indeed, on the one hand, theory is very closely interconnected with facts; it is created to describe and explain them, therefore the elimination of facts from theory clearly impoverishes it. But, on the other hand, facts are able to “lead their own life”, independent of a specific theory, for example, “migrate” from one theory to another. The last circumstance, it seems to us, is more significant: the theory precisely describes and explains the facts, is imposed on them, and therefore they should be taken beyond the limits of the theory. This is also supported by the established division of levels of scientific knowledge into theoretical and empirical (fact-fixing).

Therefore, Stepin’s point of view seems to us the most justified, but adjustments must also be made to it related to the understanding of the structure and role of the philosophical foundations of science. Firstly, they cannot be considered as being on the same level with ideals and norms, with the scientific picture of the world, precisely because of their fundamental nature, primacy, as the author himself notes. Secondly, they are not reduced to ontological and epistemological, but also include value (axiological) and practical (praxeological) dimensions. In general, their structure is homologous to the structure of philosophical knowledge, which includes not only ontology and epistemology, but also ethics, aesthetics, social philosophy, and philosophical anthropology. Thirdly, the interpretation of the genesis of philosophical foundations as the “flow” of ideas from philosophy into science seems to us too narrow; we cannot underestimate the role of the personal life experience of a scientist, in which philosophical views, although developed to a large extent spontaneously, are most deeply rooted due to “ emotional, value-semantic charge”, direct connection with what was seen and experienced.

Thus, theory is the highest form of scientific knowledge, a systematically organized and logically connected multi-level collection of abstract objects varying degrees community: philosophical ideas and principles, fundamental and particular models and laws, built from concepts, judgments and images.

Further specification of ideas about the nature of scientific theories is associated with the identification of their functions and types.

The question about the functions of theory is, in essence, a question about the purpose of theory, about its role both in science and in culture as a whole. Coming up with an exhaustive list of features is quite difficult. Firstly, in various sciences theories do not always play the same roles: mathematical knowledge, which deals with the world of “frozen”, ideal entities equal to themselves, is one thing, and humanitarian knowledge, focused on understanding the constantly changing, fluid existence of a person in the same unstable world, is another thing . This substantive difference determines the insignificance (often the complete absence) of the predictive function in the theories of mathematics, and, on the contrary, its importance for the sciences that study man and society. Secondly, scientific knowledge itself is constantly changing, and along with it, ideas about the role of scientific theories are being transformed: in general, with the development of science, more and more new functions are assigned to theories. Therefore, we will note only the most important, basic functions of scientific theory.

1. Reflective. The idealized object of the theory is a kind of simplified, schematized copy of real objects, therefore the theory reflects reality, but not in its entirety, but only in the most significant moments. First of all, the theory reflects the basic properties of objects, important connections and relationships between objects, patterns of their existence, functioning and development. Since an idealized object is a model of a real object, this function can also be called modeling (model-representative). In our opinion, we can talk about three types of models(idealized objects): structural, reflecting the structure, composition of the object (subsystems, elements and their relationships); functional, describing its functioning over time (i.e. those single-quality processes that occur regularly); evolutionary, reconstructing the course, stages, reasons, factors, trends in the development of an object. Psychology uses many models: psyche, consciousness, personality, communication, small social group, family, creativity, memory, attention, etc.

2. Descriptive the function is derived from the reflective function, acts as its private analogue and is expressed in the theory’s fixation of the properties and qualities of objects, connections and relationships between them. Description, apparently, is the oldest, simplest function of science, therefore any theory always describes something, but not every description is scientific. The main thing in a scientific description is accuracy, rigor, and unambiguity. The most important means of description is language: both natural and scientific, the latter being created precisely to increase accuracy and rigor in recording the properties and qualities of objects. Likewise, the psychologist begins the examination of the client by searching and recording significant facts. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine that, for example, Freud built a psychoanalytic theory without relying on his own and other people’s previous clinical experience, in which descriptions of case histories were abundantly presented with detailed indications of their etiology, symptoms, stages of development, and methods of treatment.

3. Explanatory also derived from the reflective function. An explanation already presupposes a search for consistent connections, clarification of the reasons for the appearance and occurrence of certain phenomena. In other words, to explain means, firstly, to bring a single phenomenon under a general law (for example, a single case of a brick falling to the ground can be brought under the general law of gravity, which will show us why the brick flew down (and not up or did not remain hanging in the air) and precisely at such a speed (or acceleration) and, secondly, to find the reason that gave rise to this phenomenon (in our example, the reason that caused the brick to fall would be the force of gravity, the gravitational field of the Earth). and any person cannot do without searching for consistent connections, without finding out the causes of events and taking into account the influence of various factors on what is happening to him and around him.

4. Prognostic the function stems from the explanatory one: knowing the laws of the world, we can extrapolate them to future events and, accordingly, predict their course. For example, I can reliably assume (and with one hundred percent probability!) that the brick I threw out the window will fall to the ground. The basis for such a forecast, on the one hand, is everyday experience, and on the other hand, the theory of universal gravitation. Involving the latter can make the forecast more accurate. In modern sciences dealing with complex self-organizing and “human-sized” objects, absolutely accurate forecasts are rare: and the point here is not only in the complexity of the objects under study, which have many independent parameters, but also in the very dynamics of self-organization processes, in which randomness, small force influence at bifurcation points can radically change the direction of development of the system. Also in psychology, the vast majority of forecasts are of a probabilistic-statistical nature, since, as a rule, they cannot take into account the role of numerous random factors that take place in social life.

5. Restrictive (prohibiting) function is rooted in the principle of falsifiability, according to which a theory should not be omnivorous, capable of explaining any, primarily previously unknown, phenomena from its subject area; on the contrary, a “good” theory should prohibit certain events (for example, the theory of universal gravity prohibits the upward flight of a brick thrown from a window; the theory of relativity limits the maximum speed of transmission of material interactions to the speed of light; modern genetics prohibits the inheritance of acquired traits). In psychology (especially in such sections as personality psychology, social Psychology), apparently, we should talk not so much about categorical prohibitions, but about the improbability of certain events. For example, from E. Fromm’s concept of love it follows that a person who does not love himself cannot truly love another. This is, of course, a ban, but not an absolute one. It is also very unlikely that a child who missed a sensitive period for language acquisition (for example, due to social isolation) will be able to fully master it in adulthood; in the psychology of creativity, it is recognized that there is a low probability of an opportunity for a complete amateur to do something important scientific discovery in fundamental areas of science. And it is almost impossible to imagine that a child with an objectively confirmed diagnosis of imbecility or idiocy could become an outstanding scientist.

6. Systematizing the function is determined by man’s desire to order the world, as well as by the properties of our thinking, which spontaneously strives for order. Theories act as an important means of systematization and condensation of information simply due to their inherent organization, the logical relationship (deducibility) of some elements with others. The simplest form of systematization is the processes of classification. For example, in biology, classifications of plant and animal species necessarily preceded evolutionary theories: only on the basis of extensive empirical material of the former was it possible to advance the latter. In psychology, perhaps the most famous classifications relate to personality typology: Freud, Jung, Fromm, Eysenck, Leonhard and others made significant contributions to this area of science. Other examples are the identification of types of pathopsychological disorders, forms of love, psychological influence, types of intelligence, memory, attention, abilities and other mental functions.

7. Heuristic the function emphasizes the role of theory as “the most powerful means of solving fundamental problems of understanding reality.” In other words, a theory not only answers questions, but also poses new problems, opens up new areas of research, which it then tries to explore in the process of its development. Often, questions posed by one theory are solved by another. For example, Newton, having discovered the gravitational force, could not answer the question about the nature of gravity; Einstein already solved this problem in the general theory of relativity. In psychology, the most heuristic theory still remains, apparently, psychoanalysis. On this subject, Kjell and Ziegler write: “Although research concerning Freud's psychodynamic theory cannot prove his concepts beyond doubt (since the verifiability of the theory is low), he has inspired many scientists by showing them in which direction research can be carried out to improve our knowledge about behavior. Literally thousands of studies have been prompted by Freud's theoretical claims." In terms of the heuristic function, the vagueness and incompleteness of the theory are more advantages than disadvantages. This is Maslow's theory of personality, which is more a collection of delightful guesses and assumptions than a clearly defined structure. Largely because of its incompleteness, coupled with the boldness of the hypotheses put forward, it “served as a stimulus for the study of self-esteem, peak experience and self-actualization, ... influenced not only researchers in the field of personology, but also in the field of education, management and health care.”

8. Practical the function is epitomized by the famous aphorism of the 19th-century German physicist Robert Kirchhoff: “There is nothing more practical than a good theory.” Indeed, we build theories not only to satisfy curiosity, but, above all, to understand the world around us. In a clear, orderly world, we not only feel safer, but we can also function successfully in it. Thus, theories act as a means of solving personal and social problems and increase the efficiency of our activities. In the era of post-non-classics, the practical significance of scientific knowledge comes to the fore, which is not surprising, because modern humanity is facing global problems, which most scientists see as possible to overcome only through the development of science. The theories of psychology today claim not only to solve the problems of individuals and small groups, but also strive to contribute to the optimization of social life as a whole. According to Kjell and Ziegler, psychology has an important contribution to make in solving problems associated with poverty, racial and sexual discrimination, alienation, suicide, divorce, child abuse, drug and alcohol addiction, crime, etc.

Kinds theories are distinguished on the basis of their structure, determined, in turn, by the methods of constructing theoretical knowledge. There are three main, “classical” types of theories: axiomatic (deductive), inductive and hypothetico-deductive. Each of them has its own “construction base” represented by three similar methods.

Axiomatic theories, established in science since antiquity, personify the accuracy and rigor of scientific knowledge. Today they are most common in mathematics (formalized arithmetic, axiomatic set theory), formal logic (propositional logic, predicate logic) and some branches of physics (mechanics, thermodynamics, electrodynamics). Classic example Such a theory is Euclid’s geometry, which for many centuries was considered a model of scientific rigor. As part of an ordinary axiomatic theory, there are three components: axioms (postulates), theorems (derived knowledge), and rules of inference (proofs).

Axioms(from the Greek axioma “honored, accepted position”) - provisions accepted as true (as a rule, due to self-evidence) that together constitute axiomatics as the fundamental basis of a specific theory. To introduce them, pre-formulated basic concepts (definitions of terms) are used. For example, before formulating the main postulates, Euclid gives definitions of “point”, “straight line”, “plane”, etc. Following Euclid (however, the creation of the axiomatic method is attributed not to him, but to Pythagoras), many tried to build knowledge on the basis of axioms: not only mathematicians, but also philosophers (B. Spinoza), sociologists (G. Vico), biologists (J. Woodger). The view of axioms as eternal and unshakable principles of knowledge was seriously shaken with the discovery of non-Euclidean geometries; in 1931, K. Gödel proved that even the simplest mathematical theories cannot be completely constructed as axiomatic formal theories (the incompleteness theorem). Today it is clear that the acceptance of axioms is determined by the specific experience of the era; with the expansion of the latter, even the most seemingly unshakable truths may turn out to be erroneous.

From the axioms, according to certain rules, the remaining provisions of the theory (theorems) are derived (deduced), the latter forming the main body of the axiomatic theory. Rules are studied by logic - the science of the forms of correct thinking. In most cases they represent the laws of classical logic: such as law of identity(“every essence coincides with itself”), law of contradiction(“no proposition can be both true and false”), law of the excluded middle(“every judgment is either true or false, there is no third choice”), law of sufficient reason(“every judgment made must be properly justified”). Often these rules are applied by scientists half-consciously, and sometimes completely unconsciously. As noted above, researchers often make logical mistakes, relying more on their own intuition than on the laws of thinking, preferring to use the “softer” logic of common sense. Since the beginning of the 20th century, non-classical logics began to develop (modal, multivalued, paraconsistent, probabilistic, etc.), moving away from classical laws, trying to grasp the dialectics of life with its fluidity, inconsistency, not subject to classical logic.

If axiomatic theories are relevant to mathematical and formal logical knowledge, then hypothetico-deductive theories specific to the natural sciences. G. Galileo is considered the creator of the hypothetico-deductive method, who also laid the foundations of experimental natural science. After Galileo this method was used (though for the most part implicitly) by many physicists, from Newton to Einstein, and therefore until recently it was considered fundamental in natural science.

The essence of the method is to put forward bold assumptions (hypotheses), the truth value of which is uncertain. Then, consequences are deductively derived from the hypotheses until we arrive at statements that can be compared with experience. If empirical testing confirms their adequacy, then the conclusion (due to their logical relationship) about the correctness of the initial hypotheses is legitimate. Thus, the hypothetico-deductive theory is a system of hypotheses of varying degrees of generality: at the very top are the most abstract hypotheses, and at the top lowest level– the most specific, but subject to direct experimental verification. It should be noted that such a system is always incomplete, and therefore can be expanded with additional hypotheses and models.

The more innovative consequences that can be verified by subsequent experience can be derived from a theory, the more authority it enjoys in science. In 1922, Russian astronomer A. Friedman derived equations from Einstein’s theory of relativity that proved its nonstationarity, and in 1929, American astronomer E. Hubble discovered a “red shift” in the spectrum of distant galaxies, confirming the correctness of both the theory of relativity and Friedman’s equations. In 1946, an American physicist of Russian origin G. Gamow, from his theory of the hot Universe, deduced the necessity of the presence in space of microwave isotropic radiation with a temperature of about 3 K, and in 1965 this radiation, called relict radiation, was discovered by astrophysicists A. Penzias and R. Wilson. It is quite natural that both the theory of relativity and the concept of a hot Universe have entered the “solid core” of the modern scientific picture of the world.

Inductive theories in their pure form in science, apparently, are absent, since they do not provide logically based, apodictic knowledge. Therefore, we should rather talk about inductive method, which is also characteristic, first of all, of natural science, since it allows us to move from experimental facts first to empirical and then theoretical generalizations. In other words, if deductive theories are built “from the top down” (from axioms and hypotheses to facts, from the abstract to the concrete), then inductive theories are built “from the bottom up” (from individual phenomena to universal conclusions).

F. Bacon is usually recognized as the founder of inductive methodology, although the definition of induction was given by Aristotle, and the Epicureans considered it the only authoritative method of proving the laws of nature. It is interesting that, perhaps under the influence of the authority of Bacon, Newton, who in fact relied mainly on the hypothetico-deductive methodology, declared himself a supporter of the inductive method. A prominent defender of the inductive methodology was our compatriot V.I. Vernadsky, who believed that it is on the basis of empirical generalizations that scientific knowledge should be built: until at least one fact is discovered that contradicts a previously obtained empirical generalization (law), the latter should be considered true.

Inductive inference usually begins with the analysis and comparison of observational or experimental data. If at the same time something common and similar is seen in them (for example, the regular repetition of a property) in the absence of exceptions (conflicting information), then the data are generalized in the form of a universal proposition (empirical law).

Distinguish complete (perfect) induction, when the generalization refers to a finitely observable area of facts, and incomplete induction, when it relates to an infinitely or finitely observable area of facts. For scientific knowledge, the second form of induction is most important, since it is it that gives an increase in new knowledge and allows us to move on to law-like connections. However, incomplete induction is not a logical reasoning, since no law corresponds to the transition from the particular to the general. Therefore, incomplete induction is probabilistic in nature: there is always a chance that new facts will appear that contradict those previously observed.

The “trouble” of induction is that a single disproving fact makes the empirical generalization as a whole untenable. This cannot be said about theoretically based statements, which can be considered adequate even when faced with many contradictory facts. Therefore, in order to “strengthen” the significance of inductive generalizations, scientists strive to substantiate them not only with facts, but also with logical arguments, for example, to derive empirical laws as consequences from theoretical premises or to find the reason that determines the presence of similar characteristics in objects. However, inductive hypotheses and theories in general are of a descriptive, ascertaining nature and have less explanatory potential than deductive ones. However, in the future, inductive generalizations often receive theoretical support, and descriptive theories are transformed into explanatory ones.

The considered basic models of theories act primarily as ideal-typical constructions. In the actual scientific practice of natural science, when constructing theories, scientists, as a rule, use both inductive and hypothetico-deductive methodology simultaneously (and often intuitively): the movement from facts to theory is combined with a reverse transition from theory to verifiable consequences. More specifically, the mechanism for constructing, justifying and testing a theory can be represented by the following diagram: observational data → facts → empirical generalization → universal hypothesis → particular hypotheses → testable consequences → setting up an experiment or organizing an observation → interpretation of experimental results → conclusion about the consistency (failure) of hypotheses → putting forward new ones hypotheses The transition from one stage to another is far from trivial; it requires the use of intuition and a certain amount of ingenuity. At each stage, the scientist also reflects on the results obtained, aimed at understanding their meaning, compliance with the standards of rationality, and eliminating possible errors.

Of course, not every hypothesis verified by experience is subsequently transformed into a theory. In order to form a theory around itself, a hypothesis (or several hypotheses) must not only be adequate and new, but also have a powerful heuristic potential and relate to a wide range of phenomena.

Development psychological knowledge In general, it follows a similar scenario. Let's take, for example, the theory of personality (more precisely, the psychotherapeutic concept as one of its parts) by K.R. Rogers, recognized throughout the world, meeting to a fairly high degree the criteria of heuristics, experimental approbability, and functional significance. Before moving on to building a theory, Rogers received a psychological education, acquired rich and varied experience working with people: first helping difficult children, then teaching at universities and counseling adults, conducting Scientific research. At the same time, he studied in depth the theory of psychology, mastered methods of psychological, psychiatric and social assistance. As a result of analyzing and summarizing his experience, Rogers came to understand the futility of “intellectual approaches,” psychoanalytic and behaviorist therapy, and the realization that “change occurs through experience in relationships.” Rogers was also dissatisfied with the inconsistency of Freudian views with the “scientific, purely objective statistical approach to science.”

Rogers bases his own psychotherapeutic concept on the “basic hypothesis”: “if I can create a certain type of relationship with another person, he will discover the ability to use this relationship for his development, which will cause a change and development of his personality.” Apparently, this assumption is based not only on the therapeutic and life experience of the author, but also owes its birth to philosophical ideas Rogers, intuitive conviction of its correctness. Particular consequences follow from the main hypothesis, for example, the position of three “necessary and sufficient conditions” for successful therapy: non-judgmental acceptance, congruence (sincerity), empathic understanding. The conclusion of particular hypotheses in this case cannot be considered purely logical or formal; on the contrary, it is substantive, creative in nature, and is associated, again, with the generalization and analysis of the experience of relationships with people. As for the main hypothesis, it fully complies with the above-mentioned requirements of heuristics and fundamentality, and therefore may well serve as the “ideological center” for building a developed theory. The heuristic nature of the main hypothesis was manifested, in particular, in the fact that it guided many researchers to study the quality of the relationship between the consultant and the client. Its fundamental nature is associated with the possibility of extrapolation to any (not just psychotherapeutic) relationships between people, which was done by Rogers himself.

The hypotheses put forward formed the theoretical basis of client-centered therapy, which then became the subject of objective, rigorous, measurement-based, empirical study. Rogers not only formulated a number of testable consequences due, first of all, to the operationalization of basic concepts, but also defined a program and methods for their verification. The implementation of this program has convincingly proven the effectiveness of client-centered therapy.

From Rogers' theory it follows that the success of therapy depends not so much on the knowledge, experience, and theoretical position of the consultant, but on the quality of the relationship. This assumption can also be tested if we can operationalize the concept of “relationship quality”, consisting of “sincerity”, “empathy”, “goodwill”, “love” for the client. For this purpose, one of Rogers' employees, based on scaling and ranking procedures, developed the Attitude List questionnaire for clients. For example, agreeableness was measured using sentences of different ranks: from “He likes me”, “He is interested in me” (high and medium levels of agreeableness) to “He is indifferent to me”, “He disapproves of me” (zero and negative levels, respectively). goodwill). The client rated these statements on a scale from “very true” to “not at all true.” As a result of the survey, a high positive correlation was discovered between the empathy, sincerity, and friendliness of the consultant, on the one hand, and the success of therapy, on the other. A number of other studies have shown that the success of therapy does not depend on the theoretical position of the consultant. In particular, a comparison of psychoanalytic, Adlerian and client-centered psychotherapy showed that success depends precisely on the quality of the relationship between the participants in the therapeutic process, and not on the basis of what theoretical concepts it unfolds. Thus, particular, and, consequently, Rogers’ main hypotheses received experimental confirmation.

Using the example of Rogers' concept of interhuman relations, we see that the development of the theory is cyclical, spiral-shaped: therapeutic and life experience → its generalization and analysis → putting forward universal and particular hypotheses → drawing testable consequences → testing them → clarifying hypotheses → modification based on refined knowledge of the therapeutic experience. Such a cycle can be repeated many times, with some hypotheses remaining unchanged, others being refined and modified, others being discarded, and others being generated for the first time. In such a “circulation,” the theory develops, refines, and enriches, assimilating new experience and putting forward counterarguments to criticism from competing concepts.

Most others psychological theories functions and develops according to the same scenario, so it is legitimate to conclude that the “average psychological theory” combines the features of both hypothetico-deductive and inductive theories. Are there “pure” inductive and hypothetico-deductive theories in psychology? In our opinion, it is more correct to talk about the gravitation of a particular concept towards the pole of induction or deduction. For example, most concepts of personality development are predominantly inductive in nature (in particular, Freud’s teaching on psychosexual stages, theory psychosocial development E. Erikson, J. Piaget’s theory of stages of intelligence development) because, firstly, they rely on a generalization of observations and experiments, and secondly, they are predominantly descriptive in nature, characterized by “poverty” and weakness of explanatory principles (for example, Piaget’s theory cannot explain, except by reference to observational data, why there should be exactly four (and not three or five) stages of the formation of intelligence, why some children develop faster than others, why the order of the stages is exactly that, etc.). With regard to other theories, it is often impossible to say exactly which type they are closer to, since the development of universal hypotheses in most cases is equally based on both the experience and intuition of the researcher, as a result of which many provisions of the theories combine the qualities of empirical generalizations and universal hypotheses-guesses .

But why are there so many theories in psychology, what determines their diversity, since we live in the same world, have similar life experiences: we are born, learn language and etiquette, go to school, fall in love, get sick and suffer, hope and dream? Why do theorists interpret this experience differently, each emphasizing their own, paying attention to some aspects of it and losing sight of others, and accordingly they put forward different hypotheses and build theories that are completely different in content from each other? In our opinion, the key to answering these questions lies through the study of the philosophical foundations of psychological theories, to which we now turn.

Basic definitions

Theory as the highest form of organization of scientific knowledge is understood as a holistic idea, structured in diagrams, about the universal and necessary laws of a certain area of reality - the object of the theory, existing in the form of a system of logically interconnected and deducible propositions.

The basis of the existing theory is a mutually agreed upon network of abstract objects that determines the specifics of this theory, called the fundamental theoretical scheme and the particular schemes associated with it. Based on them and the corresponding mathematical apparatus, the researcher can obtain new characteristics of reality, without always turning directly to empirical research.

The following main elements of the theory structure are identified:

1) Initial foundations - fundamental concepts, principles, laws, equations, axioms, etc.

2) An idealized object is an abstract model of the essential properties and connections of the objects being studied (for example, “absolutely black body”, “ideal gas”, etc.).

3) Logic of theory - totality certain rules and methods of proof aimed at clarifying the structure and changing knowledge.

4) Philosophical attitudes, sociocultural and value factors.

5) A set of laws and statements derived as consequences from the fundamentals of the theory in accordance with specific principles.

For example, in physical theories two main parts can be distinguished: formal calculus (mathematical equations, logical symbols, rules, etc.) and meaningful interpretation (categories, laws, principles). The unity of the substantive and formal aspects of the theory is one of the sources of its improvement and development.

A. Einstein noted that “the theory has two goals:

1. To cover, if possible, all phenomena in their interrelation (completeness).

2. To achieve this by taking as a basis as few logically mutually related logical concepts and arbitrarily established relationships between them (basic laws and axioms). I will call this goal "logical uniqueness"

Types of theories

mathematical and empirical,

deductive and inductive,

fundamental and applied,

formal and substantive,

"open" and "closed"

explaining and describing (phenomenological),

physical, chemical, sociological, psychological, etc.

1. Modern (post-non-classical) science is characterized by the increasing mathematization of its theories (especially natural science) and the increasing level of their abstraction and complexity. The importance of computational mathematics (which has become an independent branch of mathematics) has sharply increased, since the answer to a given problem often needs to be given in numerical form, and mathematical modeling.

Most mathematical theories rely on set theory as their foundation. But in recent years, people are increasingly turning to the relatively recently emerged algebraic theory of categories, considering it as a new foundation for all mathematics.

The theories of experimental (empirical) sciences - physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, history - according to the depth of penetration into the essence of the phenomena being studied can be divided into two large classes: phenomenological and non-phenomenological.

Phenomenological (they are also called descriptive, empirical) describe the experimentally observed properties and quantities of objects and processes, but do not delve deeply into their internal mechanisms (for example, geometric optics, thermodynamics, many pedagogical, psychological and sociological theories, etc.). Such theories solve, first of all, the problem of ordering and primary generalization of the facts related to them. They are formulated in ordinary natural languages using special terminology of the relevant field of knowledge and are predominantly qualitative in nature.

With the development of scientific knowledge, theories of the phenomenological type give way to non-phenomenological ones (they are also called explanatory). Along with observable empirical facts, concepts and quantities, very complex and unobservable, including very abstract concepts, are introduced here.

One of the important criteria by which theories can be classified is the accuracy of predictions. Based on this criterion, two large classes of theories can be distinguished. The first of these includes theories in which the prediction is reliable (for example, many theories classical mechanics, classical physics and chemistry). In theories of the second class, prediction is probabilistic in nature, which is determined by the combined action of a large number of random factors. This kind of stochastic (from the Greek - guess) theories are found in modern physics, biology and social sciences and humanities due to the specificity and complexity of the very object of their research.

A. Einstein distinguished two main types of theories in physics - constructive and fundamental:

Most physical theories are constructive, i.e. their task is to construct a picture of complex phenomena on the basis of some relatively simple assumptions (such as, for example, the kinetic theory of gases).

The basis of fundamental theories is not hypothetical provisions, but empirically found general properties of phenomena, principles from which mathematically formulated criteria that have universal applicability follow (this is the theory of relativity).

V. Heisenberg believed that a scientific theory should be consistent (in the formal logical sense), have simplicity, beauty, compactness, a defined (always limited) scope of its application, integrity and “final completeness.” But the strongest argument in favor of the correctness of the theory is its “multiple experimental confirmation.”

The theories of social sciences and humanities have a specific structure. Thus, in modern sociology, since the work of the great American sociologist Robert Merton (i.e., since the beginning of the 20th century), it has been customary to distinguish three levels of substantive study of social phenomena and, accordingly, three types of theories.

general sociological theory ("general sociology"),

private ("middle rank") sociological theories - special theories (sociology of gender, age, ethnicity, family, city, education, etc.)

sectoral theories (sociology of labor, politics, culture, organization, management, etc.)

Ontologically, all sociological theories are divided into three main types:

1) theories of social dynamics (or theories of social evolution, development);

2) theories of social action;

3) theories of social interaction.

The theory (regardless of its type) has the main features:

1. Theory is not individual, reliable scientific propositions, but their totality, an integral organic developing system. The unification of knowledge into a theory is carried out primarily by the subject of research itself, by its laws.

2. Not every set of provisions about the subject being studied is a theory. To turn into a theory, knowledge must reach a certain degree of maturity in its development. Namely, when it not only describes a certain set of facts, but also explains them, i.e. when knowledge reveals the causes and patterns of phenomena.

3. For a theory, justification and proof of the provisions included in it are mandatory: if there is no justification, there is no theory.

4. Theoretical knowledge should strive to explain the widest possible range of phenomena, to continuously deepen knowledge about them.

5. The nature of the theory determines the degree of validity of its defining principle, reflecting the fundamental regularity of a given subject.

6. The structure of scientific theories is meaningfully “determined by the systemic organization of idealized (abstract) objects (theoretical constructs). Statements of theoretical language are directly formulated in relation to theoretical constructs and only indirectly, thanks to their relationship to extralinguistic reality, describe this reality.”

7. Theory is not only ready-made, established knowledge, but also the process of obtaining it, therefore it is not a “bare result”, but must be considered together with its emergence and development.

The main functions of the theory include the following:

1. Synthetic function - combining individual reliable knowledge into a single, holistic system.

2. Explanatory function - identifying causal and other dependencies, the variety of connections of a given phenomenon, its essential characteristics, the laws of its origin and development, etc.

3. Methodological function - on the basis of theory, various methods, methods and techniques of research activity are formulated.

4. Predictive - the function of foresight. Based on theoretical ideas about the “present” state of known phenomena, conclusions are drawn about the existence of previously unknown facts, objects or their properties, connections between phenomena, etc. Prediction about the future state of phenomena (as opposed to those that exist but have not yet been identified) is called scientific foresight.

5. Practical function. The ultimate purpose of any theory is to be translated into practice, to be a “guide to action” for changing reality. Therefore, it is quite fair to say that there is nothing more practical than a good theory.

How to choose a good one from many competing theories?

K. Popper introduced the "criterion of relative acceptability." The best theory is the one that:

a) communicates the greatest amount of information, i.e. has deeper content;

b) is logically more strict;

c) has greater explanatory and predictive power;

D) can be more accurately verified by comparing predicted facts with observations.

Law as a key element of theory

In its most general form, a law can be defined as a connection (relationship) between phenomena and processes, which is:

a) objective, since it is inherent primarily in the real world, the sensory-objective activity of people, expresses the real relationships of things;

b) essential, concrete-universal. Being a reflection of what is essential in the movement of the universe, any law is inherent in all processes of a given class, of a certain type (type) without exception, and operates always and wherever the corresponding processes and conditions unfold;

c) necessary, because being closely connected with the essence, the law acts and is implemented with “iron necessity” in appropriate conditions;

d) internal, since it reflects the deepest connections and dependencies of a given subject area in the unity of all its moments and relationships within the framework of some integral system;

e) repeating, stable, since “the law is solid (remaining) in the phenomenon”, “identical in the phenomenon”, their “calm reflection” (Hegel). It is an expression of a certain constancy of a certain process, the regularity of its occurrence, the uniformity of its action under similar conditions.

The mechanism for discovering new laws was described by R. Feynman:

“First of all, they guess about him. Then they calculate the consequences of this guess and find out what this law would entail if it turns out to be true. Then the results of calculations are compared with what is observed in nature, with the results of special experiments or with our experience, and based on the results of such observations it is determined whether this is true or not. If the calculations disagree with the experimental data, then the law is incorrect.”

One-sided (and therefore erroneous) interpretations of the law can be expressed as follows:

1. The concept of law is absolutized, simplified, fetishized. What is overlooked here is the fact (noted by Hegel) that this concept, which is certainly important in itself, is only one of the stages in man’s knowledge of the unity, interdependence and integrity of the world process. Law is only one of the forms of reflection of real reality in knowledge, one of the facets, moments of the scientific picture of the world in connection with others (reason, contradiction, etc.).

2. The objective nature of laws and their material source are ignored. It is not reality that must be consistent with principles and laws, but on the contrary, the latter are true only insofar as they correspond to the objective world.

3. The possibility of people using a system of objective laws as the basis of their activity in its diverse forms, primarily in the sensory-objective one, is denied. However, ignoring the requirements of objective laws still sooner or later makes itself felt, “revenges itself” (for example, pre-crisis and crisis phenomena in society).

4. The law is understood as something eternal, unchanging, absolute, independent in its action from the totality of specific circumstances and fatally predetermining the course of events and processes. Meanwhile, the development of science indicates that “there is not a single law about which we could say with confidence that in the past it was true to the same degree of approximation as now... Every law owes its demotion to the accession of a new law , therefore, there cannot be an interregnum"

5. The qualitative diversity of laws, their irreducibility to each other and their interaction, which gives a unique result in each specific case, are ignored.

6. The fact that objective laws cannot be created or abolished is rejected. They can only be discovered in the process of cognition of the real world and, by changing the conditions of their action, change the mechanism of the latter.

7. Laws become more absolute lower forms motion of matter, attempts are made only by them to explain processes within the framework of higher forms of motion of matter (mechanism, physicalism, reductionism, etc.).

8. The laws of science are interpreted not as a reflection of the laws of the objective world, but as the result of an agreement of the scientific community, which, therefore, has a conventional character.

10. The fact that objective laws in reality, modified by numerous circumstances, are always implemented in a special form through a system of intermediate links is ignored. Finding the latter is the only scientific way to resolve the contradiction between the general law and more developed specific relationships. Otherwise, the “empirical existence” of the law in its specific form is passed off as the law as such in its “pure form.”

The problem of materialization of theory

In order for a theory to materialize and become objectified, certain conditions are necessary:

1. The theory, even the most general and abstract, should not be vague; here one cannot limit oneself to “probing at random.”

2. The theory must give the ideal form of the future object (process), the image of the future that will be achieved in the course of the practical implementation of the theory, outline the general contours of this future, outline and justify the main directions and forms of movement towards it, the ways and means of its objectification.

3. The most practical theory is in its most mature and developed state. Therefore, it is always necessary to keep it at the highest scientific level, to constantly, deeply and comprehensively develop it, generalizing the latest processes and phenomena of life and practice.

4. Theory (even the deepest and most meaningful) by itself does not change anything and cannot change anything. It becomes a material force only when it is “introduced” into people’s consciousness.

5. The practical implementation of knowledge requires not only those who will translate theory into practice, but also the necessary means of implementation - both objective and subjective. These are, in particular, forms of organization of social forces, certain social institutions, necessary technical means, etc.

6. The materialization of theory in practice should not be a one-time act (with its eventual extinction), but a process during which, instead of already implemented theoretical positions, new, more meaningful and developed ones appear, which pose more complex tasks for practice.

7. Without transforming an idea into a personal conviction, a person’s faith, the practical implementation of theoretical ideas is impossible, especially those that carry the need for progressive social transformations.

8. For theory to become not only a way of explanation, but also a method of changing the world, it is necessary to find effective ways to transform scientific knowledge into a program of practical action. And this requires appropriate technologization of knowledge.

Hence the number of new technologies in all areas of activity, including traditionally humanitarian ones (social technologies, IT, etc.)

It is at the stage of technologization that the transition from a scientific description to a normative system that has a targeted, practical purpose occurs. The absence (or their insufficient development) of specifically applied theories and technologies is one of the main reasons for the separation of theory from practice.

Parameter name	Meaning
Article topic:	Scientific theory
Rubric (thematic category)	Philosophy

The basic unit of scientific knowledge is theory.

Scientific theory is a holistic, logically systematized knowledge about any specific area of reality. Science includes descriptions of facts and experimental results, hypotheses and laws, classification schemes, etc., but only theory combines all the material of science into a holistic and observable knowledge about the world.

It is clear that in order to build a theory, certain material must first be accumulated about the objects and phenomena being studied; in this regard, theories appear at a fairly mature stage of development of a scientific discipline. For thousands of years, humanity has been familiar with electrical phenomena, however, the first scientific theories of electricity appeared only in the middle of the 16th century. At first, as a rule, they create descriptive theories that provide only a systematic description and classification of the objects under study. For a long time, the theories of biology, for example, including the theories of evolution of Lamarck and Darwin, were descriptive in nature: they described and classified species of plants and animals and their formation; Mendeleev's table of chemical elements was a systematic description and classification of elements; so are many theories of astronomy, sociology, linguistics and other scientific disciplines. The prevalence of descriptive theories is quite natural: when starting to study a certain area of phenomena, we must first describe these phenomena, highlight their characteristics, and classify them into groups. Only after this does deeper research become possible, related to the identification of causal relationships and the discovery of laws.

The highest form of development of science is an explanatory theory, which provides not only a description, but also an explanation of the phenomena being studied, answering not only the question “how?”, but also “why?”. Every scientific discipline strives to build precisely such theories. Sometimes the presence of such theories is seen as an essential sign of the maturity of science: a certain discipline can be considered truly scientific only from the time when explanatory theories appear in it.

Explanatory theory has hypothetico-deductive structure. The basis of the theory is a set of initial concepts (quantities) and fundamental principles (postulates, laws), including only initial concepts. It is this basis that fixes the angle from which reality is viewed and sets the area that theory studies. The initial concepts and principles express the main, most fundamental connections and relationships of the area being studied, which determine all its other phenomena. Thus, the basis of classical mechanics are the concepts of a material point, force, velocity and Newton’s three laws; Maxwell's electrodynamics is based on his well-known equations, which connect the basic quantities of this theory with certain relationships; special relativity is based on Einstein's equations, etc.

Since the time of Euclid, the deductive-axiomatic construction of knowledge has been considered exemplary. Explanatory theories follow this pattern. Moreover, if Euclid and many scientists after him believed that the initial provisions of a theoretical system are self-evident truths, then modern scientists understand that such truths are difficult to achieve and the postulates of their theories are nothing more than assumptions about the underlying causes of phenomena. The history of science has provided quite a lot of evidence of our misconceptions; in this regard, the fundamental principles of explanatory theory are considered as hypotheses, the truth of which still needs to be proven. Less fundamental laws of the studied field of phenomena are deductively derived from the principles of the theory. For this reason, the explanatory theory is usually called “hypothetic-deductive”: it provides a deductive systematization of knowledge based on hypotheses.

The initial concepts and principles of the theory do not directly relate to real things and phenomena, but to some abstract objects that together form idealized object theories. In classical mechanics, such an object is a system of material points; in molecular-kinetic theory - a set of chaotically colliding molecules closed in a certain volume, represented in the form of absolutely elastic material balls; in the theory of relativity - a set of inertial systems, etc. These objects do not exist by themselves in reality, they are mental, imaginary objects. At the same time, the idealized object of the theory has a certain relationship to real things and phenomena: it reflects some properties of real things abstracted from them or idealized. For example, we know from everyday experience that if a body is pushed, it will begin to move. The less friction, the longer the distance it will travel after the push. We can imagine that there is no friction at all, and we will get an image of an object moving without friction - by inertia. In reality, such objects do not exist, because friction or resistance environment it is impossible to completely eliminate it; it is an idealized object. In the same way, objects such as an absolutely solid or absolutely black body, a perfect mirror, an ideal gas, etc. are introduced into science. By replacing real things with idealized objects, scientists are distracted from secondary, insignificant properties and connections of the real world and highlight in their pure form what seems to them the most important. The idealized object of the theory is much simpler than real objects, but it is precisely this simplicity that allows it to be given an accurate and even mathematical description. When an astronomer considers the movement of planets around the Sun, he is distracted from the fact that planets are entire worlds with a rich chemical composition, atmosphere, core, surface temperature, etc., and considers them as simple material points, characterized only by mass and distance from the Sun, but it is precisely thanks to this simplification that he is able to describe their movement in strict mathematical equations.

The idealized object of the theory serves to theoretical interpretation its original concepts and principles. The concepts and statements of the theory have only the meaning that an idealized object gives them, and they speak only about the properties of this object. It is precisely because of this that they cannot be directly correlated with real things and processes.

The initial basis of the theory also includes a certain logic– a set of inference rules and mathematical apparatus. Of course, in most cases, ordinary classical two-valued logic is used as the logic of the theory, but in some theories, for example, in quantum mechanics, sometimes three-valued or probabilistic logic is used. The theories also differ in the mathematical tools they use.

So, the basis of a hypothetico-deductive theory includes a set of initial concepts and principles; an idealized object serving for their theoretical interpretation, and a logical-mathematical apparatus. From this foundation, all other statements of the theory - laws of a lesser degree of generality - are derived deductively. It is clear that these statements also speak of an idealized object.

But how should theory be correlated with reality if all its statements speak about idealized, abstract objects? To do this, a non-set is added to the hypothetico-deductive theory reduction proposals(rules) connecting its individual concepts and statements with empirically verifiable statements. Let's say, for example, that you have made a ballistic calculation of the flight of a projectile weighing 10 kᴦ., fired from a gun whose barrel has an angle of inclination to the horizontal plane of 30 degrees. Your calculation is purely theoretical and deals with idealized objects. In order to make it a description of a real situation, you add to it a series of reduction clauses which identify your ideal projectile with a real projectile, the weight of which will never be exactly equal to 10 kᴦ.; the angle of inclination of the gun to the horizon is also accepted with a certain permissible error; the point of impact of the projectile will turn into an area with certain dimensions. After this, your payment will receive empirical interpretation and it can be correlated with real things and events. The situation is exactly the same with the theory as a whole: reduction sentences give the theory an empirical interpretation and allow it to be used for prediction, experimentation and practical activity.

Scientific theory - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Scientific Theory" 2017, 2018.

Any theory is an integral developing system of true knowledge (including elements of error), which has a complex structure and performs a number of functions. In modern scientific methodology, the following main elements of the theory structure are distinguished: 1) Initial grounds- fundamental concepts, principles, laws, equations, axioms, etc. 2) Idealized object- an abstract model of the essential properties and connections of the objects being studied (for example, “absolutely black body”, “ideal gas”, etc.). 3) Logic theory- a set of certain rules and methods of proof aimed at clarifying the structure and changing knowledge. 4) Philosophical attitudes, sociocultural and value factors. 5) Set of laws and statements, derived as consequences from the principles of this theory in accordance with specific principles.

An idealized object (“ideal type”) plays a methodologically important role in the formation of a theory, the construction of which is a necessary stage in the creation of any theory, carried out in forms specific to different fields of knowledge. This object acts not only as a mental model of a certain fragment of reality, but also contains a specific research program that is implemented in the construction of a theory.

Speaking about the goals and ways of theoretical research in general, A. Einstein noted that “theory pursues two goals: 1. To cover, as far as possible, all phenomena in their interrelation (completeness). 2. To achieve this, taking as a basis as few logically mutually related logical concepts and arbitrarily established relationships between them (basic laws and axioms). I will call this goal “logical uniqueness.”

1 Einstein A. Physics and reality. - M., 1965. P. 264.

The variety of forms of idealization and, accordingly, types of idealized objects corresponds to the variety of types (types) of theories that can be classified on different grounds (criteria). Depending on this, theories can be distinguished: descriptive, mathematical, deductive and inductive, fundamental and applied, formal and substantive, “open” and “closed”, explanatory and describing (phenomenological), physical, chemical, sociological, psychological, etc. d.

Modern (post-non-classical) science is characterized by the increasing mathematization of its theories (especially natural science) and the increasing level of their abstraction and complexity. This feature of modern natural science has led to the fact that work with its new theories due to high level the abstractness of the concepts introduced into them turned into a new and unique type of activity. In this regard, some scientists speak, in particular, about the threat of transformation theoretical physics into mathematical theory.

IN modern science The importance of computational mathematics (which has become an independent branch of mathematics) has sharply increased, since the answer to a given problem often needs to be given in numerical form. Currently, mathematical modeling is becoming the most important tool of scientific and technological progress. Its essence is the replacement of the original object with the corresponding mathematical model and further studying it, experimenting with it on a computer and using computational algorithms.

The general structure of the theory is specifically expressed in different types(types of) theories. Thus, mathematical theories are characterized by a high degree of abstraction. They rely on set theory as their foundation. Deduction is of decisive importance in all constructions of mathematics. The dominant role in the construction of mathematical theories is played by axiomatic and hypothetico-deductive methods, as well as formalization.

Many mathematical theories arise through the combination, the synthesis, of several basic, or generative, structures. The needs of science (including mathematics itself) have recently led to the emergence of a number of new mathematical disciplines: graph theory, game theory, information theory, discrete mathematics, optimal control theory, etc. In recent years, people have increasingly turned to the relatively recently emerged algebraic category theory, considering it as a new foundation for all mathematics.

Phenomenological (they are also called descriptive, empirical) describe the experimentally observed properties and quantities of objects and processes, but do not delve deeply into their internal mechanisms (for example, geometric optics, thermodynamics, many pedagogical, psychological and sociological theories, etc.). Such theories do not analyze the nature of the phenomena under study and therefore do not use any complex abstract objects, although, of course, to a certain extent they schematize and construct some idealizations of the studied area of phenomena.

Phenomenological theories solve, first of all, the problem of ordering and primary generalization of the facts related to them. They are formulated in ordinary natural languages using special terminology of the relevant field of knowledge and are predominantly qualitative in nature. Researchers encounter phenomenological theories, as a rule, at the first stages of the development of any science, when the accumulation, systematization and generalization of factual empirical material occurs. Such theories are a completely natural phenomenon in the process of scientific knowledge.

With the development of scientific knowledge, theories of the phenomenological type give way to non-phenomenological ones (they are also called explanatory). They not only display the connections between phenomena and their properties, but also reveal the deep internal mechanism of the phenomena and processes being studied, their necessary interrelations, essential relationships, i.e. their laws (such as, for example, physical optics and a number of other theories). Along with observable empirical facts, concepts and quantities, very complex and unobservable, including very abstract concepts, are introduced here. There is no doubt that phenomenological theories, due to their simplicity, are more easily amenable to logical analysis, formalization and mathematical processing than non-phenomenological ones. It is no coincidence that in physics such sections as classical mechanics, geometric optics and thermodynamics were among the first to be axiomatized.

One of the important criteria by which theories can be classified is the accuracy of predictions. Based on this criterion, two large classes of theories can be distinguished. The first of these includes theories in which the prediction is reliable (for example, many theories of classical mechanics, classical physics and chemistry). In theories of the second class, prediction is probabilistic in nature, which is determined by the combined action of a large number of random factors. This kind of stochastic (from the Greek - guess) theories are found not only in modern physics, but also in large numbers in biology and the social and human sciences due to the specificity and complexity of the very object of their research. The most important method the construction and development of theories (especially non-phenomenological ones) is a method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete.

Thus, a theory (regardless of its type) has the following main features:

3. For a theory, justification and proof of the provisions included in it are mandatory: if there is no justification, there is no theory.

4. Theoretical knowledge should strive to explain the widest possible range of phenomena, to continuously deepen knowledge about them.

5. The nature of the theory determines the degree of validity of its defining principle, reflecting the fundamental regularity of a given subject.

1 Stepin V. S. Theoretical knowledge. - M., 2000. P. 707.

The main functions of the theory include the following:

1. Synthetic function- combining individual reliable knowledge into a single, holistic system.

2. Explanatory function- identification of causal and other dependencies, the variety of connections of a given phenomenon, its essential characteristics, the laws of its origin and development, etc.

3. Methodological function- on the basis of theory, various methods, methods and techniques of research activity are formulated.

4. Predictive- function of foresight. Based on theoretical ideas about the “present” state of known phenomena, conclusions are drawn about the existence of previously unknown facts, objects or their properties, connections between phenomena, etc. Prediction about the future state of phenomena (as opposed to those that exist but have not yet been identified) is called scientific foresight.

5. Practical function. The ultimate purpose of any theory is to be translated into practice, to be a “guide to action” for changing reality. Therefore, it is quite fair to say that there is nothing more practical than a good theory. But how do you choose a good one from many competing theories?

Variability of interpretations of facts

An important issue that requires special attention is the problem of multiple interpretations of facts. This is understandable from the point of view of the incompleteness of scientific knowledge. Interpretation acts as one of the key points of scientific knowledge, since it represents the relationship between a certain amount of scientific knowledge and areas of objective reality.

There are two most important types of interpretation in science: semantic and empirical. Empirical interpretation means attributing (identifying, identifying) certain empirical meanings to the terms of a theory, while semantic interpretation means attributing not necessarily empirical meanings to terms.

A distinction is made between a scientific theory and its interpretation, in particular, an empirical one. This distinction is necessary because the same theory can have several empirical interpretations, for which it receives experimental confirmation.

At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that what is tested, confirmed or refuted by experience is always not the theory itself, but a certain system: the theory and its specific empirical interpretation. This means the fact that the theory has a relatively independent and independent existence in relation to the world of experience, is not completely reducible to the latter, has its own design rules and logic of functional development.

Topic 7. Theory and hypothesis as the highest forms of scientific thinking.(4 hours)

1. Theory as a logical form: complexity and consistency. Structural elements theories and their relationships. Object and subject of theory. Types and types of scientific theories.

2. Verification, justification and truth of theories. Variety of functions of the theory. The main functions of the theory: description, explanation and prediction (forecasting).

3. The logical structure of the explanation and the conditions for its adequacy. Variety of types of scientific explanations. Deductive-nomological explanation. Probabilistic explanation. Explanation as a demonstration of possibility - necessity. The relationship between understanding and explanation. Understanding as interpretation. Logical structure of prediction. The role of prediction in the development of scientific knowledge.

4. The problem of consistency and completeness of scientific theories. The logical nature of paradoxes and their role in the development of theories.

5. Hypothesis as a form of thought. Types of hypotheses. Induction, deduction and analogy as methods for constructing hypotheses. Heuristic role of hypotheses.

Logic studies not only forms of thinking (logical forms), but also forms and patterns of development of scientific knowledge. The forms of development of scientific knowledge are (1) facts of science, (2) a scientific problem arising from the need to explain scientific facts, (3) a hypothesis containing the initial solution to a scientific problem, (4) confirmation or refutation of a hypothesis in the course of proof, and finally, (5) a theory containing principles and laws. There is a deep internal connection between all these forms. Each subsequent form includes the most important results previous one.

Theory is considered the basic unit of scientific knowledge. The term “theory” comes from the Greek Jewria, more precisely Jewrew (theoría, more precisely from theoréo - I consider, I examine). In a broad sense, theory is a complex of views, ideas, ideas aimed at interpreting and explaining any fragment of the world. In a narrower (i.e. in such a sphere of culture as science) and special sense, theory- highest, most developed form organization of scientific knowledge, containing a finite set of interrelated concepts and statements, and giving a holistic view and explanation of the natural relationships of a certain area of reality; the latter forms the subject of this theory.

Taken as a specific form of scientific knowledge and in comparison with its other forms (hypothesis, law, etc.), theory acts as the most complex and developed form. As such, theory should be distinguished from other forms of scientific knowledge - laws of science, classifications, typologies, primary explanatory schemes, etc. These forms can genetically precede the theory itself, forming the basis for its formation and development; on the other hand, they often coexist with theory, interacting with it in the course of the forward movement of scientific knowledge, and can even be included in the theory as its elements (theoretical laws, typologies based on theory, etc.).

Along with concepts and judgments, theory is one of the logical forms of mental reproduction of reality in thinking. At the same time, unlike the former, scientific theory is not an elementary form of thought. From the point of view of logic, a theory is a certain organized system of statements that meets a number of logical requirements.

These requirements are as follows:

1) theoretical statements must record the essential connections (laws), properties and relationships of the reflected (displayed) area of reality;

2) each proposal of the theory must affirm or deny something regarding the fragment of the world under consideration, that is, it must have a logical form of statement;

3) propositions included in the theory must be elements of logical inference (as a rule, deductive [reduction should also be considered as a type of deductive inference]);

4) statements of the theory can take a truth value from a fixed set of such values from 1 to k (for example, in two-valued logic k = 2, i.e. 1 is true, 0 is false).

Systematicity of the theory lies in the fact that the logical connections between the statements of the theory are located in a certain order, which is determined by the nature of the logical conclusion through which these statements were obtained. The logical conclusion itself is subject to certain rules (= logical laws and rules, for example, Locke's rule or modus ponens). Thus, each statement of the theory at least once acts as a premise or conclusion within the framework of some type of deductive reasoning. The exception is the initial sentences of the theory (axioms, initial definitions, postulates), which, being elements of a theoretical system, act only as premises, and some sets of descriptive sentences, which always act as conclusions (“final consequences”). In this case, the statements of the theory must necessarily contain basic and/or derivative terms of the own language of science, which ensures their correlation with the objects and objective subject area of this science.

Complexity or theories is determined by the product of the number of elements included in it (postulates and axioms, empirical statements, facts, laws, etc.), which forms the quantitative aspect of the complexity of scientific theories, and the variety of their qualitative characteristics (empirical and theoretical statements, initial statements and consequences, and etc.).

In its structure, a theory is an internally differentiated, simultaneously holistic system of knowledge, which is characterized by the logical dependence of some elements on others, the deducibility of the content of a given theory from a certain set of initial statements and concepts (the basis of the theory) according to certain logical and methodological principles and rules.

First of all, it should be pointed out that a theory, with a number of exceptions (for example, some mathematical theories), is based on a certain set of facts established using empirical methods. Such a set of statements, which are facts, is called empirical basis theories. Strictly speaking, the empirical basis is not included in the structure of the theory.

IN structure theories include concepts and statements that are interconnected in a certain way (the logic of the theory).

I. Theory concepts are divided into two main types:

1) concepts reflecting the main classes of objects considered in the theory (absolute and relative space, absolute and relative time, etc. in mechanics);

2) concepts in which the main characteristics of the phenomena being studied are highlighted and generalized (for example, mass, momentum, speed, etc.).

Operating with these concepts, a scientist can construct an object of study, which will be expressed in a derived concept. Thus, in quantum theory, a certain quantum object can be represented in the case of a collection of n particles in the form of a y-wave in N-dimensional space, the properties of which are associated with the quantum of action.

II. Based on the concepts, theories are formulated theoretical statements, among which four types should be distinguished:

1) statements containing initial provisions, which are called postulates, axioms or principles of a given theory (for example, the axioms of Euclid’s geometry, the principle of constancy of the speed of light of the theory of relativity, etc.)

2) statements containing formulations of the laws of this theory (laws of physics [Newton’s second law], biology [law of the unity of phylogeny and ontogenesis], logic [law of sufficient reasons], etc.);

3) a set of statements derived in the theory with their evidence, constituting the main body of theoretical knowledge (for example, consequences of the theory of relativity);

4) statements (also called correspondence sentences), which express connections between empirical and theoretical terms (“ Electricity– movement of a flow of electrically charged particles"); with the help of such proposals, the essential side of the observed phenomena is revealed. From the point of view of the logical classification of definitions (definitions), correspondence sentences represent real definitions (attributive, genetic, operational), the main function of which is to explain these phenomena.

Considering the relationship between theory and its empirical basis, one should distinguish between the modality of theoretical and empirical statements. The former are distinguished by their necessary character, while the latter are distinguished by their actual character.

III. Logic theory– a set of rules of logical inference and proof acceptable within the framework of the theory. The logic of a theory determines the mechanism of its construction, the internal development of theoretical content, and embodies a certain research program. As a consequence, the integrity of the theory is generated as unified system knowledge.

Mature science is distinguished by a variety of types and types of theories.

First of all, it is necessary to distinguish between two types of theories, distinguished based on the relationship between form and content:

1) formal theories are characterized by the absence of any interpretations of the terms included in the formulation of the axioms (the formal theory of Euclidean geometry, built by Hilbert); as a consequence, these axioms themselves are not meaningfully interpreted; such theories are a consequence of extreme generalizations;

The types of theories are as follows.

First, theories distinguish by subject, i.e., according to the nature of the fragment of the world or aspect of reality they reflect (= the nature of the objects under consideration). In this aspect, the fundamental dichotomy of the world specifies two types of theories:

1) theories that reflect fragments and/or aspects of real reality - material existence (such theories constitute the basic knowledge of specific sciences), for example, Newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, social and humanitarian theories, etc.;

2) theories that reflect fragments and/or aspects of ideal existence (in some cases we are talking about unobservable phenomena, such theories are typical for abstract sciences), for example, theory natural numbers in mathematics or the theory of natural inference in logic, etc.

Secondly, theories are divided into types by the way they are built:

1) axiomatic theories have the clearest and most formalized structure - the system-forming part (core) of these theories is a set of axioms (statements that are postulated as true) and a number of initial concepts that are necessary for a clear and precise formulation of the axioms; as a rule, axioms are justified outside the theory itself, for example, in practical activity (Euclidean geometry); another important part of axiomatic theories is a set of derivatives (derived) from the axioms of statements of a given theory;

2) hypothetico-deductive theories do not provide a clear division of statements into initial and derivative ones; as a rule, they highlight some initial provisions, but these provisions are substantiated within the theory itself.

Third, according to the degree of correlation with reality There are theories:

1) fundamental, in which the core of the development of the entire theoretical system is an idealized object (material point in mechanics, absolutely elastic material points in molecular kinetic theory, etc.); as a consequence, the laws formulated within the framework of such theories do not relate to empirically given reality, but to reality as it is given by an idealized object, and are theoretical laws that, unlike empirical laws, are formulated not directly on the basis of the study of experimental data, but through certain mental actions with an idealized object;

2) applied, in which the fundamental provisions contained in fundamental theories must be appropriately specified (applied) when applied to the study of real reality, as well as its transformations (compare: ideal gas or computer and real gas or computer).

Fourthly, by function theories are divided into:

1) descriptive (phenomenological or empirical), solving mainly the problems of describing and organizing extensive empirical material, while the construction of an idealized object actually comes down to isolating the original system of concepts (Copernican theory);

2) explanatory ones, in which the problem of isolating the essence of the considered area of reality is solved (Newtonian mechanics in relation to the Copernican theory).

Testing, justification and truth of theories. Variety of functions of the theory. The main functions of the theory: description, explanation and prediction (forecasting)

The most important logical characteristics of a theory are the validity and truth of the theory. A theory acts as real knowledge only when it receives an empirical interpretation . Empirical interpretation contributes to the experimental testing of a theory and the identification of its explanatory and predictive capabilities.

Testing the theory– a complex and multi-stage process. Testing a theory is not limited to its confirmation by individual empirical facts. At the same time, the contradiction between the theory and individual facts is not its refutation; but at the same time, such a contradiction serves as a powerful incentive to improve the theory up to the revision and clarification of its initial principles.

The truth of the theory– this is the correspondence of its constituent statements to the displayed area of the world. The final criterion for the truth of a theory, as in the case of individual judgments, is the practical activity of people, including such a form as experiment. However, we cannot talk about the absoluteness of this criterion. That is, the relativity of practice as a criterion of truth is determined by three factors: (1) the practice itself is limited; (2) practice can confirm individual false statements of a theory, or, conversely, confirm individual consequences of false theories (for example, this was the case with the “theories” of phlogiston and caloric); (3) practice provides only confirmation of the theory, but does not prove the truth of the statements of the theory. Thus, here we are talking about practical reliability [ à ] judgments of theory, about probability [ P] their truth.

The source of logical necessity [ L] the truth of a theory is its consistency, which is expressed in logical consistency and mutual consistency (coherence) of the concepts and statements of a given theory.

However, even if a theory has all the above characteristics, this does not mean that it is accurate. The history of science is a constant replacement of some theories by others. This means that not a single theory known from the history of science, even despite the statements of its creators, represents a complete logical system.

To the number main functions theories include the following:

1) descriptive - recording a set of data about the essential properties and relationships of objects, processes of reality;

2) synthetic – combining diverse elements of reliable scientific knowledge into a single and holistic system;

3) explanatory - identifying causal and other dependencies, the variety of connections of a given fragment of reality, its essential properties and relationships, the laws of its origin and development, etc.;

4) methodological – identification of various methods and techniques of research activity;

5) predictive - an indication of new properties and relationships of the object under study, new levels of organization of the world and new types and classes of objects (for reference: a prediction about the future state of objects, in contrast to those that exist but have not yet been identified, is called scientific foresight) ;

6) practical - establishing the possibility and determining ways of applying the acquired knowledge in various spheres of social life (Austrian physicist L. Boltzmann: “There is nothing more practical than a good theory”).

CPU automated control systems and industrial safety. Scientific theory

Latest

You need to know this