Pseudoscience pseudoscience essays and term papers. Distinctive features of pseudoscience
Some opinions
Among the main differences between pseudoscience and science are the uncritical use of new untested methods, dubious and often erroneous data and information, as well as the denial of the possibility of refutation, while science is based on facts (verified information), verifiable methods and is constantly evolving, parting with refuted theories and offering new .
Distinctive features
Radical violations of the norms of scientificity on the part of pseudoscience are considered:
- neglect of the methodological principles of economy and fallibilism,
- recognition as a content characteristic of the truth of such subjective elements as faith, feeling, mystical vision or other paranatural forms of experience,
- use of unfalsifiable hypotheses.
In the results of research, serious shortcomings are: violations of the norms of cognitive connectivity, the lack of rational coordination of the new hypothesis with the established and already substantiated arrays of knowledge.
The salient features of the pseudo scientific theory are :
- Ignoring or distorting facts known to the author of the theory, but contradicting his constructions.
- Non-falsifiability, that is, the fundamental impossibility of setting up an experiment (at least a mental one), the result of which could refute this theory.
- Rejection of attempts to verify theoretical calculations with the results of observations, if possible, replacing checks with appeals to "intuition", "common sense" or "authoritative opinion".
- The use of unreliable data as the basis of the theory (that is, not confirmed by a number of independent experiments (researchers), or lying within the limits of measurement errors), or unproven positions, or data resulting from computational errors. This paragraph does not include scientific hypothesis, clearly defining the basic provisions.
- The introduction of political and religious attitudes into the publication or discussion of scientific work. This point, however, requires careful clarification, since otherwise Newton, for example, falls into the category of pseudoscientists, and precisely because of the “Beginnings”, and not because of later works on theology.
A softer formulation of this criterion: the fundamental and strong inseparability of the scientific content of the work from its other components. In the modern scientific environment, the author, as a rule, must independently isolate the scientific component and publish it separately, without explicitly mixing it with religion or politics. - Appeal to the media (press, television, radio, Internet), and not to the scientific community. The latter is manifested in the absence of publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
- Claim for a "revolutionary" revolution in science and technology.
- Reliance on phenomena, the very existence of which has not been scientifically proven, most often borrowed from other pseudoscientific theories or from occultism and esotericism (“astral plane”, “subtle fields”, “aura energy”, “torsion fields”, “biofields”, etc.). P.);
- The promise of fast and fabulous medical, economic, financial, environmental and other positive effects.
- The desire to present the theory itself or its author as a victim of "monopoly" and "ideological persecution" on the part of "official science" and thereby reject criticism from the scientific community as deliberately biased.
- Use of methods of direct or indirect censorship.
- Using criminal fraud methods using scientific terms, scientific degrees and titles when reviewing papers
Pseudoscience ignores the most important elements of the scientific method - experimental verification and error correction. The absence of this negative feedback deprives pseudoscience of its connection with the object of study, and contributes to the accumulation of errors.
Optional but common features of pseudoscientific theories are also the following:
- A theory is created by one person or a small group of people who are not experts in the relevant field.
- The theory is globally universal - it claims to explain literally the entire universe or, at least, to explain the state of affairs in an entire branch of knowledge (for example, in the case of psychoanalytic theories, the behavior of any person in any circumstances).
- Many bold conclusions are drawn from the basic provisions, the correctness of which is not verified or substantiated.
- The author actively uses theory to run a personal business: he sells literature on theory and provides paid services based on it; advertises and conducts paid "courses", "trainings", "seminars" on theory and its application; in one way or another promotes the theory among non-specialists as a highly effective means for achieving success and improving life (in general or in some aspects).
- In articles, books, advertising materials, the author presents the theory as absolutely proven and no doubt true, regardless of the degree of its actual recognition among specialists.
It should be noted that there are and constantly appear many theories and hypotheses that may seem pseudo-scientific for a number of reasons:
- new, unusual formalism (language of theory);
- the fantastic nature of the consequences of the theory;
- lack or inconsistency of experimental evidence (for example, due to insufficient technological equipment);
- lack of information or knowledge necessary to understand;
- using the terminology of old views rejected by science to formulate new theories;
- the conformity of the one who evaluates the theory.
But if the theory really admits the possibility of its independent verification, then it cannot be called pseudoscientific, whatever the "degree of delusion" (according to Niels Bohr) of this theory. Some of these theories may become "protosciences", giving rise to new lines of research and new language descriptions of reality. However, one should distinguish between theories that have been tested and refuted - their active promotion is also referred to as pseudoscientific activity.
One of the possible reasons for issuing a verdict in pseudo-science (pseudo-science) is the not always conscious use scientific methodology to explain what fundamentally cannot be the object of scientific study. So Academician L. I. Mandelstam, referring to scientific research, said: “... phenomena that are fundamentally non-repeatable, occurring fundamentally only once, cannot be the object of study.” At the same time, he mentioned the opinion of the English mathematician and philosopher Whitehead, who believed that the birth of theoretical physics is connected precisely with the application of the concept of periodicity to various questions.
Classification
At present, there is much more agreement in the philosophy of science on particular criteria than on a general criterion of demarcation between science and non-science. However, with the existing variety of theories and criteria of pseudoscience in most specific areas, there is a consensus of philosophers of science about their attribution to science or pseudoscience. In modern sociology of science (strong program), it is accepted that the problem of demarcation is the prerogative of the scientific community as a whole and, accordingly, as a social problem, the demarcation procedure cannot be fully formalized in terms of once and for all established criteria. There are cases where initially unproven concepts have eventually received the status of scientific theories, or at least scientific hypotheses, for example, the theory of continental drift, ball lightning and radiation hormesis. In some cases, the theory may over time reject pseudoscientific foundations and largely lose the status of pseudoscientific. This is the case, for example, with osteopathy, whose original principles were implausible, unproven, and incoherent, but which by now has "for the most part moved away from its pseudoscientific beginnings and entered the world of rational health care." Cosmology, which in ancient times was a religious and philosophical concept, changed its content and turned into a branch of astronomy. Other concepts such as phrenology or alchemy, originally considered "higher sciences", are now pseudosciences. Pseudoscience and "official science"However, such comparisons are not always appropriate. No one persecuted Copernicus, and his theory was declared heretical by Rome more than half a century after his death. Bruno's works were not so much scientific as occult-philosophical in nature, and Bruno was condemned by the Inquisition not for any scientific work, but for heresy. AT scientific world of his time, Galileo enjoyed the highest authority, and his results, together with the teachings of Nicolaus Copernicus, were quickly recognized by scientists. And Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic Church, not by the scientific community. As for the persecution of genetics in the 20th century, they were organized not by the scientific community, but by the authorities. The fall of Lysenko began during Stalin's lifetime (in particular, in 1952 he was expelled from the party and removed from all positions of his " right hand» I. Present). It is not difficult, if desired, to find real examples of long-term non-recognition of the scientific merits of scientists who were ahead of their time, namely by the modern scientific community (the reasons were very different) or state persecution for raising certain scientific questions (you can, for example, recall the fate of such scientists as Nikolai Lobachevsky and Ludwig Boltzmann) [ ] . But the fact is that with such rhetoric and complaints about “persecution by official science”, the authors and adherents of pseudoscientific theories often replace such obvious and necessary actions for the development of truly scientific theories as a clear substantiation of the theory, its critical verification and ensuring the agreement of its results with the results of related fields of science that have clear practical evidence. So, for example, no complaints about the “dominance of the supporters of the theory of relativity” will replace in the “new, revolutionary physical theory” the derivation from the equations of the new theory of the equations of Newtonian mechanics under limiting restrictions on the values of some parameters. Another common polemical technique is an indication of the example of dilettantes who made real discoveries contrary to the opinions established in science, such as, for example, Columbus, Schliemann. However, firstly, confirmed theories should not be confused with discoveries made by chance in the course of attempts to confirm them. Columbus intended to sail to India, which he believed to be much closer to the West from Europe than it actually is. He misjudged the facts at his disposal and, in fact, was mistaken in literally everything. The discovery of a new continent was the result of a coincidence, but by no means a confirmation of his assumptions. As for Schliemann, his discovery of the alleged Troy and the Mycenaean civilization, firstly, did not confirm the theoretical premises about the absolute truth of the Homeric texts from which Schliemann proceeded, and secondly, did not contain anything fundamentally impossible from the point of view of science of that time and did not contradict the previously established scientific facts; and thirdly, it was quickly recognized by the scientific community due to the indisputable facts. This is the fundamental difference between the amateur Schliemann, who operates within the framework of the scientific method, and pseudoscientists, who, without presenting real discoveries, at the same time lay claim to his laurels. In fact, Schliemann was a good (leaving aside losses due to the unprofessionalism of his excavations) example of how a supporter of an unrecognized concept should act: work on it and its scientific evidence, and not complain about misunderstanding. The emergence of a new scientific theory is often really met with hostility in the scientific community. In itself, this is a natural and even necessary “immune reaction”: a new theory must prove its right to exist and its advantage over the old ones, and for this, go through a test of criticism after mandatory presentation at scientific conferences and publication in scientific journals or as a scientific hypothesis , or as a reasoned objection to the shortcomings of accepted scientific theories. If theories were accepted only for their "boldness" and "originality" and not for their conformity to scientific criteria and facts, science simply could not exist as a science. The study of the processes of acceptance and rejection of theories by the scientific community is one of the subjects |
Pseudoscience differs from science in the first place, content of his knowledge.
The claims of pseudoscience are inconsistent with established facts do not stand up to objective practical verification.
The effectiveness of astrological forecasts has been tested many times, and the result has always been negative. Everyone can be convinced of this at an elementary level. It is only important to follow the correct sequence: first write down major events one's own or someone else's life, referring each to a certain category (health, personal life, money, work) and evaluating a plus or minus sign, and already then compare with the horoscope for this period. Astrologers are indifferent to the negative results of such tests, because, as mentioned above, in fact, an accurate prediction of the future is not the goal of this pseudoscience.
Second, pseudoscience is different from science structure of his knowledge.
Pseudo-scientific knowledge is fragmentary and does not fit into any integral picture of the world.
The scientific picture of the world is harmonious. Not a single brick can be arbitrarily added to it, and not a single brick can be taken out of it without seriously rebuilding the whole building. In this regard, scientific work can be compared with solving an endless crossword puzzle, each word in which is checked by intersection with several known ones, and pseudoscientific activity can be compared with entering a word only on the basis that it consists of the right number letters.
The contradictions between scientific and pseudoscientific ideas are considered by pseudoscientists as evidence of the falsity of the "old" science, and not its individual provisions, but all at once. Often, an “iron” argument is used: how many times in the history of science has a new theory canceled an old one! The weakness of this argument is that, in reality, new scientific theories do not so much abolish as expand old ones ( conformity principle, see Section 2.5.3). Einstein did not cancel Newtonian mechanics, but showed that it fair only at speeds of motion much less than the speed of light (section 2.5.2). Darwinism did not cancel the system of classification of organisms proposed by C. Linnaeus, an opponent of the doctrine of the variability of species, but showed that it reflects the history of the natural development of the biosphere.
Thus, it is possible to distinguish pseudoscientific knowledge from scientific knowledge in terms of its content and structure, but this is not always easy, since it requires extensive and deep knowledge. It is easier to distinguish a pseudoscientist by the methodology.
The pseudosciences are characterized by the following methods of obtaining, testing and disseminating knowledge:
1) Uncritical analysis of source data. Legends, myths, third-hand stories, etc. are accepted as reliable facts.
2) Disregard for conflicting facts.Interest is shown only in material that can be interpreted in favor provable concept, everything else is simply not considered.
3) The immutability of views in spite of any objections. Real scientists are not shy about admitting they are wrong (see, for example, the story of Einstein and Friedman in Section 5.1.1). Do not hesitate because there is confidence in the scientific method knowledge, which guarantees the elimination of errors.
4) Lack of laws. It is not a concept that is presented, but a story or scenario according to which, according to the author, certain events took place. So, in Ufology, the most unacceptable element is not the stories about meetings with aliens themselves, but the lack of proper understanding of them. Who are these aliens? Where are they from? If from other stars, then how did they overcome the technological and environmental difficulties of organizing interstellar travel, which, as we already understand, are of a fundamental nature? The answers to these and other similar questions, if given, are inconclusive and pale in comparison with the detailed descriptions of the circumstances of the UFO landing. It is very characteristic that none of the ufologists has yet succeeded predict the date and place of the appearance of the next flying saucer is a sure sign of the absence of positive knowledge.
5) Violation of generally accepted ethical standards. This applies most of all to deviant science. To manipulate the results of experiments, to adjust solutions to a given answer, means not only to give incorrect information (no one is guaranteed against mistakes), but to act immorally. To understand the pseudoscientific nature of the theories of the largest pseudoscientist of the 20th century, Academician T. D. Lysenko and his associates, who for several decades occupied commanding heights in domestic biology and agricultural sciences, it is not necessary to be a professional biologist. It was enough to see with what methods they dealt with those whom they considered their opponents. If a person who introduces himself as a scientist calls his opponent a scoundrel and a pest, if his argument in a scientific dispute is a denunciation or a complaint to administrative authorities, then it is better not to believe his scientific results.
Other varieties of pseudoscience are also flawed in moral and ethical terms. Deception and fraud, the unscrupulous exploitation of the peculiarities of human psychology, are almost always revealed when pseudoscientific claims are subjected to thorough verification. Unfortunately, such detailed checks do not happen very often - serious people are reluctant to be distracted from their affairs, and pseudoscientists themselves usually achieve not so much a thorough analysis of their activities by competent professionals, but the favor of the authorities and popularity with the general public.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | 15 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Worldview - a set of ideas, assessments and principles that characterize a person's attitude to the world around him, society, himself.
The main types of worldview:
mythological - figurative knowledge, transmitted from generation to generation, from mouth to mouth. Disadvantages: uncritical, irrational.
religious - a worldview based on the belief in the existence of supernatural forces, spreads through a special source (the bible). Advantages: systematization, solution of existential issues. Disadvantages: understatement, uncriticality, lack of development.
scientific - a worldview based on rationally processed experience. Advantages: criticality, validity, continuous development, consistency. Weaknesses: lack of answers to existential questions.
philosophical - a worldview based on reason turned to itself. Advantages: rationality, criticality, development. Disadvantages: pluralism of opinions, inaccessibility.
Science definitions:
Science as a system of knowledge is a system of reliable, substantiated knowledge expressed in the form of theories.
Science as a spiritual activity is a cognitive activity aimed at obtaining practically confirmed knowledge.
Science as a social institution produces, collects and disseminates knowledge.
Distinctive features and properties of science:
Objective - neither the individual characteristics of the scientist, nor his nationality or place of residence are in any way represented in the final results of scientific knowledge.
Reliable - its conclusions require, allow and are tested according to certain rules formulated in it.
Systematized - has a certain structure, and is not an incoherent collection of parts.
Universal - communicates knowledge that is true for the entire universe under the conditions under which they are obtained by man.
Boundless - absolute truth in science is unattainable.
It is generally significant - the knowledge it receives is suitable for all people, and its language is unambiguous, since science seeks to clearly fix its terms, which contributes to the unification of people living in various parts of the world.
Continuity - new knowledge in a certain way and according to certain rules correlates with old knowledge.
Critical - always ready to question and revise even the most fundamental results.
Extramoral - scientific truths are morally and ethically neutral.
Rational - that receives knowledge on the basis of rational procedures and laws of logic and comes to the formulation of theories and their provisions that go beyond the empirical level.
Sensible - that its results require empirical verification using perception, and only after that they are recognized as reliable.
Goals and functions of science:
1. Cognitive and explanatory consists in knowing and explaining how the world works and what are the laws of its development.
2. Worldview helps a person not only explain the knowledge he knows about the world, but also build it into a coherent system, consider the phenomena of the world in their unity and diversity, develop his own worldview
3. Prognostic. The essence of the predictive function of science is to foresee the consequences of changes in the surrounding world. Science allows a person not only to change the world around him according to his desires and needs, but also to predict the consequences of such changes. With the help of scientific models, scientists can show possible dangerous trends in the development of society and give recommendations on how to overcome them.
4. Production (a catalyst for development). direct productive force. Accelerates the process of improving production.
5. Social strength. Science is included in the processes of social development and its management in the interaction of the humanities and technical sciences (solving global problems, developed by the EEC)
Immediate goals sciences - obtaining knowledge about the objective and subjective world, comprehension of objective truth.
The tasks of science:
1) collection, description, analysis, generalization and explanation of facts;
2) discovery of the laws of motion of nature, society, thinking and
knowledge;
3) systematization of acquired knowledge;
4) explanation of the essence of phenomena and processes;
5) forecasting events, phenomena and processes;
6) establishment of directions and forms of practical use
acquired knowledge.
Prerequisites for the emergence of science:
the abolition of the mythological logic of the absurd and the transition to traditional logic with its laws of identity, non-contradiction, exclusive third, sufficient reason. Principles: consistency, certainty, consistency, evidence.
The formation of such methods of cognition, which, relying on discursive, rational grounds, ascertain the objects of knowledge-oriented knowledge about an objective being.
Levels of scientific knowledge:
Empirical level - techniques, methods and forms of cognition associated with the direct reflection of an object, the material-sensory interaction of a person with it; accumulation, fixation, grouping and generalization of the source material for the construction of mediated theoretical knowledge. Methods: observation, experiment, modeling, description, measurement, etc.
Theoretical level - forms and methods of cognitive activity and methods of organizing knowledge, which are characterized by varying degrees of mediation and provide the creation, construction and development of scientific theory (logically organized knowledge about the laws, necessary connections and relations of the subject area of a given science). Methods Keywords: abstraction, idealization, modeling, analysis, synthesis, deduction, induction, analogy. Elements Keywords: law, theory, hypothesis.
Classification of methods of scientific knowledge:
By nature and role in cognition:
a) methods-techniques, which consist of specific rules, techniques and algorithms of actions (observation, experiment, etc.)
b) methods-approaches that indicate the direction and general way research (system analysis, functional analysis, diachronic method, etc.).
According to the functional purpose, there are:
a) universal methods of thinking (analysis, synthesis, comparison, generalization, induction, deduction, etc.);
b) empirical level methods (observation, experiment, survey, measurement);
c) theoretical level methods (modeling, thought experiment, analogy, mathematical methods, philosophical methods, induction and deduction).
3. Degree of generality. Here the methods are divided into:
a) philosophical methods (dialectical, formal-logical, intuitive, phenomenological, hermeneutic);
b) general scientific methods, that is, methods that guide the course of knowledge in many sciences, but unlike philosophical methods, each general scientific method (observation, experiment, analysis, synthesis, modeling, etc.) solves its own, characteristic task only for it ;
c) special methods.
Structure of the scientific method:
scientific method- this is a set of rules, techniques and principles that ensure the natural knowledge of the object and the receipt of reliable knowledge.
Empirical level: observation, experiment, measurement, classification, systematization, description, comparison.
Theoretical level: induction, deduction, formalization, mathematization, analysis, synthesis, formalization, idealization, modeling, axiomatization, hypothetical-deductive method.
The axiomatic method is a way of constructing a scientific theory, when certain axioms are placed at its basis, from which all other provisions are logically derived. The hypothetical-deductive method is the creation of a system of deductively interconnected hypotheses, from which, ultimately, explanations of scientific facts are derived.
Essence of pseudoscience:
Pseudoscience Any methodology or belief system that claims to be scientific but fails to meet the standards of methodology and evidence that are the hallmarks of real science. Although pseudoscience hopes to achieve scientific status, there is nothing scientific about it.
Distinctive features of pseudoscience:
Uncritical analysis of source data: legends, myths, third-hand stories, etc. are accepted as reliable facts.
Penchant for conspiracy theories.
Neglect of contradictory facts: interest is shown only in the material that can be interpreted in favor of the concept being proved, everything else is simply not considered.
Persistence of views, despite any objections
Lack of laws
Violation of generally accepted ethical norms: to manipulate the results of experiments, to adjust solutions to a given answer, means not only to give incorrect information (no one is guaranteed against mistakes), but to act immorally.
Social functions of pseudoscience:
Cognitive: presentation of subjective and unproven knowledge (astrology)
Psychological: support for people, production of pseudo-explanations for various phenomena that suit people, because there are no scientific analogues.
The most fundamental laws of nature are often formulated as absolute prohibitions. It is impossible to move faster than light (p. 2.5.1) - but I would like to. It is impossible for energy to arise from nowhere, which means that you will always have to pay for gasoline. Psychologically, these prohibitions are perceived as unfriendly restrictions on the freedom and desires of a person. The wonderful, albeit illusory, world of pseudoscience, where everything is possible, looks much more attractive. That is why stories about almighty sorcerers, psychics and aliens are so popular.
The existence of deviant science is due to the fact that the assessment scientific results is a complex and largely subjective matter. Therefore, society is forced to maintain science not as a sum of useful knowledge (it is difficult to assess the usefulness of a single fact, especially in the long term), but as a type of activity. But if it is not so much the result of the research that is paid for, but its process, there is a temptation to imitate this process without producing a result.
Modern classifications of sciences:
Kedrov developed the most complete classification of sciences. He divided all reality into nature and man. In man, he singled out society and thinking. The sciences of nature are natural, those of society are social, and those of thinking are philosophical.
The difference between natural science, social and humanitarian knowledge:
The difference between the object of study: in the natural sciences, nature is studied, in the humanities - a person from the point of view of his spiritual, cultural, moral, social and mental spheres, in the social - the impact of events on a person.
The natural sciences study material things, while the humanities and social disciplines are rather ideal in nature, although they are studied in their material media. They are unstable, rapid variability of objects of study.
Natural knowledge is objective, humanitarian and social knowledge is subjective.
The method of natural science is “generalizing” (goal: to find common things in various phenomena, to bring them under a general rule. In the humanities and social sciences, since the main object of research is a person, it is impossible to neglect his individuality, therefore the method of knowledge can be called “individualizing”.
The natural sciences are not characterized by value-colored judgments, which are an essential element of humanitarian knowledge. humanitarian and social knowledge may be influenced by this or that ideology, and are much more connected with it than natural scientific knowledge.
The social sciences are oriented towards a person in terms of his social activity, while the humanities often pursue abstract goals and consider abstract concepts.
In the social sciences, there are practical tools that are focused on the study of society and the individual, while in the humanities this is often not required.
Technology as a subject and as an activity:
1. Activity principle: this is the fundamental methodological principle of the analysis of technology. Its essence: technology is considered, with all the complexity of this phenomenon, primarily as a specific type of activity, and not only as a set of certain objects (machines, etc.). The starting point for the analysis of technology is not the substantive (artifacts), but the activity side (methods, methods) of technology. 2. Technology became the subject of philosophical analysis at that stage of its history when society switched to a technological mode of existence in a machine form, and its own development and functioning received scientific foundations and led to the emergence of the sphere of general and special scientific and technical education. This process took its mature form around the middle of the 19th century.
Purpose and tasks of technology:
lengthening the average life expectancy of a person by almost two times;
technology freed a person from embarrassing circumstances and increased his free time;
new information technology has qualitatively expanded the scope and forms of human intellectual activity;
technology has brought progress in the process of education;
technology has raised the efficiency of human activity in various spheres of society.
Negative manifestations and dangers of technology:
Deterioration environment, pollution of nature.
Lack of resources.
Replacing the human labor force and increasing labor productivity, it gives rise to the problem of organizing leisure and unemployment.
Medical technology, by significantly increasing life expectancy, puts developing countries in front of the problem of a population explosion.
Technique, which provides the possibility of intervention in hereditary nature, creates a threat to human individuality, human dignity and the uniqueness of the individual.
Influencing the intellectual and spiritual life of the individual (and society), modern computerization intensifies mental work, increases the "resolving power" of the human brain.
The transformation of the human mind into a cybernetic, pragmatically oriented mind, losing the figurative, emotional coloring of thinking and communication.
Deformation of spiritual communication, spiritual connections: spiritual values are to a greater extent transformed into bare anonymous information, designed for the average consumer and leveling the personal-individual perception.
Decreased physical health.
It carries a threat of spiritual one-sidedness, expressed in the formation of a technocratic type of personality.
Technique can be used as an effective means of suppression, total control and manipulation of a person.
The impact of technology on the human psyche and through virtual reality is enormous, stopping the development of figurative and abstract thinking, the appearance of neurosis and mental illness.
Different understandings of the time of the birth of science:
science as a systematization of the generalization of knowledge (arises along with human organization)
science as rational evidence-based knowledge (originates in ancient Greece, 6th-5th century BC)
science as practically confirmed knowledge (appears in modern times 17-18 century)
science as a special institution of society: educational organizations, scientific (by the 19th century)
science as the leading force of social progress (second half of the 20th century)
Achievements of science of the Ancient East:
were the first to learn how to get sugar from sugar cane
production of silk fabrics, invention of paper, compass, calendar, writing
creating a high and distinctive culture
the first plants were mastered and bred: cotton, flax, wheat, tea, grapes. Goats, sheep, camels, donkeys, horses, etc. were tamed.
the birthplace of many sciences such as mathematics and astronomy (the beginning of counting time was laid by the observations of farmers over the movement of the sun, moon and stars)
artists, craftsmen, architects
medicine (acupuncture)
Prerequisites for the rationalization of the worldview in Ancient Greece:
development of productive forces, technology (the development of iron and the production of iron tools);
the development of economic relations, the transition from an early class society to a developed slave-owning society, which is characterized by abstract social relations (master-slave relations, the development of a system of commodity-money relations), established ideas of exchange value and abstract labor;
territorial expansion, which led to cultural contacts with the most diverse countries and peoples;
the plurality of policies (city-states), each of which had its own traditions, and this not only did not destroy, but even strengthened the consciousness of common Greek cultural unity;
the social organization of the polis, the democratic nature of many of them;
relative political equality of free citizens, the existence of political rights and personal freedoms;
a developed sense of civic responsibility and critical thinking, when every Greek considers himself responsible not only for his own fate, but also for the fate of the entire state, the entire policy;
the presence of a perfect writing system (phonetic, alphabetic writing), i.e. the most advanced system of means for fixing, storing and transmitting information at that time;
dissemination of public discussions, which required the ability to convincingly, logically, reasonably defend one's point of view; methods of logical proof are developed; the system of training and education acquires the character of a social institution;
individualization of the spiritual world of the individual, the formation of self-awareness and self-esteem;
the formation of public opinion that encouraged creative personal achievement.
Achievements of ancient Greek science:
The development of geometry, mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, the use of a compass, the prediction of solar eclipses.
Plato belongs to the doctrine of ideas - the prototypes of the world. The task of the legislator, he believed, is the creation of an ideal policy. And Plato creates such a project of the policy, which must be managed by the sages.
"Socratic" method of arguing - truth is born only in a dispute in which the sage, with the help of a series of leading questions, makes his opponents first recognize the incorrectness of their own positions, and then the justice of their opponent's views. Self-knowledge is the beginning of true wisdom.
Pythagoras: the multiplication table and the Pythagorean theorem, the doctrine of the "harmony of the spheres".
Aristotle: the founder of scientific philosophy, logic, the doctrine of the basic principles of being (possibility and implementation, form and matter, reason and purpose).
Democritus: discovered the existence of atoms
Hippocrates: the founder of scientific medicine, the author of the doctrine of the integrity of the human body, the theory of an individual approach to the patient, the tradition of keeping a medical history, works on medical ethics, in which Special attention drew on the high moral character of the doctor, the author of the famous professional oath, which is given by everyone who receives a medical diploma. His immortal rule for doctors has survived to this day: do no harm to the patient. The medicine of the priests was replaced by the medicine of doctors based on precise observations.
Archimedes: the law of Archimedes - a buoyant force equal to the mass of the displaced water acts on a body in a liquid; developed various designs, for example, a water-lifting screw. In particular, it is used to pump water from ships that have received a hole. The principle of the Archimedean screw is still used today.
The main scientific schools of ancient Greece:
Seven Wise Men (7th-6th centuries BC) - practical wisdom of life and the creation of laws.
The Milesian school is the oldest natural philosophical school, whose main issue is the definition of the origin from which the world arose. The origin of the foundations of astronomy, mathematics, geography, physics, biology and other sciences (founded by Thales + Anaximander, Anaximenes and Heraclitus).
Pythagoreans - the first philosophical school, a religious and philosophical aristocratic brotherhood; she had big influence to the Greek cities of southern Italy and Sicily. Ideas: the immortality of the soul, the beginning of mathematical sciences (the doctrine of the decade: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10), the development of astronomy, medicine and grammar of the Greek language.
Sophists - itinerant teachers for money could teach anyone the art of speech, etc. Purpose: preparing young people for an active political life.
Plato's Academy is a religious and philosophical union dedicated to the mythical hero Academy. A wide range of disciplines: philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, natural science, etc.
Peripatetics (Aristotle)
Epicureans - the philosophy of pleasure, the pleasure of peace, as the absence of suffering, all basic philosophical concepts are considered through the prism of spiritual pleasure.
Stoic - the idea of submission to fate and the fatality of all things.
Cynics (Antisthenes of Athens / Diogenes of Sinop) - the requirement to discard existing norms and customs, the wise is guided not by the orders established by people, but by the laws of virtue; the concept of nature as the original state of human existence, not distorted by perverse human institutions.
Features of ancient Greek science:
emergence of the idea of proof of knowledge
rationality (reason is the main criterion of truth)
theoretical nature of knowledge
lack of connection with practice
separation from religion
the emergence of special activities of scientists, the emergence of schools
Features and achievements of medieval science:
Universalism is the desire for universal knowledge of the world as a whole, the desire to understand the world as a complete unity.
The dominance of world religions, science was subordinate to religion.
Symbolism (work with texts, their interpretation, search for symbols).
Hierarchism is the desire to systematize knowledge.
Transition to logical thinking.
Artificial triurvism (7 liberal arts: grammar, dialectics, history, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music) + alchemy.
The first steps towards a mechanical explanation of the world have been taken. Concepts are introduced: postuta, infinite space, rectilinear motion.
New measuring devices were improved and created.
Mathematization of physics began.
Copernican revolution in astronomy:
Change of paradigms from Ptolemy's model of the universe (the Earth is the center of the universe) to the heliocentric model with the Sun at the center of our solar system. This event became one of the starting points for the beginning of the scientific revolution of the 16th century (1543 on the revolutions of the celestial spheres). The teaching of Copernicus was tantamount to a revolutionary restructuring not only in astronomy and natural science, but also in the methods of scientific research and knowledge. It led to radical changes in the way of thinking of natural scientists, turning it from the usual and ossified dogmas to a direct study of the real world.
G. Galileo and his contribution to the development of natural science:
revolution in mechanics: he introduced exact quantitative experiment and mathematical description of phenomena into mechanics.
the general principle of classical mechanics is the principle of relativity of Galileo: all physical (mechanical) phenomena occur in the same way in all systems that are at rest or move uniformly and rectilinearly with a speed constant in magnitude and direction. Such systems are called inertial. The mathematical transformations of Galileo reflect the movement in two inertial frames moving at a relatively low speed (less than the speed of light in vacuum). They establish invariance (invariance) in systems of length, time and acceleration.
science as mathematical and experimental natural science. The starting point was to advance the argument that, in order to formulate clear judgments about nature, scientists should consider only objective - measurable properties, while properties that are simply accessible to perception should be ignored as subjective and ephemeral. Only with the help of quantitative analysis can science obtain correct knowledge about the world.
improved and invented many technical devices: a lens, a telescope, a microscope, a magnet, an air thermometer, a barometer, etc.
found authentic scientific point contact of experimental-inductive and abstract-deductive ways of studying nature, which makes it possible to connect scientific thinking, which is impossible without abstraction and idealization, with a concrete perception of the phenomena and processes of nature.
developed dynamics - the science of the movement of bodies under the action of applied forces
formulated the first laws of free fall of bodies, gave a strict formulation of the concepts of speed and acceleration, realized the decisive importance of the properties of the movement of bodies, in the future called inertia, the idea of the relativity of movement.
The laws of mechanics of Galileo, together with his astronomical discoveries, provided the physical basis for the theory of Copernicus, which its creator himself did not yet have. From a hypothesis, the heliocentric doctrine was now beginning to turn into a theory.
Prerequisites for the scientific revolution of the 17th century.
1. The needs of developing agricultural production.
2. Changing the structure of the population - the migration of the rural population to the cities and the liberation from serfdom.
3. Industrial revolutions in Italy, England, Germany, France
4. Ending the totalitarian persecution of dissidents by the Catholic Church.
5. Development of printing.
6. Secular freethinking of the Renaissance - humanism - the basis for the perception of science.
7. Discovery of America and information about new continents.
8. Development of methods of experimental natural science - R.Bacon, N.Kuzansky.
9. The emergence of sciences that use experiment in the course of their research - alchemy, iatrochemistry.
10. Accumulation of scientific data that contradicts Aristotle's paradigm in astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology.
The essence of the scientific revolution of the 17th century.
The scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries embraced all aspects of the worldview. It was a new view of the world, which resulted in a new direction in science - experimental natural science. Its starting point is the transition from the geocentric model of the world to the heliocentric one. This transition was due to a series of discoveries associated with the names of N. Copernicus, G. Galileo, J. Kepler, R. Descartes. I. Newton, summed up their research and formulated the basic principles of a new scientific picture of the world in general terms.
Pseudoscience is a system of views and ideas based on false non-scientific principles. In our field - biomedicine - there are classic examples of pseudoscience: Michurin biology, based on the false principle of inheritance of acquired traits; the theory of the origin of cells from the so-called living matter; partly nervism - supposed primacy nervous system in all manifestations of biology and pathology of the body. In chemistry it is alchemy, in astronomy it is astrology.
How and from what does pseudoscience arise? It would seem, from erroneous observations and misconceptions. But it's not. The very method of science is trial and error. Mistakes are an integral part of it. The scientist has the right to make mistakes. With a retrospective look at any of our areas, one can see, I think, at least 80-90% of the works, hypotheses and generalizations, in the end, not included in the established system of scientific ideas, that is, formally - erroneous. Entire areas of our science have turned out to be based on misconceptions - for example, ideas about the nucleus in bacteria, developed over many years, or about a special state of molecules in a living cell, or about the protein structure of chromosomes. But it never occurs to anyone to classify these studies and ideas as pseudoscience.
Furthermore. It is known that the tough competitive environment in modern science encourages a rush to carry out and publish scientific papers and even encourages the falsification of scientific data, so that in the last 10-15 years a whole literature has arisen - on "fraud and misconduct" ("deception, falsification" and "misconduct, bad leadership" - ed.). And sometimes we are talking about very serious researchers, up to the Nobel rank. But even these unscrupulous works do not lead to pseudoscience and do not pose any particular danger to science. Why? Although science does not have any apparatus of control over the reliability of the reported facts or the right of any sanctions against the authors of erroneous data, the very principle of the functioning of science suggests that no lie sticks to it, and if at times it enters into scientific circulation, it is automatically discarded. This is sometimes called the self-purification mechanism of science, but it is important to keep in mind that this is not some specially created administrative mechanism, but a consequence of its normal functioning.
The field of science, at least the natural sciences, is the field of reproducible phenomena. A work enters the structure of science only if it has entered the cycle of reproduction. Then she lives from the moment of publication. If the work of the reproduction cycle did not induce, then it is as if it does not exist in science, it is as if it did not exist. The profession of a researcher in our field consists in, and only in, finding and precisely determining the conditions under which the phenomenon under study will be reproduced. The reputation of a researcher is determined by whether their data are reproducible or not. His professional level is evaluated by the citation index, i.e. the number of publications where his work is reproduced. The rating of a scientific journal is characterized by the impact factor, i.e., the average value of the citation index of the works published in it. This factor varies from 0.01 to 20-25. From this it is clear that the scientist is primarily, or rather, of course, interested in the reproducibility of his work, without which they are not included in the structure of science. Here, no special external control over the reliability or reproducibility of the data coming out of the laboratory or institute is necessary, and indeed impossible. The author himself will not want to dig his own grave as a researcher, or at least ruin his reputation. The ethics of science are especially strict at this point, although there are no legal consequences for the author in the event of his error.
Pseudoscience is based either on false, that is, primarily on irreproducible data, or on empty space, that is, on concepts that are not based on anything. It does not rely on reproducible phenomena and therefore does not even temporarily fall into the field of science. Therefore, “at the entrances” to science there is no control over the reliability of data, but only an expert evaluation system, the so-called peer review system, in which the researchers themselves determine at their own level whether the work submitted for publication contains elements of novelty and all the necessary conditions for reproducing the described phenomena in it. How does pseudoscience survive? Numerous attempts to create ethical committees or commissions to combat fraud and misconduct have not been successful. These attempts usually came from congressmen who sought not so much to protect science from falsification as to protect taxpayers, who are naturally interested in ensuring that their money is not wasted or for false purposes. However, these efforts met with dull resistance and misunderstanding of scientists and administrations of institutes and did not lead to anything, except for the introduction of rules for maintaining and storing laboratory protocols. There were no ethical committees, no laws against fraud and misconduct.
But pseudoscience has one common cause. This reason is the interference of extra-scientific forces in the natural course of the development of science. Such interference may come from Ideology, Power, Money or the Public.
The ideologization of science is the most terrible, i.e. strong and permanent source pseudoscience. Ideology presupposes scientific concepts own supposedly immutable universally binding laws, such as the law of conservation of energy or the impossibility perpetual motion machine, only not natural sciences, but philosophical or sociological ones. It selects from reported facts that seem to have the right to exist, i.e., corresponding to "correct" philosophical views, for example, the laws of dialectics or Marxism, and discards those that do not have such a right, as incompatible with them.
Ideologization gives life to pseudoscientific observations and ideas, such as the inheritance of acquired traits that does not exist in reality (which is the basis of Lysenkoism) or the origin of cells from “living matter” (Lepeshinsky’s false idea), or racial theory, as in the days of Nazism or the struggle against cosmopolitanism .
Ideologization imposes a ban on entire areas of science - like cell theory or corpuscular genetics, for example, declaring them inconsistent with the general laws of nature. As an example, I will give a more particular case - the viral theory of the origin of malignant tumors. Now this is already an indisputable fact for a large group of tumors, but at the stage of hypothesis this theory was rejected as non-dialectical. Here "dialectics" proceeded from the fact that any development should basically have internal contradictions, while the viral hypothesis assumes that an external factor is the determining factor in the genesis of a tumor. The negative role of religious ideology in the formation of scientific ideas about the universe is well known, in particular, in the transition from the geocentric hypothesis to the heliocentric one. Only those hypotheses or theories that were consistent with biblical doctrine had the right to exist.
Racial science - German physics or German anthropology - is another example of the grossest interference of ideology in the course of science.
So, the unconditional exclusion of the interference of ideology in science is the first condition for suppressing the origins of pseudoscience.
The second source is rooted in the intervention of the authorities in the natural development of science, the attempts of the authorities to issue certain practical advice for scientific. This is especially true for agriculture and medicine. As you know, everyone understands them, and the authorities in particular. Many remember the square-nest method of planting trees, linguistics, corn, but few remember the Troitskaya cancer vaccine, katrex, and other failed cancer treatments. The authorities are striving to eliminate parallelism in research, to introduce a concentration of funds and efforts, to concentrate the leadership of science in the hands of scientific staffs, and to establish unity of command and manageability in the institutes. All this, if not directly contributing to pseudoscience, is contrary to the normal course of science. Pseudo-scientific ideas often thrive precisely because of the reliance on power.
A specific source of pseudoscience is secrecy, which excludes its natural course - review, publication, reproduction of data. Under the veil of secrecy, sometimes very malicious pseudosciences developed - for example, the so-called Glaser anti-cancer vaccine and various false treatments for cancer. Secrecy must be completely eliminated in fundamental science, at least as far as the biomedical sciences are concerned. And this may be one of the goals of the commissions to combat pseudoscience, as well as limiting government interference in scientific research.
Next comes the money. This is a very delicate matter. Fundamental science consumes a lot of money that it does not produce itself. The money comes from the state, going to the actual scientific funds of the academies, various other funds that issue scientific grants, and to the institutes. All this money is mainly distributed on the basis of peer review, peer review. A significant part of the money comes from patrons - this money also goes to scientific foundations and is distributed on a competitive basis, based on expert assessment. But sometimes, and not so rarely, philanthropic money is directed to very specific goals - the creation of anti-cancer vaccines, ways to prolong life, or drugs for AIDS. Such purposeful subsidizing of science is very dangerous by straightening the logic of research, subjectivism in assessing its results, and it is fraught with the emergence of pseudoscientific directions. Thus was born, for example, a false idea about the microbiological nature of cancer, on the basis of which recommendations are made for the treatment of tumors.
And finally, in my opinion, the biggest support and induction of pseudoscience comes from the general public. The public becomes intoxicated with scientific words and yearns for a miracle. "Biofields", "positive and negative energy”,“ thought transmission over a distance ”and other paranormal phenomena have a real and bewitching meaning for her. She believes in miracles, astrology, omens, all kinds of devilry in general - and is ready to pay for it.
All this has nothing to do with science, it is not introduced into science and scientists in their professional activity do not care. But this fools the public itself, pulls a lot of money out of it, fools, distracts patients from normal treatment, inspires illusions and, in general, pulls them out of real life.
This is the real fight. Fighting the judiciary to prohibit treatment by unprofessional methods; struggle for public opinion with the help of popular lectures and books, radio and television programs. But the effectiveness of such a struggle, apparently, is not too great. Pseudoscience of this kind is common all over the world. My conclusion from all that has been said is that science does not need to be protected from pseudoscience, it needs to be protected from the introduction of any form of ideology, from the interference of power and from the dictates of money.
Protection and education are demanded by the public, which craves pseudoscience, generates and supports it, and itself suffers from it.
CSE QUESTIONS
1. The concept of worldview
mythological
religious
philosophical
Scientific
3. Definition of science
4. Features and properties of science
● objectivity
● validity
● infinity
● versatility
● formality
● consistency
5.Functions:
1) cognitive and explanatory
2) ideological
3) production
Goals
Tasks :
:
7. Levels of scientific knowledge
1) empirical
2) theoretical
Structure of the scientific method
.
Essence of pseudoscience
D) Lack of laws
Negative manifestations and dangers of technology
They are related to two aspects: A) Environmentally significant consequences B) Consequences in the sphere of human activities
18. Different understandings of the time of the birth of science
Science as a system of knowledge (ancient civilizations)
Science as religiously proven knowledge (VI-VII century BC Ancient Greece)
Science as practical knowledge (New time, XVII-XVIII centuries)
Science as an institution of society (XIX century)
Science as the leading form of social progress (XX century)
Prerequisites for the rationalization of the worldview in Ancient Greece
➢ Faith and myths are being replaced by attempts to give a rationale.
➢ The task is to explain the phenomenon of the human soul.
➢ There are philosophical attempts to find the beginning of the world and its substance.
➢ There is a demythologization of the surrounding world, nature and space.
Achievements of ancient Greek science
1) Science as theoretical and evidence-based knowledge
2) The basic principles of mathematics, astronomy and mechanics are laid
3) Development of theoretical methods of scientific knowledge
Basic principles of quantum mechanics
one). Bohr's principle of complementarity. (both corpuscular and wave properties are used to describe the objects of the microworld) 2). Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. A micro-object either has a certain position or has energy. (Related to principle 1) 3.) Probable interpretation of De Broglie (elementary particles are in a certain place with a certain probability.) (there is no fixed place). four). Corpuscular-wave dualism of matter. (In the microcosm, micro-objects can manifest themselves as particles and as waves) The postulate of absorption and emission by quanta Pauli's principle - 2 or more electrons cannot be in the same quantum state. Therefore, there cannot be more than 2 electrons in one atomic orbit.
Heisenberg uncertainty principle
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. according to the principle, it is impossible to know the exact position and exact speed of an object at the same time, because every object in the universe behaves both as a particle and as a wave. micro-objects have either a place or a definite energy. It is impossible to accurately determine the location of the particle and its momentum at the same time (the more precisely the coordinate of the particle is determined, the more uncertain its momentum becomes and vice versa).
physical vacuum
physical vacuum is a special environment that forms the space of the universe, not containing real particles and energy. It is a set of all kinds of virtual particles and antiparticles, which in the absence of external fields can turn into real ones. It is not directly observed, but the manifestation of its properties is recorded in experiments. The role of the fundamental material basis of the world. Physical vacuum is such a continuous medium in which there are no particles of matter, no field, but only disappearing and appearing virtual particles.
General provisions of the theory big bang
According to modern concepts, the Universe we observe now arose 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years ago from some initial “singular” state and has been continuously expanding and cooling since then. According to the known limitations on the applicability of modern physical theories, the earliest moment that can be described is the moment of the Planck epoch with a temperature of about 1032 K (Planck temperature) and a density of about 1093 g/cm³ (Planck density). The early Universe was a highly homogeneous and isotropic medium with an unusual high density energy, temperature and pressure. As a result of expansion and cooling, phase transitions occurred in the Universe similar to the condensation of a liquid from a gas, but in relation to elementary particles. Approximately 10−35 seconds after the onset of the Planck epoch (Planck time is 10−43 seconds after the Big Bang, at which time the gravitational force separated from the rest of the fundamental interactions), the phase transition caused the exponential expansion of the Universe. This period is called Cosmic Inflation. After the end of this period, the building material of the Universe was quark-gluon plasma. As time passed, the temperature dropped to values at which the next phase transition, called baryogenesis, became possible. At this stage, quarks and gluons coalesced into baryons, such as protons and neutrons. At the same time, an asymmetric formation of both matter, which prevailed, and antimatter, which mutually annihilated, turning into radiation, took place simultaneously. A further drop in temperature led to the next phase transition - the formation of physical forces and elementary particles in their modern form. Then came the era of nucleosynthesis, in which protons, combining with neutrons, formed the nuclei of deuterium, helium-4, and several other light isotopes. After a further drop in temperature and the expansion of the universe, the next transitional moment occurred, at which gravity became the dominant force. 380 thousand years after the Big Bang, the temperature dropped so much that the existence of hydrogen atoms became possible (before that, the processes of ionization and recombination of protons with electrons were in equilibrium). After the era of recombination, matter became transparent to radiation, which, freely propagating in space, reached us in the form of relic radiation.
Strong Anthropic Principle
However, even this seemed to some scientists not enough to explain the observed suitability of our Universe for life, as a result of which a strong anthropic principle was formulated: the Universe must be arranged so that intelligent life could arise in it. In this version of it, the principle goes beyond the weak anthropic principle and states that the origin of life in the Universe is not only possible (weak principle), but actually inevitable. Proponents of this view of things justify their point of view by the fact that there is some universal (and still not open) law, according to which all fundamental universal constants simply cannot differ from those that we have in objective reality. The extreme point of view in this cosmogonic tradition goes so far that not only are universal constants predetermined, but the development of a conscious mind in the universe is inevitable.
POLIT THEORY SUMMARY
1.Weber (Politics as a profession and vocation)
2. Political consciousness (definition) and ideologies
3. Electoral system
4. state (according to Heywood): small, hollow, social democratic. totalitarian. collectivized
5. Types of desks. System
6. Social movements
7. Interest groups - definitions, types (Heywood)
CSE QUESTIONS
1. The concept of worldview
Worldview - a picture of the world, a system of theories, ideas, principles, values, ideals that characterize a person's attitude to the world around him, society and himself.
2. Basic types of worldview
mythological- figurative knowledge, passed down from generation to generation, forms a single attitude towards the world.
religious- belief in supernatural power; dissemination of their knowledge through a special source. Difference from myths - orderliness, the existence of symbols and canons of faith
philosophical- rational knowledge based on the mind, the sphere of knowledge of which is the internal state of a person.
Scientific- based on rational knowledge, the most important component of which is the mind
3. Definition of science
1) as a system of reliable knowledge expressed in the form of theories
2) as a spiritual activity; cognitive activity aimed at obtaining practically confirmed knowledge
3) as a social institution; a system of organizations of institutions that develop the dissemination and preservation of knowledge
4. Features and properties of science
● objectivity
● validity
● infinity
● versatility
● formality
● consistency
5.Functions:
1) cognitive and explanatory(science is engaged in the production and reproduction of knowledge, which ultimately takes the form of a hypothesis or theory that describes, explains, systematizes the acquired knowledge, contributing to the prediction of further development, which allows a person to navigate the natural and social world)
2) ideological(not being a worldview itself, science fills the worldview with objective knowledge about nature and society and thereby contributes to the formation of the human personality as a subject of cognition and activity)
3) production(science becomes a direct productive force, participating in the creation of production at a modern level, while at the same time taking root in other spheres of society.)
4) social (educational)(science develops methods and forms of education, forms an education strategy based on the developments of psychology, anthropology, pedagogy, didactics, and other sciences)
Goals : obtaining knowledge about the objective and subjective world, comprehension of objective truth
Tasks :
1) collection, description, analysis, generalization and explanation of facts
2) discovery of the laws of motion of nature, society, thinking and cognition
3) systematization of the acquired knowledge
4) explanation of the essence of phenomena and processes
5) forecasting events, phenomena and processes
6) establishment of directions and forms of practical use of acquired knowledge
6.Prerequisites for the emergence of science
Neolithic revolution → rationalization of forms of activity and communication → division of labor and development of spiritual culture → the emergence of writing → the path from myth to logos.
The prerequisites for the emergence of science were formed in the process of resolving a number of contradictions:
● between myth and abstract knowledge
● between conflicting myths
● between rational knowledge and the practical need to expand this knowledge
In addition, such a premise is singled out as the idea of a rational justification of knowledge, which is essential condition the emergence of science.
7. Levels of scientific knowledge
1) empirical
aimed directly at the study of its object
Purpose: study of scientific factors and identification of empirical patterns
Methods: observation, experiment, description, comparison, change
2) theoretical
is aimed at comprehending the essence of the studied phenomena
Purpose: identification of laws, hypotheses, theories
Methods: analysis, synthesis, deduction, induction, analogy, idealization
8.Classification of scientific methods
Usually methods are divided into empirical and theoretical in accordance with the two main levels of scientific knowledge.
Observation, Induction, Experiment, Deduction, Measurement, Analysis, Comparison, Synthesis, Formalization, Modeling, Axiomotization, Mathematical hypothesis
Structure of the scientific method
scientific method- a way of organizing the means of cognition to achieve scientific truth, a system of regulatory principles of cognitive activity.
The structure of the method contains three independent aspects:
● conceptual (ideas about one of the possible forms of the object under study)
● operational (prescriptions, norms, rules, principles governing cognitive activity subject)
● logical (rules for fixing the results of interaction between an object and means of cognition)
Essence of pseudoscience
Pseudoscience is a socio-psychological phenomenon that, without performing functions in society related to obtaining reliable and practically effective knowledge, claims the status and authority of science.
It differs from science, firstly, by the content of its knowledge, and, secondly, by its structure, which is characterized by fragmentation and non-integration.
Distinctive features of pseudoscience
A) Uncritical analysis of the source data
B) Neglect of contradictory facts
C) Immutability of views, despite any objections
D) Lack of laws
E) Violation of generally accepted ethical standards
12. Social functions of pseudoscience
Functions partly coincide with the functions of science itself (cognitive-explanatory, ideological, prognostic), but pseudoscientific knowledge changes the nature of their implementation.
The problem of determining the scientific nature of a theory arises because a number of theories that arise on the border of scientific knowledge can turn out to be both scientific and pseudoscientific.
