Levels of scientific research: empirical and theoretical. Methods and forms of empirical knowledge

Levels scientific research: empirical and theoretical. Methods and forms empirical knowledge. Theoretical level of knowledge.

EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL are two types of scientific knowledge, the distinction of which is based primarily on the identification of empirical and theoretical research as two main directions, “vectors” of scientific cognitive activity. Empirical research is aimed directly at real object, as given in observation and experiment. Theoretical research is specific in that the leading activity in it is to improve and develop the conceptual apparatus of science, work with various kinds of conceptual systems and models. Both of these types of research are organically interconnected and presuppose each other in the holistic structure of scientific knowledge. Empirical research, revealing new observational and experimental data, stimulates the development of theoretical research and poses new tasks for them. On the other hand, theoretical research, improving and developing the conceptual apparatus of science, opens up new prospects for explaining and predicting facts, orients and directs empirical research.

The difference between the empirical and theoretical stages of cognition is also manifested in the different ratio of sensory and rational correlates of cognitive activity.

Experiment, being the main method of empirical knowledge in many sciences, is always theoretically loaded, and any most abstract theory must always have an empirical interpretation. But with all the uncertainty of the boundaries between empirical and theoretical knowledge, the introduction of these categories certainly marked progress in the development of scientific methodology, since it contributed to the concretization of our ideas about the structure of cognitive activity in science. In particular, the use of these categories made it possible to clarify the structure of scientific knowledge as a whole, contributed to the formation of a more constructive approach to solving the problem of empirical substantiation of scientific knowledge, led to a more complete identification of the specifics of theoretical thinking in scientific research, and made it possible to clarify the logical structure of science’s implementation of basic cognitive functions, and also contributed to the solution of many fundamental problems of logic and methodology of scientific knowledge.

The distinction between these two types of scientific research and the types of knowledge that arise in connection with them is revealed both in genetic terms, in the aspect of the evolution of science, since the so-called. The empirical stage in the history of science precedes the emergence of the theoretical stage, and in the structure of developed science, where it is associated with the interaction of the theoretical apparatus of science and its empirical basis. At the empirical stage of science (its classic example- experimental natural science of the 17th-18th centuries, and partly the 19th century) the decisive means of the formation and development of scientific knowledge are empirical research and subsequent logical processing of its results, generating empirical laws, generalizations, classifications, etc. However, already in these early phases of the history of science, a certain conceptual activity is always carried out, aimed at improving and developing the original system of scientific abstractions that serve as the basis for ordering, classifying and typologizing empirical material. Further development of the conceptual apparatus of science, associated with the formation of theories, and then the construction of multi-layered theoretical systems, leads to a certain separation of the theoretical apparatus of science from its empirical basis and creates the need for special work on the empirical interpretation of theory and theoretical interpretation of empirical data. Such an interpretation, in turn, is necessary for the empirical substantiation of theories, which acts as a complex and multi-act process (see. Verifiability, Justification of theory, Falsification) and which cannot be adequately represented in primitive diagrams verificationism or falsificationism. Like any typology, the distinction between empirical and theoretical knowledge is a certain schematization and idealization, so attempts to carry it out on specific scientific material are associated with certain difficulties, primarily in connection with the so-called. theoretical loading of the empirically given. As a methodological guideline, however, it is of cardinal importance for the analysis of science.

To the number common methods Natural scientific knowledge includes methods of empirical knowledge - observation and experiment, the method of induction, the method of hypotheses and the axiomatic method. Particular and special are: probabilistic methods; methods used in generalizing and understanding empirical results - the only similarities and differences, accompanying changes; methods of analogy, thought and mathematical experiments. Observation as a way of understanding the world has been used by mankind since ancient times. Since the 17th century. The experimental method occupies a more important place. An experiment differs from passive observation in its active nature. The experimenter not only observes what happens during the phenomenon being studied, but creates conditions under which the patterns of processes appear more clearly. The development of experimental research methodology, begun by F. Bacon, was further developed in the works of J. St. Mill and a group of methodologists ser. 19th century In the works of this period (17th - mid-19th centuries), the experimental method appears in close unity with the induction method. In the works of F. Bacon and J. St. Mill develops a system of rules for inductive generalization of experimental results, which are also methods for organizing experimental research. These rules represent particular methods of natural scientific knowledge—methods of single similarity and development of accompanying changes and “residues.”

The changes that took place in science in the 2nd half of the 19th century, which consisted in the fact that the study of phenomena of the micro-world, quite distant from the familiar and customary phenomena of the macro-world, began, led to an awareness of the fundamental importance of the method of hypotheses. The methodological understanding of hypotheses and their role in scientific knowledge, which began in the last third of the 19th century, received very strong development in the beginning. 20th century in connection with the emergence of electronic theory and physics of atomic and subatomic phenomena. Fundamental works by A. Pu-ankare “Science and Hypothesis” and P. Duhem “ Physical theory, its purpose and structure” mark the transition from the empiric-inductivist concept to the hypothetic-deductive model of science. Since that time, the experimental method has been developing in close interaction with the method of hypotheses; the main task of experimental research is the verification (confirmation or refutation) of a particular hypothesis. Characteristic feature this period is extremely widespread statistical methods processing of experimental data.

Methods of analogy, thought and mathematical experiment are of a more special (private) nature. The method of analogies is a method of formulating hypotheses based on the transfer of patterns from already studied phenomena to those that have not yet been studied. The very idea of ​​using analogy was discussed by Aristotle, but this method became widespread only in the science of the New Age. One of its most striking applications is the use by J. C. Maxwell of hydrodynamic analogies in obtaining the equations electromagnetic field. The thought experiment method is a specific type of theoretical reasoning. It, like many other methods, arose in ancient times (Zeno’s aporia), but became especially widespread in modern science. Many thought experiments have played an outstanding role in the development of science, for example, Maxwell’s “demon”, Einstein’s “train” and “elevator”, Heisenberg’s “microscope”.

Scientific knowledge there is a process, i.e. a developing system of knowledge that includes two main levels - empirical and theoretical.

At the empirical level, living contemplation (sensory cognition) predominates; the rational element and its forms (judgments, concepts, etc.) are present here, but have a subordinate significance. Therefore, the object under study is reflected mainly from its external relations and manifestations accessible to living contemplation and expressing internal relationships. Collection of facts, their primary generalization, description of observed and experimental data, their systematization, classification - characteristic features empirical knowledge. Empirical, experimental research is aimed directly (without intermediate links) at its object. It masters it with the help of such techniques and means as description, comparison, measurement, observation, experiment, analysis, induction, and its the most important element is a fact.

Empirical knowledge has a complex structure and at least two sublevels can be distinguished: observations And empirical facts .

Observation data contains primary information that we receive directly in the process of observing an object. This information is given in a special form - in the form of direct sensory data of the subject of observation, which are recorded in the form of observation protocols. Observation protocols express the information received by the observer in linguistic form. The protocols indicate who carries out the observation, with what instruments, and the characteristics of the device are given. This is not accidental, since observational data, along with objective information about phenomena, contains a certain layer of subjective information, depending on observation conditions, instruments, etc. Instruments can produce errors, so observational data does not yet constitute reliable knowledge. The basis of the theory is empirical facts. Unlike observation data, this is always reliable, objective information; this is a description of phenomena and connections between them, where subjective layers are removed. Therefore, the transition from observations to facts difficult process. This process involves the following cognitive operations. (1) rational processing of observation data and search for stable content in them. To form a fact, it is necessary to compare observations, highlight repeating ones, eliminate random ones and those with errors. (2) to establish a fact, it is necessary to interpret the invariant content revealed in observations. In the process of such interpretation, previously acquired theoretical knowledge is widely used. The formation of a fact involves knowledge that is verified independently of theory, and facts provide an incentive for the formation of new theoretical knowledge, which in turn, if reliable, can again participate in the formation latest facts, and so on.

Scientific methods empirical research.

Observation- purposeful passive study of objects, relying mainly on data from the senses. Observation can be direct or indirect through various devices and other technical devices. An important point observation is the interpretation of its results - deciphering instrument readings, etc.

Experiment- active and purposeful intervention in the course of the process under study, a corresponding change in the object under study or its reproduction in specially created and controlled conditions. The types (types) of experiments are very diverse. Thus, according to their functions, they distinguish research (search), testing (control), and reproducing experiments. Based on the nature of objects, they are distinguished between physical, chemical, biological, social, etc. There are qualitative and quantitative experiments. Widespread in modern science got a thought experiment.

Comparison- a cognitive operation that reveals the similarity or difference of objects. It makes sense only in the aggregate of homogeneous objects that form a class. Comparison of objects in a class is carried out according to characteristics that are essential for this consideration.

Description- a cognitive operation consisting of recording the results of an experience (observation or experiment) using certain notation systems adopted in science.

Measurement- a set of actions performed using certain means in order to find numerical value measured quantity in accepted units of measurement.

The ultimate goal of research is to explain the totality of facts, to identify the reasons for the facts. A cause is a phenomenon that, under certain conditions, gives rise to another phenomenon called an effect. An effect is a phenomenon generated by a cause. These phenomena are understood as: (1) an event, the existence or non-existence of objects, etc. (the presence of viruses in the body is the cause of the disease), (2) the interaction of objects and changes in these objects, (3) the interaction of opposite sides of the object and the changes occurring in this object as a result of this interaction.

Empirical is a level of knowledge, the content of which is obtained from experience (observation, measurement, experiment). At this level, knowledge fixes the qualities and properties of the object being studied, accessible to sensory contemplation.

Observational and experimental data form the empirical basis of theoretical research. The need for this kind of information is sometimes the reason for the division of sciences into experimental and theoretical, although, of course, in practice it is impossible to achieve a situation where theory is completely eliminated from experimental disciplines, and any mention of experiment is removed from theoretical ones. At the empirical level of scientific knowledge, as a result of direct contact with reality, scientists obtain knowledge about certain events, identify the properties of objects or processes that interest them, record relationships, and establish empirical patterns.

At the empirical level of knowledge, there is a certain set of general ideas about the world (about causality, stability of events, etc.). These ideas are perceived as obvious and are not the subject of special research. Nevertheless, they exist, and sooner or later they change at the empirical level.

Empirical and theoretical levels scientific knowledge are organically interconnected. The theoretical level does not exist on its own, but is based on data empirical level. But the essential thing is that empirical knowledge is inseparable from theoretical concepts; it is necessarily immersed in a certain theoretical context.

Knowledge obtained at the empirical level is characterized by the fact that it is the result of direct contact with living reality in observation or experiment. At this level, we obtain knowledge about certain events, identify the properties of objects or processes that interest us, record relationships, and, finally, establish empirical patterns.

A theoretical level is always built above the empirical level of science.

So, in the structure of scientific knowledge there are two significantly different, but interconnected levels: empirical and theoretical

But to adequately describe the local area of ​​knowledge, these two levels are not enough. It is necessary to highlight the often not fixed, but very significant level of the structure of scientific knowledge - the level of philosophical premises, containing general ideas about reality and the process of cognition, expressed in a system of philosophical concepts.

1. Methods of empirical research.

The empirical level of scientific knowledge is characterized by the direct study of really existing, sensory objects. At this level, the process of accumulating information about the objects and phenomena under study is carried out by conducting observations, performing various measurements, and delivering experiments. Here, the primary systematization of the obtained factual data is also carried out in the form of tables, diagrams, graphs, etc. In addition, already at the second level of scientific knowledge - as a consequence of generalization scientific facts– it is possible to formulate some empirical patterns.

Observation is a purposeful passive study of objects, relying mainly on data from the senses. Through observation, we gain knowledge not only about external sides object of knowledge, but also about its essential properties and relationships.

Observation can be direct or indirect through various instruments and other technical devices. As science develops, it becomes more complex and indirect. Basic requirements for scientific observation: unambiguous design; the possibility of control through either repeated observation or using other methods. An important aspect of observation is the interpretation of its results, deciphering instrument readings.

An experiment is an active and purposeful intervention in the course of the process under study, a corresponding change in the object under study or its reproduction in specially created and controlled conditions determined by the goals of the experiment. During the experiment, the object being studied is isolated from the influence of secondary circumstances that obscure its essence and is presented in its “pure form.”

Main features of the experiment:

* a more active attitude towards the object of research, up to its change and transformation;

* the ability to control the behavior of an object and check the results;

* multiple reproducibility of the studied object at the request of the researcher;

* the ability to detect properties that are not observed in natural conditions.

Comparison is a cognitive operation that reveals the similarity or difference of objects, their identity. Comparison makes sense only in a collection of homogeneous objects that form a class. It is carried out according to characteristics that are essential for this consideration. Moreover, objects that are compared on one basis may be incomparable on another.

Comparison, as a general method of cognition, is the basis of such a logical device as analogy, and serves as the starting point of the comparative-historical method. Its purpose is to identify the general and special in the knowledge of various stages of development of the same phenomenon or different coexisting phenomena.

Description is a cognitive operation consisting of recording the results of an experiment (observation or experiment) using certain notation systems accepted in science. This is one of important stages research that takes into account specific data from the experiment and the study as a whole. Description is close to explanation when moving to the theoretical study of an object in science.

Measurement is a set of actions performed using certain means in order to find the numerical value of the measured quantity in accepted units of measurement.

It should be emphasized that empirical research methods are never implemented “blindly”, but are always “theoretically loaded” and guided by certain conceptual ideas.

You can also find the information you are interested in in the scientific search engine Otvety.Online. Use the search form:

More on the topic Forms and methods of the empirical level of scientific knowledge:

1. 30. Forms of scientific knowledge: problem, hypothesis, theory. Empirical and theoretical levels of scientific knowledge, their relationship.
2. Scientific knowledge, its types, levels and forms. General scientific methods of scientific knowledge.
3. Forms and methods of the theoretical level of scientific knowledge.
4. 53. Empirical and theoretical levels of scientific knowledge, their relationship.
5. CLASSIFICATION OF METHODS OF SCIENTIFIC COGNITION. EMPIRICAL METHODS OF SCIENTIFIC COGNITION.
6. 33. Structure and main characteristics of the cognitive process. Empirical and theoretical levels of scientific knowledge.

Specifics of observation and comparison as methods of empirical research.

Experiment as a method of empirical knowledge.

Epistemological function of instruments in empirical research.

1. The empirical level includes observation, comparison, experiment. The empirical level involves direct interaction with objects, sensory contact. To the acceptance of empiricism, i.e. the decisive role of experience led to the realization of the futility of scholastic methodology.

I want a role in the formation empirical methods played by F. Bacon. His main theses “Knowledge is power”, “Man is the servant and interpreter of nature” obligated scientists to study nature using well-organized experiments, called experiments. The doctrine of methods, set forth in the work “New Organon, or True Guidelines for the Interpretation of Nature,” was leading in the philosophy of F. Bacon. The basis of the teaching was induction, which provided the possibility of generalization and prospects for research. The first requirement of the doctrine of methods was the necessity of decomposing and dividing nature by means of reason. Next, you need to highlight the simplest and easiest. Then comes the discovery of the law that will serve as the basis of knowledge and activity. As a result, you need to summarize all the ideas and conclusions and get a true interpretation of nature. There is an opinion that the history of inductive sciences is the history of discoveries, and the philosophy of inductive sciences is the history of ideas and concepts. Observing uniformity in nature, we arrive, through induction, at the establishment of natural laws.

Observation is a relatively independent aspect of scientific activity, characterized by purposeful perception of the properties and characteristics of an object. The observation results are consistent with data from the senses - vision, hearing, tactile (tactile perception). Sometimes observation of the object under study requires equipment - a microscope, telescope, etc. Observation is aimed at an objective reflection of reality, it is an empirical substantiation of the theory, reflecting and recording knowledge about the properties of the object.

Observation is the purposeful study and recording of data about an object taken in its natural environment; data based mainly on such human sensory abilities as sensations, perceptions and ideas.

The results of observation are experimental data, and possibly, taking into account the primary (automatic) processing of primary information, diagrams, graphs, diagrams, etc. Structural components of observation: the observer himself, the object of study, observation conditions, observation means (installations, instruments, measuring instruments, and specialized terminology in addition to natural language).

At first glance, it may seem that the researcher is passive in the act of observation and is engaged only in contemplation, even if conscientious. But that's not true. The activity of the observer is manifested in the purposefulness and selectivity of observation, in the presence of a certain goal setting: “what to observe?”, “what phenomena should we pay attention to first?”

Of course, a qualified researcher does not ignore phenomena that are not included in his setup as his own goals for this observation: they are also recorded by him and may well turn out to be useful for the knowledge of the things he is studying.

The activity of the researcher in the act of observation is associated with the theoretical conditioning of the content of the observation results. Observation involves not only the sensory, but also the rational ability in the form of theoretical guidelines and scientific standards. As they say, “a scientist looks with his eyes, but sees with his head.”

The activity of observation is also manifested in the selection and design of observation means.

Finally, let us pay attention to the fact that observation is aimed at not introducing disturbances into the natural conditions of existence of the object being studied. But an act associated with the subject limiting himself and controlling his actions is obviously an activity, albeit of a special kind. So, for example, a researcher conducting a sociological survey has to very carefully (actively!) think through a set of questions and the manner of presenting them in order to ensure the adequacy of the collected material in relation to the absence of possible disturbances in the natural course of the social phenomenon being studied.

There are two main types of observation: qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative observation has been known to people and used by them since ancient times - long before the advent of science in its current understanding. The use of quantitative observations coincides with the very formation of science in modern times. Quantitative observations are naturally associated with advances in the development of measurement theory and measuring technology. The transition to measurements and the emergence of quantitative observations also meant preparation for the mathematization of science.

As a result of observation, empirical facts are recorded. A fact is a fragment of reality and knowledge about an object, the reliability of which is beyond doubt. The accumulation of facts is the basis of scientific research activities. In scientific methodology, the generally accepted requirement is to rely on facts, without which theories are empty and speculative. It is the facts that support a particular theory or testify against it. Facts are understood as both real phenomena of reality and statements of scientists about these phenomena and their descriptions. Scattered data without their interpretation are not facts of science. A scientific fact is not a single observation, but an invariant one in the totality of observations. A scientist obtains facts in the process of empirical knowledge and communication with nature. The obtained facts do not complete, but only begin the process of scientific research; they are subject to classification, generalization, systematization, and analysis.

Comparison involves identifying the similarities (identities) and differences of objects, their properties and characteristics, is based on evidence from the senses and serves as the basis for identifying classes and sets with similar properties. Comparison was highly valued in science; it is no coincidence that there are comparative anatomy, comparative linguistics, comparative paleontology, etc. Comparison leads to the conclusion about the original diversity of the world.

2. An experiment is a purposeful, clearly expressed active study and recording of data about an object located in specially created and precisely fixed and controlled conditions by the researcher.

Experiment is artificial creation conditions of scientific research, purposeful experience, built according to the program proposed by the researcher. The basis of the experiment is the device. The purpose of the experiment is to reveal the desired properties of the object. The experiment consists of preparatory, working and recording parts and, as a rule, is not “clean”, since it does not take into account the influence of extraneous factors. Sometimes they talk about the decisive experiment on which the refutation depends existing theory and creating a new one. The interpretation procedure, as well as the rules of correspondence, are important for the experiment. theoretical concepts with their empirical quantities and equivalents.

The structural components of the experiment are: a) a certain space-time area (“laboratory”), the boundaries of which can be both real and mental; b) the system under study, which, in accordance with the experimental preparation protocol, includes, in addition to the object itself, also such components as instruments, catalysts for chemical reactions, energy sources, etc.; c) an experimental protocol, according to which disturbances are produced in the system by sending into it from controlled sources a certain amount of matter and/or energy in certain forms and at a certain speed; d) system reactions recorded using instruments, the types and position of which in relation to the area of ​​the experiment are also recorded in its protocol.

Depending on the cognitive goals, the means used and the actual objects of cognition, we can distinguish: research or search experiment; verification or control experiment; reproducing experiment; isolation experiment; qualitative and quantitative experiment; physical, chemical, biological, social experiment.

The emergence of experiment as an independent method of scientific knowledge in the 17th century. (G. Galileo) also meant the emergence of modern science, although back in the 13th century. R. Bacon expressed the opinion that a scientist should not unconditionally trust any authority and that scientific knowledge should be based on the experimental method. Having established itself in physical science, the experimental method found distribution in chemistry, biology, physiology, and in mid-19th V. and in psychology (W. Wundt). Currently, experiment is increasingly used in sociology.

Experiment has advantages over observation:

1) the phenomena being studied can be reproduced at the request of the researcher;

2) under experimental conditions, it is possible to detect such characteristics of the phenomena being studied that cannot be observed in natural conditions; for example, in exactly this way in the early 1940s. in physics the study of transuranium elements began (with neptunium);

3) varying the conditions makes it possible to significantly isolate the phenomenon under study from all kinds of incidental, complicating circumstances and come closer to studying it in its “pure form” in compliance with the principle “all other things being equal”;

4) the possibility of using instruments and, consequently, automating and computerizing the experiment is sharply expanding.

In the general structure of scientific research, experiment occupies a special place. First, the experiment serves as a link between the empirical and theoretical stages and levels of scientific research. By design, an experiment is mediated by previous theoretical research and its results: it is conceived on the basis of certain theoretical knowledge and aims to collect new data or test (confirm or refute) a certain scientific hypothesis (or theory). The results of an experiment are always interpreted from the point of view of a particular theory. And at the same time, by the nature of the cognitive means used, the experiment belongs to the empirical level of knowledge, and its results are established facts and empirical dependencies.

Secondly, the experiment belongs simultaneously to both cognitive and practical activity: its goal is to increase knowledge, but it is also associated with the transformation of the surrounding reality, even if it is tentative and limited to the area and content of a specific experiment. In the case where we are talking about a large-scale production or social experiment, it turns out to be a full form of practice.

3. Observation and experiment and, perhaps, in general all methods of modern scientific knowledge are associated with the use of instruments. The fact is that our natural cognitive abilities, embodied in both sensory and rational forms, are limited, and therefore completely insufficient in solving many scientific problems. Resolving capacity, constancy of perception (loudness, size, shape, brightness, color), volume of perception, visual acuity, range of perceived stimuli, reactivity and other characteristics of the activity of our senses, as psychophysiological studies show, are quite specific and finite. Likewise, our speech abilities, our memory and our thinking abilities are finite. In this case, we can substantiate this statement using, albeit rough, approximate, but nevertheless empirical data obtained using tests to determine the so-called intelligence quotient (IQ). Thus, to use the words of one of the founders of cybernetics, the English scientist W. R. Ashby, we also need amplifiers of thinking abilities.

This is how we can determine the role of instruments in scientific knowledge. Devices, firstly, enhance - in the very general meaning of this word - the sense organs we have, expanding the range of their action in various respects (sensitivity, reactivity, accuracy, etc.). Secondly, they complement our senses with new modalities, providing the opportunity to perceive phenomena that we do not consciously perceive without them, for example, magnetic fields. Finally, computers, which are a special type of device, allow us, through their use in conjunction with other devices, to significantly enrich and increase the efficiency of these two functions. In addition, they also allow you to introduce a completely new function related to saving time in receiving, selecting, storing and processing information and automating some mental operations.

Thus, at present, one cannot underestimate the role of instruments in cognition, considering them, so to speak, something “auxiliary”. Moreover, this applies to both empirical and theoretical levels of scientific knowledge. And if we clarify what the role of devices is, then we can say this: devices are a materialized method of cognition. In fact, every device is based on a certain principle of operation, and this is nothing more than a method, i.e. a proven and systematized technique (or a set of techniques), which, thanks to the efforts of developers - designers and technologists, was able to be translated into a special device . And when at one or another stage of scientific knowledge certain instruments are used, then this is the use of accumulated practical and cognitive experience. At the same time, devices expand the boundaries of that part of reality that is accessible to our knowledge - they expand in the most general sense of the word, and not just in the sense of a space-time region called a “laboratory”.

But, of course, the role of instruments in cognition cannot be overestimated - in the sense that their use generally eliminates any limitations of cognition or saves the researcher from errors. This is wrong. First of all, since the device serves as a materialized method, and no method can be “flawless,” ideal, error-free, so is every device, even the best one. It always contains an instrumental error, and here it is necessary to take into account not only the errors of the corresponding method embodied in the operating principle of the device, but also the errors of the manufacturing technology. Further, the device is used by the researcher, so the possibility of making all those mistakes that he is only “capable” of, not being armed with the devices, is, in principle, preserved, albeit in a slightly different form.

In addition, when using devices in cognition, specific complications arise. The fact is that instruments inevitably introduce certain “perturbations” into the phenomena being studied. For example, a situation often arises in which the possibility of simultaneously recording and measuring several characteristics of the phenomenon being studied is lost. In this regard, Heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle” in atomic theory is especially indicative: the more accurately the coordinate of a particle is measured, the less accurately the result of measuring its momentum can be predicted. It is possible, say, to accurately determine the momentum of an electron (and therefore its energy level) in some of its orbits, but its location will be completely uncertain. And note, this is not a matter of intelligence, patience or technique. One can imagine that we have managed to build a “supermicroscope” for observing the electron. Will there then be confidence that the coordinates and momentum of the electron are simultaneously measurable? No. In any such “supermicroscope” one or another “light” must be used: in order for us to “see” an electron in such a “supermicroscope”, at least one quantum of “light” must be scattered on the electron. However, the collision of an electron with this quantum would lead to a change in the motion of the electron, causing an unpredictable change in its momentum (the so-called Compton effect).

The same kind of complications occur in phenomena studied by other sciences. For example, a precise image of tissue obtained using an electron microscope simultaneously kills that tissue. A zoologist who conducts experiments with living organisms never deals with an absolutely healthy, normal specimen, because the very act of experimentation and the use of equipment lead to changes in the body and in the behavior of the creature being studied. The same complications apply to the ethnographer who comes to study “primitive thinking” and to observation carried out in sociology through surveys of population groups.

There are two levels of scientific and cognitive activity: empirical and theoretical.

The empirical level consists of knowledge obtained mainly from experience (observations, experiments). It is the most important stimulator for the development of theoretical research and the formulation of scientific problems. Based on experimental data, diagrams, diagrams, and maps are drawn up; preliminary conclusions and hypotheses are formulated; connections are established between the obtained data, etc. For example, based on the classification of empirical information, some patterns can be formulated, especially in the field of natural sciences. In this regard, we can recall the studies of Archimedes, Galileo, Newton, Lomonosov, Darwin, Mendeleev and other outstanding scientists.

Empirical knowledge is formed in the process of interaction with the object of research, when we directly influence it, interact with it, process the results and obtain a conclusion. The empirical level is divided into stages, each of which has its own methods. Firstly, interaction with the object of research, where the leading methods are observation and experiment; secondly, systematization and classification of the obtained empirical data using graphs and tables; thirdly, the stage of empirical generalization is the final stage at which we obtain empirical laws.

But obtaining individual empirical facts and laws does not yet allow us to construct a system of laws. In order to understand the essence, it is necessary to move to the theoretical level of scientific knowledge. This level always begins with a search for the initial principles of theory construction, and the transition to it represents a qualitative leap. The search for principles for constructing a theory is carried out through intellectual intuition, which is important means finding the truth. It is based on a significant accumulation of knowledge in the relevant field of knowledge, since an intuitive solution can only be found if you have a sufficiently large stock of knowledge. Since the mechanism of action of intuition is based on analogies, intuitive associations are established with their help, the universal source and universal form of which are the laws of dialectics. Mastering the system philosophical categories - necessary condition effective result intellectual intuition. One of the sources of activation of intellectual intuition is the process of artistic mastery of the world, therefore mastery of art, knowledge of it is also a factor essential for intellectual intuition.

The theoretical level of research is characterized by more high degree generalization and idealization of thought from sensory reality, reflection of internal connections and patterns of the object. In modern science there is, on the one hand, an increase experimental research, the use of complex and expensive experimental installations and instruments, and on the other hand, the increasing role of theoretical generalizations.

The first stage of scientific research begins with the formulation of the problem. A problem is a conscious contradiction between existing knowledge and the unknown part of the subject, a contradiction towards the solution of which the scientist’s activity is aimed. The problem cannot be interpreted as simply ignorance; lack of knowledge does not constitute a problem. In addition to ignorance, this indispensable element of the problem, the latter necessarily contains an element of knowledge. The element of knowledge in the problem is: firstly, the knowledge that a new side to be known is necessarily present in the subject; secondly, that it should and can be comprehended and known by science. Therefore, if there are no problems in science, it is not science, but something frozen; in the same way, if it does not solve problems, it is also not a science, but a collection of mere assumptions and hypotheses.

The form of development of theoretical knowledge is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a scientifically based assumption that serves to explain a fact or phenomenon that is inexplicable on the basis of previous knowledge. In the process of scientific knowledge, not one, but several hypotheses are put forward, sometimes polar ones. In its development, a hypothesis goes through a number of stages: putting forward a hypothesis; justification of the hypothesis; testing it (theoretical and practical). It should be especially noted that before the testing stage, the hypothesis may change. Firstly, it can be clarified and specified; from descriptive to explanatory, it can narrow or expand the scope of its action. Secondly, having undergone these changes, the hypothesis can be included in new system knowledge, also of a hypothetical nature. A unique hierarchy of hypotheses emerges.

So, scientific research includes two main points: 1) formulation of the problem and 2) formulation of the hypothesis. If the outcome is favorable and the hypothesis is confirmed, the search ends scientific discovery. The discovery forms the third and final stage of scientific research. In the most general sense, a scientific discovery is understood as the acquisition of new objectively true knowledge about the properties, natural connections and relationships of natural and social reality with its contradictions

The second stage of the theoretical level is the construction scientific theory, both substantive and formal. Theory in a broad sense is science, knowledge in general, as opposed to the practical activities of people. In a narrower sense, it is knowledge that has a strictly defined form. Cognizing this or that object, the researcher begins the process of cognition with its external description, fixes its individual properties and aspects. Then, delving into the content of the object, revealing the laws to which it obeys, he proceeds to explain its properties, connecting knowledge about individual aspects of the object into a single, integral system. The deep, versatile, specific knowledge about the subject obtained is a theory that has a certain internal logical structure.

The leading methods here are: the axiomatic method, abstraction, idealization. When the theory is constructed, then there is a comparison of the theory with reality, the construction of an appropriate model that would connect the position of the theory with certain empirical facts. In this case, we often have to use the so-called thought experiment. Based on the constructed intermediate model, an experiment is again conducted, and the more distant conclusions can be verified, the more grounds there are to consider this theory true. When such models are built, it can be argued that the process of cognition is relatively complete. But until the theory can be verified and connected with experimental facts, it remains a hypothesis. An example of this is modern cosmological theories.

The special significance of scientific knowledge lies not only in the fact that reality is displayed, but also in the fact that general trends in its development are discovered and prospects are predicted. Of course, at the theoretical level the predictive function of scientific knowledge is more clearly expressed, but to a certain extent we can talk about foresight at the empirical level of scientific knowledge. For example, the predictions of D. Mendeleev are well known. The point is that, having discovered through experiments and mathematical calculations periodic law chemical elements and arranging the chemical elements known by 1860 in a table in order of increasing atomic weights, Mendeleev predicted some of them. Somewhat later, these elements were practically discovered and named gallium, scandium, and germanium. Scientific foresight testifies to the relative independence of logical thinking.

Division cognitive process into the empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge does not coincide with the division of knowledge in general into the sensory and abstract, since the latter characterizes the dialectic of the process of reflection in general, and the difference between the empirical and theoretical relates to the field of scientific knowledge only.

The empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge, although they differ in subject matter, means and methods of research, in reality are always inextricably linked. Their interaction is carried out on the basis of practice, which permeates all aspects and levels of cognitive activity, combining their various aspects in the results of new knowledge.