Theoretical level in scientific knowledge. Empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge

1.2.Methods of theoretical research

Idealization. Idealization is the process of creating mental objects that do not exist in reality, through mental abstraction from some properties of real objects and the relationships between them, or by endowing objects and situations with those properties that they do not possess for the purpose of a deeper and more accurate knowledge of reality. Objects of this kind serve the most important means knowledge of real objects and the relationships between them. They're called idealized objects. These include objects such as, for example, a material point, an ideal gas, an absolutely black body, geometry objects, etc.

Idealization is sometimes confused with abstraction, but this is wrong, because although idealization is essentially based on the process of abstraction, it is not reduced to it. In logic, abstract objects, as opposed to concrete ones, include only those objects that do not interact in space and time. Ideal objects cannot be considered really existing; they are quasi-objects. Any scientific theory studies either a certain fragment of reality, a certain subject area, or a certain side, one of the aspects of real things and processes. At the same time, theory is forced to abstract itself from those aspects of the subjects it studies that do not interest it. In addition, theory is often forced to abstract from some differences in the objects it studies in certain respects. This process of mental abstraction from certain aspects, properties of the objects being studied, from certain relationships between them is called abstraction.

Abstraction. The creation of an idealized object necessarily includes abstraction - abstraction from a number of aspects and properties of the specific objects being studied. But if we limit ourselves to only this, then we will not yet receive any integral object, but will simply destroy a real object or situation. After abstraction, we still need to highlight the properties that interest us, strengthen or weaken them, combine and present them as properties of some independent object that exists, functions and develops according to its own laws. All this, of course, represents a much more difficult and creative task than simple abstraction. Idealization and abstraction are ways of forming a theoretical object. It can be any real object that is imagined in non-existent, ideal conditions. Thus, for example, the concepts of “inertia”, “material point”, “absolute black body”, “ideal gas” arise.

Formalization(from lat. forma view, image). Formalization refers to the display of objects of a certain subject area using symbols of a language. During formalization, the objects under study, their properties and relationships are put into correspondence with some stable, clearly visible and identifiable material structures, which make it possible to identify and record the essential aspects of the objects. Formalization clarifies the content by identifying its form and can be carried out with varying degrees of completeness. Expressing thinking in natural language can be considered the first step of formalization. Its further deepening is achieved by introducing various kinds of special signs into ordinary language and creating partially artificial and artificial languages. Logical formalization is aimed at identifying and fixing the logical form of conclusions and evidence. Complete formalization of a theory occurs when one completely abstracts from the substantive meaning of its initial concepts and provisions and lists all the rules of logical inference used in the proofs. Such formalization includes three points: 1) designation of all initial, undefined terms; 2) listing formulas (axioms) accepted without proof; 3) introduction of rules for transforming these formulas to obtain new formulas (theorems) from them. A striking example of formalization is the mathematical descriptions of various objects and phenomena widely used in science on the basis of relevant theories. Despite the widespread use of formalization in science, there are limits to formalization. In 1930, Kurt Gödel formulated a theorem called the incompleteness theorem: it is impossible to create such a formal system of logically justified formal rules of proof that would be sufficient to prove all true theorems of elementary arithmetic.

Models and Simulation in scientific research . A model is a material or mentally imagined object that, in the process of study, replaces the original object, preserving some of its typical features that are important for this study. The model allows you to learn how to control an object by testing various control options on a model of this object. To experiment with a real object for these purposes is, at best, inconvenient, and often simply harmful or even impossible for a number of reasons (the long duration of the experiment, the risk of bringing the object into an undesirable and irreversible state, etc.). The process of building a model is called modeling. So, modeling is the process of studying the structure and properties of the original using a model.

There are material and ideal modeling. Material modeling, in turn, is divided into physical and analog modeling. Physical modeling is usually called modeling in which a real object is contrasted with its enlarged or reduced copy, which allows research (usually in laboratory conditions) with the help of subsequent transfer of the properties of the studied processes and phenomena from the model to the object based on the theory of similarity. Examples: planetarium in astronomy, building models in architecture, aircraft models in aircraft manufacturing, environmental modeling - modeling processes in the biosphere, etc. Analog or mathematical modeling is based on the analogy of processes and phenomena that have different physical natures, but are described formally in the same way (by the same mathematical equations). The symbolic language of mathematics makes it possible to express the properties, aspects, relationships of objects and phenomena of a very different nature. The relationships between various quantities that describe the functioning of such an object can be represented by the corresponding equations and their systems.

Induction(from Latin induction - guidance, motivation), there is an inference that leads to a general conclusion based on particular premises, this is the movement of thinking from the particular to the general. The most important, and sometimes the only method of scientific knowledge for a long time believed inductive method. According to the inductivist methodology, dating back to F. Bacon, scientific knowledge begins with observation and statement of facts. Once the facts are established, we begin to generalize them and build a theory. A theory is seen as a generalization of facts and is therefore considered reliable. However, even D. Hume noted that a general statement cannot be deduced from facts, and therefore any inductive generalization is unreliable. Thus the problem of justifying inductive inference arose: what allows us to move from facts to general statements? D. Mil made a great contribution to the development and substantiation of the inductive method.

Awareness of the unsolvability of the problem of justifying induction and the interpretation of inductive inference as claiming the reliability of its conclusions led Popper to deny the inductive method of cognition in general. Popper spent a lot of effort trying to show that the procedure described by the inductive method is not and cannot be used in science. The fallacy of inductivism, according to Popper, lies mainly in the fact that inductivism attempts to substantiate theories through observation and experiment. But, as postpositivism has shown, there is no direct path from experience to theory; such justification is impossible. Theories are always just unfounded, risky assumptions. Facts and observations are used in science not for justification, not as a basis for induction, but only for testing and refuting theories - as a basis for falsification. This removes the old philosophical problem of justifying induction. Facts and observations give rise to a hypothesis, which is not at all a generalization. Then, with the help of facts, they try to falsify the hypothesis. A falsifying inference is deductive. Induction is not used in this case, therefore, there is no need to worry about its justification.

According to K. Popper, it is not the inductive method, but the trial and error method that is fundamental in science. The knowing subject confronts the world not as tabula rasa, in which nature paints its portrait, man always relies on certain theoretical principles in understanding reality. The process of cognition begins not with observations, but with making guesses and assumptions that explain the world. We compare our guesses with the results of observations and discard them after falsification, replacing them with new guesses. Trial and error is what makes up the method of science. To understand the world, Popper argues, there is no more rational procedure than the method of trial and error - assumptions and refutations: boldly putting forward a theory; attempts to best demonstrate the fallacy of these theories and their temporary acceptance if criticism is unsuccessful.

Deduction(from Latin deduction - inference) is the receipt of particular conclusions based on knowledge of some general provisions, this is the movement of thought from the general to the particular. Hypothetico-deductive method. It is based on the derivation (deduction) of conclusions from hypotheses and other premises, the truth value of which is unknown. In scientific knowledge, the hypothetico-deductive method became widespread and developed in the 17th-18th centuries, when significant advances were made in the field of studying the mechanical movement of earthly and celestial bodies. The first attempts to use the hypothetic-deductive method were made in mechanics, in particular in the studies of Galileo. The theory of mechanics, set forth in Newton’s “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” is a hypothetico-deductive system, the premises of which are the basic laws of motion. The success of the hypothetico-deductive method in the field of mechanics and the influence of Newton's ideas led to the widespread use of this method in the field of exact natural science.

2.2. Forms of theoretical knowledge. Problem. Hypothesis. Law. Theory.

The main form of organization of knowledge at the theoretical level is theory. Previously, we can give the following definition of theory: theory is knowledge about the subject area, which covers the subject as a whole and in particular and is a system of ideas, concepts, definitions, hypotheses, laws, axioms, theorems, etc., connected in a strictly logical way. What is the structure of the theory and how it is formed is the main problem of the methodology of science.

Problem. Knowledge does not begin with observations and facts, it begins with problems, with tension between knowledge and ignorance, notes L.A. Mikeshina. A problem is a question to which the answer is a theory as a whole. As K. Popper emphasizes, science begins not with observations, but with problems, and its development proceeds from some problems to others - deeper ones. A scientific problem is expressed in the presence of a contradictory situation. Plato also noted that a question is more difficult to answer. The determining influence on the formulation of the problem and the method of solution is the nature of the thinking of the era, the level of knowledge about those objects that the problem concerns: “in the matter of choosing a problem, tradition, course historical development play a significant role." Scientific problems should be distinguished from non-scientific (pseudo-problems), an example of which is the problem of perpetual motion. A. Einstein noted the importance of the procedure for posing a problem in scientific research: “The formulation of a problem is often more significant than its solution, which can only be a matter of mathematical or experimental art. Raising new questions, developing new opportunities, looking at old problems from a new angle require creative imagination and reflect real success in science." In order to solve scientific problems, hypotheses are put forward.

Hypothesis. A hypothesis is an assumption about the properties, causes, structure, connections of the objects being studied. The main feature of a hypothesis is its speculative nature: we do not know whether it will turn out to be true or false. In the process of subsequent testing, the hypothesis may find confirmation and acquire the status of true knowledge, but it is possible that the test will convince us of the falsity of our assumption and we will have to abandon it. A scientific hypothesis usually differs from a simple assumption by a certain validity. The set of requirements for a scientific hypothesis can be summarized as follows: 1. The hypothesis must explain the known facts; 2. The hypothesis must not have contradictions that are prohibited by formal logic. But contradictions that are a reflection of objective opposites are quite acceptable; 3. The hypothesis must be simple (“Occam’s razor”); 4. A scientific hypothesis must be testable; 5. The hypothesis must be heuristic (“crazy enough” N. Bohr).

From a logical point of view, the hypothetico-deductive system is a hierarchy of hypotheses, the degree of abstraction and generality of which increases with distance from the empirical basis. At the top are the hypotheses that are the most general in nature and therefore have the greatest logical power. From them, as from premises, hypotheses of a lower level are derived. Actually lowest level systems, hypotheses are found that can be compared with empirical data. In modern science, many theories are constructed in the form of a hypothetico-deductive system. There is another type of hypothesis that attracts a lot of attention from philosophers and scientists. These are the so-called ad hoc hypotheses(for this case). Hypotheses of this type are distinguished by the fact that their explanatory power is limited only to a small circle known facts. They don't say anything about new ones yet unknown facts and phenomena.

A good hypothesis should not only provide an explanation for known data, but also direct research to the search and discovery of new phenomena and new facts. Hypotheses ad hoc They only explain, but do not predict anything new. Therefore, scientists try not to use such hypotheses, although it is often quite difficult to decide whether we are dealing with a fruitful, heuristically strong hypothesis or a hypothesis ad hoc. The hypothetical nature of scientific knowledge was emphasized by K. Popper, W. Quine and others. K Popper characterizes scientific knowledge as hypothetical, he introduces the term probabilism(from Lat. probable - probable), noting that scientific thinking is characterized by a probabilistic style. Charles Pierce coined the term “fallibilism” (from Lat. fallibilis- fallible, fallible), asserting that in any this moment At the time, our knowledge of reality is partial and tentative; this knowledge is not absolute, but is a point in the continuum of unreliability and uncertainty.

The most important component of the system of theoretical knowledge are laws. A unique cell for organizing theoretical knowledge at each of its sublevels is, notes V.S. Stepin, a two-layer structure is a theoretical model and a theoretical law formulated regarding it.

Law. The concept of “law” is one of the main ones in the scientific worldview and reflects the genesis of science in the context of culture. The belief in the existence of fundamental laws of nature was based on the belief in divine laws so characteristic of the Judeo-Christian tradition: “God controls all things through the ruthless law of fate, which he has established and to which he himself submits.” A. Whitehead, having set the task of understanding how the idea of ​​the law of science arose, showed that the belief in the possibility of scientific laws was a derivative of Medieval theology. In the world system, designated as the Universe, and understood as a hierarchized integrity, existence is characterized through the principle of universalism. In the context of Stoicism, abstract principles of law were established that embodied the tradition of imperial law, and were then translated from Roman law into the scientific worldview. Law (from the Greek “nomos” - law, order) is opposed to physis, just as the human is opposed to the natural. The natural order, as the Greeks believed, is primordial, this is Cosmos. Among the Latins, the concept of “law” originally arose to designate and regulate public relations. Whitehead draws attention to the decisive role of the cultural and historical context, which was the environment in which the fundamental ideas of the future scientific worldview were born. “The Middle Ages formed one long training of the Western European intellect, accustoming it to order... The habit of a certain precise thinking was instilled in the European mind as a result of the dominance of scholastic logic and scholastic theology.” The previously formed idea of ​​fate, demonstrating the ruthless course of things, turned out to be useful not only for illustration human life, but also influenced emerging scientific thinking. As Whitehead noted, “the laws of physics are the dictates of fate.”

The idea of ​​law is key in the worldview and we find confirmation of this in the statements of outstanding figures of Medieval culture, for example, F. Aquinas, who argued that there is an eternal law, namely reason, existing within the consciousness of God and governing the entire Universe, and among thinkers of the New Age. In particular, R. Descartes wrote about the laws that God put into nature. I. Newton considered his goal to collect evidence of the existence of laws prescribed to nature by God.

If we compare this style of Western thinking with the thought tradition of other civilizations, we will see that their cultural uniqueness sets different standards of explanation. For example, in Chinese As Needham noted, there is no word corresponding to the Western "law of nature." The closest word is "Lee", which Needham translates as the principle of organization. But in Western culture, the core of which is science, the idea of ​​law corresponded to the main goal of the scientific worldview towards an objective explanation of reality through the comprehension of the natural laws of nature.

Characterizing the dynamics of science in Western culture, today it is customary to distinguish three main types of scientific rationality: classical, non-classical and post-non-classical paradigms of scientific rationality (B.S. Stepin). The question posed at the beginning presupposes an analysis of the transformation of the concept of “law” in these paradigms, as well as in different scientific standards, since today physical sample scientificity is no longer the only one. The experience of biology in the study of evolution, in the search for the laws of evolution is more significant and therefore relevant for modern physics, which is penetrated by the “arrow of time” (I. Prigogine). The traditions of the humanities are also important in terms of analyzing the question: is a certain law of evolution possible?

Another context in which the transformation in scientific knowledge of the concept of “law” should be analyzed is indicated when we identify various cognitive practices or epistemological schemes that represent models of scientific knowledge. For example, in constructivist models of cognition, be it radical constructivism or social constructivism, does the concept of a “law” of science still make sense? It is no coincidence that the tendency to relativize and subjectivize scientific knowledge, noted in modern philosophy of science, leads to the need to discuss the problem of the relationship between law and interpretation.

Today, the concept of law is given four main meanings. Firstly, law as a necessary connection between events, as “calm in the phenomenon.” Here the law is identified with objective laws that exist independently of our knowledge of them (objective laws). Secondly, law as a statement that claims to reflect the internal state of objects included in theories(laws of science). Third, laws are understood as axioms and theorems of theories, the subject of which are objects, the meaning of which is given by these same theories(logical and mathematical theories). Fourthly, law as normative instructions, developed by the community, which must be fulfilled by subjects of morality and law (moral laws, criminal laws, state laws).

In terms of problems of philosophical epistemology, the question of the relationship between objective laws and the laws of science is important. The very formulation of such a question implies a worldview about the existence of objective laws. D. Hume, I. Kant, E. Mach doubted this. Hume's skepticism is associated with the denial of Hume's law of causality, which states: one cannot reliably extrapolate past experience to the future. The fact that an event happened n times does not allow us to say that this event will happen n+1 times. “Any degree of repeatability of our perceptions cannot serve as a basis for us to conclude that there is a greater degree of repeatability of certain objects which we do not perceive.” Supporters of the objective existence of laws accept Hume's point of view, understanding the laws of science as hypotheses. Thus, A. Poincaré argued that the laws of science, as the best expression of the internal harmony of the world, are the basic principles, prescriptions, reflecting the relationships between things. “However, are these regulations arbitrary? No, otherwise they would be infertile. Experience presents us with free choice, but at the same time it guides us.”

According to I. Kant, laws are not extracted by reason from nature, but are prescribed by it. Based on this view, the laws of science can be understood as the cognitive order that is instilled in our minds through adaptive evolution. This position is close to the evolutionary epistemology of K. Popper. E. Mach believed that laws are subjective and are generated by our psychological need not to get lost among natural phenomena. In modern cognitive science, it is possible to compare laws with subjective habits, which in turn are explained as a consequence of objective evolution.

So, in epistemology, the concept of the law of science reflects the acceptance of objectively existing interactions in nature. The laws of science are conceptual reconstructions of patterns associated with the adoption of a certain conceptual apparatus and various abstractions. The laws of science are formulated using the artificial languages ​​of their discipline. There are “statistical” laws, based on probabilistic hypotheses, and “dynamic” laws, expressed in the form of universal conditions. The study of the laws of reality finds expression in the creation of theories that reflect the subject area. Law is a key element of theory.

Theory. Theory translated from Greek means “contemplation” of what actually exists. Scientific knowledge of the era of Antiquity was theoretical, but the meaning of this term was completely different; the theories of the ancient Greeks were speculative and, in principle, not oriented towards experiment. In classical modern science, theory begins to be understood as a conceptual symbolic system built on the basis of experience. In the structure of theoretical knowledge, fundamental and particular theories are distinguished.

According to V.S. Stepin, in the structure of the theory, as its basis there is a fundamental theoretical scheme associated with the corresponding mathematical formalism. If empirical objects can be compared with real objects, then theoretical objects are idealizations, they are called constructs, they are logical reconstructions of reality. “At the basis of an established theory one can always find a mutually consistent network of abstract objects that determines the specificity of this theory. This network of objects is called the fundamental theoretical scheme."

According to the two identified sublevels of theoretical knowledge, we can talk about theoretical schemes as part of the fundamental theory and as part of particular theories. At the basis of the developed theory, one can distinguish a fundamental theoretical scheme, which is built from a small set of basic abstract objects, structurally independent from each other, and in relation to which fundamental theoretical laws are formulated. The structure of the theory was considered by analogy with the structure of a formalized mathematical theory and was depicted as a hierarchical system of statements, where statements are strictly logically derived from the basic statements of the upper tiers lower tiers up to statements directly comparable with experimental facts. The hierarchical structure of statements corresponds to a hierarchy of interconnected abstract objects. The connections of these objects form theoretical schemes at various levels. And then the development of theory appears not only as the operation of statements, but also as thought experiments with abstract objects of theoretical schemes.

Theoretical schemes play important role in developing theory. The derivation of their consequences (particular theoretical laws) from the fundamental equations of the theory is carried out not only through formal mathematical and logical operations on statements, but also through meaningful techniques - thought experiments with abstract objects of theoretical schemes, which make it possible to reduce the fundamental theoretical scheme to particular ones. Their elements of theoretical schemes are abstract objects (theoretical constructs), which are in strictly defined connections and relationships with each other. Theoretical laws are directly formulated relative to the abstract objects of the theoretical model. They can be used to describe real situations of experience only if the model is justified as an expression of the essential connections of reality that appear in such situations.

Theoretical knowledge is created to explain and predict phenomena and processes of objective and subjective reality. Depending on the level of penetration into the essence of the object being studied, scientific theories are divided into descriptive-phenomenological (empirical) and deductive (mathematized, axiomatic).

So, a theory is an abstractly generalized, constructively constructed, holistic and logically unfolding conceptual model of the object of study, which is a logically abbreviated knowledge that has explanatory and heuristic abilities.

In general, the empirical and theoretical levels discussed above scientific research represent conditional stages of a holistic scientific process. The edifice of science characterized in this way rests on a foundation designated as the foundations of science.

100 RUR bonus for first order

Select type of work Thesis Course work Abstract Master's thesis Report on practice Article Report Review Examination Monograph Problem solving Business plan Answers to questions Creative work Essay Drawing Works Translation Presentations Typing Other Increasing the uniqueness of the text Master's thesis Laboratory work Online help

Find out the price

The specificity of the theoretical level of cognition is characterized by the predominance of the rational side of the cognitive process: concepts, judgments, conclusions, principles, laws. Theoretical knowledge is abstracted, mediated knowledge.

Theoretical knowledge reflects objects, phenomena, objects and processes from their universal internal connections and patterns. They are comprehended through rational processing of empirical knowledge data.

An integral feature, the most characteristic feature theoretical cognition is the use of such methods and techniques as abstraction - abstraction from unimportant features of the object of study, idealization - the creation of often simply mental objects, analysis - the mental division of the studied object into elements, synthesis - the combination of elements obtained as a result of analysis into a system, induction - the movement of cognition from the particular to the general, deduction - the movement of thought from the general to the particular, etc.

What are structural components theoretical knowledge? These include: the problem, or more precisely, the formulation of the problem. Problem literally means “obstacle, difficulty”, defined as a situation characterized by insufficient ways, means to achieve a certain goal, ignorance of ways to achieve it. The problem is characterized not even by the obstacle itself, but by the attitude of the scientist to the obstacle.

If we talk about solving a problem, then there is a spectrum of differences. Problem solving can be palliative or radical, temporary or permanent.

A hypothesis as a form of theoretical knowledge contains an assumption formulated on the basis of a number of facts, the true meaning of which is uncertain and requires proof. A hypothesis is a probabilistic thing. As a scientific hypothesis, it differs from an arbitrary guess in that it is based on facts.

The nature of hypotheses is determined largely by the object in relation to which it is put forward. Thus, general, specific and working hypotheses are distinguished. General hypotheses are the substantiation of assumptions about patterns of various kinds. Such hypotheses serve as the foundation for building the foundations of scientific knowledge. Particular hypotheses are reasonable assumptions about the origin and properties of individual phenomena, individual events. Working hypotheses are assumptions put forward, as a rule, at the first stages of the study and serve as its guiding reference point.

The selection of reliable hypotheses occurs through evidence as a form of knowledge. The most common are inductive and deductive methods of proof. The inductive method is a chain of inferences, the premises of which cover particular judgments and are arguments that substantiate the thesis, i.e., a general judgment is derived from particular judgments, a transition from the particular to the general in thinking. That's it higher value acquire deductive reasoning.

Theory as a form of cognition and knowledge, and the most complex and developed, provides a holistic reflection of the patterns of a certain area of ​​reality. In its structure, a scientific theory is a system of initial, initial concepts and basic laws, from which, with the help of definition, all its other concepts can be formed, and the remaining laws are logically derived from the basic laws. From a methodological point of view, an abstract, idealized object (as a reflection of the real object being studied) plays an important role in the formation of theory. This is a special abstraction that contains the meaning of theoretical terms (ideal product).

The generation of theories is the ultimate goal of research. The quintessence of the theory - law. It expresses the essential, deep connections of the object. The formulation of laws is one of the main tasks of science. Theoretical knowledge is most adequately reflected in thinking(an active process of a generalized and indirect reflection of reality), and here the path passes from thinking within an established framework, according to a model, to increasing isolation, a creative understanding of the phenomenon under study.

The main ways of reflecting the surrounding reality in thinking are the concept (reflects the general, essential aspects of the object), judgment (reflects the individual characteristics of the object); inference (a logical chain that gives rise to new knowledge). With all the differences, e. etc. levels of scientific knowledge connected. E. research identifying new data through experiments and observations, stimulates T. cognition(which generalizes and explains them, poses new, more complex tasks for them). On the other hand, so-called knowledge, developing and concretizing its own new content on the basis of empirics, opens up new, broader horizons for e. knowledge, orients and directs him in search of new facts, contributes to the improvement of his methods and means.

24. Methods of the theoretical level of scientific knowledge.

Theoretical level scientific knowledge is characterized by the predominance of the rational element - concepts, theories, laws and other forms of thinking and “mental operations”. Living contemplation sensory cognition here it is not eliminated, but becomes a subordinate (but very important) aspect of the cognitive process. Theoretical knowledge reflects phenomena and processes from their universal internal connections and patterns, comprehended through rational processing of empirical knowledge data.

A characteristic feature of theoretical knowledge is its focus on oneself, internal scientific reflection, that is, the study of the process of cognition itself, its forms, techniques, methods, conceptual apparatus, etc. On the basis of theoretical explanation and known laws, prediction and scientific foresight of the future is carried out.

1. Formalization - display of content knowledge in a sign-symbolic form (formalized language). When formalizing, reasoning about objects is transferred to the plane of operating with signs (formulas), which is associated with the construction of artificial languages ​​(the language of mathematics, logic, chemistry, etc.).

It is the use of special symbols that makes it possible to eliminate the ambiguity of ordinary words, natural language. In formalized reasoning, each symbol is strictly unambiguous.

Formalization, therefore, is a generalization of the forms of processes that differ in content, and the abstraction of these forms from their content. It clarifies the content by identifying its form and can be carried out with varying degrees of completeness. But, as the Austrian logician and mathematician Gödel showed, there is always an undetected, unformalizable remainder in the theory. The ever-deepening formalization of the content of knowledge will never reach absolute completeness. This means that formalization is internally limited in its capabilities. It has been proven that there is no universal method that allows any reasoning to be replaced by calculation. Gödel's theorems provided a fairly rigorous justification for the fundamental impossibility of complete formalization of scientific reasoning and scientific knowledge in general.

2. Axiomatic method - a method of constructing a scientific theory in which it is based on certain initial provisions - axioms (postulates), from which all other statements of this theory are deduced from them in a purely logical way, through proof.

3. Hypothetico-deductive method - a method of scientific knowledge, the essence of which is to create a system of deductively interconnected hypotheses, from which statements about empirical facts are ultimately derived. The conclusion obtained on the basis of this method will inevitably be probabilistic in nature.

General structure of the hypothetico-deductive method:

a) familiarization with factual material that requires a theoretical explanation and an attempt to do so with the help of already existing theories and laws. If not, then:

b) putting forward conjectures (hypotheses, assumptions) about the causes and patterns of these phenomena using a variety of logical techniques;

c) assessing the validity and seriousness of assumptions and selecting the most probable from among many of them;

d) deducing consequences from a hypothesis (usually deductively) with clarification of its content;

e) experimental verification of the consequences derived from the hypothesis. Here the hypothesis either receives experimental confirmation or is refuted. However, confirmation of individual consequences does not guarantee its truth (or falsity) as a whole. The best hypothesis based on the test results becomes a theory.

4. Ascent from the abstract to the concrete - a method of theoretical research and presentation, consisting in the movement of scientific thought from the initial abstraction through successive stages of deepening and expanding knowledge to the result - a holistic reproduction of the theory of the subject under study. As its premise, this method includes an ascent from the sensory-concrete to the abstract, to the isolation in thinking of individual aspects of an object and their “fixation” in the corresponding abstract definitions. The movement of knowledge from the sensory-concrete to the abstract is the movement from the individual to the general; logical techniques such as analysis and induction predominate here. The ascent from the abstract to the mentally-concrete is the process of movement from individual general abstractions to their unity, the concrete-universal; the methods of synthesis and deduction dominate here.

The essence of theoretical knowledge is not only the description and explanation of the variety of facts and patterns identified in the process empirical research in a certain subject area, based on a small number of laws and principles, it is also expressed in the desire of scientists to reveal the harmony of the universe.

Theories can be presented in the most different ways. We often encounter the tendency of scientists towards axiomatic construction of theories, which imitates the pattern of organization of knowledge created in geometry by Euclid. However, most often theories are presented genetically, gradually introducing the subject and revealing it successively from the simplest to more and more complex aspects.

Regardless of the accepted form of presentation of the theory, its content, of course, is determined by the basic principles that underlie it.

Theories do not appear as direct generalizations of empirical facts.

As A. Einstein wrote, “no logical path leads from observations to the basic principles of theory.” They arise in complex interactions theoretical thinking and empirical knowledge of reality, as a result of the resolution of internal, purely theoretical problems, the interaction of science and culture as a whole.

Question No. 11

theoretical level of scientific knowledge: methods and forms

The theoretical level of scientific knowledge is characterized by the predominance of the rational element - concepts, theories, laws and other forms of thinking and “mental operations”.

As A. Einstein wrote, “ no logical path leads from observations to the basic principles of theory».

They arise in the complex interaction of theoretical thinking and empirical knowledge of reality, as a result of the resolution of internal, purely theoretical problems, and the interaction of science and culture as a whole.

Theoretical knowledge reflects phenomena and processes from their universal internal connections And patterns , comprehended through rational processing of empirical knowledge data. This processing is carried out using systems of abstractions"higher order" - such as concepts, conclusions, laws, categories, principles, etc.

 The theoretical level of knowledge is usually divided into two types- fundamental theories and theories that describe a specific area of ​​reality.
The most important task of theoretical knowledge is to achieve objective truth in all its specificity and completeness of content.

methods of scientific knowledge

Obtaining and justifying objectively true knowledge in science occurs with the help of scientific methods. Method(from the Greek metodos - the path of research or knowledge) - a set of rules, techniques and operations for the practical and theoretical development of reality. The main function of the method in scientific knowledge is internal organization and regulation of the process of cognition of a particular object.
Methodology is defined as a system of methods and as a doctrine about this system, a general theory of method.
The nature of the method is determined by many factors: the subject of research, the degree of generality of the tasks, accumulated experience, the level of development of scientific knowledge, etc.
In the theory of science and methodology of scientific knowledge, various classifications of methods have been developed.

For example, There are two universal methods in the history of knowledge: dialectical and metaphysical . These are general philosophical methods.

• The dialectical method is a method of understanding reality in its inconsistency, integrity and development.
• The metaphysical method is a method opposite to the dialectical one, considering phenomena outside of their mutual connection and development.