Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists using the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http:// www. allbest. ru/

Posted on http:// www. allbest. ru/

Introduction

2. Non-scientific forms of knowledge

3.1 Ordinary cognition

3.2 Philosophical knowledge

3.3 Artistic cognition

3.4 Religious cognition

Conclusion

Introduction

Cognition as a form of spiritual activity has existed in society since its inception. Cognition is not limited to the sphere of science, knowledge in one form or another exists outside of science. The advent of scientific knowledge has not abolished or rendered useless other forms of knowledge. Each form of social consciousness: science, philosophy, mythology, politics, religion, etc., corresponds to specific forms of knowledge. There are also forms of knowledge that have a conceptual, symbolic or artistic-figurative basis. Unlike all the diverse forms of knowledge, scientific knowledge is a process of obtaining objective, true knowledge aimed at reflecting the laws of reality. Scientific knowledge has a threefold task and is associated with the description, explanation and prediction of the processes and phenomena of reality.

When distinguishing between scientific, based on rationality, and extrascientific knowledge, it is important to understand that the latter is not someone's invention or fiction. It is produced in certain intellectual communities, in accordance with other norms, standards, has its own sources and conceptual means. In the history of culture, various forms of knowledge that differ from the classical scientific model and standard are assigned to the department of extra-scientific knowledge.

The purpose of this work is to consider extra-scientific knowledge. The tasks follow from the goal:

Consider the features of extra-scientific knowledge of its types;

Study extrascientific forms of knowledge and their development;

Consider the socio-cultural forms of extra-scientific knowledge.

The object of research was knowledge, and the subject -
variety of forms of extra-scientific knowledge.

1. Characteristics of extrascientific knowledge

The emergence of scientific knowledge did not abolish or abolish, did not make other forms of knowledge useless. The separation of science from non-science has not been crowned with success so far. There was a belief that scientific knowledge should eventually oust unscientific ideas from public consciousness as empty or harmful prejudices, but in the XX century. a clear understanding arose and gradually became firmly established that extra-scientific knowledge is not only ineradicable, but, moreover, it is absolutely necessary as a prerequisite for scientific knowledge.

E. Husserl was one of the first to realize this. He spoke about the crisis of European humanity, science and philosophy, which arose due to the disregard of the "life world" by scientists, given in direct experience before and extrascientific knowledge. But it is precisely the "life world" for the scientist that is "the soil, the field of his activity, in which alone his problems and ways of thinking have a meaning."

At the third stage in the evolution of the philosophy of science, representatives of the Vienna Circle tried to clearly separate scientific knowledge as reliable from unscientific knowledge as unreliable through the principle of verification, but their attempt failed. In contrast to them, K. Popper proposed to solve the problem of demarcation, i.e. differentiation of scientific and non-scientific knowledge, based on the principle of falsification. At the same time, judging knowledge as scientific or unscientific should not mean that it is true or false.

In the current, post-positivist philosophy of science, the position on the impossibility of a strict distinction between scientific and non-scientific knowledge has been recognized. One of the most radical representatives of modern philosophy of science P. Feyerabend argues that science as the ideology of the scientific elite should be deprived of its dominant position in society and equated with religion, myth, magic.

For a long time, extrascientific knowledge has not been considered only as a delusion. And since there are diverse forms of extra-scientific knowledge, therefore, they meet some initial need for them. We can say that the conclusion, which is shared by modern-minded scientists who understand all the limitations of rationalism, boils down to the following. It is impossible to prohibit the development of non-scientific forms of knowledge, just as it is impossible to cultivate purely and exclusively pseudoscience, it is also inappropriate to refuse credit of trust to interesting ideas that have matured in their depths, no matter how dubious they may initially seem. Even if unexpected analogies, secrets and histories turn out to be just a "foreign fund" of ideas, both the intellectual elite and the large army of scientists are in dire need of it.

Quite often the statement is made that traditional science, having relied on rationalism, has led humanity to a dead end, the way out of which can be suggested by extrascientific knowledge. Non-scientific disciplines include those whose practice is based on irrational activity on myths, religious and mystical rituals and rituals. Of interest is the position of modern philosophers of science, and in particular P. Feyerabend, who is sure that elements of the irrational have a right to exist within science itself.

The development of such a position can also be associated with the name of J. Holton, who came to the conclusion that at the end of the 20th century, a movement arose and began to expand in Europe, proclaiming the bankruptcy of science.

The opinion that it is scientific knowledge that has a greater information capacity is also disputed by supporters of this point of view. Science can “know less” compared to the diversity of extra-scientific knowledge, since everything it knows must withstand rigorous testing for the reliability of facts, hypotheses and explanations. Knowledge that does not withstand this test is discarded, and even potentially true information may be outside of science.

Sometimes extrascientific knowledge refers to itself as His Majesty Another way of true knowledge. It can also be noted that the interest in the variety of forms of extra-scientific knowledge in recent years has increased everywhere and significantly.

2. Non-scientific forms of knowledge

In modern theoretical and methodological literature (T.G. Leshkevich, L.A. Mirskaya, etc.), the following forms of extra-scientific knowledge are defined:

1) unscientific, understood as scattered unsystematic knowledge, which is not formalized and is not described by laws, is in conflict with the existing scientific picture of the world;

2) parascientific - incompatible with the existing epistemological standard. A wide class of parascientific (para - from Greek - about, at) knowledge includes teachings or reflections on phenomena, the explanation of which is not convincing from the point of view of scientific criteria;

3) pseudoscientific - deliberately exploiting conjectures and prejudices. Pseudoscience is erroneous knowledge; it often presents science as an outsider's business. Sometimes the pseudoscientific is associated with the pathological activity of the psyche of the creator, who in everyday life is called a "maniac", "crazy." Symptoms of pseudoscience are illiterate pathos, a fundamental intolerance to refuting arguments, and pretentiousness. Pseudoscientific knowledge is very sensitive to the news of the day, sensation. Their peculiarity is that they cannot be united by a paradigm, cannot be systematic, universal. They coexist in spots and blotches with scientific knowledge. It is believed that the pseudoscientific reveals itself and develops through the quasi-scientific;

4) quasi-scientific knowledge is looking for supporters and adherents, relying on the methods of violence and coercion. As a rule, it flourishes in conditions of a strictly hierarchical science, where criticism of those in power is impossible, where an ideological regime is rigidly manifested. The periods of "quasi-science triumph" are well known in the history of our country: Lysenkoism, fixism as a quasi-science in Soviet geology in the 1950s, defamation of genetics, cybernetics, etc .;

5) anti-scientific - utopian and consciously distorting the idea of \u200b\u200breality. The prefix "anti" draws attention to the fact that the subject and methods of research are opposite to science. It's like an "opposite sign" approach. It is associated with the eternal need to find a common, readily available "cure for all diseases." Particular interest and craving for anti-science arises during periods of social instability. But although this phenomenon is quite dangerous, it is impossible to get rid of anti-science in principle;

6) pseudoscientific knowledge is an intellectual activity that speculates on a set of popular theories, for example, stories about ancient astronauts, about Bigfoot, about a monster from Loch Ness.

7) Everyday practical knowledge gives elementary information about nature and the surrounding reality. It was based on the experience of everyday life, which, however, has a scattered, unsystematic nature, representing a simple set of information. People, as a rule, have a large amount of everyday knowledge, which is produced on a daily basis in the conditions of elementary life relations and is the initial layer of all knowledge. Sometimes the axioms of common sense contradict scientific theses, impede the development of science, get used to human consciousness so tightly that they become prejudices and obstacles holding back progress. Sometimes, on the contrary, science comes with a long and difficult path of proofs and refutations to formulate those propositions that have long since established themselves in the environment of everyday knowledge. The latter includes common sense, omens, edification, recipes, personal experience, and traditions. Ordinary knowledge, although it fixes the truth, does it unsystematically and without proof. Its peculiarity is that it is used by a person almost unconsciously and in its application does not require any preliminary systems of evidence. Sometimes knowledge of everyday experience even skips over the stage of articulation, but simply silently guides the subject's actions. Another feature is its fundamentally unwritten character. Those proverbs and sayings that the folklore of each ethnic community possesses only fixes its fact, but in no way prescribes the theory of everyday knowledge. Note that a scientist, using a highly specialized arsenal of scientific concepts and theories for a given specific sphere of reality, is always introduced into the sphere of non-specialized everyday experience of a universal human nature. For a scientist, while remaining a scientist, does not cease to be just a man. Ordinary knowledge is sometimes defined by referring to general concepts of common sense or non-specialized everyday experience, which provide a preliminary orientational perception and understanding of the world. In this case, the concept of common sense is subjected to the subsequent definition.

8) Game cognition is based on conventionally accepted rules and goals. It makes it possible to rise above everyday life, not worry about practical benefits and behave in accordance with freely accepted game norms. In game cognition, it is possible to conceal the truth, deceive a partner. It is educational and developmental in nature, reveals the qualities and capabilities of a person, allows you to push the psychological boundaries of communication.

9) Personal and collective knowledge. The personal is made dependent on the abilities of a particular subject and on the characteristics of his intellectual cognitive activity. Collective knowledge is universally significant, or transpersonal, and presupposes the presence of a system of concepts, methods, techniques and rules for its construction that is necessary and common for all. Personal knowledge, in which a person manifests his individuality and creative abilities, is recognized as a necessary and really existing component of knowledge. It emphasizes the obvious fact that science is done by people and that art or cognitive activity cannot be learned from a textbook, it is achieved only in communication with a master.

10) Folk science has now become the business of separate groups or individual subjects: healers, healers, psychics, and earlier it was the privilege of shamans, priests, elders of the clan. At its inception, folk science revealed itself as a phenomenon of collective consciousness. In the era of the dominance of classical science, it lost the status of intersubjectivity and is firmly located on the periphery, far from the center of official experimental and theoretical research. As a rule, folk science exists and is broadcast from mentor to student in a non-written form. Sometimes it is possible to single out its condensation in the form of covenants, omens, instructions, rituals, etc. And, despite the fact that in folk science they see its enormous and subtle, in comparison with a quick rationalistic look, insight, it is often accused of unfounded claims to possess true. In the picture of the world offered by folk science, the circulation of the powerful elements of life is of great importance. Nature acts as a "house of man", and the latter, in turn, as an organic part of it, through which the lines of force of the world circulation constantly pass. It is believed that folk sciences are addressed, on the one hand, to the most elementary, and on the other, to the most vital spheres of human activity, such as health, agriculture, cattle breeding, construction. The symbolic in them is expressed minimally.

11) Paranormal knowledge includes teachings about secret natural and psychic forces and relationships hidden behind ordinary phenomena. The most prominent representatives of this type of knowledge are mysticism and spiritualism.

To describe the methods of obtaining information beyond the scope of science, in addition to the term "paranormality", the term "extrasensory perception" (or "parasensitivity", "psi-phenomena") is used. It assumes the ability to obtain information or influence without resorting to direct physical means. Science cannot yet explain the mechanisms involved in this case, just as it cannot ignore such phenomena. Distinguish between extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis. ESP is divided into telepathy and clairvoyance. Telepathy involves the exchange of information between two or more individuals in paranormal ways. Clairvoyance means the ability to receive information on some inanimate object (cloth, wallet, photograph, etc.). Psychokinesis is the ability to influence external systems that are outside the scope of our motor activity, to move objects in a non-physical way.

Currently, the study of the paranormal is being put on the conveyor belt of science, which, after a series of various experiments, draws its own conclusions.

12) Deviant and abnormal knowledge. The term "deviant" means cognitive activity deviating from accepted and well-established standards. Moreover, the comparison takes place not with an orientation towards a standard and a sample, but in comparison with the norms shared by the majority of members of the scientific community. A distinctive feature of deviant knowledge is that, as a rule, people who have scientific training, but for one reason or another choose methods and objects of research that are very different from generally accepted ideas, are engaged in it. Representatives of deviant knowledge work, as a rule, alone or in small groups. The results of their activities, as well as the direction itself, have a rather short period of existence.

Sometimes the term "abnormal knowledge" does not mean anything other than the fact that the way of obtaining knowledge or the knowledge itself does not correspond to the norms that are generally accepted in science at this historical stage. The division of abnormal knowledge into three types is very interesting: a) the first type arises as a result of the discrepancy between the regulators of common sense and the norms established by science. This type is quite common and implemented in the real life of people. He does not repulse with his abnormality, but attracts attention to himself in a situation when the acting individual, having a special education or special scientific knowledge, fixes the problem of the discrepancy between the norms of the ordinary world attitude and the scientific one (for example, in education, in situations of communication with babies, etc.); b) the second type arises when comparing the norms of one paradigm with the norms of another; c) the third type is revealed when combining norms and ideals from fundamentally different forms of human activity.

extrascientific knowledge religion paranormal

3. Sociocultural forms of extrascientific knowledge

3.1 Ordinary cognition

The desire to study objects of the real world and, on this basis, to foresee the results of its practical transformation is characteristic not only of science, but also of everyday knowledge, which is woven into practice and develops on its basis. As the development of practice objectifies human functions in tools and creates conditions for the disappearance of subjective and anthropomorphic layers in the study of external objects, some types of knowledge about reality appear in everyday cognition, in general, similar to those that characterize science.

Embryonic forms of scientific knowledge arose in the depths and on the basis of these types of everyday knowledge, and then spun off from it (the science of the era of the first urban civilizations of antiquity). With the development of science and its transformation into one of the most important values \u200b\u200bof civilization, its way of thinking begins to exert an ever more active influence on everyday consciousness. This impact develops the elements of the objective-objective reflection of the world contained in everyday, spontaneous-empirical knowledge.

The ability of spontaneous empirical knowledge to generate objective and objective knowledge about the world raises the question of the difference between it and scientific research. It is convenient to consider the signs that distinguish science from ordinary cognition according to the categorical scheme in which the structure of activity is characterized (tracing the difference between science and ordinary cognition in the subject, means, product, methods and subject of activity).

The fact that science provides ultra-long-range forecasting of practice, going beyond the existing stereotypes of production and everyday experience, means that it deals with a special set of objects of reality that are not reducible to objects of everyday experience. If ordinary knowledge reflects only those objects that, in principle, can be transformed in the available historically established ways and types of practical action, then science is able to study such fragments of reality that can become the subject of development only in the practice of the distant future. It constantly goes beyond the objective structures of the available types and methods of practical mastering of the world and opens up new objective worlds for humanity of its possible future activity.

These features of objects of science make the means that are used in everyday knowledge insufficient for their development. Although science uses natural language, it cannot describe and study its objects only on its basis. First, ordinary language is adapted for describing and foreseeing objects woven into the existing practice of a person (science goes beyond its framework); secondly, the concepts of everyday language are fuzzy and ambiguous, their exact meaning is most often found only in the context of linguistic communication controlled by everyday experience. Science, on the other hand, cannot rely on such control, since it mainly deals with objects that have not been mastered in everyday practice. In order to describe the phenomena under study, she seeks to record her concepts and definitions as clearly as possible.

The development by science of a special language suitable for describing objects that are unusual from the point of view of common sense is a necessary condition for scientific research. The language of science is constantly evolving as it penetrates into new areas of the objective world. Moreover, it has the opposite effect on everyday, natural language. For example, the terms "electricity", "refrigerator" were once specific scientific concepts, and then entered into everyday language.

Further, the specificity of the objects of scientific research can explain the main differences between scientific knowledge as a product of scientific activity and knowledge obtained in the sphere of everyday, spontaneous empirical knowledge. The latter are most often not systematized; it is rather a set of information, prescriptions, recipes for activities and behavior, accumulated during the historical development of everyday experience. Their reliability is established through direct application in situations of industrial and everyday practice. As for scientific knowledge, their reliability can no longer be justified only in this way, since in science, objects that have not yet been mastered in production are mainly investigated. Therefore, specific ways of substantiating the truth of knowledge are needed. They are experimental control over the acquired knowledge and the derivability of some knowledge from others, the truth of which has already been proven. In turn, inference procedures ensure the transfer of truth from one piece of knowledge to another, due to which they become interconnected, organized into a system.

Thus, we get the characteristics of the consistency and validity of scientific knowledge, distinguishing it from the products of everyday cognitive activity of people.

From the main characteristic of scientific research, one can also deduce such a distinguishing feature of science when compared with ordinary knowledge, as a feature of the method of cognitive activity. The objects to which ordinary knowledge is directed are formed in everyday practice. The techniques by which each such object is singled out and fixed as an object of cognition are woven into everyday experience. The totality of such techniques, as a rule, is not recognized by the subject as a method of cognition. The situation is different in scientific research. Here, the very discovery of an object, the properties of which are subject to further study, is a very laborious task. For example, in order to detect short-lived particles - resonances, modern physics sets up experiments on the scattering of particle beams and then applies complex calculations. Ordinary particles leave traces-tracks in photographic emulsions or in a Wilson chamber, while resonances do not leave such tracks. However, when the resonance decays, the resulting particles can leave traces of this type. In the photo, they look like a set of dash rays emanating from one center. By the nature of these rays, applying mathematical calculations, the physicist determines the presence of resonance. Thus, the researcher needs to know the conditions in which the corresponding object appears. He is obliged to clearly define the method by which a particle can be detected in an experiment. Outside of the method, he generally does not distinguish the object under study from the numerous connections and relationships of objects of nature. Therefore, along with knowledge about objects, science forms knowledge about methods. The need for the deployment and systematization of knowledge of the second type leads at the higher stages of the development of science to the formation of methodology as a special branch of scientific research, designed to target scientific research.

Finally, the desire of science to study objects relatively independently of their development in the available forms of production and everyday experience presupposes specific characteristics of the subject of scientific activity. Studying science requires a special training of the cognizing subject, during which he masters the historically established means of scientific research, learns the techniques and methods of operating with these means. For everyday cognition, such training is not necessary, or rather, it is carried out automatically, in the process of socialization of the individual, when his thinking is formed and develops in the process of communication with culture and the inclusion of the individual in various spheres of activity. Studying science, along with mastering the means and methods, also presupposes the assimilation of a certain system of value orientations and target attitudes specific to scientific knowledge. These orientations should stimulate scientific research aimed at studying more and more new objects, regardless of the current practical effect of the knowledge gained. Otherwise, science will not carry out its main function - to go beyond the subject structures of the practice of its era, pushing the horizons of the possibilities of man's assimilation of the objective world.

Two basic principles of science provide the pursuit of such a search: the intrinsic value of truth and the value of novelty.

Any scientist accepts the search for truth as one of the basic principles of scientific activity, perceiving truth as the highest value of science. This attitude is embodied in a number of ideals and standards of scientific knowledge, expressing its specificity in certain ideals of the organization of knowledge (for example, the requirement for the logical consistency of theory and its experimental confirmation), in the search for an explanation of phenomena based on laws and principles that reflect the essential connections of the objects under study, and etc.

An equally important role in scientific research is played by the attitude towards the constant growth of knowledge and the special value of novelty in science. This attitude is expressed in the system of ideals and normative principles of scientific creativity (for example, the prohibition of plagiarism, the admissibility of a critical revision of the foundations of scientific search as a condition for the development of new types of objects, etc.).

It is significant that for everyday consciousness the observance of the basic principles of scientific ethics is not at all necessary, and sometimes even undesirable. A person who tells a political joke in an unfamiliar company does not need to refer to the source of information, especially if he lives in a totalitarian society.

In everyday life, people exchange a wide variety of knowledge, share their everyday experience, but links to the author of this experience in most situations are simply impossible, because this experience is anonymous and is often broadcast in culture for centuries.

The presence of science-specific norms and goals of cognitive activity, as well as specific means and methods that ensure the comprehension of all new objects, requires the purposeful formation of scientists. This need leads to the emergence of the "academic component of science" - special organizations and institutions that provide training for scientific personnel.

In the process of such training, future researchers must acquire not only special knowledge, techniques and methods of scientific work, but also the main value orientations of science, its ethical norms and principles.

In the cauldron of everyday knowledge, such early forms as fetishism, totemism, magic, animism, omens are boiled. It also presents religion and philosophy, politics and law, morality and art, as well as science to one degree or another. But science is presented only as "one of ...", and therefore it is not decisive for everyday knowledge, if its carrier does not professionally represent science.

1. Fetishism - belief in the supernatural properties of an object (thing), capable of protecting a person from various troubles. With the exception of healing items, all other fetishes are based on faith.

2. Totemism - belief in a supernatural connection and blood closeness of the genus group with any kind of animals, plants. This is a peculiar form of the affinity between man and nature.

3. Magic - belief in the ability of a person to influence objects and people in a certain way. White magic carries out witchcraft with the help of heavenly powers, and black magic works with the help of the devil. In general, magic embodies the belief in miracles.

4. Animism - belief in the existence of a spirit, a soul in every thing. Animism is a consequence of the anthropic principle: I see the world through the prism of my ideas about myself (see: F. Bacon on the ghost of "kind").

5. Signs are a fixed form of frequently recurring events. Some of the signs fix the cause-and-effect relationship, capture their necessary character. Some signs are random, but are mistaken for necessary. Both those and others form a stereotype of behavior, are fixed by faith.

3.2 Philosophical knowledge

If the immediate goal of science is to describe, explain and predict the processes and phenomena of reality that make up the subject of its study, based on the laws it discovered, then philosophy has always, to one degree or another, performed in relation to science the functions of the methodology of cognition and the worldview interpretation of its results. Philosophy is also united with science by the desire for a theoretical form of building knowledge, for the logical proof of one's conclusions.

The European tradition, dating back to antiquity, highly appreciated the unity of reason and morality, at the same time firmly linked philosophy with science. Even Greek thinkers attached great importance to true knowledge and competence, in contrast to less scientific, and sometimes just frivolous opinion. This distinction is fundamental for many forms of human activity, including philosophy. So what are the results of the intellectual efforts of philosophers: reliable knowledge or only opinion, a test of strength, a kind of mental play? What are the guarantees of the truth of philosophical generalizations, justifications, forecasts? Does philosophy have the right to claim the status of science, or are such claims groundless? Let's see how science and philosophy interact with each other.

The scientific and philosophical worldview performs cognitive functions akin to the functions of science. Along with such important functions as generalization, integration, synthesis of all kinds of knowledge, the discovery of the most general patterns, connections, interactions of the main subsystems of being, the theoretical scale, the consistency of philosophical reason also allow it to perform the functions of forecasting, forming hypotheses about general principles, development trends, as well as primary hypotheses about the nature of specific phenomena that have not yet been worked out by special scientific methods.

On the basis of the general principles of rational understanding, philosophical thought groups everyday, practical observations of various phenomena, forms general assumptions about their nature and possible ways of knowing. Using the experience of understanding accumulated in other areas of knowledge and practice, she creates philosophical "sketches" of certain natural or social realities, preparing their subsequent concrete scientific study. At the same time, speculative thinking over the fundamentally permissible, logically and theoretically possible is carried out. Thus, philosophy performs the function of intellectual intelligence, which also serves to fill in the cognitive gaps that constantly arise in connection with the incomplete, varying degrees of study of certain phenomena, the presence of "white spots" of the cognitive picture of the world. Of course, in a specific scientific plan, they will have to be filled by specialists-scientists of a different general system of world outlook. Philosophy fills them with the power of logical thinking. There is an interesting point of view that these "blank spots" are not filled by scientists with rational (scientific) methods by 100%. More precisely, “in extraordinary, revolutionary periods in the development of scientific knowledge ... each scientist uses them in his own way, investing in them (the criteria of rational choice) his own understanding. Rational considerations ... are not generally valid ”(see, p. 241). Those. the transition from one fundamental theory to another is carried out as a "switch" rather than a rational choice.

Specialists who study all sorts of specific phenomena need general, holistic ideas about the world, about the principles of its structure, general laws, etc. However, they themselves do not develop such ideas - in specific sciences, universal thinking tools (categories, principles, various methods of cognition) are used, but scientists are not specifically engaged in the development, systematization, and comprehension of cognitive techniques, means. The general worldview and theoretical and cognitive foundations of science are studied, worked out and formed in the field of philosophy.

So, philosophy and science are quite closely related; they have a lot in common, but there are also significant differences. Therefore, philosophy cannot be unambiguously ranked among science, and vice versa, its scientific nature cannot be denied. Philosophy is a separate form of cognition that has a scientific basis, manifesting itself in those moments and in those areas of scientific knowledge when the theoretical potential in these areas is either small or absent altogether.

3.3 Artistic cognition

Art (artistic cognition) is a creative activity in the process of which artistic images are created that reflect reality and embody a person's aesthetic attitude towards it. There are various types of art that differ in the special structure of the artistic image. Some of them directly depict the phenomena of life (painting, sculpture, graphics, fiction, theater, cinema). Others express the artist's ideological and emotional state generated by these phenomena (music, choreography, architecture).

Art is the original designation of any skill of a higher and special kind (the art of thinking, the art of waging war). In the generally accepted special sense - the designation of mastery in an aesthetic sense and the works created thanks to it - works of art that differ, on the one hand, from the creations of nature, on the other, from the works of science, craft, technology, and the boundaries between these areas of human activity are very fuzzy because the forces of art also participate in the greatest achievements in these fields.

Art is a form of reflection of reality in human consciousness in artistic images. Reflecting the world around them, art helps people learn about it, serves as a powerful means of political, moral and artistic education.

The variety of phenomena and events of reality, as well as the difference in the ways of their reflection in works of art, gave rise to various types and genres of art: fiction, theater, music, cinema, architecture, painting, sculpture.

The most important feature of art is that, unlike science, it reflects reality not in concepts, but in a concrete, sensuously perceived form - in the form of typical artistic images. Creating an artistic image, identifying the general essential features of reality, the artist conveys these features through individual, often unique characters, through specific phenomena of nature and social life. At the same time, the brighter and more tangible the individual features of an artistic image appear, the more attractive this image is, the more significant the power of its impact.

Art is a grandiose building, while a separate work is a microscopic building, but also complete. In science, not a single study has been completed; it has meaning and value among its predecessors and followers. If science is likened to a grandiose building, then individual research is a brick in its wall. Therefore, art has accumulated values \u200b\u200bfor centuries, weeds out the weak, but preserves the great, and for hundreds and thousands of years it excites listeners and viewers. Science has a more direct path: the thoughts of each researcher, the facts obtained by him are a piece of the path traveled. There is no road without this meter of asphalt, but it has been passed, the road goes on, hence the lifespan of a scientific work is so short, something about 30-50 years. This is the fate of the books and works of the brilliant physicists Newton, Maxwell, and even Einstein, who is very close to us. And to get acquainted with the works of geniuses, scientists advise according to the presentations of contemporaries, since time cuts a brilliant discovery, gives it a new form, even changes features (including the change of cultures, as Spengler argued, see also, p. 233). In this one must look for the source of the differences between scientific and artistic knowledge.

Art appeared at the dawn of human society. It arose in the process of labor, practical activity of people. At first, art was directly intertwined with their work. It has retained its connection with material, production activities, although more mediated, to this day.

In the process of labor, people developed aesthetic feelings and needs, their understanding of beauty in reality and in art. Finding beauty in reality, generalizing, typing it, reflecting it in artistic images and conveying it to a person, thereby satisfying his aesthetic needs and fostering aesthetic feelings in him - this is one of the important features and tasks of art.

3.4 Religious cognition

Religion (From Lat. Religio - piety, piety, shrine) is a worldview inspired by faith in God. It is not only a belief or a set of views. Religion is also a sense of connectedness, dependence and obligation in relation to the secret higher power, which gives support and worthy of worship. This is how many sages and philosophers understood religion - Zoroaster, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Buddha, Socrates, Christ, Muhammad. What is the difference between religious knowledge and scientific knowledge?

Least of all, religion reflects logical rationality. Most of all, it is an instrument of a peculiar, emotional-intuitive and concrete-figurative world assimilation. Religion is a special, operational way of orientation in that still unknown, strange, mysterious, difficult to verbalize (embodied in a word, concept), which a person constantly encounters in the world around him and in himself and which at the same time cannot directly perceive, measure, describe and comprehend. Religion expresses the desire to directly and tangibly touch the "behind the looking glass", beyond, secret, eternal, primordial. And in this sense - by belief and cult - it constitutes a kind, direct philosophy of everyday consciousness, unformalized and unlogical.

Scientific knowledge explains the world from itself, in contrast to religious concepts, without resorting to extranatural, supernatural forces, this is their main difference. It turns out that religion and science are developing in opposite directions, that is, science, proceeding from individual facts, events, laws, restores the general picture of the world, while religion, based on a general idea, tries to explain individual laws, events, facts. In view of all the above, an understanding of the tasks of science and religion in the education of a person, the development of his world outlook, his thinking, both individual and socio-social, emerges.

The task of religion is to foster in a person an understanding of the world as a single, harmonious whole, the components of which are organically interconnected, in which the slightest changes on a local scale lead to significant consequences on a global scale. The task of science is to educate in a person the awareness of the interconnectedness of the world and the development of an idea of \u200b\u200bthe correct use of the potential to achieve a particular result, to satisfy the desired.

Therefore, the commonality becomes clear, the unity of science and religion in the process of personality formation becomes clear, as well as their opposite in the upbringing of the individual: from the general to the particular or from the unique to the universal. Their opposite direction leads to their struggle. Thus, science and religion are a vivid example of the struggle and unity of opposites, which, according to the laws of dialectics, leads to constant movement, that is, a constant struggle for ideals, which is the cause and effect of the improvement of human consciousness, thinking, lays the foundations of the world outlook and world outlook, does not give exhaustive answers, thereby forcing to strive for perfection, objectively and subjectively forcing the flow of history to continue and humanity to develop, is one of the foundations of being.

Thus, religion and science complement each other, since the absence of one leads either to the birth of the absent one, or to the degeneration of the existing one. In addition, religion can and should play a regulating role in relation to science, in a sense, so that knowledge that could harm others is not transferred to an unprepared individual.

Conclusion

It is impossible to completely deny and ignore extra-scientific knowledge. It is no accident that all the time of human existence, various forms of extra-scientific knowledge have taken place and there have been times when they flourished and were supported by a large number of people. But at the same time, an uncritical attitude to extrascientific knowledge can lead to the expansion of its area, the erasure of boundaries with scientific, and under certain social conditions - to the displacement of "normal" scientific knowledge and, accordingly, to the elimination of the critically reflexive way of thinking. A similar situation is possible in times of crisis.

When distinguishing between scientific, based on rationality, and extrascientific knowledge, it is important to understand: extrascientific knowledge is not someone's invention or fiction. It is produced in certain intellectual communities, in accordance with other (different from rationalistic) norms, standards, has its own sources and means of cognition. It is obvious that many forms of non-scientific knowledge are older than knowledge recognized as scientific, for example, astrology is older than astronomy, alchemy is older than chemistry.

In addition to scientific, there are other forms of knowledge that do not fit into the criteria of scientific character. This is an ordinary, religious, artistic-figurative, playful and mythological knowledge, the so-called "occult sciences", etc. And this means that the theory of knowledge cannot be limited to the analysis of only scientific knowledge, but must investigate all other diverse forms that go beyond the limits of science and the criteria of scientific knowledge.

List of used literature

1. Stepin V.S. Theoretical knowledge. M .: "Progress-Tradition", 2000.

2. Akchurin I.A., Konyaev S.N. The concept of virtual worlds and scientific knowledge. SPb .: RHGI, 2000.

3. Philosophy, science, civilization. Ed. V.V. Kazyutinsky. M .: Editorial URSS, 1999.

4. Mostepanenko M.V. Philosophy and methods of scientific knowledge. Publishing house: "Lenizdat", 1972

5. Shvyrev V.S. Theoretical and empirical in scientific knowledge. M .: "Science", 1978.

6. Gurevich P.S. Philosophical Dictionary. M .: AST: Olympus, 1997.

7. Timiryazev K.A. Compositions. T. VIII. M., 1939.

8. Broglie L. On the paths of science. M., 1962.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

The problem of knowledge in philosophy. The concept and essence of everyday knowledge. The rationality of everyday knowledge: common sense and reason. Scientific knowledge, its structure and features. Methods and forms of scientific knowledge. The main criteria for scientific knowledge.

abstract, added 06/15/2017


The theory of cognition (epistemology) is a branch of philosophy that studies such problems as the nature of cognition, its capabilities and boundaries, attitude to reality, subject and object of cognition. Characteristics of reflective and non-reflective forms of cognition.

abstract added on 12/23/2003


Cognition methods as a complex system, their classification. The role of the dialectical method of cognition for modern science. Implementation and application of the principles of dialectics. General scientific methods of empirical knowledge. The need for a unified system of units of measurement.

abstract added 12/12/2016


The sides of really existing knowledge. Problems of nature and possibilities of cognition, the relation of knowledge to reality. Philosophical positions on the problem of knowledge. The principles of skepticism and agnosticism. The main forms of knowledge. The nature of the cognitive relationship.

presentation added 09/26/2013


General characteristics of the theory of knowledge. Types, subjects, objects and levels of knowledge. Comparative analysis of sensory, empirical and theoretical knowledge. Concept, essence and forms of thinking. Description of the basic philosophical methods and techniques of research.

test, added 11/12/2010


Scientific knowledge as reliable, logically consistent knowledge. The content of socio-humanitarian knowledge. Scientific knowledge and functions of scientific theory. The structure of scientific explanation and prediction. Forms of scientific knowledge, its basic formulas and methods.

test, added 01/28/2011


Objectivity of social and humanitarian knowledge. Adequate definition of "social perspective". Axiological dimension of cognition. "Horizontality" and "perspectivism" as characteristics of cognition. The similarity of natural science and socio-humanitarian knowledge.

abstract added 08/03/2013


Theory of knowledge: a study of various forms, patterns and principles of cognitive activity of people. Cognitive type of relationship between subject and object. Basic principles of the theory of knowledge. Features of scientific knowledge, the concept of a paradigm.

abstract, added 03/15/2010


Cognition as a subject of philosophical analysis. The structure of knowledge, key theories of truth. Scientific knowledge, its levels and forms. Practice as a criterion of truth. The concept of the method and methodology of scientific knowledge. The main problems of modern philosophy of science.

presentation added on 05/20/2015


Science as a specific type of knowledge. Features of the process of scientific knowledge, due not only to the characteristics of the object under study, but also by numerous factors of a socio-cultural nature. Non-scientific types of knowledge. Science as a social institution.

In addition to feelings and reason, recognized by science as the main human abilities that allow one to obtain new knowledge, unscientific methods of cognition are also distinguished - intuition, wit, faith, mystical insight.

Intuition - the ability to gain new knowledge "on a whim", "in inspiration." It is usually associated with the unconscious. This means that the process of solving an important problem may not take place at a conscious level. For example, as in the case of Dmitry Ivanovich Mendeleev (1834-1907), who in a dream saw the principle of constructing the Periodic Table of Elements. Nevertheless, the solution to the problem in intuitive cognition does not come by itself, but on the basis of past experience and in the process of intense reflection on the problem. Obviously, a person who does not seriously deal with a problem will never solve it by "insight." Therefore, intuition is on the border of scientific and non-scientific forms of knowledge.

Wit - creative ability to notice the points of contact of heterogeneous phenomena and combine them in a single, radically new solution. Most of the theories (as well as scientific inventions) are based precisely on subtle and ingenious solutions. By its mechanisms, wit belongs to the methods of artistic cognition of the world.

Vera is in religion a way of knowing the "true world" and one's own soul. Real faith creates a supernatural bond between man and truth. Moreover, the very "symbols of faith" in any religion are recognized as indisputable truths, and faith in them makes sensual and rational testing unnecessary. “I believe in order to know,” said the medieval scholastic Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109).

Mystical insight in mystical teachings it is regarded as a path to true knowledge, a breakthrough from the “prison” of the reality surrounding a person into a supernatural, true being. In the mystical teachings, there are numerous spiritual practices (meditations, mysteries), which ultimately should provide a person's exit to a new level of knowledge.

Science is skeptical about unscientific forms of knowledge, however, some researchers believe that it is impossible to limit knowledge only by feelings and reason.

In addition to methods, types of unscientific knowledge can also be distinguished.

Ordinary practical knowledge based on common sense, worldly ingenuity and life experience and is necessary for correct orientation in repetitive situations of everyday life, for physical work.

I. Kant called the cognitive ability, which provides such activity, reason.

Mythological knowledge tries to explain the world in fantastic and emotional ways. In the early stages of development, humanity did not yet have enough experience to understand the true causes of many phenomena, therefore they were explained using myths and legends, without taking into account cause-and-effect relationships. For all its fantastic nature, the myth performed important functions: within its capabilities, it interpreted the issues of the origin of the world and man and explained natural phenomena, thereby satisfying man's desire for knowledge, provided certain models for activity, defining the rules of behavior, passing on experience and traditional values \u200b\u200bfrom generation a generation.

Religious cognition is thinking on the basis of dogmas, recognized as irrefutable. Reality is viewed through the prism of "symbols of faith", the main of which is the requirement to believe in the supernatural. As a rule, religion is focused on spiritual self-knowledge, occupying a niche in which both everyday knowledge and scientific knowledge are powerless. Religion, being a form of receiving and expanding spiritual experience, has had a significant impact on the development of mankind.

Artistic cognition is based not on scientific concepts, but on holistic artistic images and allows you to feel and sensually express - in literature, music, painting, sculpture - subtle shades of mental movements, individuality of a person, feelings and emotions, the uniqueness of every moment of a person's life and the nature around him. The artistic image, as it were, complements the scientific concept. If science tries to show the objective side of the world, then art (along with religion) is its personally colored component.

Philosophical knowledge, considering the world as a whole, it is primarily a synthesis of scientific and artistic forms of knowledge. Philosophy thinks not in concepts and images, but in “concepts-images,” or concepts. On the one hand, these concepts are close to scientific concepts, since they are expressed in terms, and on the other, to artistic images, since these concepts are not as strict and unambiguous as in science; rather, they are symbolic. Philosophy can also use elements of religious knowledge (religious philosophy), although in itself it does not require a person to believe in the supernatural.

Unlike these types, scientific knowledge presupposes an explanation, the search for patterns in each area of \u200b\u200bits research, requires strict evidence, a clear and objective description of facts in the form of a harmonious and consistent system. At the same time, science is not completely opposed to everyday practical knowledge, accepting some elements of experience, and everyday experience itself in modern times takes into account many scientific data.

However, scientific knowledge is not immune to errors. History has proven the illegality of many hypotheses that science used to operate (about the world ether, phlogiston, etc.). However, science does not claim to be absolute knowledge. Her knowledge always contains some part of delusion, which is reduced with the development of science. Science aims at search truth, not the possession of it.

It is in this direction of science that the main criterion is laid that distinguishes it from numerous forgeries: any claim to possession of the only and absolute truth is unscientific.

The reasons for the popularity of pseudoscientific theories are, on the one hand, in the general crisis of modern culture and the search for new values, and, on the other, in man's gravitation for a miracle. Personal reasons forcing a person to engage in pseudoscience are more varied: striving for fame or money, sincere delusion or order. Based on this, the following definition can be given.

Pseudoscience is falsification of scientific data for political, religious, economic or personal purposes.

Pseudoscience uses scientific terminology in its constructions, acts on behalf of various organizations and "academies", disguises its activities with academic degrees and titles, makes extensive use of mass media and government structures, and carries out extensive publishing activities. Therefore, it is often difficult for a person (even a specialist) to find criteria to distinguish pseudoscience from real science. Nevertheless, some general indicators of pseudoscience can be distinguished. Usually unscientific:

about concepts aimed at denying all previous science. As a rule, even the most "crazy" concept, if correct, is consistent with a number of laws and previously confirmed fundamental principles. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity did not abolish Newtonian mechanics, but only limited it to certain conditions;

o general and global theories - from a new theory of the structure of the Universe to the invention of "a cure for all diseases." In an age of constant increase in the volume of information, it is difficult to be an expert in all areas and take into account all the factors necessary for a global "theory of everything"; the increasingly perceived complexity of the world contradicts such theories. Such ideas are also usually characterized by excessive pathos and self-praise;

about theories, characterized by vague and incomprehensible evidence. The most complex scientific theories can be explained in simple terms; if the concepts are not fundamentally definable, then most likely such vagueness masks the lack of an evidence base;

about unsystematic and internally contradictory theories, which indicates the author's illiteracy. The converse is also true: an illiterate job is usually meaningless;

about a theory that mixes scientific terms and concepts from the sphere of mysticism or religion (for example, "karma", "grace", "cosmic vibrations", etc.) or the usual concepts are given a "secret" meaning (Light, Beginning, Reason, Nature etc.);

unverifiable theories because they are based on irrational belief. For example, references to cosmic intelligence, the harmony of the universe, or revelation defy scientific verification.

Supporters of pseudoscience often put forward new hypotheses not to gain new knowledge, but to further support their theories.

Creationists (adherents of the concept that the world was created by God) correct their hypothesis every time science finds another refutation of the concept of divine creation of the world. For example, the findings of paleontologists support evolutionary theory: the occurrence of fossils shows a sequence of species that replaced each other over millions of years. Creationists responded with the theory that the fossils are the remains of animals that died during the Flood, and the large and heavy bones (in particular, the bones of dinosaurs) are in the lower layers, because during the flood they sank deeper into the silt under the weight of their weight. ...

In response to evidence that the universe originated more than 10 billion years ago (according to the creation hypothesis, the world is only 6-10 thousand years old), creationists answer that time is not something constant: it can slow down or speed up at a divine command.

In general, if all the efforts of the supporters of an idea are aimed at defending the theory, and not at seeking new knowledge, this may serve as an indicator of the unscientific nature of the idea (often all subsequent activities of the “creators” of such an idea are reduced to the constant justification of ideas or to complaints of persecution from side of official science).

Real science has predictive power, i.e. able to predict new phenomena, and not just explain the well-known.

The application of the theory of universal gravitation by Isaac Newton (1643-1727) to the calculation of the orbits of the planets of the solar system allowed astronomers to theoretically predict the existence of the planet Neptune. Later, the planet was actually found in the predicted orbit. The possibility of such discoveries is an important characteristic of true science, which does not try to defend old theories, but seeks to find a new one.

The presented indicators of pseudoscience are rather arbitrary and not true in all cases. A scientist can really come up with a new general theory, he can be undeservedly persecuted, etc. But if his theory corresponds to several of the above indicators at once, then its scientific character is more than doubtful.

Pseudoscience usually takes the form of esotericism, mysticism, sectarianism, falsifications and speculations, informational and political orders, etc. It is rarely harmless: almost all of its forms have a negative effect on the human psyche. Therefore, tolerance towards it should not extend to too wide limits: the mental health of society, undermined by belief in pseudoscience, is no less important for the future than physical health.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

• 1. The scientific methods of knowledge include feelings and reason, to unscientific - intuition, wit, faith, mystical insight.
• 2. To the main types of knowledge include the everyday, practical, religious, scientific, artistic and philosophical.
• 3. Pseudoscience is the falsification of scientific data for political, religious, economic or personal purposes.

QUESTIONS

• 1. What are the main differences between scientific and non-scientific knowledge? Is scientific knowledge free from delusion?
• 2. List the main signs of pseudoscience. Which ones do you think are the most important?
• 3. Give your examples of pseudoscience. What indicators indicate that the theories you named are pseudoscientific?

• Phlogiston (from the Greek phlogistos - combustible), which prevailed in chemistry in the XVIII century. representations - a special fiery matter contained in all combustible substances. Later, the phlogiston theory was replaced by the oxygen theory.

And reason, recognized by science as the main ones, allowing one to obtain new knowledge, distinguish and unscientific ways:

• intuition;
• wit;
• faith;
• mystical insight.

Intuition - the ability to gain new knowledge "on a whim", "in inspiration." It is usually associated with the unconscious.

This means that the process of solving an important problem may not take place at a conscious level. For example, as in the case of Dmitry Ivanovich Mendeleev (1834-1907), who in a dream saw the principle of constructing the Periodic Table of Elements. Nevertheless, the solution to the problem in intuitive cognition does not come by itself, but on the basis of past experience and in the process of intense reflection on the problem. Obviously, a person who does not seriously deal with a problem will never solve it by "insight." Therefore, intuition is on the borderline and unscientific forms of knowledge.

Wit - creative ability to notice the points of contact of heterogeneous phenomena and combine them in a single, radically new solution. Most of the theories (as well as scientific inventions) are based precisely on subtle and ingenious solutions. By its mechanisms, wit belongs to the methods of artistic cognition of the world.

In the most general sense, knowledge is understood as a set of judgments about reality, which differ in the degree of their generality, the depth of its disclosure and the degree of reliability of the conclusions obtained. In the very term “knowledge”, at least three different meanings can be distinguished. First, we can talk about knowledge in a purely practical sense, as the ability to do something, the ability to make a thing or perform a certain action. A skill that has become repeatable and habitual becomes a skill. But all such practical actions are nevertheless based on a certain knowledge, which has a spontaneous empirical character and is based on the common sense of everyday experience.

However, skills are necessary not only in spontaneous empirical knowledge, but also in rational scientific activity, where they are associated with techniques and skills in handling instruments and installations, methods of measuring quantities, processing measurement results. The famous Hungarian chemist and philosopher M. Polanyi, who paid much attention to the philosophical problems of science, pays special attention to this. “The large amount of study time that chemistry, biology and medical students devote to practical training,” he wrote, “testifies to the important role that the transfer of practical knowledge and skills from teacher to student plays in these disciplines.

From what has been said, we can conclude, firstly, that in the very heart of science there are areas of practical knowledge that cannot be conveyed through formulations. " Secondly, the term "knowledge" is often identified with the meaning that is meant when characterizing scientific knowledge. The most important characteristic of such knowledge is the value orientation, which is guided by every scientist, and which consists in the search for objective truth. It is the orientation towards the search for more and more truths about the world around us that is the main goal of any scientific research. In accordance with this goal, certain norms, criteria and research methods are established in science, which we will consider in the future. Thirdly, sometimes opinion, faith and conviction are sometimes called knowledge, where the subjective factor plays a significant role. Opinions express the subject's attitude to reality, which may turn out to be erroneous and contradicting other opinions, and sometimes just an illusion.

Faith in the non-religious sense of the word is a subjective assessment of a fact, statement, assumption, guess, etc. In contrast to subjective faith, one also distinguishes rational faith, which is based on empirical facts, their generalizations and logical conclusions. It is this kind of rational faith that is dealt with in science when methods of statistical and logical probability are used to determine it. The degree of its reliability in this case can vary from impossibility to practical reliability. A much more complex character is inherent in beliefs, which include a rational-logical part, based on facts and logical conclusions, psychological, associated with feelings and emotions, moral, ideological and others. The rational-logical part of beliefs is usually analyzed within the framework of argumentation. In whatever sense, however, knowledge is considered, it must be distinguished from the process of knowing it.

If knowledge is the result of studying reality, then knowledge is a process of searching and researching it. This distinction is of particular importance for science, in which the process of cognition is especially complex, going beyond the framework of empirical cognition, which limits the ordinary, practical and other forms of extra-scientific cognition. That is why in science the results of cognition are specially analyzed in the form of existing concepts, hypotheses, laws and theories, on the one hand, and on the other, the process of scientific research, with the help of which they were obtained. If logical methods can be used to analyze, classify and systematize the results of cognition, then to study the process of cognition, it is often necessary to turn to methodological and heuristic methods, i.e. search, means and methods, as well as take into account the role of imagination, intuition, ingenuity, etc.

Ancient philosophers began to study various types of knowledge. Parmenides and Plato distinguished knowledge in truth (episteme) from opinion (doxa). If genuine knowledge gives reliably true knowledge, then opinion can acquire illusion, error, unfounded faith, etc. Therefore, Plato, for example, believed that the only reliable knowledge is given only by mathematics. But his student Aristotle believed that one can obtain true knowledge about nature, which he associated with physics (from the Greek "fuzis" - nature) and he himself took the first steps in its creation. However, ancient Greek science remained generally speculative, since it did not know the experiment, and used observations only for a simple description of phenomena.

The emergence of experimental natural science in the 17th century put forward as one of the urgent tasks the criticism of scholastic natural-philosophical and religious views, which hindered the knowledge of the objective laws of nature and their practical use in the interests of society. It was in modern times that the view arose, according to which only science gives true knowledge, based not only on mathematics, as Plato believed, but also on the experimental method, which was first created and successfully applied by Galileo. Therefore, the great founders of classical natural science, Galileo and Newton, invariably stressed that scientific knowledge should be strictly distinguished from various forms of extra-scientific knowledge.

In the 18th century, I. Kant made an analysis of the structure and boundaries of science, who tried to give a philosophical foundation for the scientific knowledge that was presented by Newtonian mechanics. Kant proposed to accurately delineate the boundaries of science and clearly separate it from faith, opinions, myths and other forms of pre-scientific knowledge, as well as from art, morality, religion and other forms of consciousness. Hegel, who approached the consideration of truth as a dialectical process of the movement of thought, began to consider knowledge in a broader context. Therefore, he included in the structure of knowledge and pre-scientific forms of knowledge, as well as modern forms of spiritual culture. This dialectical approach to knowledge, with appropriate amendments, was later adopted by Marxism. Features of scientific knowledge. If in the pre-scientific period of its existence, science was not yet separated from ordinary knowledge and practice, then as it develops in the future, it turns into an independent area of \u200b\u200bcognitive activity. The main goal of this activity was the production of objective knowledge about the world around us, and the base value was the acquisition of true knowledge about the world. While in everyday cognition, the mastery of the world occurs within the framework of direct practical activity, science creates special abstractions and idealizations for this. Therefore, it deals directly not with material, but abstract and ideal objects, on the basis of which it builds its hypotheses and theories.

Scientific knowledge also differs from ordinary and practical knowledge in its systematic and consistent nature, both in the process of searching for new knowledge and in ordering all known, available and newly discovered knowledge. Each subsequent step in science is based on the previous step, each new discovery receives its justification when it becomes an element of a certain system of knowledge. Most often, such a system is theory, as a developed form of rational knowledge. In contrast, everyday knowledge has a scattered, random and disorganized character, in which separate facts, not related to each other, or their simplest inductive generalizations, prevail. The further process of systematizing knowledge in science finds its continuation in the unification of theories within the framework of individual scientific disciplines, and the latter - in interdisciplinary areas of research. As an illustration of the interdisciplinary research that has arisen in recent decades, one can point, for example, to cybernetics, and then synergetics. It is known that control processes were studied in different sciences even before the appearance of cybernetics, but it was cybernetics that first clearly formulated them, gave them the missing commonality and developed a single terminology and language, which greatly facilitated communication and mutual understanding between scientists of different specialties. Similarly, the problems of self-organization were investigated on the material of biological, economic and social-humanitarian sciences, but only synergetics put forward a new general concept of self-organization and thus formulated its general principles that are used in different areas of research. Its important merit is that it showed for the first time that, given certain prerequisites and conditions, self-organization can begin already in the simplest inorganic systems of the open type. The emergence of such interdisciplinary research indicates the presence in science of a trend towards the integration of scientific knowledge, a significant impetus to which was given by the systemic movement that unfolded after the Second World War. This tendency overcomes the negative consequences of the opposite tendency towards the differentiation of knowledge, aimed at a separate study of individual phenomena, processes and areas of the real world.

Of course, the process of differentiation plays a significant role in the progress of science, since it allows a deeper and more accurate study of them. Nevertheless, in order to reflect the unity and integrity of the world and its individual systems, it is necessary to integrate scientific knowledge within the framework of the corresponding conceptual systems. The most important functions of theoretical systems of science are to explain existing concrete facts and predict new, as yet unknown facts. To implement these functions and, consequently, to apply the results of scientific research in practice, science discovers objective laws, according to which objects and phenomena of the real world change and transform. If such laws are known, then it will be possible to explain why certain phenomena and processes occur. On the other hand, knowledge of laws makes it possible to predict new facts, since they turn out to be logical consequences of known laws. Thus, it is precisely the orientation of science towards the discovery of the objective laws of nature and society and the associated possibility of explaining not only the facts of the known, but also the prediction of the facts of the unknown that fundamentally distinguish scientific knowledge from other, extra-scientific forms of knowledge.

First, in contrast to a simple description of the phenomena and processes under study, science builds their ideal models, on the basis of which it gets the opportunity to study them in a "pure" form. Such research is carried out according to the internal logic of model development and, if the initial assumptions of the model were correct, then they can lead to true conclusions that were not known before. Due to this, such knowledge can significantly outstrip the known knowledge and turn out to be unexpected for practitioners.

Secondly, the possibility of science getting ahead of the existing practice opens up great prospects for the relatively independent development of its ideas, models and programs. Science can now not respond to the momentary demands of practice and utilitarian needs, but continue to develop its theories, guided by the logic of the development of scientific thought. As the history of science shows, it is the results of the most important theoretical studies that turn out to be the most valuable for practice. The discovery of the theory of electromagnetism led to the creation of electrical engineering and radio engineering, quantum mechanics contributed to the mastery of atomic energy, the development of molecular genetics and the decoding of the genetic code made it possible to control heredity, create genetically modified plant species and treat hereditary diseases. The number of such examples can easily be increased, and they all testify to the leading role of science in the scientific and technological progress of society.

Thirdly, using experimental methods, science gained the ability to better control the process of scientific research, more accurately test its hypotheses and theories. This saves science from turning to current practice every time. First, new discoveries, hypotheses and theories are tested in it in laboratory experiments, and only then find application in practice, in industry, agriculture, medicine and other sectors of the national economy. With the progress of science, the time for introducing new discoveries into practice is also noticeably reduced.

Fourthly, science, unlike non-scientific forms of knowledge, uses special means, methods, techniques and criteria of both empirical and theoretical research, which contribute to a purposeful search for truth, make this search orderly and organized, which greatly contributes to the effectiveness of scientific research. So, in empirical knowledge, such means of scientific research are widely used as various observation and measurement devices (telescopes, microscopes, cameras, etc.), and special devices, instruments, experimental installations, etc.

In contrast to the common sense of everyday knowledge, science is also guided by certain standards, criteria or norms of research, which ensure the intersubjectivity of the results obtained. So, for example, the data of observations or experiments should be reproducible by any scientist of the relevant field of knowledge, which means that they should not depend on the subject, his desires and intentions. This is why they are called intersubjective. The history of science knows many cases of conscientious delusion of scientists when they report their results, not to mention their deliberate falsification. That is why science establishes certain criteria and norms of research, which should be guided by any scientist. Such criteria can be conditionally called universal for the entire science, because they serve, first of all, to ensure the objectivity of research results, excluding any bias, prejudice, arbitrariness and logical contradiction of conclusions.

The consistency criterion of scientific knowledge ensures the consistency of thinking, achieved by observing the well-known laws of classical, or Aristotelian, logic and, above all, the law of non-admission of contradiction. The criterion of consistency plays a decisive role in such formal and abstract sciences as mathematics and logic, where the very existence of their objects is based on this criterion. After all, a formally contradictory object or proof has no right to exist in science. If the definition of a concept or the proof of a theorem turns out to be contradictory, then it is recognized as incorrect and therefore should be excluded from science or, at least, requires correction.

Compliance with the consistency criterion is mandatory not only for mathematics and logic, but also for any sciences, including those based on experiment or specific facts. Such sciences are often called empirical because they develop and are based on various forms of experience, including observations and experiments, the results of which form the empirical basis of science. These include most of the natural and technical sciences. In contrast, the economics, social sciences, and humanities rely primarily on facts established through observations of social life and practice, and are therefore often called factual sciences. Since both sciences ultimately rely on experience, facts and practice, and thus differ from abstract and formal sciences, then for the sake of unity of terminology, we will call them empirical sciences.

However, one should not forget that in all these sciences, cognition is not limited only to observations and experience, but broadly uses theoretical research methods. Why is the criterion of consistency so important for empirical and theoretical systems?

It is known from logic that two conflicting judgments cannot be simultaneously true, i.e. their conjunction gives a false statement. But according to the rule of implication of symbolic logic, which is the basis of logical inference, from a false statement you can get both true and false. Therefore, the assumption of a contradiction in reasoning would lead to the destruction of order and consistency in our reasoning. To exclude such a possibility, a special law is introduced in classical and symbolic logic that prohibits contradictions in reasoning (the principle of consistency). From a substantive point of view, the assumption of a contradiction would lead to the sterility of science, because a contradictory system does not provide any specific information about the studied world. Along with contradictions in science, antinomies or paradoxes sometimes arise, which can even lead to crises of its foundations. A typical example is the theory of abstract sets, built by G. Cantor at the end of the 19th century for the final substantiation of all classical mathematics. However, soon paradoxes were discovered in it, which testified to the unfavorableness of this theory, which claimed to be a solid foundation of all mathematics.

Over time, the number of such paradoxes began to increase and so far no satisfactory solution has been found. But what did mathematicians do with these paradoxes? Through the lips of the great German mathematician D. Hilbert, they declared: "No one can expel us from the paradise that Cantor created for us." Therefore, instead of the previous, Cantorian theory, they constructed an axiomatic set theory, in which no paradoxes have yet been found. Thus, the antinomies and paradoxes here appeared to be localized and isolated from the rest of the working theory.

In natural science, contradictions often arise when old concepts and theories turn out to be inadequate to new experimental facts. Scientists do not immediately seek to discard such theories, but try to limit the boundaries of their application. But this does not mean at all that paradoxes should not be reckoned with. Rather, their detection in a theoretical system indicates insufficient validity and adequacy of the theory, and therefore the task of researchers is to revise and modify the theory, to eliminate the paradoxes present in it. This often leads to the construction of a new theory, as the example of restructuring the analysis of infinitesimal in mathematics using the theory of limits or the creation of a wave theory of light in optics instead of corpuscular one shows. However, logical contradictions in reasoning should not be confused with contradictions in the development of cognition, which are expressed in the discrepancy between different sides, stages and moments of the development process.

For example, in the development of scientific knowledge, a discrepancy periodically arises between new facts and the old methods of their theoretical explanation. This discrepancy creates a difficulty or problem in science that needs to be resolved. Therefore, in contrast to the formal logical contradiction, the discrepancy between the new facts and the old methods of their explanation is resolved not by eliminating this contradiction, but by building a new theory that can explain the newly discovered facts. The logical criterion of consistency is used to check the inconsistency of some statements or fragments of theory with others and therefore is mainly associated with the theoretical stage of research. In empirical sciences, first of all, they seek to reconcile theories with reality. That is why they are checked. The test of testability in empirical sciences is carried out by detecting the correspondence or inconsistency of scientific hypotheses and theories with the results of observations and experiments. At the same time, in some sciences, one has to be limited only to systematic observations (astronomy) or historical facts that have come down to us (archeology, history, ethnography), in others (physics, chemistry, biology, and others), experiments can be carried out, in others (economics, sociology , political science) - basically it is necessary to analyze the existing concrete facts and only partially refer to the experiment.

Precisely because all empirical theories give us specific information about the real world, the testability criterion is fundamental for them, which establishes whether the judgments derived from them correspond to reality or not. This criterion is recognized not only by supporters of empiricism and “naive realism,” but also by such influential trends in the philosophy of science as logical positivism and critical rationalism in the recent past. They all also agree that the test of testability should not be understood too simplistically and that every statement in theory or in science as a whole should be subject to direct empirical testing. Indeed, many of the initial statements, principles or theoretical laws of science cannot be directly correlated with empirical facts, since they contain statements about abstract and ideal objects that are absent in empirical knowledge.

A typical example is the law of inertia in classical mechanics, which states that a body that is not subject to the action of external forces will move uniformly and rectilinearly until these forces act on it. It is clear that in the real world it is impossible to verify this law directly, since in no experiment can one free oneself from the action of all external forces. Therefore, verification of this law, as well as other basic laws, principles and statements of theories of experimental sciences, is carried out indirectly by deriving logical consequences from the theory as a whole, which includes this or that law or statement. Since a theory is a system of logically interconnected laws and statements of varying degrees of generality and abstractness, the least abstract statements that are closer to the real world of experience are selected to test such a system. These are commonly referred to as empirically verifiable statements.

By comparing them with actual facts, i.e. with the results of real observations and experiments, one can judge the truth and falsity of the theory. If real facts refute a verified theoretical statement, then according to the well-known logical law modus tollens, i.e. falsity of the conclusion on the basis of the falsity of the investigation, the entire theoretical system is considered false. If this statement turns out to be true, then we can speak only about the partial truth of the hypothesis or theory, more precisely, about a certain degree of its confirmation by facts. Obviously, the more such supporting facts, both in number and in their variety, the higher will be the degree of confirmation, theory. However, there is no guarantee that future observations and experiments cannot disprove the theory.

Therefore, in a strictly logical sense, one can speak of the theories of experimental sciences, even those well supported by facts, as hypotheses. The historical experience of science shows that even theories that for a long time were considered unshakable and almost eternal and absolute truths, such as, for example, the classical mechanics of Newton, subsequently turned out to be relatively true, true only for processes in a certain area of \u200b\u200breality and specific conditions for their application.

In addition to feelings and reason, recognized by science as the main human abilities, allowing one to obtain new knowledge, there are also unscientific ways of knowing:

• intuition;
• wit;
• faith;
• mystical insight.

Intuition - the ability to gain new knowledge "on a whim", "in inspiration." It is usually associated with the unconscious.

This means that the process of solving an important problem may not take place at a conscious level. For example, as in the case of Dmitry Ivanovich Mendeleev (1834-1907), who in a dream saw the principle of constructing the Periodic Table of Elements. It is important to note that, however, with all this, the solution to the problem in intuitive cognition does not come by itself, but on the basis of past experience and in the process of intense reflection on the problem. It is quite understandable that a person who does not seriously deal with a problem will never solve it by "enlightenment". Therefore, intuition is on the border of scientific and non-scientific forms of knowledge.

Wit - creative ability to notice the points of contact of heterogeneous phenomena and combine them in a single, radically new solution. It is important to know that most of the theories (as well as scientific inventions) are based precisely on subtle and ingenious decisions.
It is worth noting that wit by these mechanisms belongs to the methods of artistic knowledge of the world.

Vera will be in religion a way of knowing the "true world" and one's own soul. True faith will create a supernatural bond between man and truth. Moreover, the very "symbols of faith" in any religion are recognized as indisputable truths, and faith in them makes sensual and rational testing unnecessary. "I believe, if only to know," said the medieval scholastic Anselm of Kengerbury (1033-1109)

Mystical insight in mystical teachings it is regarded as a path to true knowledge, a breakthrough from the “prison” of the reality surrounding a person into a supernatural, true being. In the mystical teachings, there are numerous spiritual practices (meditations, mysteries), which ultimately should provide a person's exit to a new level of knowledge.

Types of unscientific knowledge

Science is skeptical about unscientific forms of cognition, however, some researchers believe that cognition should not be limited to feelings and reason only.

In addition to methods, one can distinguish and types of unscientific knowledge.

Ordinary practical knowledge based on common sense, worldly ingenuity and life experience and is extremely important for correct orientation in repetitive situations of everyday life, for physical work. I. Kant called the cognitive ability, which provides such activity, reason.

Mythological knowledge tries to explain the world in fantastic and emotional ways. In the early stages of development, mankind did not yet have enough experience to understand the true causes of many phenomena, therefore they were explained using myths and legends, without taking into account causal relationships. For all its fantastic nature, the myth performed important functions: within the framework of their capabilities, it interpreted the issues of the origin of the world and man and explained natural phenomena, thereby satisfying the human desire for knowledge, provided certain models for activity, defining the rules of behavior, passing on experience and traditional values \u200b\u200bfrom generation a generation.

Religious cognition is thinking on the basis of dogmas recognized as irrefutable. Reality is viewed through the prism of "symbols of faith", the main of which will be the requirement to believe in the supernatural. As a rule, religion is focused on spiritual self-knowledge, occupying a niche in which both ordinary knowledge and scientific knowledge are powerless. Religion, being a form of receiving and expanding spiritual experience, has had a significant impact on the development of mankind.

Artistic cognition is based not on scientific concepts, but on holistic artistic images and allows you to feel and sensually express - in literature, music, painting, sculpture - subtle shades of mental movements, individuality of a person, feelings and emotions, the uniqueness of every moment of a person's life and the nature around him. The artistic image, as it were, complements the scientific concept. If science tries to show the objective side of the world, then art (along with religion) is its personally colored component.

Philosophical knowledge, considering the world as a whole, it is primarily a synthesis of scientific and artistic forms of knowledge. Philosophy thinks not in concepts and images, but in “concepts-images,” or concepts.
From one point of view, these concepts are close to scientific concepts, since they are expressed in terms, and on the other, to artistic images, since these concepts are not as strict and unambiguous as in science; rather, they are symbolic. Philosophy can also use elements of religious knowledge (religious philosophy), although in itself it does not require a person to believe in the supernatural.

Unlike these types, scientific knowledge presupposes an explanation, the search for patterns in each area of \u200b\u200bits research, requires strict evidence, a clear and objective description of facts in the form of a harmonious and consistent system. At the same time, science is not completely opposed to everyday-practical knowledge, accepting certain elements of experience, and everyday experience itself in modern times takes into account many scientific data.

Moreover, scientific knowledge is not immune to errors. History has proven the illegality of many hypotheses that science previously operated on (about the world ether, phlogiston, etc.). At the same time, science does not claim to be absolute knowledge. Her knowledge always contains some part of delusion, which is reduced with the development of science. Science is aimed at finding truth, not at owning it.

It is in the th direction of science that the main criterion is laid that distinguishes it from numerous fakes: any claim to possession of the only and absolute truth will be unscientific.

See also: Pseudoscience