Theoretical methods of cognition: examples, characteristics. Empirical method - what does it mean, types and methods of empirical knowledge

The empirical level of scientific knowledge is characterized by two main methods: observation and experiment.

Observation - the original method empirical knowledge. Observation is a purposeful, deliberate, organized study of the object under study, in which the observer does not interfere with this object. It relies mainly on such human sensory abilities as sensation, perception, and representation. During observation, we gain knowledge about the external aspects, properties, signs of the object being studied, which must be recorded in a certain way by means of language (natural and (or) artificial), diagrams, diagrams, numbers, etc. The structural components of observation include: the observer, the object of observation, conditions and means of observation (including instruments, measuring instruments). However, observation can occur without instruments. Observation is important for cognition, but it has its disadvantages. Firstly, the cognitive capabilities of our senses, even enhanced by devices, are still limited. While observing, we cannot change the object being studied or actively interfere with its existence and the conditions of the cognition process. (Let us note in parentheses that the activity of the researcher is sometimes either unnecessary - for fear of distorting the true picture, or simply impossible - due to the inaccessibility of the object, for example, or for moral reasons). Secondly, by observing, we receive ideas only about the phenomenon, only about the properties of the object, but not about its essence.

Scientific observation, in its essence, is contemplation, but active contemplation. Why active? Because the observer does not simply mechanically record facts, but purposefully searches for them, relying on the various existing experiences, assumptions, hypotheses, and theories. Scientific observation is carried out with a certain chain, is aimed at certain objects, involves the selection of certain methods and instruments, is characterized by systematicity, reliability of the results obtained, and control over correctness.

But the second main method of empirical scientific knowledge is distinguished by its actively transformative character. Compared to experiment, observation is a passive method of research. An experiment is an active, purposeful method of studying phenomena under certain conditions of their occurrence, which can be systematically recreated, changed, and controlled by the researcher himself. That is, the peculiarity of the experiment is that the researcher actively systematically intervenes in the conditions of the scientific research, which makes it possible to reproduce the phenomena being studied artificially. An experiment makes it possible to isolate the phenomenon being studied from other phenomena, to study it, so to speak, in its “pure form,” in accordance with a predetermined goal. Under experimental conditions, it is possible to discover properties that cannot be observed in natural conditions. The experiment involves the use of an even larger arsenal of special devices, installation tools, than observation.

Experiments can be classified into:

Ø direct and model experiments, the first are carried out directly on the object, and the second - on the model, i.e. on its “substitute” object, and then extrapolated to the object itself;

Ø field and laboratory experiments, differing from each other in location;

Ø exploratory experiments, not related to any already put forward versions, and testing experiments, aimed at checking, confirming or refuting a specific hypothesis;

Ø measurement experiments designed to reveal precise quantitative relationships between the objects of interest to us, the parties and the properties of each of them.

A special type of experiment is a thought experiment. In it, the conditions for studying phenomena are imaginary, the scientist operates with sensory images, theoretical models, but the scientist’s imagination is subject to the laws of science and logic. A thought experiment relates rather to the theoretical level of knowledge than to the empirical level.

The actual conduct of an experiment is preceded by its planning (choosing a goal, type of experiment, thinking through its possible results, understanding the factors that influence this phenomenon, determining the quantities that should be measured). In addition, it is necessary to select the technical means of conducting and controlling the experiment. Special attention attention should be paid to the quality of measuring instruments. The use of these particular measuring instruments must be justified. After the experiment, its results are analyzed statistically and theoretically.

Methods of the empirical level of scientific knowledge also include comparison and measurement. Comparison is a cognitive operation that reveals the similarity or difference of objects (or stages of their development). Measurement is the process of determining the relationship of one quantitative characteristic of an object to another, homogeneous with it and taken as a unit of measurement.

The result of empirical knowledge (or the form of the empirical level of knowledge) are scientific facts. Empirical knowledge is a set of scientific facts that form the basis of theoretical knowledge. A scientific fact is an objective reality recorded in a certain way - using language, figures, numbers, diagrams, photographs, etc. However, not everything that is obtained as a result of observation and experiment can be called a scientific fact. A scientific fact arises as a result of a certain rational processing of observational and experimental data: their comprehension, interpretation, double-checking, statistical processing, classification, selection, etc. The reliability of a scientific fact is manifested in the fact that it is reproducible and can be obtained through new experiments carried out in different time. A fact retains its authenticity regardless of multiple interpretations. The reliability of facts largely depends on how and by what means they were obtained. Scientific facts (as well as empirical hypotheses and empirical laws that reveal stable repeatability and connections between quantitative characteristics objects under study) represent knowledge only about how processes and phenomena occur, but do not explain the causes and essence of the phenomena and processes underlying scientific facts.

In the previous lecture we defined sensationalism, and in this lecture we will clarify the concept of “empiricism”. Empiricism is a direction in the theory of knowledge that recognizes sensory experience as a source of knowledge and believes that the content of knowledge can be presented either as a description of this experience or reduced to it. Empiricism reduces rational knowledge to combinations of the results of experience. F. Bacon (XVI – XVII centuries) is considered the founder of empiricism. F. Bacon believed that all previous science (ancient and medieval) was contemplative in nature and neglected the needs of practice, being at the mercy of dogma and authority. And “truth is the daughter of Time, not Authority.” What does time say (New Time)? Firstly, that “knowledge is power” (also an aphorism of F. Bacon): the common task of all sciences is to increase man’s power over nature and bring benefits. Secondly, that nature is dominated by those who listen to it. Nature is conquered by submission to it. What does this mean, according to F. Bacon? That knowledge of nature must come from nature itself and be based on experience, i.e. move from the study of individual facts from experience to general provisions. But F. Bacon was not a typical empiricist; he was, so to speak, a smart empiricist, for the starting point of his methodology was the union of experience and reason. Self-guided experience is movement by touch. The true method is to mentally process materials from experience.

General scientific methods of scientific knowledge are used both at the empirical and theoretical levels. Such methods include: abstraction, generalization, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, analogy, etc.

We talked about abstraction and generalization, about induction and deduction, about analogy in the lecture of the first topic “Philosophy of Knowledge”.

Analysis is a method of cognition (a method of thinking), consisting in the mental division of an object into its constituent parts for the purpose of studying them relatively independently. Synthesis involves mental reunification components the object being studied. Synthesis allows you to present the object of study in the interrelation and interaction of its constituent elements.

Let me remind you that induction is a method of cognition based on inferences from the particular (individual) to the general, when the train of thought is directed from establishing the properties of individual objects to identifying general properties, inherent in a whole class of objects; from knowledge of the particular, knowledge of facts, to knowledge of the general, knowledge of laws. Induction is based on inductive conclusions, which do not provide reliable knowledge; they only seem to “guide” thought to the discovery of general patterns. Deduction is based on inferences from the general to the particular (individual). Unlike inductive inferences, deductive inferences provide reliable knowledge, provided that such knowledge was contained in the initial premises. Inductive and deductive thinking techniques are interconnected. Induction leads human thought to hypotheses about the causes and general patterns of phenomena; deduction allows one to derive empirically verifiable consequences from general hypotheses. F. Bacon proposed induction instead of deduction, which was widespread in medieval antiquity, and R. Descartes was an adherent of the deduction method (albeit with elements of induction), considering all scientific knowledge as a single logical system, where one position is deduced from another.

4. The goal of the theoretical level of scientific knowledge is to know the essence of the objects being studied, or to obtain objective truth - laws, principles that allow us to systematize, explain, predict scientific facts established at the empirical level of knowledge (or those that will be established). Scientific facts by the time of their theoretical processing are already processed at the empirical level: they are primarily generalized, described, classified... Theoretical knowledge reflects phenomena, processes, things, events from their common internal connections and patterns, i.e. their essence.

The main forms of theoretical knowledge are scientific problem, hypothesis and theory. The need to explain new scientific findings obtained in the course of cognition creates a problematic situation. A scientific problem is the awareness of the contradictions that have arisen between the old theory and new scientific fantasies that need to be explained, but the old theory can no longer do this. (That’s why it is often written that the problem is knowledge about ignorance.) In order to put forward a tentative scientific explanation of the essence of the scientific facts that led to the formulation of the problem, a hypothesis is put forward. This is probabilistic knowledge about the possible patterns of any objects. The hypothesis must be empirically verifiable, must not contain formal and logical contradictions, must have internal harmony, and be compatible with the fundamental principles of a given science. One of the criteria for evaluating a hypothesis is its ability to explain the maximum number of scientific facts and consequences derived from it. A hypothesis that explains only those facts that led to the formulation of a scientific problem is not scientifically valid. Convincing confirmation of a hypothesis is the discovery in experience of new scientific facts that confirm the consequences predicted by the hypothesis. That is, the hypothesis must also have predictive power, i.e. predict the emergence of new scientific facts that have not yet been discovered by experience. The hypothesis should not include unnecessary assumptions. A hypothesis, thoroughly tested and confirmed, becomes a theory(in other cases it is either clarified and modified, or discarded). A theory is a logically sound, practice-tested, holistic, developing system of ordered, generalized, reliable knowledge about the essence of a certain area of ​​reality. The theory is formed as a result of the discovery of general laws that reveal the essence of the studied area of ​​existence. This is the highest, most developed form reflections of reality and organization of scientific knowledge. A hypothesis provides an explanation at the level of the possible, a theory - at the level of the actual, reliable. The theory not only describes and explains the development and functioning of various phenomena, processes, things, etc., but also predicts still unknown phenomena, processes and their development, becoming a source of new scientific facts. The theory organizes the system of scientific facts, includes them in its structure and derives new facts as consequences from the laws and principles that form it.

Theory serves as the basis for people's practical activities.

There is a group of methods that are of primary importance specifically for the theoretical level of knowledge. These are axiomatic, hypothetico-deductive, idealization methods, the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, the method of unity of historical and logical analysis, etc.

The axiomatic method is a way of constructing a scientific theory, in which it is based on some initial provisions - axioms, or postulates, from which, in a logical way (according to strictly certain rules) all other provisions of this theory are derived.

Associated with the axiomatic method is the hypothetico-deductive method - a method of theoretical research, the essence of which is to create a system of deductively interconnected hypotheses, from which statements about empirical facts are ultimately derived. First, a hypothesis(es) is created, which is then deductively developed into a system of hypotheses; then this system is subjected to experimental testing, during which it is refined and specified.

A feature of the idealization method is that the concept of an ideal object that does not exist in reality is introduced into theoretical research (the concepts of “point”, “material point”, “straight line”, “absolutely black body”, “ideal gas”, etc.) . In the process of idealization, there is an extreme abstraction from all the real properties of the object with the simultaneous introduction into the content of the formed concepts of features that are not realized in reality (Alekseev P.V., Panin A.V. Philosophy. - P.310).

Before considering the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, let us clarify the concepts of “abstract” and “concrete”. Abstract is one-sided, incomplete, content-poor knowledge about an object. Concrete is comprehensive, complete, meaningful knowledge about an object. The concrete appears in two forms: 1) in the form of the sensory-concrete, from which research begins, which then leads to the formation of abstractions (mentally-abstract), and 2) in the form of the mentally-concrete, which completes the study based on the synthesis of previously identified abstractions (Alekseev P .V., Panin A.V. Philosophy. – P.530). The sensory-concrete is an object of cognition that appears before the subject in its still unknown completeness (integrity) at the very beginning of the cognition process. Cognition ascends from the “living contemplation” of an object to attempts to construct theoretical abstractions and from them to finding truly scientific abstractions that make it possible to construct a scientific concept of an object (i.e., mentally concrete), reproducing all the essential, internal natural connections of a given object as an integrity. That is, this method, in essence, consists in the movement of thought towards an increasingly complete, comprehensive and holistic perception of an object, from less meaningful to more meaningful.

A developing object in its development goes through a number of stages (stages), a number of forms, i.e. has its own history. Knowledge of an object is impossible without studying its history. Historically, to imagine an object means to mentally imagine the entire process of its formation, all the variety of successively replacing each other forms (stages) of the object. However, all these historical stages (forms, stages) are internally naturally connected. Logical analysis allows us to identify these relationships and leads to the discovery of the law that determines the development of the object. Without understanding the patterns of development of an object, its history will look like a set or even a heap of individual forms, states, stages...

All methods at the theoretical level are interconnected.

As many scientists rightly note, in spiritual creativity, along with rational moments, there are also irrational moments (not “ir-”, but “non-”). One of these moments is intuition. The word “intuition” comes from lat. “I’m looking closely.” Intuition is the ability to comprehend the truth without preliminary detailed evidence, as if as a result of some sudden insight, without explicit awareness of the ways and means leading to this.

There are two levels in the structure of scientific knowledge: empirical and theoretical. These two levels should be distinguished from the two stages of the cognitive process as a whole - sensory and rational. Sensory knowledge is close, but not identical to empirical, rational knowledge differs from theoretical.

Sensual and rational are forms of human knowledge in general, both scientific and everyday; empirical and theoretical knowledge is characteristic of science. Empirical knowledge is not reduced to the sensory; it includes moments of comprehension, understanding, interpretation of observation data and the formation of a special type of knowledge - a scientific fact. The latter represents the interaction of sensory and rational knowledge.

Theoretical knowledge is dominated by forms of rational knowledge (concepts, judgments, inferences), but visual model representations such as an ideal ball and an absolutely rigid body are also used. Theory always contains sensory-visual components. Thus, both feelings and reason function at both levels of cognition.

The difference between the empirical and theoretical levels of scientific knowledge occurs for the following reasons (Table 2):

The level of reflection of reality,

The nature of the subject of research,

Study methods used,

Forms of knowledge

Language means.

table 2

Difference between empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge

Levels of scientific knowledge	Reflection level	Subject of study	Methods of scientific knowledge	Forms of scientific knowledge	Language
Empirical	Phenomenon	Empirical object	Observation, comparison, measurement, experiment	Scientific fact	Natural
Transition	-	-	Generalization, abstraction, analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction	Scientific problem, scientific hypothesis, empirical law	-
Theoretical	Essence	Theoretical ideal object	Idealization, formalization, ascent from abstract to concrete, axiomatic, thought experiment	Scientific theory	Mathematical

Empirical and theoretical research is aimed at understanding the same objective reality, but its vision, reflection in knowledge occurs in different ways. Empirical research is fundamentally focused on exploring external relations and aspects of objects, phenomena and dependencies between them. As a result of this study, empirical dependencies are clarified. They are the result of an inductive generalization of experience and represent probabilistic true knowledge. This is, for example, the Boyle-Mariotte law, which describes the correlation between pressure and volume of gas: РV=const, where Р is the gas pressure, V is its volume. Initially, it was discovered by R. Boyle as an inductive generalization of experimental data, when the experiment discovered a relationship between the volume of gas compressed under pressure and the magnitude of this pressure.

At the theoretical level of cognition, the internal, essential connections of an object are identified, which are fixed in laws. No matter how many experiments we carry out and generalize their data, simple inductive generalization does not lead to theoretical knowledge. Theory is not built by inductive generalization of facts. Einstein considered this conclusion to be one of the important epistemological lessons in the development of physics in the 20th century. A theoretical law is always reliable knowledge.

Empirical research is based on direct practical interaction between the researcher and the object being studied. And in this interaction the nature of objects, their properties and features are learned. The truth of empirical knowledge is verified by direct appeal to experience, to practice. At the same time, objects of empirical knowledge should be distinguished from objects of reality, which have an infinite number of characteristics. Empirical objects are abstractions that have a fixed and limited set of characteristics.

Theoretical research lacks direct practical interaction with objects. They are studied only indirectly, in a thought experiment, but not in a real one. The theoretical ideal objects studied here are called idealized objects, abstract objects or constructs. Their examples include a material point, an ideal product, an absolutely solid body, an ideal gas, etc. For example, a material point is defined as a body without size, but concentrating in itself the entire mass of the body. There are no such bodies in nature; they are constructed by thinking to identify the essential aspects of the object being studied. Verification of theoretical knowledge by appealing to experience is impossible, and therefore it is associated with practice through empirical interpretation.

The levels of scientific knowledge also differ in function: at the empirical level there is a description of reality, at the theoretical level there is explanation and prediction.

The empirical and theoretical levels differ in the methods and forms of knowledge used. The study of empirical objects is carried out through observation, comparison, measurement and experiment. The means of empirical research are instruments, installations and other means of real observation and experiment.

At the theoretical level, there are no means of material, practical interaction with the object being studied. Special methods are used here: idealization, formalization, thought experiment, axiomatic, ascent from the abstract to the concrete.

The results of empirical research are expressed in natural language with the addition of special concepts in the form of scientific facts. They record objective, reliable information about the objects being studied.

The results of theoretical research are expressed in the form of law and theory. For this purpose, special language systems are created in which the concepts of science are formalized and mathematized.

The specificity of theoretical knowledge is its reflexivity, focus on oneself, the study of the process of knowledge itself, its methods, forms, and conceptual apparatus. In empirical knowledge, this kind of research, as a rule, is not carried out.

In real knowledge of reality, empirical and theoretical knowledge always interact as two opposites. The data of experience, arising independently of the theory, are sooner or later covered by the theory and become knowledge, conclusions from it.

On the other hand, scientific theories, arising on their own special theoretical basis, are constructed relatively independently, without strict and unambiguous dependence on empirical knowledge, but are subject to them, ultimately representing a generalization of experimental data.

Violation of the unity of empirical and theoretical knowledge, the absolutization of any of these levels leads to erroneous one-sided conclusions - empiricism or scholastic theorizing. Examples of the latter are the concept of building communism in the USSR in 1980, the theory of developed socialism, and the antigenetic doctrine of Lysenko. Empiricism absolutizes the role of facts and underestimates the role of thinking, denies its active role and relative independence. The only source of knowledge is experience, sensory knowledge.

Methods of scientific knowledge

Let us consider the essence of general scientific methods of cognition. These methods arise in the bosom of one science and are then used in a number of others. Such methods include mathematical methods, experiment, modeling. General scientific methods are divided into those applied at the empirical level of knowledge and at the theoretical level. Methods of empirical research include observation, comparison, measurement, and experiment.

Observation- systematic, purposeful perception of the phenomena of reality, during which we gain knowledge about external aspects, properties and their relationships. Observation is an active cognitive process, based primarily on the work of human senses and his objective material activity. This, of course, does not mean that human thinking is excluded from this process. The observer consciously searches for objects, guided by a certain idea, hypothesis or previous experience. Observation results always require a certain interpretation in the light of existing theoretical principles. Interpretation of observational data allows a scientist to separate essential facts from unimportant ones, to notice what a non-specialist might ignore. Therefore, nowadays in science it is rare for discoveries to be made by non-specialists.

Einstein, in a conversation with Heisenberg, noted that whether a given phenomenon can be observed or not depends on the theory. It is the theory that must establish what can be observed and what cannot.

The progress of observation as a method of scientific knowledge is inseparable from the progress of observation tools (for example, telescope, microscope, spectroscope, radar). Devices not only enhance the power of the senses, but also give us, as it were, additional organs perception. Thus, devices allow you to “see” the electric field.

In order for surveillance to be effective, it must satisfy the following requirements:

Intentionality or purposefulness

Planfulness,

Activity,

Systematicity.

Observation can be direct, when an object affects the researcher’s senses, and indirect, when the subject uses technical means and devices. In the latter case, scientists make conclusions about the objects under study through the perception of the results of the interaction of unobservable objects with observed objects. Such a conclusion is based on a certain theory that establishes a certain relationship between observable and unobservable objects.

A necessary aspect of observation is description. It represents the recording of observation results using concepts, signs, diagrams, and graphs. The main requirements for a scientific description are aimed at ensuring that it is as complete, accurate and objective as possible. The description must give a reliable and adequate picture of the object itself and accurately reflect the phenomenon being studied. It is important that the concepts used for the description have a clear and unambiguous meaning. Description is divided into two types: qualitative and quantitative. A qualitative description involves fixing the properties of the object being studied; it provides the most general knowledge about it. Quantitative description involves the use of mathematics and numerical characteristic properties, aspects and connections of the object being studied.

In scientific research, observation performs two main functions: providing empirical information about an object and testing hypotheses and theories of science. Often, observation can also play an important heuristic role, contributing to the development of new ideas.

Comparison- this is the establishment of similarities and differences between objects and phenomena of reality. As a result of comparison, what is common to several objects is established, and this leads to knowledge of the law. Only those objects between which there can be an objective commonality should be compared. In addition, comparisons should be made based on the most important, essential features. Comparison is the basis of inferences by analogy, which play a big role: the properties of phenomena known to us can be extended to unknown phenomena that have something in common.

Comparison is not only an elementary operation used in a certain field of knowledge. In some sciences comparison has grown to the level of a fundamental method. For example, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology. This indicates the ever-increasing role of comparison in the process of scientific knowledge.

Measurement Historically, as a method, it developed from the comparison operation, but unlike it, it is a more powerful and universal cognitive tool.

Measurement is a procedure for determining the numerical value of a certain quantity by comparison with a value taken as a unit of measurement. In order to measure, it is necessary to have an object of measurement, a unit of measurement, a measuring device, a specific measurement method, and an observer.

Measurements can be direct or indirect. In direct measurement, the result is obtained directly from the process itself. With indirect measurement, the desired quantity is determined mathematically on the basis of knowledge of other quantities obtained by direct measurement. For example, determining the mass of stars, measurements in the microcosm. Measurement allows us to find and formulate empirical laws and, in some cases, serves as a source for the formulation of scientific theories. In particular, measurements atomic scales elements was one of the prerequisites for the creation periodic table DI. Mendeleev, which is a theory of the properties of chemical elements. Michelson's famous measurements of the speed of light subsequently led to a radical overthrow of established concepts in physics.

The most important indicator quality of measurement, its scientific value is accuracy. The latter depends on the quality and diligence of the scientist, on the methods he uses, but mainly on the available measuring instruments. Therefore, the main ways to increase measurement accuracy are:

Improving the quality of measuring instruments operating
based on certain established principles,

Creation of devices operating on the basis of new principles.
Measurement is one of the most important prerequisites for the use of mathematical methods in science.

Most often, measurement is an elementary method that is included as an integral part of the experiment.

Experiment– the most important and complex method of empirical knowledge. An experiment is understood as a method of studying an object when a researcher actively influences it by creating artificial conditions necessary to identify the corresponding properties of a given object.

The experiment involves the use of observation, comparison and measurement as more elementary research methods. The main feature of the experiment is the intervention of the experimenter during natural processes, which determines the active nature of this method of cognition.

What advantages arise from the specific features of experiment compared to observation?

During the experiment, it becomes possible to study this
phenomena in their “pure form”, i.e. various side factors are excluded,
obscuring the essence of the main process.

The experiment allows you to study the properties of objects of reality under extreme conditions (at ultra-low or ultra-high
temperatures, at high pressure). This can lead to unexpected effects, resulting in new properties of objects being discovered. This method was used, for example, to discover the properties of superfluidity and
superconductivity.

The most important advantage of the experiment is its repeatability, and its conditions can be systematically changed.

Classification of experiments is carried out on various grounds.

Depending on the goals, several types of experiments can be distinguished:

- research- carried out in order to detect that the object has no
previously known properties ( classic example- Rutherford's experiments on

scattering of a-particles, as a result of which the planetary
atomic structure);

- test– carried out to test certain scientific statements (an example of a verification experiment would be testing the hypothesis about the existence of the planet Neptune);

- measuring– carried out to obtain accurate values ​​of certain properties of objects (for example, experimental melting of metals, alloys; experiments to study the strength of structures).

According to the nature of the object being studied, physical, chemical, biological, psychological, and social experiments are distinguished.

According to the method and results of the study, experiments can be divided into qualitative and quantitative. The first of them are more likely to be of a research, exploratory nature, the second provide an accurate measurement of all significant factors influencing the course of the process being studied.

An experiment of any kind can be carried out either directly with the object of interest or with its substitute - a model. Accordingly, experiments happen natural and model. Model ones are used in cases where experimentation is impossible or impractical.

The experiment was most widely used in natural science. Modern science began with the experiments of G. Galileo. However, currently everything greater development he also receives in the study of social processes. Such a spread of the experiment throughout larger number branches of scientific knowledge speaks of the growing importance of this research method. With its help, problems of obtaining the values ​​of the properties of certain objects are solved, hypotheses and theories are experimentally tested, and the heuristic significance of the experiment in finding new aspects of the phenomena being studied is also great. The effectiveness of the experiment also increases due to the progress of experimental technology. Another peculiarity is noted: the more experimentation is used in science, the faster it develops. It is no coincidence that textbooks on experimental sciences age much faster than textbooks on descriptive sciences.

Science is not limited to the empirical level of research, it goes further, revealing essential connections and relationships in the object under study, which, taking shape in the law known by man, acquire a certain theoretical form.

At the theoretical level of cognition, other means and methods of cognition are used. Methods of theoretical research include: idealization, formalization, the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, axiomatic, thought experiment.

Method of ascent from abstract to concrete. The concept “abstract” is used mainly to characterize human knowledge. Abstract is understood as one-sided, incomplete knowledge, when only those properties that interest the researcher are highlighted.

The concept of “concrete” in philosophy can be used in two senses: a) “concrete” – reality itself, taken in all its diversity of properties, connections and relationships; b) “specific” – designation of multifaceted, comprehensive knowledge about an object. The concrete in this sense acts as the opposite of abstract knowledge, i.e. knowledge, poor in content, one-sided.

What is the essence of the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete? The ascent from the abstract to the concrete is a universal form of the movement of knowledge. According to this method, the process of cognition is divided into two relatively independent stage. At the first stage, a transition is made from the sensory-concrete to its abstract definitions. During this operation, the object itself seems to “evaporate”, turning into a set of abstractions and one-sided definitions fixed by thinking.

The second stage of the process of cognition is actually the ascent from the abstract to the concrete. Its essence is that thought moves from abstract definitions of an object to comprehensive, multifaceted knowledge about the object, to the concrete in knowledge. It should be noted that these are two sides of the same process, which have only relative independence.

Idealization– mental construction of objects that do not exist in reality. Such ideal objects include, for example, an absolutely black body, a material point, and a point electric charge. The process of constructing an ideal object necessarily presupposes the abstracting activity of consciousness. So, speaking about an absolutely black body, we abstract from the fact that all real bodies have the ability to reflect the light falling on them. Other mental operations are also of great importance for the formation of ideal objects. This is due to the fact that when creating ideal objects we must achieve the following goals:

Deprive real objects of some of their inherent properties;
- mentally endow these objects with certain unreal properties. This requires a mental transition to the limiting case in the development of any property and discarding some real properties of objects.

Ideal objects play a big role in science; they make it possible to significantly simplify complex systems, which makes it possible to apply mathematical research methods to them. Moreover, science knows many examples when the study of ideal objects led to outstanding discoveries(Galileo's discovery of the principle of inertia). Any idealization is legitimate only within certain limits; it serves to scientifically solve only certain problems. Otherwise, the use of idealization may lead to some misconceptions. Only with this in mind can one correctly assess the role of idealization in cognition.

Formalization– a method of studying a wide variety of objects by displaying their content and structure in a symbolic form and studying the logical structure of the theory. The advantage of formalization is the following:

Ensuring a complete overview of a certain area of ​​problems, a generalized approach to solving them. A general algorithm for solving problems is created, for example, calculating the areas of various figures using integral calculus;

The use of special symbols, the introduction of which ensures brevity and clarity of knowledge recording;

Attributing specific meanings to individual symbols or their systems, which avoids the polysemy of terms that is characteristic of natural languages. Therefore, when operating with formalized systems, reasoning is distinguished by clarity and rigor, and conclusions are demonstrative;

The ability to form iconic models of objects and replace the study of real things and processes with the study of these models. This achieves simplification of cognitive tasks. Artificial languages ​​have relatively greater independence, independence of the sign form in relation to the content, therefore, in the process of formalization, it is possible to temporarily distract from the content of the model and explore only the formal side. Such a distraction from the content can lead to paradoxical, but truly brilliant discoveries. For example, with the help of formalization, the existence of the positron was predicted by P. Dirac.

Axiomatization has found wide application in mathematics and mathematized sciences.

The axiomatic method of constructing theories is understood as such their organization when a number of statements are introduced without proof, and all the rest are deduced from them according to certain logical rules. Statements accepted without proof are called axioms or postulates. This method was first used to construct elementary geometry by Euclid, then it was used in various sciences.

A number of requirements are imposed on an axiomatically constructed knowledge system. According to the requirement of consistency in a system of axioms, no proposition and its negation should be deducible at the same time. According to the requirement of completeness, any proposition that can be formulated in a given system of axioms can be proved or disproved in it. According to the requirement of independence of axioms, any of them should not be deduced from other axioms.

What are the advantages of the axiomatic method? First of all, the axiomatization of science requires precise definition concepts used and adherence to the rigor of conclusions. In empirical knowledge, both have not been achieved, due to which the application of the axiomatic method requires the progress of this field of knowledge in this regard. In addition, axiomatization organizes knowledge, excludes unnecessary elements from it, and eliminates ambiguities and contradictions. In other words, axiomatization rationalizes the organization of scientific knowledge.

Currently, attempts are being made to apply this method in non-mathematical sciences: biology, linguistics, geology.

Thought experiment is carried out not with material objects, but with ideal copies. A thought experiment acts as an ideal form of a real experiment and can lead to important discoveries. It was a thought experiment that allowed Galileo to discover the physical principle of inertia, which formed the basis of all classical mechanics. This principle could not be discovered in any experiment with real objects, in real-life environments.

Methods used at both the empirical and theoretical levels of research include generalization, abstraction, analogy, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, modeling, historical and logical methods, and mathematical methods.

Abstraction has the most universal character in mental activity. The essence of this method consists in mental abstraction from unimportant properties, connections and the simultaneous identification of one or more aspects of the subject being studied that are of interest to the researcher. The process of abstraction has a two-stage character: separation of the essential, identification of the most important; the realization of the possibility of abstraction, i.e. the actual act of abstraction or distraction.

The result of abstraction is the formation of various kinds of abstractions - both individual concepts and their systems. It should be noted that this method includes integral part to all other methods that are more complex in structure.

When we abstract some property or relationship of a number of objects, we thereby create the basis for their unification into a single class. In relation to the individual characteristics of each of the objects included in a given class, the characteristic that unites them acts as a common one.

Generalization– a method, a method of cognition, as a result of which the general properties and characteristics of objects are established. The operation of generalization is carried out as a transition from a particular or less general concept and judgment to a more general concept or judgment. For example, concepts such as “pine”, “larch”, “spruce” are primary generalizations from which one can move on to the more general concept “ conifer tree" Then you can move on to concepts such as “tree”, “plant”, “living organism”.

Analysis– a method of cognition, the content of which is a set of techniques for dividing an object into its component parts for the purpose of their comprehensive study.

Synthesis– a method of cognition, the content of which is a set of techniques for combining individual parts of an object into a single whole.

These methods complement, condition and accompany each other. In order for the analysis of a thing to become possible, it must be recorded as a whole, which requires its synthetic perception. And vice versa, the latter presupposes its subsequent dismemberment.

Analysis and synthesis are the most elementary methods of cognition, which lie at the very foundation of human thinking. At the same time, they are also the most universal techniques, characteristic of all its levels and forms.

The possibility of analyzing an object is, in principle, limitless, which logically follows from the position of the inexhaustibility of matter. However, the choice of elementary components of the object is always carried out, determined by the purpose of the study.

Analysis and synthesis are closely interconnected with other methods of cognition: experiment, modeling, induction, deduction.

Induction and deduction. The separation of these methods is based on the identification of two types of inferences: deductive and inductive. In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is made about a certain element of a set based on knowledge of the general properties of the entire set.

All fish breathe through gills.

Perch - fish

__________________________

Consequently, perch breathe through gills.

One of the premises of deduction is necessarily a general proposition. Here there is a movement of thought from the general to the specific. This movement of thought is very often used in scientific research. Thus, Maxwell from several equations expressing the most general laws electrodynamics, consistently developed a complete theory of the electromagnetic field.

The especially great cognitive significance of deduction is manifested in the case when a new scientific hypothesis acts as a general premise. In this case, deduction is the starting point for the emergence of a new theoretical system. The knowledge created in this way determines the further course of empirical research and guides the construction of new inductive generalizations.

Consequently, the content of deduction as a method of cognition is the use of general scientific principles in the study of specific phenomena.

Induction is an inference from the particular to the general, when, based on knowledge about part of the objects of the class, a conclusion is made about the class as a whole. Induction as a method of cognition is a set of cognitive operations, as a result of which the movement of thought is carried out from less general provisions to more general ones. Thus, induction and deduction are directly opposite directions of the train of thought. The immediate basis of inductive inference is the repeatability of the phenomena of reality. Finding similar features in many objects of a certain class, we conclude that these features are inherent in all objects of this class.

Highlight the following types induction:

-full induction, in which a general conclusion about a class of objects is made based on the study of all objects in the class. Complete induction gives
reliable conclusions and can be used as evidence;

-incomplete induction in which the general conclusion is obtained from the premises,
not covering all subjects of the class. There are three types of incomplete
induction:

Induction through simple enumeration or popular induction, in which a general conclusion about a class of objects is made on the basis that among the observed facts there is not a single one that contradicts the generalization;

Induction through the selection of facts is carried out by selecting them from the general mass according to a certain principle that reduces the probability random coincidences;

Scientific induction, in which a general conclusion about all objects of the class
done on the basis of knowledge of the necessary signs or causal
connections of some class objects. Scientific induction can provide not only
probable, but also reliable conclusions.

Causal relationships can be established using scientific induction methods. The following canons of induction are distinguished (Bacon-Mill's rules of inductive research):

Single similarity method: if two or more cases of the phenomenon being studied have only one circumstance in common, and all others
circumstances are different, then this is the only similar circumstance and
there is a reason for this phenomenon;

Single difference method: if cases in which the phenomenon
occurs or does not occur, differ only in one preceding circumstance, and all other circumstances are identical, then this circumstance is the cause of this phenomenon;

The combined method of similarities and differences, which is
a combination of the first two methods;

Method of accompanying changes: if a change in one circumstance always causes a change in another, then the first circumstance
there is a reason for the second;

Residual method: if it is known that the cause of the phenomenon under study
the circumstances necessary for it do not serve, except for one, then this one circumstance is the cause of this phenomenon.

The attractiveness of induction lies in its close connection with facts and practice. It plays a big role in scientific research - in putting forward hypotheses, in discovering empirical laws, in the process of introducing new concepts into science. Noting the role of induction in science, Louis de Broglie wrote: “Induction, because it seeks to avoid already beaten paths, because it inevitably tries to push apart already existing borders thought, is the true source of truly scientific progress" 1.

But induction cannot lead to universal judgments in which patterns are expressed. Inductive generalizations cannot make the transition from empirical to theory. Therefore, it would be wrong to absolutize the role of induction, as Bacon did, to the detriment of deduction. F. Engels wrote that deduction and induction are related to each other in the same necessary way as analysis and synthesis. Only in mutual connection can each of them fully demonstrate their merits. Deduction is the main method in mathematics; in theoretically developed sciences, inductive conclusions predominate in empirical sciences.

Historical and logical methods are closely interconnected. They are used in the study of complex developing objects. The essence of the historical method is that the history of the development of the object under study is reproduced in all its versatility, taking into account all laws and accidents. It is used primarily for the study of human history, but it also plays an important role in understanding the development of inanimate and living nature.

The history of an object is reconstructed logically based on the study of certain traces of the past, the remnants of past eras, imprinted in material formations (natural or man-made). Historical research is characterized by a chronological following.

________________

1 Broglie L. Along the paths of science. M., p. 178.

thoroughness of consideration of the material, analysis of the stages of development of research objects. Using the historical method, the entire evolution of an object is traced from its inception to current state, the genetic relationships of the developing object are investigated, the driving forces and conditions for the development of the object are clarified.

The content of the historical method is revealed by the structure of the study: 1) the study of “traces of the past” as the results of historical processes; 2) comparing them with the results of modern processes; 3) reconstruction of past events in their spatio-temporal relationships based on the interpretation of “traces of the past” with the help of knowledge about modern processes; 4) identifying the main stages of development and the reasons for the transition from one stage of development to another.

The logical method of research is the reproduction in thinking of a developing object in the form of a historical theory. In logical research, one abstracts from all historical accidents, reproducing history in general view, freed from everything unimportant. The principle of unity of the historical and logical requires that the logic of thought follow the historical process. This does not mean that thought is passive; on the contrary, its activity consists in isolating from history what is essential, the very essence of the historical process. We can say that the historical and logical methods of cognition are not only different, but also largely coincide. It is no coincidence that F. Engels noted that the logical method is, in essence, the same historical method, but freed from historical form. They complement each other.

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

Epistemology of sensations

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

Epistemology of perception

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

Comprehension

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

Experienced level

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

Historical process

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

Methodology

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical equipment

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

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

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

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

The importance of the experiment

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

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

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

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

Types of experiments

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

Physical - study of the diversity of natural phenomena;

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

Mental - carried out exclusively in the imagination;

Critical - data must be checked according to various criteria;

Computer mathematical modeling.

In the recent past, it was believed that knowledge has two stages:

1. sensory reflection of reality,

2. rational (reasonable) reflection of reality.

Then, when it became increasingly clear that in a person the sensual in a number of moments is penetrated by the rational, they began to come to the conclusion that the levels of knowledge are empirical and theoretical, and the sensual and rational are the abilities on the basis of which empirical and theoretical knowledge is formed.

Empirical cognition, or sensory, or living contemplation, is the process of cognition itself, which includes three interrelated forms:

1. sensation - reflection in the human mind of individual aspects, properties of objects, their direct impact on the senses;

2. perception - a holistic image of an object, directly given in living contemplation of the totality of all its sides, a synthesis of these sensations;

3. representation - a generalized sensory-visual image of an object that influenced the senses in the past, but is not perceived at the moment.

There are images of memory and imagination. Images of objects are usually fuzzy, vague, and average. But on the other hand, in images the most important properties of an object are usually highlighted and unimportant ones are discarded.

Sensations based on the sense organ through which they are received are divided into visual (the most important), auditory, gustatory, etc. Sensations are usually an integral part of perception.

As we see, human cognitive abilities are connected with the senses. The human body has an exteroceptive system aimed at the external environment (vision, hearing, taste, smell, etc.) and an interoreceptive system associated with signals about the internal physiological state of the body.

Theoretical knowledge is most fully and adequately expressed in thinking. Thinking is the process of a generalized and indirect reflection of reality, carried out in the course of practical activity and ensuring the disclosure of its main natural connections (based on sensory data) and their expression in a system of abstraction.

There are two levels of thinking

1.reason - the initial level of thinking, at which the operation of abstractions occurs within the framework of an unchanged scheme, template; This is the ability to reason consistently and clearly, to construct one’s thoughts correctly, to clearly classify, and strictly systematize facts.

2. Reason (dialectical thinking) - the highest level of theoretical knowledge, creative manipulation of abstractions and conscious exploration of their own nature.

Reason is ordinary everyday thinking, sound statements and evidence, paying primary attention to the form of knowledge, and not to its content. With the help of reason, a person comprehends the essence of things, their laws and contradictions. The main task of the mind is to unite the diverse, to identify the root causes and driving forces of the phenomena being studied. The logic of reason is dialectics, presented as a doctrine of the formation and development of knowledge in the unity of its content and form. The development process includes the relationship between reason and mind and their mutual transitions from one to the other and vice versa. Reason and understanding take place both in living contemplation and in abstract thinking, that is, at the empirical and theoretical levels of scientific knowledge.

But the thinking process is not always carried out in a detailed and logical form. Intuition (guess) occupies an important place in cognition. Intuition has long been divided into sensual and intellectual. Also, intuition can be technical, scientific, everyday, medical, etc., depending on the specifics of the subject’s activity. Intuition is direct knowledge that does not rely on logical proof.

Cognition is associated with practice - the material development of the surrounding world by a social person, the interaction of a person with material systems. In practice, people transform and create material things, i.e. there is objectification, or materialization of people's intentions. Practice has two interrelated areas: the production of consumer goods and the production of tools.

Practice and knowledge, practice and theory are interconnected and influence each other. Their relationship contains a contradiction. The parties may be in agreement and harmony, but there may also be disharmony that reaches the point of conflict. Overcoming contradictions leads to the development of both theory and practice.

Scientific methods of empirical research are observations, descriptions, measurements, experiments.

Observation is the purposeful perception of phenomena of objective reality.

Description is the recording of information about an object using natural or artificial language.

Measurement - comparison of an object according to any similar properties or aspects.

An experiment is an observation under specially created and controlled conditions, which allows one to reconstruct the course of a phenomenon when the conditions are repeated.

There are several types of experiment:

1) laboratory, 2) natural, 3) research, 4) testing, 5) reproducing, 6) isolating, 7) quantitative, 8) physical, 9) chemical, etc.

Among the scientific methods of theoretical research, formalization, the oxyomotic method and the hypothetico-deductive method are distinguished.

Formalization is the display of content knowledge in symbolic form (formalized language).

The axiomatic method is a method of constructing a scientific theory based on certain initial provisions - oxioms (postulates), from which all other statements of this theory are deduced in a purely logical way, through proof. To derive theorems from oxyoms (and in general some formulas from others), special rules of inference are formulated.

The hypothetico-deductive method is the creation of a system of deductively interconnected hypotheses, from which statements about empirical (experienced) facts are ultimately derived. (Deduction is the derivation of conclusions from hypotheses (premises), the true conclusion of which is unknown). This means that the conclusion, the conclusion obtained on the basis of this method, will inevitably be only probabilistic.

A research hypothesis is a scientifically based assumption about the structure of the phenomenon being studied or the nature of the connections between its components.

Thus, the empirical and theoretical levels of research are different. This difference is based on the dissimilarity:

1. ways (methods) of cognitive activity itself;

2. the nature of the scientific results achieved.

Empirical cognition is characterized by fact-recording activity: research programs are developed, observations and experiments are organized, descriptions of experimental data, their classification, and primary generalizations are carried out.

Theoretical knowledge is essential knowledge carried out at the level of abstraction of high orders. Here the tools are concepts, categories, laws, hypotheses, etc. Both of these levels are connected and presuppose each other, although historically empirical knowledge precedes theoretical knowledge.

In empirical knowledge the sensory aspect predominates, in theoretical knowledge the rational (reasonable) aspect prevails. Their relationship is reflected in the methods used at each stage.

Any scientific research involves not only an “upward” movement towards more advanced, theoretically developed apparatus, but also a “downward” movement associated with the assimilation of empirical information.

Used materials:

1. P.V. Alekseev, A.V. Panin. Theory of knowledge and dialectics. Moscow, Higher School. 1991

2. V.V. Ilyin. Theory of knowledge. Epistemalogy. Moscow. Moscow State University Publishing House, 1974

3. Materials from the site http://www.filreferat.pop al.ru

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. Before discussing this issue, we should dwell on the problem of the relationship between pairs of categories “sensual-rational” and “empirical-theoretical”. Before the emergence of the second pair of categories in methodology and philosophy, the first pair of categories was used in various senses. First of all, “sensual” and “rational” were used to designate two types of human cognitive abilities. Sensory cognitive ability is manifested in sensations, perceptions, and ideas. Rationality also manifests itself in the abilities of conceptual thinking, judgment and inference. In the second sense, “sensual” and “rational” were used to designate stages and levels of knowledge, stages of knowledge, types of knowledge. To date, the second meaning of the concepts “sensual” and “rational” is entirely assigned to the pair of categories “theoretical-empirical”. “Sensual” and “rational” characterize only human cognitive abilities, but not stages or types of knowledge. In their use in human cognition they are not separated from each other. There cannot be sensory knowledge as such and rational knowledge as such, although it is possible to distinguish empirical and theoretical types of knowledge. The ratio of sensory and rational correlates in empirical and theoretical knowledge is different. In empirical knowledge, the sensory correlate dominates, and in theoretical knowledge, the rational correlate. Accordingly, the different ratio of sensory and rational correlates is reflected in the methods used at each stage. It is clear that the method of observation used in the empirical stage is based mainly on sensory cognition, but to the extent that observation is purposeful and its results are recorded in linguistic form, it also includes the use of rational cognition. Likewise, since the theoretical stage mainly uses the ability for abstract, conceptual thinking, the rational correlate dominates in it, but to the extent that any concept is associated with a certain set of perceptions, ideas and visual images, it also has a sensory component.

It should, however, be borne in mind that despite all the differences, there is no strict boundary between empirical and theoretical knowledge. Thus, empirical research, although focused on the knowledge and recording of phenomena, constantly breaks through to the level of essence, and theoretical research seeks confirmation of the correctness of its results in empirical research. Experiment, being the main method of empirical knowledge in many sciences, is always theoretically loaded, and any most abstract a theory must always have an empirical interpretation. But with all the uncertainty of the boundaries between the empirical and theoretical knowledge the introduction of these categories, of course, 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, made it possible to clarify the logical structure of the implementation of basic cognitive functions by science, and also contributed to the solution of many fundamental problems of logic and methodology of scientific knowledge. Recently, Soviet philosophers have made significant contributions to the development of these categories. Considering the development of these categories, we recommend that students turn to the existing literature to master their content.

At present, it is impossible to deny the fundamental importance of these categories in solving methodological problems of science, even taking into account the existence of all those differences that exist between various authors on the issue of interpretation of the essence and content of the categories of empirical and theoretical. However, it should be noted that the introduction of these categories and clarification of their content was simultaneously accompanied by a tacit, implicit acceptance of the assumption of the dichotomous nature of these categories in relation to general idea about the structure of scientific knowledge, i.e. it is assumed that the theoretical and empirical are the basic, initial methodological units, on the basis of which only further clarification and detailing of structural ideas about scientific knowledge is possible, or, in other words, it is assumed that further structural divisions in scientific research are possible only within the theoretical and empirical levels . Everything that goes beyond the scope of theoretical or empirical knowledge does not belong to the body of scientific knowledge.

Despite the importance of the categories of empirical and theoretical, this kind of dichotomous idea of ​​the structure of scientific knowledge has now exhausted itself. The internal logic of methodological research more and more often puts on the agenda the question of the need to introduce a new methodological unit into the methodology of science, the meaning and content of which cannot be reduced to the dichotomy of the empirical and theoretical. This new basic methodological concept fixes the existence in science of another, third level of knowledge, which is located above theoretical knowledge and acts as a metatheoretical, extra-theoretical prerequisite for theoretical activity in science itself. In Western literature, attempts of this kind to introduce into the philosophy of science, along with the categories of theoretical and empirical, a new basic methodological unit, received their most frank expression in the now widely known methodological concepts. Kuhn and I. Lakatos. T. Kuhn, without denying the difference between theoretical and empirical activities in science, introduces a fundamentally new basic methodological concept of “paradigm”, which records the existence of a special type of knowledge in scientific research, which differs from theoretical knowledge in the way of its emergence and justification. Although in Kuhn’s concept one or another fundamental theory can act as a paradigm, when it becomes a paradigm, it acquires new characteristics that, in terms of the methods of justification and functioning, no longer allow it to be considered a theory. Paradigmatic knowledge does not directly perform an explanatory function, but is a condition and prerequisite for a certain type of theoretical activity to explain and systematize empirical material. The concept of “research program”, introduced into the methodology of science by I. Lakatos, has a similar meaning. A research program is also understood by Lakatos as a certain kind of metatheoretical formation, containing a set of initial ideas and methodological guidelines that determine the construction, development and justification of a certain theory.

In the literature on the methodology of scientific knowledge over the past 15-20 years, a whole complex of concepts has also emerged, which reflect various elements of the metatheoretical or extratheoretical level of scientific knowledge. One of the first attempts to introduce this kind of concept was made by A. A. Lyapunov in one of his articles devoted to identifying the features of the structure of scientific knowledge. In particular, he proposed to identify such an element as “intertheory” in scientific-theoretical knowledge. He refers to intertheoristic knowledge as “that general complex of information that must be taken into account when considering a given theory.” However, the concept of “thinking style” has become more widely used in our literature to denote the metatheoretical background of scientific research activity. Initially, the concept of thinking style was used in the narrow sense of the word and was associated with fixing only certain aspects of theoretical activity at different historical stages of the development of science. Thus, Yu. Sachkov, one of the first in our literature to try to clarify the meaning of this concept, connects the style of thinking with certain ideas about the structure of relations of determination and accordingly distinguishes three styles of thinking in the history of science: uniquely deterministic, probabilistic-statistical and cybernetic M. Born connects the concept of thinking style with a certain system of views on the structure of subject-object relations in science. However, over time, the meaning of the concept of thinking style expands so much that it becomes comparable in scope and content to Kuhn’s concept of a paradigm, and they try to cover the entire set of metatheoretical prerequisites for scientific research activity. This is exactly how, for example, S. B. Krymsky defines the concept of thinking style. By a style of thinking, he understands a certain historically emerged type of explanation of reality, “which, being common to a given era, is steadily emerging in the development of the main scientific directions and determines some standard ideas in the metalinguistic contexts of all fundamental theories of its time.” An even broader understanding of the style of thinking is contained in the work of L. A. Mikeshina “Determination of Natural Science Knowledge.”

A well-known competitor to the concept of “thinking style” in the literature when fixing the metatheoretical level of research is also the concept of “picture of the world.” In the works of some authors, it is defined in such a way that the style of thinking is only an integral part of it, although, like the concept of style of thinking, the picture of the world was initially understood in the narrow sense of the word and was associated only with the fixation of certain historically emerged ideas about the structure of objective reality.

Along with the concepts of thinking style and picture of the world, to fix the metatheoretical (or intertheoretical) level of knowledge in the literature, concepts such as “the proper and philosophical foundations of science” (S.T. Melyukhin, Yu.A. Petrov), “theoretical basis of scientific cognition" (M.V. Mostepanenko), "conditions of cognition" (P.S. Dyshlevy), etc.

The combination of all such concepts indicates that in our literature on the methodology of science there has long been a need to highlight in the composition of scientific knowledge what we conventionally call the metatheoretical level of knowledge, to introduce a new methodological unit, which, together with the concepts of theoretical and empirical, allowed to form a more complete and correct idea of ​​the structure of research activity in scientific knowledge.

Recognition of the existence of a metatheoretical level within scientific knowledge immediately raises a whole complex of problems concerning the epistemological nature of this knowledge, its structure, features and the functions that it performs in the course of the theoretical development of reality, and a number of other problems.

The question arises about the grounds on which it is possible to draw a line of demarcation between the theoretical level of research and its metatheoretical basis. To resolve this issue, first of all, it is necessary to impose some restrictions on the use of the concepts “theoretical thinking” and “theoretical level of research”. In the broadest sense of the word, theoretical thinking is identified with scientific thinking and is contrasted in this regard with everyday thinking. It is clear that with this understanding of theoretical thinking, what we mean by the metatheoretical level of systematization of knowledge refers to theoretical thinking. In a narrower sense of the word, theoretical thinking is understood as thinking aimed “at improving and developing the conceptual means of science”, at building a “theoretical world”, as opposed to empirical thinking, which is aimed “at establishing connections between the conceptual apparatus of science and reality revealed in experiment and observation " But even with this understanding of theoretical thinking, metatheoretical activity does not go beyond its scope. The concept of theoretical thinking can be limited if it is associated with certain intended results. In particular, we can consider that the result of theoretical thinking itself, in the narrow sense of the word, is a scientific theory. Then the content of theoretical thinking will depend on the understanding of scientific theory. There are many approaches to defining the concept of “scientific theory”. Let us take as a basis the definition of scientific theory given in the “Philosophical Encyclopedia” by M. V. Popovich and V. N. Sadovsky. “Theory is a form of reliable scientific knowledge about a certain set of objects, which is a system of interrelated statements and evidence and contains methods of explanation and prediction phenomena of a given subject area.” In theory, in the form of laws, knowledge is expressed about the essential connections that determine the emergence and existence of certain phenomena, and this allows the theory to be functionally interpreted as a system of description, systematization, explanation and prediction of phenomena in a certain subject area.

If we limit theoretical thinking to the processes of constructing theories, then it should include the entire set of cognitive processes that are aimed at putting forward, developing and justifying theoretical hypotheses, as well as those mental procedures in which the main cognitive functions of scientific theories are realized: description, explanation, prediction. In contrast, at the metatheoretical level of knowledge, on the basis of certain philosophical guidelines, generalization of the results of theoretical activity and the practice of scientific knowledge itself, the general prerequisites of theoretical activity are fixed. If the main element of theoretical knowledge is a law, a statement about the necessary essential connections between phenomena, then metatheoretical knowledge is formulated in the form of principles of various orders, which state something about the theory and practice of theoretical activity itself. In the form of principles, the requirements for the scientific theory itself are formulated. In addition, it can be added that if theoretical knowledge always appears in a certain context of research as problematic knowledge, knowledge subject to justification and verification, then metatheoretical knowledge in the same context is conditionally considered as non-problematic , prerequisite knowledge, not subject to empirical justification and verification. In this regard, we can now explain the meaning of the prefix “meta” in the concept of “metatheoretical level of knowledge.” It has several semantic shades: first of all, the Aristotelian meaning is the knowledge that lies “behind” theoretical knowledge. Further, this prefix can legitimately be associated with its semantic meaning, since metatheoretical knowledge is fixed in metalinguistic contexts in relation to the language of theory. And finally, the prefix “meta” can be associated with the presuppositional, non-problematic nature of this knowledge.

Scientific knowledge can be divided into two levels: theoretical and empirical. The first is based on inferences, the second - on experiments and interaction with the object under study. Despite different nature, these methods have the same great value for the development of science.

Empirical research

The basis of empirical knowledge is the direct practical interaction of the researcher and the object he is studying. It consists of experiments and observations. Empirical and theoretical knowledge are opposites - in the case of theoretical research, a person makes do with only his own ideas about the subject. As a rule, this method is the province of the humanities.

Empirical research cannot do without instruments and instrumental installations. These are means associated with organizing observations and experiments, but in addition to them there are also conceptual means. They are used as a special scientific language. It has a complex organization. Empirical and theoretical knowledge are focused on the study of phenomena and the dependencies that arise between them. By conducting experiments, a person can identify objective law. This is also facilitated by the study of phenomena and their correlation.

Empirical methods of cognition

According to the scientific concept, empirical and theoretical knowledge consists of several methods. This is a set of steps necessary to solve a certain problem (in this case we are talking about identifying previously unknown patterns). The first empirical method is observation. It is a purposeful study of objects, which primarily relies on various senses (perceptions, sensations, ideas).

At its initial stage, observation gives an idea of external characteristics object of knowledge. However, the ultimate goal of this is to determine the deeper and more intrinsic properties of an object. A common misconception is the idea that scientific observation is passive - far from it.

Observation

Empirical observation is detailed in nature. It can be both direct and indirect through various technical devices and instruments (for example, a camera, telescope, microscope, etc.). As science develops, observation becomes more complex and complex. This method has several exceptional qualities: objectivity, certainty and unambiguous design. When using instruments, deciphering their readings plays an additional role.

In the social and human sciences, empirical and theoretical knowledge takes root heterogeneously. Observation in these disciplines is particularly difficult. It becomes dependent on the personality of the researcher, his principles and life attitudes, as well as the degree of interest in the subject.

Observation cannot be carried out without a certain concept or idea. It must be based on a certain hypothesis and record certain facts (in this case, only related and representative facts will be indicative).

Theoretical and empirical studies differ from each other in details. For example, observation has its own specific functions, which are not typical for other methods of cognition. First of all, it is providing a person with information, without which further research and hypotheses are impossible. Observation is the fuel on which thinking runs. Without new facts and impressions there will be no new knowledge. In addition, it is through observation that one can compare and verify the truth of the results of preliminary theoretical studies.

Experiment

Different theoretical and empirical methods of cognition also differ in the degree of their intervention in the process being studied. A person can observe it strictly from the outside, or he can analyze its properties from his own experience. This function is performed by one of the empirical methods of cognition - experiment. In terms of importance and contribution to the final result of research, it is in no way inferior to observation.

An experiment is not only a purposeful and active human intervention in the course of the process under study, but also its change, as well as its reproduction in specially prepared conditions. This method of cognition requires much more effort than observation. During the experiment, the object of study is isolated from any outside influence. A clean and unpolluted environment is created. The experimental conditions are completely specified and controlled. Therefore, this method, on the one hand, corresponds to the natural laws of nature, and on the other hand, it is distinguished by an artificial essence determined by man.

Experiment structure

All theoretical and empirical methods have a certain ideological load. The experiment, which is carried out in several stages, is no exception. First of all, planning and step-by-step construction take place (the goal, means, type, etc. are determined). Then comes the stage of carrying out the experiment. Moreover, it occurs under perfect human control. At the end of the active phase, it is time to interpret the results.

Both empirical and theoretical knowledge differ in a certain structure. In order for an experiment to take place, the experimenters themselves, the object of the experiment, instruments, and more are required. necessary equipment, a technique and a hypothesis that is confirmed or refuted.

Devices and installations

Every year scientific research becomes more and more complex. They require increasingly modern technology, which allows them to study what is inaccessible to simple human senses. If previously scientists were limited to their own vision and hearing, now they have at their disposal unprecedented experimental facilities.

When using the device, it may cause negative impact to the object being studied. For this reason, the result of an experiment sometimes diverges from its original goals. Some researchers are trying to achieve such results on purpose. In science, this process is called randomization. If the experiment takes on a random nature, then its consequences become an additional object of analysis. The possibility of randomization is another feature that distinguishes empirical and theoretical knowledge.

Comparison, description and measurement

Comparison is the third empirical method of knowledge. This operation allows you to identify differences and similarities between objects. Empirical and theoretical analysis cannot be carried out without deep knowledge of the subject. In turn, many facts begin to play with new colors after the researcher compares them with another texture known to him. Comparison of objects is carried out within the framework of features that are significant for a particular experiment. Moreover, objects that are compared based on one trait may be incomparable based on their other characteristics. This empirical technique is based on analogy. It underlies what is important to science

Methods of empirical and theoretical knowledge can be combined with each other. But research is almost never complete without description. This cognitive operation records the results of previous experience. Scientific notation systems are used for description: graphs, diagrams, drawings, diagrams, tables, etc.

The last empirical method of knowledge is measurement. This is carried out through special means. Measurement is necessary to determine numerical value the desired measured quantity. Such an operation must be carried out in accordance with strict algorithms and rules accepted in science.

Theoretical knowledge

In science, theoretical and empirical knowledge have different fundamental supports. In the first case, this is the detached use of rational methods and logical procedures, and in the second, direct interaction with the object. Theoretical knowledge uses intellectual abstractions. One of its most important methods is formalization - the display of knowledge in a symbolic and iconic form.

At the first stage of expressing thinking, familiar human language is used. It is characterized by complexity and constant variability, which is why it cannot be a universal scientific tool. The next stage of formalization is associated with the creation of formalized (artificial) languages. They have a specific purpose - a strict and precise expression of knowledge that cannot be achieved through natural speech. Such a symbol system can take the format of formulas. It is very popular in mathematics and others where you cannot do without numbers.

With the help of symbolism, a person eliminates ambiguous understanding of the recording, makes it shorter and clearer for further use. Not a single study, and therefore all scientific knowledge, can do without speed and simplicity in the use of its tools. Empirical and theoretical study equally need formalization, but it is at the theoretical level that it takes on extremely important and fundamental significance.

An artificial language, created within a narrow scientific framework, becomes a universal means of exchanging thoughts and communicating among specialists. This is the fundamental task of methodology and logic. These sciences are necessary to transmit information in an understandable, systematized form, free from the shortcomings of natural language.

The meaning of formalization

Formalization allows you to clarify, analyze, clarify and define concepts. The empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge cannot do without them, therefore the system of artificial symbols has always played and will play a large role in science. Everyday and colloquial concepts seem obvious and clear. However, due to their ambiguity and uncertainty, they are not suitable for scientific research.

Formalization is especially important when analyzing alleged evidence. The sequence of formulas based on specialized rules is distinguished by the accuracy and rigor necessary for science. In addition, formalization is necessary for programming, algorithmization and computerization of knowledge.

Axiomatic method

Another method of theoretical research is the axiomatic method. It is a convenient way of deductively expressing scientific hypotheses. Theoretical and empirical sciences cannot be imagined without terms. Very often they arise due to the construction of axioms. For example, in Euclidean geometry at one time the fundamental terms of angle, straight line, point, plane, etc. were formulated.

Within the framework of theoretical knowledge, scientists formulate axioms - postulates that do not require proof and are the initial statements for further theory construction. An example of this is the idea that the whole is always greater than the part. Using axioms, a system for deriving new terms is constructed. Following the rules of theoretical knowledge, a scientist can obtain unique theorems from a limited number of postulates. At the same time, it is much more effectively used for teaching and classification than for discovering new patterns.

Hypothetico-deductive method

Although theoretical and empirical scientific methods are different, they are often used together. An example of such an application is using it to build new systems of closely intertwined hypotheses. Based on them, new statements concerning empirical, experimentally proven facts are derived. The method of drawing a conclusion from archaic hypotheses is called deduction. This term is familiar to many thanks to the novels about Sherlock Holmes. Indeed, the popular literary character often uses the deductive method in his investigations, with the help of which he builds a coherent picture of the crime from many disparate facts.

The same system operates in science. This method of theoretical knowledge has its own clear structure. First of all, you become familiar with the invoice. Then assumptions are made about the patterns and causes of the phenomenon being studied. For this, all kinds of logical techniques are used. Guesses are evaluated according to their probability (the most probable one is selected from this heap). All hypotheses are checked for consistency with logic and compatibility with the main scientific principles(for example, the laws of physics). Consequences are derived from the assumption, which are then verified through experiment. The hypothetico-deductive method is not so much a method of new discovery as a method of substantiating scientific knowledge. This theoretical tool was used by such great minds as Newton and Galileo.