How does the author explain the impossibility of complete unification of the sciences? Basics of social studies. Scientific knowledge of nature and society

home Glancing at world history , we discover three stages of cognition: firstly, this is rationalization in general, which in one form or another is a universal human property, appears with man as such; ...secondly, the formation of logically and methodically conscious science - Greek science and, in parallel, the beginnings of scientific knowledge in China and India; thirdly, the emergence modern science - , growing since the end of the Middle Ages, decisively establishing itself since the 17th century. and unfolding in all its breadth since the 19th century. This science makes European culture - at least since the 17th century.
different from the culture of all other countries...
Science has three necessary characteristics: cognitive methods, reliability and general validity... Modern science universal
according to your spirit. There is no area that could isolate itself from it for a long time. Everything that happens in the world is subject to observation, consideration, research - natural phenomena, actions or statements of people, their creations and destinies. Religion and all authorities also become the object of study. And not only reality, but also all mental possibilities become the object of study... Modern science, addressed to the individual, seeks to reveal its comprehensive
connections... The idea of ​​the interconnectedness of all sciences gives rise to dissatisfaction with individual knowledge. Modern science is not only universal, but strives for a unification of sciences that can never be achieved.
Every science is defined by a method and a subject. Each is a perspective of the vision of the world, not one comprehends the world as such, each covers a segment of reality, but not reality - perhaps one side of reality, but not reality as a whole, however, each of them enters into a world that is limitless, but all -still one in the kaleidoscope of connections... Questions and tasks: 1) What stages of cognition does the author highlight? 2) What does the philosopher understand by such a feature of modern science as universality? 3) How does the text treat the problem of integration and differentiation of scientific knowledge? 4) How does the author explain the impossibility complete unity

sciences?

Casting a glance at world history, we discover three stages of knowledge: firstly, rationalization in general, which in one form or another is a universal human property, appears with man as such; ...secondly, the formation of logically and methodically conscious science - Greek science and, in parallel, the beginnings of scientific knowledge in China and India; thirdly, the emergence of modern science, growing from the end of the Middle Ages, decisively establishing itself from the 17th century. and unfolding in all its breadth since the 19th century. This science makes European culture - at least since the 17th century. - , growing since the end of the Middle Ages, decisively establishing itself since the 17th century. and unfolding in all its breadth since the 19th century. This science makes European culture - at least since the 17th century.
different from the culture of all other countries...
Science has three necessary characteristics: cognitive methods, reliability and general validity... Modern science universal
according to your spirit. There is no area that could isolate itself from it for a long time. Everything that happens in the world is subject to observation, consideration, research - natural phenomena, actions or statements of people, their creations and destinies. Religion and all authorities also become the object of study. And not only reality, but also all mental possibilities become the object of study... Modern science, addressed to the individual, seeks to reveal its comprehensive
connections... The idea of ​​the interconnectedness of all sciences gives rise to dissatisfaction with individual knowledge. Modern science is not only universal, but strives for a unification of sciences that can never be achieved.
Every science is defined by a method and a subject. Each is a perspective of the vision of the world, not one comprehends the world as such, each covers a segment of reality, but not reality - perhaps one side of reality, but not reality as a whole, however, each of them enters into a world that is limitless, but all -still one in the kaleidoscope of connections... 1) What stages of cognition does the author highlight? 2) What does the philosopher understand by such a feature of modern science as universality? 3) How does the text treat the problem of integration and differentiation of scientific knowledge? 4) How does the author explain the impossibility of complete unification of the sciences?

Social cognition

Let's imagine a scientist bending over a microscope, in front of the control panel of a microparticle accelerator or the terminal of a modern telescope. The study of the living, micro- and macro-world includes scrupulous observation, verified calculations and experiments, and the construction of mathematical or computer models. When studying society, scientists also observe, compare, calculate, and sometimes experiment (for example, selecting a space crew or a polar expedition according to the principle psychological compatibility). Does this mean that the same methods are used to study society as to study nature? Scientists have answered this question in different ways.

SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF NATURE AND SOCIETY

The idea that all sciences should use the methods of mathematical science originated in the 18th century. under the influence of the successes of natural science that amazed the imagination of contemporaries, and especially the technical applications of mechanics. The development of technology contributed to an unprecedented rise in social productive forces and transformed daily life of people. The enormous cultural authority of the natural sciences predetermined the role of mechanics as a model in accordance with which both natural and social sciences were to be built. The founder of sociology, the French scientist O. Comte, believed that the science of society should study the connections between observed social phenomena using natural scientific methods, so he called sociology “social physics.” His follower, E. Durkheim, believed social facts all social phenomena that influence a person and encourage him to behave in a certain way. He included legal and moral norms, customary ways of doing things, social movements, and even fashion as social facts. E. Durkheim considered the main principle of the scientific method in sociology treating social facts as things. This meant identifying the connection and dependence between them, just as one studies the causal relationship of natural phenomena.
Widespread naturalistic ideas about society V late XIX- early 20th century contributed to objective social processes the formation of industrial capitalism - decomposition social structures traditional society and the formation of mass society. It is in a mass society, deprived of the complex social hierarchy characteristic of feudalism, that the opportunity arises to widely use mathematical methods to study social phenomena.
But not all scientists shared such naturalistic views. Thus, the German philosopher W. Dilthey believed that the “sciences of the spirit” are fundamentally different from the “sciences of nature” in that the former deal with man - the only creature in the Universe capable of not only cognition, but also experience. This is a special activity of human consciousness, arising from the connection between the phenomena of his inner life. Realizing his own involvement in the world of society and culture, the scientist empathizes, i.e. understands other people, compatriots and contemporaries, texts and meanings of other eras and other cultures. W. Dilthey was convinced that the fundamental difference between the natural and social sciences lies in the method: the “spiritual sciences” are understanding, whereas the natural sciences are explanatory.
Another German philosopher, a follower of I. Kant, G. Rickert, also believed that the sciences of culture differ significantly from the sciences of nature. Their main difference, in his opinion, is the researcher’s approach to studying his object. Studying nature, a scientist seeks to discover general, that is, what is similar in the phenomenon being studied to other phenomena of the same type. In the cultural sciences, the scientist’s interest is directed mainly to individual, i.e., on what is specific to a given phenomenon. It is the unique individuality of the object, G. Rickert is convinced, that gives it meaning cultural object, Unlike objects of nature. And although some Social sciencies, for example, economics, can also use methods of generalization; research in the field of culture is more likely to resemble the work of a historian who is interested in the individual and unique in the events of the past. At the same time, when working with cultural material, a scientist always correlates it with generally significant values: moral, political, economic, artistic, religious. Attribution to universal values, according to the scientist, allows the sciences of culture to be just as objective, as well as the natural sciences.
What are the difficulties of objective scientific knowledge of society?
In classical natural science, under objectivity scientific research understood the study of nature independently of man, that is, nature “in itself.” Therefore, a scientist studying interaction elementary particles or animal behavior, seeks to exclude himself from the research situation. But he is still included in it, albeit in a special way: he “constrained nature with the art of the observer” and formulated a question addressed to nature to which he wants to receive an answer. But a social scientist cannot exclude himself from the process of social development, and the results of his research affect both his own life and the future of his children. Social cognition affects interests people - stable social orientations that guide people in everyday life and business relations. Modern scientists talk about the possibility of different interpretations of phenomena public life - pluralism of opinions. They are generated not only by personal preferences, preferences or differences life experience, but also divergent social interests, expressing different position people in the system of social relations. This explains the diversity of views and assessments that distinguishes the results of social cognition from generally valid judgments in natural science. M. Weber gives an example of the impact of corporate interests on social cognition. When compiling crime statistics, the police, protecting the “honor of the uniform,” tend to present any unsolved murder as a suicide, while the church, guided by the idea of ​​suicide as a grave sin, tends to interpret dubious cases as crimes. English philosopher XVII century T. Hobbes even believed that if geometry affected the interests of people, then it would be disputed or hushed up. The impact of social interests on social cognition is most clearly manifested in ideologies - theoretical expression of social interests in election declarations and programs political parties and broad social movements. When comparing the ideological attitudes of various political parties or election associations, first of all you should find out what interests social forces they express.
If we comprehend nature using the concepts of cause and effect, then human action is by studying the motives, goals and intentions of man. And if a cause in nature always entails an effect, then the motives and intentions of one person, interacting in a complex way with the motives and intentions of other people, as well as the traditions, morals and laws of society, cannot always be embodied in actions. Conscious abstinence from an action that is prescribed by social norms and socially significant motives of behavior, for example, refusal to sell a product at a set price, failure to appear in court, evasion of responsibility, as well as missed opportunity and criminal inactivity, are no less objective social facts than social actions.
Scientific social knowledge deals with human actions and their consequences, that is, with events in culture and social life. This world is humanized, it is conscious and meaningful. Concept sense expresses specifically human attitude to the subject. M. Weber believed that the sociological study of society is aimed at understanding the meaning of individual human actions, which ultimately make up all social life. But how is it possible to scientifically study the subjective dimensions of social actions: meanings, motives, intentions? Indeed, unlike the objects of natural sciences, they are immaterial and express a human attitude towards objects of any kind, and not objects in themselves.
As we see, the difficulties on the path of objective scientific knowledge of society are great. What should a scientist be guided by in order to achieve a sufficient level of accuracy and objectivity of social knowledge?

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTIFIC SOCIAL COGNITION

In order to overcome these difficulties, when studying the phenomena of social life, the scientist is guided by scientific methods. A scientist studying society resorts to general scientific that is, the methods of obtaining knowledge and the norms of scientific research characteristic of both natural and social sciences. These include reliance on facts, rigor and unambiguity of theoretical concepts, evidence of reasoning and their logical consistency, objectivity of scientific conclusions, i.e., independence of scientific truth from personal desires, opinions and social prejudices.
But knowledge of society also has its own characteristics. In contrast to the natural scientist, who strives to exclude his own uncontrolled influence on the subject of research and sees this as a condition for achieving the objectivity of scientific knowledge, the social scientist studies an object to which he himself belongs: he and the researcher social life, and its participant. Moreover, a condition for successful knowledge of other people, cultures and historical eras turns out to be the ability of empathy, sympathy, the ability to see and feel the way other people see and feel. This takes on particular significance in a situation of “participant observation,” in which the scientist himself strives to act like those whom he observes. But at the same time, he must be extremely attentive to those premises of his thinking that are drawn from his own life, from the traditions of his education, upbringing and scientific school: inattention to them can distort the picture of the lives of other people and cultures. Therefore, M. Weber called on the scientist to “keep a distance from the object,” warning that an uncritical attitude to one’s own sociocultural experience when studying someone else’s is as reprehensible as selfishness in everyday life.
A social scientist strives for a complete description of the characteristics of the object being studied. This means that any social phenomenon must be considered in its historical development and in mutual connection with other social phenomena, i.e. in historical And cultural context. In order to understand, for example, social nature Jacobin terror, it is necessary to consider it not as an isolated event, but in the context of the Great French Revolution, as one of the stages of its development. But it is also necessary to approach the Great French Revolution itself specifically historically, consider its systemic connections with other events European history and at the same time not lose sight of how this event was understood and experienced by representatives of various strata of society of that time.
The science of history helps us understand the connection of times, without which the events of the past would have broken up into a series of separate episodes. It relies on historical documents - evidence that allows us to get an idea of ​​​​the life of our ancestors. However, a fact of science is not an event in life. Nor is it a scrupulous description of what is happening. Scientific fact always involves identifying meaningful in the social phenomenon being studied. It includes the scientist’s assessment of his role in what is happening, interpretation social fact. By creating a holistic scientific theory, a scientist determines which of the facts known to him are significant for understanding a social pattern. His theoretical position, on the one hand, determines the direction of the search for new facts, the existence of which is predicted by his concept, and on the other hand, the discovery of other facts that are not consistent with this concept forces it to be clarified, and sometimes to reject it as incorrect.

IDEAL TYPE - INSTRUMENT OF SCIENTIFIC SOCIAL COGNITION

In scientific social cognition, as well as in the natural sciences, they use scientific concepts. When studying social actions, scientists resort to the use of concepts of a special kind - ideal types.
The ideal type allows us to capture the most important, consistently recurring features of a subject of a certain social action. Thus, describing the ideal type of a capitalist entrepreneur, M. Weber paints a portrait young man an ascetic lifestyle, a Protestant religion, which travels from village to city day after day, organizing the delivery of raw materials to processing sites, and finished goods to the market. Of course, the ideal type lacks the concreteness of an artistic image. We don’t know the young man’s name, where he lives, or what kind of product he produces. But it is precisely this generalization of characteristics that is important for scientific social cognition: while losing to the artistic understanding of the world in concrete terms, the ideal type allows one to go beyond the existing situation and describe the typical, i.e., steadily repeating, characteristics of the subject of a certain social action, wherever and under whatever conditions circumstances it did not happen. The ideal-typing methodology allowed M. Weber to theoretically express the laws of the process of formation of capitalism in Western Europe regardless of the variety of specific conditions in various countries.
The use of ideal types helps the scientist gain knowledge about stable and systematically reproducible relationships large groups people, classes, states. With the help of ideal types, a scientist can look into the future, but only to the extent that the features of modernity, presented as typical, will retain their significance in the future.
The ideal type as a tool of social analysis is not a description of the behavior of a particular person. He is a character in a scientific picture of the social process, which reproduces real life in its essential features.

ORDINARY AND SCIENTIFIC SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE

Until now we have talked only about scientific social knowledge. But the concept of social knowledge is much broader. It covers the entire body of accumulated knowledge about man and society, enshrined both in oral tradition and in books, scientific publications, works of art and historical monuments, which for scientists play the role of documents.
Social knowledge can be not only scientific, but also ordinary, that is, acquired in everyday life. Scientific knowledge is always conscious, systematized and meets the rules of the scientific method. Ordinary knowledge, as a rule, is not systematized or even consciously understood - it can exist in the form of habit or custom. And if scientific knowledge is carried out by a special category of professionally trained people united in the scientific community, then the subject of everyday knowledge is society as a whole. One of the features of scientific social knowledge in comparison with natural science is that the object of scientific social knowledge, as a rule, has already been mastered in one way or another by everyday thinking. And if the scientific picture of nature means nothing for physical fields and particles, then the scientific picture of society reflects a reality that is already interpreted by people in everyday life. And this one social world, already comprehended at the level of ordinary knowledge, the scientist must, in turn, comprehend in accordance with the rules of the scientific method. However, this does not mean that ordinary knowledge is erroneous and scientific knowledge is true. Modern scientists believe that both types of social knowledge are equally important in social life. Science must take into account the ordinary, including erroneous, ideas of people, and study the public opinion of all strata of society.
Modern society introduces into everyday life not only complex technical devices, but also complex forms of social relationships that require awareness in economic, political, legal and other areas. That's why modern man V everyday life cannot do without appealing to elements of scientific knowledge. IN modern society everyday knowledge includes elements of scientific knowledge. Of course, the person who picks up the telephone does not necessarily know what technical devices make it possible to reproduce the sound of his voice hundreds of kilometers away, but the idea that the telephone transmits sound vibrations, somehow converting them into electrical ones, is still It has. Modern man shows similar awareness in relation to scientific social knowledge. The one who opened a bank account is not necessarily familiar with the laws of circulation paper money. But he has an idea about money as a way of regulating his social relations with his employer, about inflation, and bank interest. Means have a huge impact on everyday social cognition. mass media. Modern people learn about what is happening in the world from newspapers, radio and television. Imperiously intruding into our lives, the media convey to the viewer, reader, listener a judgment about what is happening, that is, a more or less agreed opinion of the journalistic community. But it may not coincide with the opinion of scientists. After all, a journalist strives to inform about an event, often emphasizing the role of random but effective details that can make an impression. The scientist, on the contrary, is interested in the essence of the phenomenon being studied in a form purified from accidents. In addition, coverage of current events is also related to the degree of dependence of the media on the authorities and financial corporations, i.e., on the level of freedom of speech achieved in society. Therefore, each person must have a significant stock of social knowledge, be able to compare and analyze information gleaned from different sources in order to be able to assess what is happening in society.

SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

Social knowledge includes not only social sciences and everyday ideas, but also a huge sphere of humanities. Social sciences include all types of scientific knowledge of society that follow the rules of the scientific method. This, as you know, is sociology, economics, political science, law, ethnography, etc. Social sciences produce knowledge about relatively stable and systematically reproduced connections and relationships between peoples, classes, and professional groups. Social sciences study their subject with the help of ideal types, which make it possible to capture what is stable and repeated in human actions, in society and culture.
Humanitarian knowledge is addressed to the spiritual world of man. The guardians of humanitarian knowledge are diaries, reviews, biographies famous people, public performance, policy statements, art criticism, epistolary heritage. They are studied by psychology, linguistics, art history, and literary criticism. The boundary between social sciences and humanities is not rigid. Social sciences, while maintaining a connection with the human life world, also include elements of humanitarian knowledge. When a historian examines historical patterns and ideal-typical characteristics, he acts as a social scientist. Addressing motives characters and by studying diaries, letters and speeches, he acts as a humanist scholar. But humanitarian knowledge also borrows elements of the social. Scientists talk about rules for writing biographies and describing individual cases, which are increasingly used in modern social sciences. Grade works of art, in turn, is also not an expression subjective opinion criticism, but is based on an analysis of the composition of the work, artistic images, means artistic expression etc.
Addressed to the spiritual world of man, his experiences, fears and hopes, humanitarian knowledge requires understanding. To understand a text means to give it meaning. But it may not be exactly what its creator had in mind. We cannot have reliable knowledge about his thoughts and feelings, but judge them only with varying degrees of probability. But we always interpret text, that is, we attribute to it the meaning that we think the author had in mind. And in order to get closer to the origins of the author’s intention, it is useful to know who wrote the work and under what circumstances, what the author’s social circle was, and what tasks he set for himself. A person gives meaning to a text in accordance with his personal stock of social knowledge. Therefore, great works of art resonate differently in the hearts of millions of people and retain their meaning for many generations.
Lacking the rigor and universality of natural science knowledge, humanities knowledge performs important functions in culture. Addressed to the spiritual world of man, humanitarian knowledge awakens in him a desire for the sublime and beautiful, ennobles his aspirations, and encourages moral and ideological quests. In the most developed form, such searches are embodied in philosophy, but every person is a bit of a philosopher to the extent that he asks questions of being and knowledge, moral improvement and the rational structure of society. Entering the world of humanitarian knowledge, a person expands the horizons of knowledge, learns to comprehend others - and his own - inner world with a degree of depth that is unattainable in the closest personal communication. In a humanitarian culture, a person acquires the gift of social imagination, comprehends the art of empathy, the ability to understand another, which gives the very possibility life together in society.
Basic concepts: scientific social knowledge, everyday knowledge, methods of social cognition, social fact, meaning, values, interpretation, understanding.
Terms: cultural context, specific historical approach, ideal type.

1) What is the uniqueness of social knowledge in comparison with natural science? What is the difference between the objectivity of natural science, social and humanitarian knowledge? 2) Is it possible to identify a fact of social science with an event, with what happened in life? 3) What is the problem of interpreting a text, action, historical document? What does correct understanding mean? Is it possible to achieve a single correct understanding? 4) How does an ideal type differ from an artistic image? Is it possible to consider an ideal type? scientific description specific person? 5) Do you agree with the statement that ordinary knowledge is erroneous and scientific knowledge is true? Why is it necessary to study public opinion?

1. The modern philosopher P. Berger, referring to the dependence of the press on the balance of social forces, wrote: “Whoever has the longer stick has a greater chance of imposing his ideas on society.” Do you agree with this idea?
2. There is an opinion that history does not have a subjunctive mood. Is it worth discussing what could have happened if this had not happened? Are missed chances and lost opportunities social facts? Explain your answer.
3. Social knowledge is usually divided into social sciences and humanities. To which of these parts can Protagoras’ thesis “Man is the measure of all things” be attributed?
4. There is a well-known parable about two workers. When asked what they were doing, one answered: “Carrying stones,” and the other: “Building a temple.” Can you say that one of the statements is true and the other is false? Give reasons for your answer.
5. The German philosopher W. Dilthey believed that to understand “means to experience it personally.” Do you agree with this? Can a person understand something that he has not experienced? And is personal experience always understandable?
6. The chronicler Pimen from A. S. Pushkin’s tragedy “Boris Godunov” teaches Grigory Otrepyev: “Describe, without further ado, everything that you will witness in life.” Is it possible in principle to describe historical events, free from interpretation? Concretize your conclusion using knowledge from the history course.
7. Imagine that you, like Miklouho-Maclay, went to study the life of native tribes. What you will pay attention to first of all:
- what catches your eye most;
- on what distinguishes the life of the natives from ours;
- on sustainable and repeatable forms of practical activity?

Read an excerpt from the book by A. Schutz.

Related information.

SCIENTIFIC THINKING AND MODERN MAN

Each of us, even being very far from professional scientific activity, constantly uses the fruits of science, embodied in the mass of modern things. But science enters our lives not only through the “door” of mass production, technical innovations, and everyday comfort.
Scientific ideas about the structure of the world, about the place and role of man in it (the scientific picture of the world) to one degree or another penetrate into the consciousness of people; The principles and approaches to understanding reality developed by science become guidelines in our everyday life.
From about the 17th century, as industrial society developed, the authority of science and the methodology (principles, approaches) of scientific thinking became increasingly stronger. At the same time, alternative pictures of the world, including religious, and other ways of knowing (mystical insight, etc.) were gradually pushed to the periphery public consciousness.
However, in recent decades, in a number of countries with traditionally strong trust in science, the situation has begun to change. Many researchers note the increasing influence of extrascientific knowledge. In this regard, they even talk about the existing two types of people. The first type is science-oriented. Its representatives are characterized by activity, internal independence, openness to new ideas and experience, willingness to flexibly adapt to changes in work and life, and practicality. They are open to discussion and skeptical of authority.
The thinking of another type of personality, focused on non-scientific pictures of the world, is characterized by an orientation towards practical benefits, an interest in the mysterious and miraculous. These people, as a rule, do not look for evidence of their results and are not interested in checking them. Priority is given to the sensory-concrete rather than the abstract-theoretical form of knowledge. They believe that anyone can make a discovery, not just a professional researcher. For such people main support- faith, opinions, authority. (Which type would you classify yourself as?)
But why is the influence of alternative scientific views and attitudes growing? There are different explanations given here. Some believe that in the 20th century. science revealed its powerlessness in solving a number of problems important to humanity, moreover, it became the source of many new difficulties, leading Western civilization to decline. There is also such a point of view: humanity, like a pendulum, is constantly moving from the phase of preference for rational thinking and science to the phase of the decline of rationalism and an increasing craving for faith and revelation. Thus, the first flowering of enlightenment occurred in the era of classical Greece: it was then that the transition from mythological to rational thinking was made. By the end of the reign of Pericles, the pendulum swung in the opposite direction: all kinds of cults, magical healing, astrological forecasts. Proponents of this point of view believe that modern humanity entered the final phase of the flowering of rationalism, which began with the Age of Enlightenment.
But perhaps those who believe that civilization has already accumulated a certain fatigue from the burden of choice and responsibility and that astrological predestination is preferable to scientific criticism and constant doubts are right. (What do you think?)
Basic concepts: scientific theory, empirical law, hypothesis, scientific experiment, modeling, scientific revolution.
Terms: differentiation, integration.

1. Here is how the German philosopher K. Popper proved the unscientific nature of astrology: the prophecies of astrologers are uncertain, they are difficult to verify, many prophecies did not come true, astrologers use an unsatisfactory way of explaining their failures (predicting the individual future is a difficult task; mutual arrangement stars and planets are constantly changing, etc.).
What criteria for distinguishing scientific and extra-scientific knowledge can be identified using this example? Name other criteria.
2. Expand your understanding of Pushkin’s lines “Science reduces our experiences of fast-flowing life.”
3. L. Pasteur argued: “Science should be the most sublime embodiment of the fatherland, for of all nations the first will always be the one that is ahead of others in the field of thought and mental activity.”
Is this conclusion confirmed by the course of history?
4. Find errors in the following text.
Rigorous empirical knowledge is accumulated only through observation. Close to observation is experiment. But it no longer gives strict knowledge, because a person here interferes with the nature of the subject being studied: he places it in an environment unusual for it, tests it in extreme conditions. Thus, the knowledge obtained during the experiment can only be partially considered true and objective.

Read an excerpt from the work of the German philosopher K. Jaspers “The Origins of History and Its Purpose.”

sciences?

Casting a glance at world history, we discover three stages of knowledge: firstly, rationalization in general, which in one form or another is a universal human property, appears with man as such; ...secondly, the formation of logically and methodically conscious science - Greek science and, in parallel, the beginnings of scientific knowledge in China and India; thirdly, the emergence of modern science, growing from the end of the Middle Ages, decisively establishing itself from the 17th century. and unfolding in all its breadth since the 19th century. This science makes European culture - at least since the 17th century. - , growing since the end of the Middle Ages, decisively establishing itself since the 17th century. and unfolding in all its breadth since the 19th century. This science makes European culture - at least since the 17th century.
different from the culture of all other countries...
Science has three necessary characteristics: cognitive methods, reliability and general validity... Modern science universal
according to your spirit. There is no area that could isolate itself from it for a long time. Everything that happens in the world is subject to observation, consideration, research - natural phenomena, actions or statements of people, their creations and destinies. Religion and all authorities also become the object of study. And not only reality, but also all mental possibilities become the object of study... Modern science, addressed to the individual, seeks to reveal its comprehensive
connections... The idea of ​​the interconnectedness of all sciences gives rise to dissatisfaction with individual knowledge. Modern science is not only universal, but strives for a unification of sciences that can never be achieved.
Questions and tasks: 1) What stages of cognition does the author highlight? 2) What does the philosopher understand by such a feature of modern science as universality? 3) How does the text treat the problem of integration and differentiation of scientific knowledge? 4) How does the author explain the impossibility of complete unification of the sciences?

§ 25. Social cognition

Let's imagine a scientist bending over a microscope, in front of the control panel of a microparticle accelerator or the terminal of a modern telescope. The study of the living, micro- and macro-world includes scrupulous observation, verified calculations and experiments, and the construction of mathematical or computer models. When studying society, scientists also observe, compare, calculate, and sometimes experiment (for example, selecting a space crew or a polar expedition based on the principle of psychological compatibility). Does this mean that the same methods are used to study society as to study nature? Scientists have answered this question in different ways.

SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF NATURE AND SOCIETY

The idea that all sciences should use the methods of mathematical science originated in the 18th century. under the influence of the successes of natural science that amazed the imagination of contemporaries, and especially the technical applications of mechanics. The development of technology contributed to an unprecedented rise in social productive forces and transformed people's daily lives. The enormous cultural authority of the natural sciences predetermined the role of mechanics as a model in accordance with which both natural and social sciences were to be built. The founder of sociology, the French scientist O. Comte, believed that the science of society should study the connections between observed social phenomena using natural scientific methods, so he called sociology “social physics.” His follower, E. Durkheim, believed social facts all social phenomena that influence a person and encourage him to behave in a certain way. He included legal and moral norms, customary ways of doing things, social movements, and even fashion as social facts. E. Durkheim considered the main principle of the scientific method in sociology treating social facts as things. This meant identifying the connection and dependence between them, just as one studies the causal relationship of natural phenomena.
Widespread naturalistic ideas about society at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century. contributed to the objective social processes of the formation of industrial capitalism - the decomposition of the social structures of traditional society and the formation of a mass society. It is in a mass society, deprived of the complex social hierarchy characteristic of feudalism, that the opportunity arises to widely use mathematical methods to study social phenomena.
But not all scientists shared such naturalistic views. Thus, the German philosopher W. Dilthey believed that the “sciences of the spirit” are fundamentally different from the “sciences of nature” in that the former deal with man - the only creature in the Universe capable of not only cognition, but also experience. This is a special activity of human consciousness, arising from the connection between the phenomena of his inner life. Realizing his own involvement in the world of society and culture, the scientist empathizes, i.e. understands other people, compatriots and contemporaries, texts and meanings of other eras and other cultures. W. Dilthey was convinced that the fundamental difference between the natural and social sciences lies in the method: the “spiritual sciences” are understanding, whereas the natural sciences are explanatory.
Another German philosopher, a follower of I. Kant, G. Rickert, also believed that the sciences of culture differ significantly from the sciences of nature. Their main difference, in his opinion, is the researcher’s approach to studying his object. Studying nature, a scientist seeks to discover general, that is, what is similar in the phenomenon being studied to other phenomena of the same type. In the cultural sciences, the scientist’s interest is directed mainly to individual, i.e., on what is specific to a given phenomenon. It is the unique individuality of the object, G. Rickert is convinced, that gives it meaning cultural object, Unlike objects of nature. And although some social sciences, such as economics, can also use methods of generalization, cultural research is more like the work of a historian who is interested in the individual and unique in the events of the past. At the same time, when working with cultural material, a scientist always correlates it with generally significant values: moral, political, economic, artistic, religious. Attribution to universal values, according to the scientist, allows the sciences of culture to be just as objective, as well as the natural sciences.
What are the difficulties of objective scientific knowledge of society?
In classical natural science, the objectivity of scientific research was understood as the study of nature independently of man, that is, nature “in itself.” Therefore, a scientist studying the interaction of elementary particles or the behavior of animals tends to exclude himself from the research situation. But he is still included in it, albeit in a special way: he “constrained nature with the art of the observer” and formulated a question addressed to nature to which he wants to receive an answer. But a social scientist cannot exclude himself from the process of social development, and the results of his research affect both his own life and the future of his children. Social cognition affects interests people - stable social orientations that guide people in everyday life and business relationships. Modern scientists talk about the possibility of different interpretations of the phenomena of social life - pluralism of opinions. They are generated not only by personal biases, preferences or differences in life experience, but also by incompatible social interests, expressing the different position of people in the system of social relations. This explains the diversity of views and assessments that distinguishes the results of social cognition from generally valid judgments in natural science. M. Weber gives an example of the impact of corporate interests on social cognition. When compiling crime statistics, the police, protecting the “honor of the uniform,” tend to present any unsolved murder as a suicide, while the church, guided by the idea of ​​suicide as a grave sin, tends to interpret dubious cases as crimes. English philosopher of the 17th century. T. Hobbes even believed that if geometry affected the interests of people, then it would be disputed or hushed up. The impact of social interests on social cognition is most clearly manifested in ideologies - theoretical expression of social interests in election declarations, programs of political parties and broad social movements. When comparing the ideological attitudes of various political parties or election associations, first of all it is necessary to find out the interests of which social forces they express.
If we comprehend nature using the concepts of cause and effect, then human action is by studying the motives, goals and intentions of man. And if a cause in nature always entails an effect, then the motives and intentions of one person, interacting in a complex way with the motives and intentions of other people, as well as the traditions, morals and laws of society, cannot always be embodied in actions. Conscious abstinence from an action that is prescribed by social norms and socially significant motives of behavior, for example, refusal to sell a product at a set price, failure to appear in court, evasion of responsibility, as well as missed opportunity and criminal inactivity, are no less objective social facts than social actions.
Scientific social knowledge deals with human actions and their consequences, that is, with events in culture and social life. This world is humanized, it is conscious and meaningful. Concept sense expresses a specifically human attitude towards a subject. M. Weber believed that the sociological study of society is aimed at understanding the meaning of individual human actions, which ultimately make up all social life. But how is it possible to scientifically study the subjective dimensions of social actions: meanings, motives, intentions? Indeed, unlike the objects of natural sciences, they are immaterial and express a human attitude towards objects of any kind, and not objects in themselves.
As we see, the difficulties on the path of objective scientific knowledge of society are great. What should a scientist be guided by in order to achieve a sufficient level of accuracy and objectivity of social knowledge?

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTIFIC SOCIAL COGNITION

In order to overcome these difficulties, when studying the phenomena of social life, the scientist is guided by scientific methods. A scientist studying society resorts to general scientific that is, the methods of obtaining knowledge and the norms of scientific research characteristic of both natural and social sciences. These include reliance on facts, rigor and unambiguity of theoretical concepts, evidence of reasoning and their logical consistency, objectivity of scientific conclusions, i.e., independence of scientific truth from personal desires, opinions and social prejudices.
But knowledge of society also has its own characteristics. In contrast to the natural scientist, who strives to exclude his own uncontrolled influence on the subject of research and sees this as a condition for achieving the objectivity of scientific knowledge, the social scientist studies an object to which he himself belongs: he is both a researcher of social life and a participant in it. Moreover, the condition for successful knowledge of other people, cultures and historical eras is the ability of empathy, sympathy, the ability to see and feel the way other people see and feel. This takes on particular significance in a situation of “participant observation,” in which the scientist himself strives to act like those whom he observes. But at the same time, he must be extremely attentive to the premises of his thinking, which are drawn from his own life, from the traditions of his education, upbringing and scientific school: inattention to them can distort the picture of the life of other people and cultures. Therefore, M. Weber called on the scientist to “keep a distance from the object,” warning that an uncritical attitude to one’s own sociocultural experience when studying someone else’s is as reprehensible as selfishness in everyday life.
A social scientist strives for a complete description of the characteristics of the object being studied. This means that any social phenomenon must be considered in its historical development and in mutual connection with other social phenomena, i.e. in historical And cultural context. In order to understand, for example, the social nature of the Jacobin terror, it is necessary to consider it not as an isolated event, but in the context of the Great French Revolution, as one of the stages of its development. But it is also necessary to approach the Great French Revolution itself specifically historically, consider its systemic connections with other events of European history and, at the same time, not lose sight of how this event was understood and experienced by representatives of various strata of the then society.
The science of history helps us understand the connection of times, without which the events of the past would have broken up into a series of separate episodes. It relies on historical documents - evidence that allows us to get an idea of ​​​​the life of our ancestors. However, a fact of science is not an event in life. Nor is it a scrupulous description of what is happening. A scientific fact always involves identifying meaningful in the social phenomenon being studied. It includes the scientist’s assessment of his role in what is happening, interpretation social fact. By creating a holistic scientific theory, a scientist determines which of the facts known to him are significant for understanding a social pattern. His theoretical position, on the one hand, determines the direction of the search for new facts, the existence of which is predicted by his concept, and on the other hand, the discovery of other facts that are not consistent with this concept forces it to be clarified, and sometimes to reject it as incorrect.

IDEAL TYPE - INSTRUMENT OF SCIENTIFIC SOCIAL COGNITION

In scientific social cognition, as well as in the natural sciences, they use scientific concepts. When studying social actions, scientists resort to the use of concepts of a special kind - ideal types.
The ideal type allows us to capture the most important, consistently recurring features of the subject of a certain social action. Thus, describing the ideal type of a capitalist entrepreneur, M. Weber paints a portrait of a young man with an ascetic lifestyle, a Protestant religion, who travels from village to city every day, organizing the delivery of raw materials to processing sites, and finished goods to the market. Of course, the ideal type lacks the concreteness of an artistic image. We don’t know the young man’s name, where he lives, or what kind of product he produces. But it is precisely this generalization of characteristics that is important for scientific social cognition: while losing to the artistic understanding of the world in concrete terms, the ideal type allows one to go beyond the existing situation and describe the typical, i.e., steadily repeating, characteristics of the subject of a certain social action, wherever and under whatever conditions circumstances it did not happen. The ideal-typing methodology allowed M. Weber to theoretically express the laws of the process of formation of capitalism in Western Europe, regardless of the diversity of specific conditions in different countries.
The use of ideal types helps the scientist gain knowledge about stable and systematically reproduced relationships of large groups of people, classes, and states. With the help of ideal types, a scientist can look into the future, but only to the extent that the features of modernity, presented as typical, will retain their significance in the future.
The ideal type as a tool of social analysis is not a description of the behavior of a particular person. He is a character in a scientific picture of the social process, which reproduces real life in its essential features.

ORDINARY AND SCIENTIFIC SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE

Until now we have talked only about scientific social knowledge. But the concept of social knowledge is much broader. It covers the entire body of accumulated knowledge about man and society, enshrined both in oral tradition and in books, scientific publications, works of art and historical monuments, which for scientists play the role of documents.
Social knowledge can be not only scientific, but also ordinary, that is, acquired in everyday life. Scientific knowledge is always conscious, systematized and meets the rules of the scientific method. Ordinary knowledge, as a rule, is not systematized or even consciously understood - it can exist in the form of habit or custom. And if scientific knowledge is carried out by a special category of professionally trained people united in the scientific community, then the subject of everyday knowledge is society as a whole. One of the features of scientific social knowledge in comparison with natural science is that the object of scientific social knowledge, as a rule, has already been mastered in one way or another by everyday thinking. And if the scientific picture of nature means nothing for physical fields and particles, then the scientific picture of society reflects a reality that is already interpreted by people in everyday life. And this social world, already comprehended at the level of everyday knowledge, must, in turn, be comprehended by the scientist in accordance with the rules of the scientific method. However, this does not mean that ordinary knowledge is erroneous and scientific knowledge is true. Modern scientists believe that both types of social knowledge are equally important in social life. Science must take into account the ordinary, including erroneous, ideas of people, and study the public opinion of all strata of society.
Modern society introduces into everyday life not only complex technical devices, but also complex forms of social relationships that require awareness in economic, political, legal and other areas. Therefore, modern man in everyday life cannot do without turning to elements of scientific knowledge. In modern society, everyday knowledge includes elements of scientific knowledge. Of course, the person who picks up the telephone does not necessarily know what technical devices make it possible to reproduce the sound of his voice hundreds of kilometers away, but the idea that the telephone transmits sound vibrations, somehow converting them into electrical ones, is still It has. Modern man shows similar awareness in relation to scientific social knowledge. Anyone who opened a bank account is not necessarily familiar with the laws of circulation of paper money. But he has an idea about money as a way of regulating his social relations with his employer, about inflation, and bank interest. The media have a huge influence on everyday social cognition. Modern people learn about what is happening in the world from newspapers, radio and television. Imperiously intruding into our lives, the media convey to the viewer, reader, listener a judgment about what is happening, that is, a more or less agreed opinion of the journalistic community. But it may not coincide with the opinion of scientists. After all, a journalist strives to inform about an event, often emphasizing the role of random but effective details that can make an impression. The scientist, on the contrary, is interested in the essence of the phenomenon being studied in a form purified from accidents. In addition, coverage of current events is also related to the degree of dependence of the media on the authorities and financial corporations, i.e., on the level of freedom of speech achieved in society. Therefore, each person must have a significant stock of social knowledge, be able to compare and analyze information gleaned from different sources in order to be able to assess what is happening in society.

The author writes about the integration of scientific knowledge, the convergence of research methods in different fields of knowledge, emphasizing that “the theoretical levels of individual sciences converge in a general theoretical, philosophical explanation of open principles and laws, in the formation of ideological and methodological aspects of scientific knowledge as a whole.” Is integration only characteristic of modern science? Formulate your point of view and provide two arguments to support it.

Read the text and complete tasks 21-24.

<...>Science is a historically established form human activity, aimed at cognition and transformation of objective reality, such spiritual production, which results in purposefully selected and systematized facts, logically verified hypotheses, generalizing theories, fundamental and particular laws, as well as research methods.

Science is simultaneously a system of knowledge, its spiritual production, and practical activity based on it.

For any scientific knowledge, the presence of what is being studied and how it is being studied are essential. The answer to the question of what is being researched reveals the nature of the subject of science, and the answer to the question of how the research is carried out reveals the research method.

The qualitative diversity of reality and social practice has determined the multifaceted nature of human thinking and different areas of scientific knowledge. Modern science is an extremely ramified collection of individual scientific industries. The subject of science is not only the world external to man, various shapes and types of movement of things, but also their reflection in consciousness, i.e. the man himself. According to their subject, sciences are divided into natural and technical, which study the laws of nature and methods of its development and transformation, and social, which study various social phenomena and the laws of their development, as well as man himself as a social being (humanitarian cycle). Among the social sciences, a special place is occupied by a complex of philosophical disciplines that study the most general laws of development of nature, society, and thinking.

The subject of science influences its methods, i.e. techniques, ways of studying an object. So, in natural sciences One of the main methods of research is experiment, and in the social sciences - statistics. At the same time, the boundaries between sciences are quite arbitrary. For modern stage The development of scientific knowledge is characterized not only by the emergence of related disciplines (for example, biophysics), but also by the mutual enrichment of scientific methodologies. General scientific logical techniques are induction, deduction, analysis, synthesis, as well as systematic and probabilistic approaches and much more. Each science has a different empirical level, i.e. accumulated factual material - the results of observations and experiments, and the theoretical level, i.e. generalization of empirical material, expressed in relevant theories, laws and principles; scientific assumptions based on facts, hypotheses that need further verification by experience. The theoretical levels of individual sciences converge in a general theoretical, philosophical explanation of open principles and laws, in the formation of ideological and methodological aspects of scientific knowledge as a whole<...>

(Spirkin A.G.)

Explanation.

The correct answer must contain the following elements:

1) An answer is given and a point of view is formulated, let’s say:

Modern science is characterized not only by integration;

In addition to integration, we can also talk about the disintegration of scientific knowledge, the separation of more specific scientific disciplines;

2) Arguments are given, for example:

In the social sciences, increasingly narrow areas of research are distinguished, for example, a science that studies the nature of power - cratology;

In the natural sciences, with the discovery of new elements, particles, and the development of nanotechnology, new areas of knowledge also arise;

With the advent of new techniques and ways of knowing among humanity, new scientific disciplines arise both in the study of the microworld and in the study of the megaworld, the Universe, etc.

Other correct wording of the answer may also be given.

A problem occurs. In this case, the sources of problems can be both empirical and theoretical in nature. 2.

Proposing hypotheses and identifying a specific area of ​​research to obtain new facts. Identification and recording of the object and subject of research, setting goals and formulating research objectives.

Hypotheses are assumptions about the possible results that will be obtained from the study. Hypotheses can be theoretical (explanatory) and empirical in nature.

An object of research is an objectively existing fragment of the surrounding world that has an infinite number of properties, connections, and relationships that interests the researcher.

The subject of research is a clearly defined side (property, connection, relationship) of an object that is supposed to be investigated.

The objectives of the study are what is expected to be obtained (or received) as the main and generalized results of the study.

The objectives of the study are to formulate how and in what ways the marked results can be obtained (or were obtained). 3.

Research planning and selection of specific methods. 4.

Implementation of the study. 5.

Processing of the obtained results: qualitative and quantitative (statistical). 6.

Interpretation and generalization of the results obtained: refutation or confirmation of hypotheses; formulation of laws and dependencies; construction of scientific theories.

It should be noted that the implementation of research activities may differ from the formal sequence of description of its stages. In this case, as a rule, the following natural stages of the functional organization of scientific research are preserved:

Proposing a testable hypothesis: a) within the framework of the existing scientific theory; b) beyond the scope of existing scientific theories.

Collection and analysis of theoretical justifications and refutations of the put forward hypothesis.

Collection of data for the purpose of empirical confirmation or refutation of a hypothesis: a) search and use of available empirical data; b) organization of activities aimed at obtaining new empirical data.

Confirmation of the proposed hypothesis provides grounds for:

a) to confirm an existing scientific theory;

b) to the formulation of a new scientific theory.

A refutation of a put forward hypothesis provides grounds for: a) a refutation of the scientific theory within which the hypothesis was formulated; b) to refute the hypothesis and to accept or put forward other alternative hypotheses.

More on the topic What stages can be roughly distinguished in modern scientific activity?:

1. What periods can be distinguished in ancient philosophy and on what grounds?
2. 1.3.2. Structure of modern scientific knowledge What types of knowledge are available within each scientific field?
3. MODERN SOCIETY: SYNTHESIS OF HUMANITARIAN-CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC-RATIONAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES THEORY AND METHODOLOGY OF INNOVATION ACTIVITY IN SCIENTIFIC COGNITION ETHOS OF COGNITION AND CIVILIZATION Alekseeva E.A.
4. 1 What conclusions can be drawn from our basis [for proving the existence of God] about the superiority of the natural order over the supernatural?
5. 1.5.2. Problems that arise when mastering scientific knowledge What problems arise when interpreting sign-symbolic means in which scientific knowledge is recorded?