In the course of the development of science, various means of cognition are developed and improved: material, mathematical, logical, linguistic. All means of cognition are specially created means. In this sense, material, mathematical, logical, linguistic means of cognition have a common property: they are designed, created, developed, substantiated for certain cognitive purposes.
Let us briefly outline the content of the declared means of cognition of objective reality.
Material means of knowledge These are, first of all, instruments for scientific research. In history, the emergence of material means of cognition is associated with the formation of empirical research methods - observation, measurement, experiment.
These funds are directly aimed at the objects under study, they play the main role in the empirical testing of hypotheses and other results of scientific research, in the discovery of new objects, facts. The use of material means of cognition in science in general - a microscope, a telescope, a synchrophasotron, satellites of the Earth, etc. has a profound influence on the formation of the conceptual apparatus of the sciences, on the ways of describing the subjects studied, the methods of reasoning and representations, on the generalizations, idealizations and arguments used.
Let us give several examples of material means of cognition of reality and recall their authors. So, Galileo became famous in science not only for his pioneering research, but also for the introduction of a telescope into science. And today, astronomy is unthinkable without a wide variety of telescopes that allow you to observe processes in space. carried out many billions of kilometers from the Earth. Creation in the twentieth century. radio telescopes turned astronomy into all-wave and marked a real revolution in the comprehension of space.
Let us recall what a huge role the microscope played in biology, which opened new worlds to man. The modern electron microscope makes it possible to see atoms that several decades ago were considered fundamentally unobservable and whose existence was questionable even at the beginning of the century. We understand very well that elementary particle physics could not develop without special facilities like synchrophasotrons. Science today actively uses spaceships, submarines, various kinds of scientific stations, and specially organized reserves for conducting experiments and observations.
Thus, scientific research is impossible without the availability of instruments and standards that allow fixing certain properties of reality and giving them a quantitative and qualitative assessment.
In the social sciences, for example, in pedagogy, social pedagogy, unfortunately, special scientific instruments are rarely used. However, firstly, for example, a stopwatch or an ordinary watch - and these are measuring instruments - are an indispensable attribute of almost any socio-pedagogical experiment. Secondly, the massive introduction of computer technology into education not only radically transforms the educational process, but also, following this, makes computer technology a means of pedagogical knowledge. Thirdly, the organization of any rather complex experiment in education, for example, the creation of a new type of school, may require the construction of a building of special architecture, equipping the school with special equipment, etc., which to some extent indirectly will also be means of pedagogical knowledge.
Mathematical means of knowledge. The development of mathematical means of cognition has an increasing influence on the development modern science, they penetrate into the humanities, social sciences. Mathematics, being the science of quantitative relations and spatial forms abstracted from their specific content, has developed and applied specific means of abstracting form from content and formulated the rules for considering form as an independent object in the form of numbers, sets, etc., which simplifies, facilitates and accelerates the process of cognition, allows you to more deeply reveal the connection between objects from which the form is abstracted, to isolate the initial positions, to obtain accuracy and rigor of judgments. Moreover, mathematical means make it possible to consider not only abstracted quantitative relations and spatial forms, but also logically possible, i.e. those that deduce according to logical rules from previously known relations and forms.
Under the influence of mathematical means of cognition, the theoretical apparatus of the descriptive sciences undergoes significant changes. Mathematical means of cognition make it possible to systematize empirical data, to identify and formulate quantitative dependencies and patterns. Mathematical tools are also used as special forms of idealization and analogy (mathematical models). In the descriptive sciences, including the theory of social work and social pedagogy, the means of mathematical statistics still play the greatest role.
Mathematical means of cognition can be attributed to special means of processing the results of scientific research. A revolution in the processing of scientific information and its transmission is made by the use of a computer.
logical means. In any scientific research, the researcher has to solve logical problems: 1) what logical requirements must be met by reasoning that allows making objectively true conclusions; how to control the nature of these reasoning? 2) what logical requirements must satisfy the description of empirically observed characteristics? 3) how to logically analyze the initial systems of scientific knowledge, how to coordinate some knowledge systems with other knowledge systems? 4) how to build a scientific theory that allows you to give a scientific explanation, prediction, etc.?
The use of logical means of cognition in the process of constructing reasoning and evidence allows the researcher to separate controlled arguments from intuitively or uncritically accepted, false from true, confusion from contradictions.
Language tools. These are the most important means of scientific knowledge, the language of science. This, of course, is both a specific vocabulary and a special style. The language of science is characterized by the certainty of the concepts, categories and terms used. The desire for clarity and unambiguity of statements, for strict logic in the presentation of all material.
An important linguistic means of cognition are the rules for constructing definitions of concepts (definitions). In any scientific research, the researcher has to clarify the introduced concepts and signs, to use new concepts and signs. Definitions are always associated with language as a means of cognition and expression of knowledge.
The rules for using the language, with the help of which the researcher builds his reasoning and evidence, formulates hypotheses, obtains conclusions, etc., are the starting point of cognitive actions. Knowledge of them has a great influence on the effectiveness of the use of linguistic means of cognition in scientific research.
In research in the field of social work, a significant role, as a rule, is played by the correlation by the researcher of the language of the theory of social work with the specific languages of related sciences - sociology, psychology, pedagogy, and more recently - computer science. In addition, for the study of social work abroad, it is important to compare the conceptual apparatus in Russian and foreign languages, since even the central, key concepts are not translated from one language to another unambiguously.
In modern science, the use of "mathematical language" is becoming increasingly important. Even G. Galileo argued that the book of Nature was written in the language of mathematics. In full accordance with this statement, all of physics developed as a manifestation of mathematical structures in physical reality. As for other sciences. Then in them the process of mathematization is going on to an ever-increasing degree. And today it concerns not only the application of mathematics to the processing of empirical data. The arsenal of the mathematical language is actively included in the very fabric of theoretical constructions in literally all sciences. In biology, evolutionary genetics already differs little from physical theory in this respect. No one is surprised by the phrase "mathematical linguistics". Even in history, attempts are being made to construct mathematical models of individual historical phenomena.
Next to the means of scientific cognition of reality are the methods of scientific cognition.
Topic 5 Methodology of theoretical research
Methods , methods and strategies for researching the subject.
Structure of the methodology
Methodology can be considered in two sections: both theoretical, and it is formed by the section of philosophical knowledge epistemology, and practical, focused on solving practical problems and purposeful transformation of the world. The theoretical one strives for a model of ideal knowledge (under the conditions specified by the description, for example, the speed of light in a vacuum), while the practical one is a program (algorithm), a set of techniques and methods of how to achieve the desired practical goal and not sin against the truth, or what we consider true knowledge. The quality (success, efficiency) of the method is tested by practice, by solving scientific and practical problems - that is, by searching for principles for achieving the goal, implemented in a complex of real cases and circumstances.
The methodology has the following structure:
Foundations of methodology: philosophy, logic, systemology, psychology, computer science, system analysis, science of science, ethics, aesthetics;
Characteristics of activity: features, principles, conditions, norms of activity;
Logical structure of activity: subject, object, subject, forms, means, methods, result of activity, problem solving;
Time structure of activity: phases, stages, stages.
Technology for performing work and solving problems: means, methods, methods, techniques.
Methodology is also divided into substantive and formal. Content methodology includes the study of laws, theories, the structure of scientific knowledge, the criteria for scientific character and the system of research methods used. Formal methodology is associated with the analysis of research methods from the point of view of the logical structure and formalized approaches to the construction of theoretical knowledge, its truth and argumentation.
Methods in science are called methods, techniques for studying the phenomena that make up the subject of this science. The use of these techniques should lead to a correct knowledge of the phenomena being studied, i.e., to an adequate (corresponding to reality) reflection in the human mind of their inherent features and patterns.
The research methods used in science cannot be arbitrary, chosen without sufficient grounds, just at the whim of the researcher. True knowledge is achieved only when the methods used in science are built in accordance with the objectively existing laws of nature and public life found their expression in the philosophy of dialectical and historical materialism.
When constructing scientific research methods, it is necessary first of all to rely on the following of these laws:
a) all phenomena of the reality surrounding us are in mutual connection and conditionality. These phenomena do not exist in isolation from each other, but always in an organic connection, therefore, the correct methods of scientific research should investigate the studied phenomena in their mutual connection, and not metaphysically, as if they exist, allegedly separated from each other;
b) all the phenomena of the reality around us are always in the process of development, change, therefore, the correct methods should investigate the studied phenomena in their development, and not as something stable, frozen in its immobility.
At the same time, scientific research methods should proceed from a correct understanding of the development process itself: 1) as consisting not only in quantitative, but, most importantly, in qualitative changes, 2) as having as its source the struggle of opposites inherent in the phenomenon of contradictions. The study of phenomena outside the process of their development is also one of the essential mistakes of the metaphysical approach to the cognition of reality.
The logical structure includes the following components: subject, object, object, forms, means, methods of activity, its result.
Gnoseology is a theory of scientific knowledge (synonymous with epistemology), one of the constituent parts of philosophy. In general, epistemology studies the patterns and possibilities of cognition, explores the stages, forms, methods and means of the process of cognition, conditions and criteria for the truth of scientific knowledge.
The methodology of science as the doctrine of the organization of research activities is that part of epistemology that studies the process of scientific activity (its organization).
Classifications of scientific knowledge.
Scientific knowledge is classified according to different bases:
- according to groups of subject areas, knowledge is divided into mathematical, natural, humanitarian and technical;
- according to the way of reflecting the essence of knowledge, they are classified into phenomenal (descriptive) and essentialist (explanatory). Phenomenalistic knowledge is a qualitative theory endowed with predominantly descriptive functions (many branches of biology, geography, psychology, pedagogy, etc.). In contrast, essentialist knowledge is explanatory theories, built, as a rule, using quantitative means of analysis;
- in relation to the activities of certain subjects of knowledge are divided into descriptive (descriptive) and prescriptive, normative - containing instructions, direct instructions for activity. We stipulate that the material contained in this subsection from the field of science of science, including epistemology, is descriptive in nature, but, firstly, it is necessary as a guide for any researcher; secondly, it is, in a certain sense, the basis for further presentation of the prescriptive basis of the methodology of science of normative material related directly to the methodology of scientific activity;
- according to the functional purpose, scientific knowledge is classified into fundamental, applied and development;
Empirical knowledge is the established facts of science and empirical patterns and laws formulated on the basis of their generalization. Accordingly, empirical research is directed directly at the object and is based on empirical, experimental data.
Empirical knowledge, being an absolutely necessary stage of cognition, since all our knowledge ultimately arises from experience, is still not enough to cognize the deep internal laws of the emergence and development of a cognizable object.
Theoretical knowledge is the formulated regularities for a given subject area that allow explaining previously discovered facts and empirical regularities, as well as predicting and foreseeing future events and facts.
Theoretical knowledge transforms the results obtained at the stage of empirical knowledge into deeper generalizations, revealing the essence of the phenomena of the first, second, etc. orders, patterns of occurrence, development and change of the object under study.
Both types of research - empirical and theoretical - are organically interconnected and determine the development of each other in the integral structure of scientific knowledge. Empirical research, revealing new facts of science, stimulates the development of theoretical research, sets new tasks for them. On the other hand, theoretical research, by developing and concretizing new perspectives for explaining and foreseeing facts, orients and directs empirical research.
Semiotics is a science that studies the laws of construction and functioning sign systems. Semiotics is naturally one of the foundations of methodology, since human activity, human communication makes it necessary to develop numerous systems of signs with the help of which people could transmit various information to each other and thereby organize their activities.
In order for the content of a message that one person can convey to another, passing on the knowledge he has acquired about the subject or the attitude he has developed towards the subject, to be understood by the recipient, such a method of transmission is needed that would allow the recipient to reveal the meaning of this message. And this is possible if the message is expressed in signs that carry the meaning entrusted to them, and if the transmitting information and receiving it equally understand the relationship between the meaning and the sign.
Since communication between people is unusually rich and versatile, humanity needs a lot of sign systems, which is explained by:
- features of the transmitted information, which make one prefer one language, then another. For example, the difference between a scientific language and a natural one, the difference between the languages of art and scientific languages, etc.
- features of the communicative situation that make it more convenient to use a particular language. For example, the use of natural language and sign language in private conversation; natural and mathematical - at a lecture, for example, in physics; the language of graphic symbols and light signals - when regulating traffic, etc.;
- the historical development of culture, which is characterized by a consistent expansion of the possibilities of communication between people. Up to today's gigantic possibilities of mass communication systems based on printing, radio and television, computers, telecommunications networks, etc.
The issues of applying semiotics in methodology, as well as in all science, and in practice, frankly, have not been studied enough. And there are many problems here. For example, the vast majority of researchers in the social sciences, the humanities do not use mathematical modeling methods, even when it is possible and appropriate, simply because they do not know the language of mathematics at the level of its professional use. Or another example - today many studies are carried out "at the junction" of sciences. For example, pedagogy and technology. And here confusion often arises due to the fact that the researcher uses both professional languages "mixed". But the subject of any scientific research, for example, a dissertation, can lie in only one subject area, one science. And, accordingly, one language should be the main, end-to-end, and the other - only auxiliary.
Norms of scientific ethics.
A separate issue that needs to be addressed is the issue of scientific ethics. The norms of scientific ethics are not formulated in the form of any approved codes, official requirements, etc. However, they exist and can be considered in two aspects - as internal (in the community of scientists) ethical norms and as external - as the social responsibility of scientists for their actions and their consequences.
The ethical standards of the scientific community, in particular, were described by R. Merton back in 1942 as a set of four basic values:
– universalism: the truth of scientific statements should be evaluated regardless of race, gender, age, authority, ranks of those who formulate them. Thus, science is initially democratic: the results of a prominent, well-known scientist must be subjected to no less rigorous testing and criticism than the results of a novice researcher;
– commonality: scientific knowledge should freely become common property;
– disinterest, impartiality: the scientist must seek the truth disinterestedly. Reward and recognition should be considered only as a possible consequence of scientific achievements, and not as an end in itself. At the same time, there is both scientific “competition”, which consists in the desire of scientists to get a scientific result faster than others, and competition between individual scientists and their teams for grants, government orders, etc.
– rational skepticism: each researcher is responsible for assessing the quality of what his colleagues have done, he is not released from responsibility for using data obtained by other researchers in his work, if he himself has not verified the accuracy of these data. That is, in science it is necessary, on the one hand, to respect what the predecessors did; on the other hand, a skeptical attitude towards their results: “Plato is my friend, but the truth is dearer” (Aristotle’s saying).
Features of individual scientific activity:
1. A researcher must clearly limit the scope of his activities and determine the goals of his scientific work.
In science, as in any other area of professional activity, there is a natural division of labor. A scientific worker cannot be engaged in “science in general”, but must single out a clear direction of work, set a specific goal and consistently go towards its achievement. We will talk about research design below, but here it should be noted that the property of any scientific work lies in the fact that the researcher constantly “comes across” the most interesting phenomena and facts, which in themselves are of great value and which I want to study in more detail. But the researcher runs the risk of being distracted from the core channel of his scientific work, to study these phenomena and facts that are secondary to his research, behind which new phenomena and facts will be discovered, and this will continue without end. The work thus "blurs". As a result, no results will be achieved. This is a typical mistake most novice researchers make and should be warned about. One of the main qualities of a scientific worker is the ability to focus only on the problem that he is dealing with, and use all the other “side” ones only to the extent and at the level that they are described in contemporary scientific literature.
2. Scientific work is built "on the shoulders of predecessors."
Before embarking on any scientific work on any problem, it is necessary to study in the scientific literature what was done in this area by predecessors.
3. A scientist must master scientific terminology and strictly build his own conceptual apparatus.
It's not just about writing difficult language as, often mistaken, many novice scientists believe: that the more complex and incomprehensible, the supposedly more scientific. The virtue of a real scientist is that he writes and talks about the most difficult things. plain language. The case is different. The researcher must draw a clear line between ordinary and scientific language. And the difference lies in the fact that there are no special requirements for the accuracy of the terminology used in ordinary colloquial language. However, as soon as we start talking about these same concepts in the scientific language, questions immediately arise: “In what sense is such and such a concept, such and such a concept, etc. used? In each specific case, the researcher must answer the question: "In what sense does he use this or that concept."
In any science there is a phenomenon of parallel existence of various scientific schools. Each scientific school builds its own conceptual apparatus. Therefore, if a novice researcher takes, for example, one term in the understanding, interpretation of one scientific school, another - in the understanding of another school, the third - in the understanding of the third scientific school, etc., then there will be complete inconsistency in the use of concepts, and no Thus, the researcher will not create a new system of scientific knowledge, because, no matter what he says or writes, he will not go beyond the framework of ordinary (everyday) knowledge.
4. The result of any scientific work, any research must be necessarily issued in a "written" form (printed or electronic) and published - in the form of a scientific report, scientific report, abstract, article, book, etc.
This requirement is due to two circumstances. First, it is only in writing that one can express one's ideas and results in a strictly scientific language. IN oral speech this almost never works. Moreover, writing any scientific work, even the smallest article, is very difficult for a novice researcher, because what is easily spoken in public speeches or mentally said “to oneself” turns out to be “unwritten”. Here is the same difference as between ordinary, worldly and scientific languages. In oral speech, we ourselves and our listeners do not notice logical flaws. A written text requires a strict logical presentation, and this is much more difficult to do. Secondly, the goal of any scientific work is to obtain and bring to people new scientific knowledge. And if this “new scientific knowledge” remains only in the head of the researcher, no one can read about it, then this knowledge will, in fact, disappear. In addition, the number and volume of scientific publications are an indicator, although formal, of the productivity of any scientific worker. And each researcher constantly maintains and replenishes the list of his published works.
Features of collective scientific activity:
1. Pluralism of scientific opinion.
Since any scientific work is a creative process, it is very important that this process is not "regulated". Naturally, the scientific work of each research team can and should be planned quite strictly. But at the same time, each researcher, if he is literate enough, has the right to his point of view, his opinion, which should, of course, be respected. Any attempts to dictate, the imposition of a common single point of view on everyone has never led to positive result. Let us recall, for example, at least the sad story with T.D. Lysenko, when domestic biology was thrown back decades.
There is even the term "Lysenkovshchina" - a political campaign to persecute and defame a group of geneticists, deny genetics and temporarily ban genetic research in the USSR (despite the fact that the Institute of Genetics continued to exist). Received its popular name by the name of T. D. Lysenko, who became a symbol of the campaign. The campaign unfolded in scientific biological circles from about the mid-1930s to the first half of the 1960s. Its organizers were party and statesmen, including I. V. Stalin himself. In a figurative sense, the term Lysenkoism can be used to refer to any administrative persecution of scientists for their "politically incorrect" scientific views.
In particular, the existence of different scientific schools in the same branch of science is also due to the objective necessity of the existence of different points of view, views, and approaches. And life, practice then confirm or refute various theories, or reconcile them, as, for example, reconciled such ardent opponents as R. Hooke and I. Newton were in physics in their time, or I.P. Pavlov and A.A. Ukhtomsky in physiology.
1675, meeting of the newly founded Royal Society of London, discussion of the work of the thirty-two-year-old Cambridge Isaac Newton "The Theory of Light and Colors" ...
So, the young scientist, confident in advance of success, sets out in detail its essence. He confirms the propositions put forward by the results of a brilliant series of experiments. Experiments with glass prisms amaze the audience with surprise and novelty. They are ready to applaud him, when suddenly the well-known specialist in optics Robert Hooke, invited to the meeting as a reviewer, rises and turns everything upside down.
He, without hiding sarcasm, publicly declares that the accuracy of the experiments does not cause him any doubts, because before Newton ... he conducted them himself, which, fortunately, he managed to report in his scientific work "Micrography". Having carefully read the contents of this work, it is easy to see that the same data are presented there only with different conclusions, which Hooke is ready to convince the audience right on the spot by reading out some excerpts from it. It is strange that, published ten years ago, it inexplicably escaped the attention of Newton, who was carried away by optics. Well, hell with him, this plagiarism. The main thing is that Newton very ineptly used the material borrowed without demand, because of which he came to an erroneous conclusion about the corpuscular nature of light. Newton's other conclusion regarding the presence of seven color components in a white light beam and the explanation of the immunity of this phenomenon by the eye due to their non-manifestation does not go into any gates at all. "Taking this conclusion for truth," an indignant Hooke quipped, "it can be said with great success that musical sounds are hidden in the air before they sound."
Hooke himself held a completely different concept in his view of the nature of light. He was convinced that light should be considered in the form of transverse waves, and its stripe color can only be explained by the reflection of a refracted beam from the surface of a glass prism.
Imagine how furious Newton was with his reviewer! In response, he sharply condemned Hooke for an unacceptable tone for a scientist of this rank, and called the accusation of plagiarism a vile slander, dictated by envy of his person and scientific achievements.
Hooke, of course, did not forgive Newton for this insolence and, after a while, burst into a series of angry accusatory letters, to which Newton did not fail to respond in the same spirit. All of these letters have been preserved and published. Reading them, you just blush with shame for these scientists. Such licentiousness, perhaps, no one else in her history has ever reached. Apparently, both great scientists believed that a thought sounds more convincing when it is accompanied by a strong word.
The most curious thing is that, having poured verbal slops on each other's heads, but without proving anything to one another, the rivals reconciled.
Nevertheless, time has judged their dispute - at present, Newton's corpuscular theory and the presence of seven color components in a white light beam are studied already in the school physics course.
A. A. Ukhtomsky entered the history of Russian and world science and culture as one of the brilliant successors of the St. Petersburg physiological school, the birth of which is associated with the names of I. M. Sechenov and N. E. Vvedensky. This school existed simultaneously and in parallel with the school of I.P. Pavlov, however, its discoveries and achievements were, as it were, “drowned out” by the widely popularized works of I.P. Pavlov and his school, recognized by the Soviet authorities as the “only correct” view of the development of scientific thought.
Nevertheless, both domestic physiological schools - the school of I.P. Pavlova and the school of A.A. Ukhtomsky in the 30s of the XX century joined forces and brought their theoretical views closer in understanding the mechanisms of behavior control.
2. Communications in science.
Any scientific research can be carried out only in a certain community of scientists. This is due to the fact that any researcher, even the most qualified one, always needs to discuss and discuss his ideas, obtained facts, theoretical constructions with colleagues in order to avoid mistakes and misconceptions. It should be noted that among novice researchers there is often an opinion that “I will do scientific work on my own, but when I get great results, then I will publish, discuss, etc.”. But, unfortunately, this does not happen. Scientific robinsonades never ended in anything worthwhile - a person "burrowed", got entangled in his searches and, disappointed, left scientific activity. Therefore, scientific communication is always necessary.
One of the conditions for scientific communication for any researcher is his direct and indirect communication with all colleagues working in this field of science - through specially organized scientific and scientific-practical conferences, seminars, symposiums (direct or virtual communication) and through scientific literature - articles in printed and electronic magazines, collections, books, etc. (mediated communication). In both cases, the researcher, on the one hand, speaks himself or publishes his results, on the other hand, he listens and reads what other researchers, his colleagues, are doing.
3. Implementation of the research results
- the most important moment of scientific activity, since the ultimate goal of science as a branch of the national economy is, of course, the implementation of the results obtained in practice. However, one should be warned against the idea, widely held among people who are far from science, that the results of each scientific work must be necessarily implemented. Let's imagine such an example. In pedagogy alone, more than 3,000 candidate and doctoral dissertations are defended annually. Assuming that all the results obtained must be implemented, then imagine a poor teacher who has to read all these dissertations, and each of them contains from 100 to 400 pages of typewritten text. Naturally, no one will do this.
The implementation mechanism is different. The results of individual studies are published in abstracts, articles, then they are generalized (and thus, as it were, “reduced”) in books, brochures, monographs as purely scientific publications, and then in an even more generalized, abbreviated and systematized form they end up in university textbooks. And already completely “wrung out”, the most fundamental results end up in school textbooks.
In addition, not all studies can be implemented. Often, research is carried out to enrich science itself, its arsenal of facts, and the development of its theory. And only after the accumulation of a certain "critical mass" of facts, concepts, there are qualitative leaps in the introduction of scientific achievements into mass practice. A classic example is the science of mycology - the science of molds. Whoever has been mocking mycological scientists for decades: "mold must be destroyed, not studied." And this happened until, in 1940, A. Fleming (Sir Alexander Fleming - British bacteriologist) discovered the bactericidal properties of penicillium (a kind of mold). The antibiotics created on their basis allowed saving millions of human lives only during the Second World War, and today we cannot imagine how medicine could manage without them.
Modern science is guided by three basic principles of knowledge: the principle of determinism, the principle of correspondence and the principle of complementarity.
Principle of determinism, being general scientific, organizes the construction of knowledge in specific sciences. Determinism appears, first of all, in the form of causality as a set of circumstances that precede in time any given event and cause it. That is, there is a connection between phenomena and processes, when one phenomenon, process (cause) under certain conditions necessarily generates, produces another phenomenon, process (consequence).
The fundamental shortcoming of the former, classical (so-called Laplacian) determinism is the circumstance that it was limited to only one directly acting causality, interpreted purely mechanistically: the objective nature of chance was denied, probabilistic connections were taken beyond the limits of determinism and opposed to the material determination of phenomena.
The modern understanding of the principle of determinism presupposes the existence of various objectively existing forms of the interconnection of phenomena, many of which are expressed in the form of relationships that do not have a directly causal nature, that is, they do not directly contain the moment of generation of one by the other. This includes spatial and temporal correlations, functional dependencies, etc. In particular, in modern science, in contrast to the determinism of classical science, uncertainty relations formulated in the language of probabilistic laws or relations of fuzzy sets, or interval values, etc., turn out to be especially important.
However, all forms of real interrelationships of phenomena are ultimately formed on the basis of a universal effective causality, outside of which not a single phenomenon of reality exists. Including such events, called random, in the aggregate of which statistical laws are revealed. Recently, the theory of probability, mathematical statistics, etc. are increasingly being introduced into research in the social sciences and the humanities.
Conformity principle. In its original form, the correspondence principle was formulated as an "empirical rule", expressing a regular connection in the form of a limit transition between the theory of the atom, based on quantum postulates, and classical mechanics; and also between special relativity and classical mechanics. So, for example, four mechanics are conditionally distinguished: the classical mechanics of I. Newton (corresponding to large masses, that is, masses much greater than the mass of elementary particles, and low speeds, that is, speeds much less than the speed of light), relativistic mechanics - the theory of relativity A. Einstein ("large" masses, "large" speeds), quantum mechanics ("small" masses, "small" speeds) and relativistic quantum mechanics ("small" masses, "large" speeds). They are completely consistent with each other "at the junctions". In the process of further development of scientific knowledge, the truth of the correspondence principle was proved for almost all the most important discoveries in physics, and after that in other sciences, after which its generalized formulation became possible: theories, the validity of which was experimentally established for a particular field of phenomena, with the appearance of new, more general theories are not discarded as something false, but retain their significance for the former field of phenomena as the limiting form and special case of new theories. The conclusions of the new theories in the area where the old "classical" theory was valid pass into the conclusions of the classical theory.
It should be noted that the strict implementation of the correspondence principle takes place within the framework of the evolutionary development of science. But situations of "scientific revolutions" are not excluded, when a new theory refutes the previous one and replaces it.
The principle of correspondence means, in particular, the continuity of scientific theories. Researchers have to pay attention to the need to follow the correspondence principle, since recently works have begun to appear in the humanities and social sciences, especially those performed by people who came to these branches of science from other, “strong” areas of scientific knowledge, in which attempts are made to create new theories, concepts, etc., little or no connection with previous theories. New theoretical constructions can be useful for the development of science, but if they do not correlate with the previous ones, then science will cease to be integral, and scientists will soon cease to understand each other altogether.
Complementarity principle. The principle of complementarity arose as a result of new discoveries in physics also at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, when it became clear that the researcher, studying the object, introduces certain changes into it, including through the device used. This principle was first formulated by N. Bohr (Niels Henrik David Bohr - Danish theoretical physicist and public figure, one of the founders of modern physics): the reproduction of the integrity of the phenomenon requires the use of mutually exclusive "additional" classes of concepts in cognition. In physics, in particular, this meant that obtaining experimental data on some physical quantities is invariably associated with a change in data on other quantities that are additional to the first ones (a narrow - physical - understanding of the principle of complementarity). With the help of complementarity, equivalence is established between classes of concepts that comprehensively describe contradictory situations in various areas of knowledge (general understanding of the principle of complementarity).
The principle of complementarity has significantly changed the whole structure of science. If classical science functioned as an integral education, focused on obtaining a system of knowledge in its final and complete form, on an unambiguous study of events, excluding from the context of science the influence of the researcher’s activity and the means used by him, on assessing the knowledge included in the available fund of science as absolutely reliable, then with With the advent of the complementarity principle, the situation has changed.
The following is important:
- the inclusion of the subjective activity of the researcher in the context of science has led to a change in the understanding of the subject of knowledge: it is now not reality "in pure form”, but some of its slice, given through the prisms of accepted theoretical and empirical means and methods of its development by the cognizing subject;
- the interaction of the object under study with the researcher (including through devices) cannot but lead to different manifestations of the properties of the object, depending on the type of its interaction with the cognizing subject in various, often mutually exclusive conditions. And this means the legitimacy and equality of various scientific descriptions of the object, including various theories describing the same object, the same subject area. Therefore, obviously, Bulgakov's Woland says: "All theories are worth one another."
It is important to emphasize that the same subject area can, in accordance with the complementarity principle, be described by different theories. The same classical mechanics can be described not only by the mechanics of Newton, known from school textbooks of physics, but also by the mechanics of W. Hamilton, the mechanics of G. Hertz, the mechanics of C. Jacobi. They differ in their initial positions - what is taken as the main undetermined quantities - force, momentum, energy, etc.
Or, for example, at present, many socio-economic systems are being studied by building mathematical models using various branches of mathematics: differential equations, probability theory, game theory, etc. At the same time, the interpretation of the results of modeling the same phenomena, processes using different mathematical means gives although close, but still different conclusions.
Means of scientific research (means of knowledge)
In the course of the development of science, means of cognition are developed and improved: material, mathematical, logical, linguistic. In addition, in recent times, it is obviously necessary to add information tools to them as a special class. All means of cognition are specially created means. In this sense, material, informational, mathematical, logical, linguistic means of cognition have a common property: they are designed, created, developed, substantiated for certain cognitive purposes.
Material means of knowledge These are, first of all, instruments for scientific research. In history, the emergence of material means of cognition is associated with the formation of empirical research methods - observation, measurement, experiment.
These funds are directly aimed at the objects under study, they play the main role in the empirical testing of hypotheses and other results of scientific research, in the discovery of new objects, facts. The use of material means of cognition in science in general - a microscope, a telescope, a synchrophasotron, satellites of the Earth, etc. - has a profound influence on the formation of the conceptual apparatus of the sciences, on the ways of describing the subjects studied, the methods of reasoning and representations, on the generalizations, idealizations and arguments used.
Science is a specific activity of people, the main purpose of which is to obtain knowledge about reality. Knowledge is the main product of scientific activity. The products of science can also include the style of rationality, which extends to all spheres of human activity; and various devices, installations and methods used outside of science, primarily in production. Scientific activity is also a source of moral values.
Although science is focused on obtaining true knowledge about reality, science and truth are not identical. True knowledge can also be unscientific. It can be obtained in a variety of areas of human activity: in everyday life, economics, politics, art, engineering. Unlike science, obtaining knowledge about reality is not the main, defining goal of these areas of activity (in art, for example, such a main goal is new artistic values, in engineering - technologies, inventions, in economics - efficiency, etc. ).
It is important to emphasize that the definition of "unscientific" does not imply a negative assessment. Scientific activity is specific. Other spheres of human activity - everyday life, art, economics, politics, etc. - each have their own purpose, their own goals. The role of science in the life of society is growing, but scientific justification is not always and everywhere possible and appropriate.
The history of science shows that scientific knowledge is not always true. The concept of "scientific" is often used in situations that do not guarantee the receipt of true knowledge, especially when it comes to theories. Many (if not most) scientific theories have been refuted in the course of the development of science.
Science does not recognize parascientific concepts: alchemy, astrology, parapsychology, ufology, torsion fields, etc. She does not recognize these concepts, not because she does not want to, but because she cannot, because, according to T. Huxley, "accepting something on faith, science commits suicide." And there are no reliable, precisely established facts in such concepts. Coincidences are possible. However, parascientific concepts and objects of parascience can sometimes be transformed into scientific concepts and objects of science. This requires the reproducibility of experimental results, the use of scientific concepts in the creation of theories and the predictability of the latter. For example, alchemy, as a parascience of the transformation of elements, has found a "continuation" in the modern scientific field associated with the radioactive transformation of elements.
Regarding such problems, F. Bacon wrote as follows: “And therefore, the one who, when he was shown the image of those who escaped shipwreck by taking a vow, exhibited in the temple and at the same time sought an answer, did he now recognize the power of the gods, asked in turn: “And where is the image of those who died after they made a vow?” This is the basis of almost all superstitions - in astrology, in beliefs, in predictions, and the like. without attention they pass by the one that deceived, although the latter happens much more often. Meanwhile, at present, as before, there are a number of hard-to-explain phenomena and objects that can be transformed from the field of parascience or faith into the subject of scientific knowledge. For example, the well-known problem of the Shroud of Turin. According to legend, the imprint of the body of the founder of the Christian religion was preserved on it, and the nature of this imprint was still unknown. The results of scientific research obtained using computer processing of three-dimensional images of this print and published in the scientific press clearly show that it arose as a result of interaction with the fabric of the shroud of a powerful energy impulse, the source of which was inside the shroud. The nature of this source remains a mystery requiring further scientific research.
Important features of the appearance of modern science are related to the fact that today it is a profession. Until recently, science was the free activity of individual scientists. It was not a profession and was not specially funded in any way. As a rule, scientists provided for their lives by paying for their teaching work at universities. Today, however, a scientist is a special profession. In the 20th century, the concept of "scientific worker" appeared. Now in the world about 5 million people are professionally engaged in science.
The development of science is characterized by confrontation of various directions. New ideas and theories are affirmed in a tense struggle. M. Planck said on this occasion: "Usually, new scientific truths do not win in such a way that their opponents are convinced and they admit they are wrong, but for the most part in such a way that these opponents gradually die out, and the younger generation assimilate the truth immediately." The development of science takes place in the constant struggle of different opinions, directions, the struggle for the recognition of ideas.
What are the criteria of scientific knowledge, its characteristic features?
One of the important distinctive qualities of scientific knowledge is its systematization. It is one of the criteria of scientific character. But knowledge can be systematized not only in science. Cookbook, phone book, travel atlas, etc. etc. - everywhere knowledge is classified and systematized. Scientific systematization is specific. It is characterized by a desire for completeness, consistency, clear grounds for systematization and, most importantly, an internal, scientifically based logic for building this systematization.
Scientific knowledge as a system has a certain structure, the elements of which are facts, laws, theories, pictures of the world. Separate scientific disciplines are interconnected and interdependent. The desire for validity, evidence of knowledge is an important criterion of scientific character. Justification of knowledge, bringing it into a single system has always been characteristic of science. The very emergence of science is sometimes associated with the desire for evidence-based knowledge. There are different ways to justify scientific knowledge. To substantiate empirical knowledge, multiple checks, the use of various experimental methods, statistical processing of experimental results, reference to homogeneous experimental results, etc. are used. When substantiating theoretical concepts, their consistency, compliance with empirical data, and the ability to describe and predict phenomena are checked.
Science appreciates original, "crazy" ideas that allow a completely new look at the known range of phenomena. But the orientation towards innovations is combined in it with the desire to eliminate from the results of scientific activity everything subjective, associated with the specifics of the scientist himself. This is one of the differences between science and art. If the artist had not created his creation, then it simply would not exist. But if a scientist, even a great one, had not created a theory, then it would still have been created, because it is a necessary stage in the development of science, it is a reflection of the objective world. This explains the often observed simultaneous creation of a certain theory by different scientists. Gauss and Lobachevsky - the creators of non-Euclidean geometry, Poincare and Einstein - the theory of relativity, etc.
Although scientific activity is specific, it uses reasoning techniques used by people in other areas of activity, in everyday life. Any type of human activity is characterized by reasoning techniques that are also used in science, namely: induction and deduction, analysis and synthesis, abstraction and generalization, idealization, description, explanation, prediction, hypothesis, confirmation, refutation, etc.
The main methods of obtaining empirical knowledge in science are observation and experiment.
Observation is such a method of obtaining empirical knowledge, in which the main thing is not to make any changes in the studied reality during the study by the process of observation itself.
In contrast to observation, within the framework of an experiment, the phenomenon under study is placed in special conditions. As F. Bacon wrote, "the nature of things reveals itself better in a state of artificial constraint than in natural freedom."
It is important to emphasize that empirical research cannot begin without a certain theoretical attitude. Although they say that facts are the air of a scientist, nevertheless, the comprehension of reality is impossible without theoretical constructions. IP Pavlov wrote about this as follows: "... every moment a certain general idea of the subject is required in order to have something to cling to the facts ...".
The tasks of science are by no means reduced to the collection of factual material. Scientific theories do not appear as direct generalizations of empirical facts. As A. Einstein wrote, "no logical path leads from observations to the basic principles of the theory." Theories arise in the complex interaction of theoretical thinking and empirical knowledge, in the course of solving purely theoretical problems, in the process of interaction between science and culture as a whole. When constructing a theory, scientists use various ways theoretical thinking. In the course of a thought experiment, the theorist, as it were, loses possible options behavior of the idealized objects developed by him. One of the most important thought experiments in the history of natural science is contained in Galileo's critique of the Aristotelian theory of motion. He refutes Aristotle's assumption that the natural fall rate of a heavier body is higher than that of a lighter body. “If we take two falling bodies,” Galileo argues, “whose natural velocities are different, and we combine the body moving faster with the body moving slower, then it is clear that the motion of the body falling faster will slow down, and the motion of the other body will accelerate” . Thus, the total speed will be less than the speed of one rapidly falling body. However, two bodies joined together make up a body larger than the original body, which had a greater speed, which means that the heavier body moves at a slower speed than the lighter one, and this contradicts the assumption. Since the Aristotelian assumption was one of the premises of the proof, it has now been refuted: its absurdity has been proven. Another example of a thought experiment is the development of the idea of the atomism of the world in ancient Greek philosophy, which consists in the sequential cutting of a piece of a substance into two halves. As a result of repeated repetition of this action, it is necessary to choose between the complete disappearance of matter (which, of course, is impossible) and the smallest indivisible particle - an atom. Closer thought experiments are the Carnot cycle in thermodynamics, and more recently thought experiments in the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, in particular, in Einstein's justification of general and special relativity.
A mathematical experiment is a modern version of a thought experiment in which possible consequences variations of conditions in the mathematical model are calculated on computers. An example is the Monte Carlo method, which makes it possible to mathematically model random processes (diffusion, scattering of electrons in solids, detection, communication, etc.) and, in general, any processes that are influenced by random factors, namely, the estimation of some integral using the average the value of the integrand of a certain random variable with a known distribution function. In this case, it is sufficient to compare a limited number of experimental data with a practically unlimited set of calculated values obtained by changing a large number of parameters in order to confirm the correctness of the mathematical experiment.
Of great importance for scientists, especially for theorists, is the philosophical understanding of the established cognitive traditions, the consideration of the reality under study in the context of the picture of the world. Appeal to philosophy is especially important at critical stages in the development of science. Great scientific achievements have always been associated with the advancement of philosophical generalizations. Philosophy contributes to the effective description, explanation, and understanding of the reality of the science under study. Often philosophers themselves, as a result of comprehending the general picture of the world, come to fundamental conclusions that are of paramount importance for the natural sciences. It is enough to recall the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus on the atomistic structure of substances or to name the famous work of G.F. Hegel's "Philosophy of Nature", which gives a philosophical generalization of the picture of the world. Historical meaning"Philosophy of Nature" consists in an attempt to rationally systematize and establish a connection between the individual stages of development of the inorganic and organic nature. In particular, this allowed Hegel to predict the periodic system of elements: “You should have set yourself the task of knowing the indicators of the ratios of a series of specific gravity as a certain system arising from a rule that would specify the arithmetic multiplicity into a series of harmonic knots. The same requirement should have been set and knowledge of the above series of chemical affinity". In turn, the great naturalists, studying natural phenomena, rose to philosophical generalizations of natural laws. This is the universal principle of complementarity formulated by N. Bohr: a more precise definition of one of the complementary characteristics of an object or phenomenon leads to a decrease in the accuracy of others. This principle is implemented in all methods that study nature, man, society. In quantum mechanics, it is known as the Heisenberg principle: (!LANG:. Another example is the duality of electromagnetic radiation: a manifestation of wave and corpuscular nature. Depending on the conditions of the experiment, matter exhibits its wave or corpuscular properties. For example, light behaves like an electromagnetic wave when interacting with a diffraction grating and is described by Maxwell's system of equations. In experiments on the external photoelectric effect, the Compton effect, light behaves like a particle (photon) with the energy formula "src="http://hi-edu.ru/e-books/xbook331/files/AD5.gif" border=" 0" align="absmiddle" alt="(!LANG:- frequency of electromagnetic radiation
With increasing frequency, Occam's razor ": the closer we are to the truth, the simpler the basic laws that describe it, or: do not multiply entities beyond what is necessary, that is, explain the facts in the simplest way.
The famous chemist and philosopher M. Polanyi showed at the end of the 50s of our century that the premises on which the scientist relies in his work cannot be fully expressed in language. Polanyi wrote: "The large amount of study time that students of chemistry, biology and medicine devote to practical training, testifies to the important role played in these disciplines by the transfer of practical knowledge and skills from teacher to student. From the foregoing, we can conclude that in the very center of science there are areas of practical knowledge that cannot be conveyed through formulations. "Polani called this type of knowledge implicit. This knowledge is transmitted not in the form of texts, but through direct demonstration of samples and direct communication in a scientific school.
The term "mentality" is used to refer to those layers of spiritual culture that are not expressed in the form of explicit knowledge, but, nevertheless, significantly determine the face of a particular era or people. But any science has its own mentality, which distinguishes it from other areas of scientific knowledge, but is closely related to the mentality of the era.
The most important means of preserving and spreading the scientific mentality are the migration of scientists to work from laboratory to laboratory, preferably not only within one country, and the creation and support of scientific schools. Only in scientific schools can young scientists acquire scientific experience, knowledge, methodology and mentality of scientific creativity. As an example, in physics we can mention the mighty Rutherford schools abroad and the school of A.F. Joffe in our country. The destruction of scientific schools leads to the complete destruction of scientific traditions and science itself.
The process of cognition can be carried out using the empirical (theories and facts) and theoretical or rational (hypotheses and laws) method.
Empirical level - the object under study is reflected from the side of external connections, accessible to living contemplation and expressing internal relations. Experimental research is directly directed to the object. Signs of empirical knowledge: collection of facts, their primary generalization, description of observed data, their systematization and classification - the main methods and means - comparison, measurement, observation, experiment, which affect the course of the processes under study. At the same time, experience is not blind, it is planned and constructed by theory.
Observation is a purposeful and organized perception of objects and phenomena of the surrounding world. It relies on sensory knowledge. The objects of observation are not only objects of the external world. This type of cognition is also characterized by such a property as self-observation, when experiences, feelings, mental and emotional states of the subject himself are subjected to perception. Observation, as a rule, is not limited to mechanical and automatic noting of facts. The main role in this process is played by human consciousness, that is, the observer does not just fix the facts, but purposefully searches for them, relying in his search on hypotheses and assumptions, drawing on existing experience. Obtained results of observation are used either to confirm the hypothesis (theory) or to refute it. Observations should lead to results that do not depend on the will, feelings and desires of the subject, that is, they should provide objective information. Observations can be divided into direct (direct) and indirect, where the latter are used when the subject of research is the effect of its interaction with other objects and phenomena. The peculiarity of such observations is that the conclusion about the studied phenomena is made on the basis of the perception of the results of the interaction of unobserved objects with the observed ones. The direct view is used in the study of the object itself, or any process associated with it.
An experiment is a method of studying some phenomenon under controlled conditions. It differs from observation by active interaction with the object under study. Usually, an experiment is necessary to test hypotheses, to establish causal relationships between phenomena. The experimenter consciously and purposefully intervenes in the natural course of their course, and the experiment itself is carried out by directly influencing the process under study or changing the conditions for its course. Test results should be recorded and monitored. If the experiment is repeated, this will make it possible to compare the results obtained each time. This method is one of the best, since with the help of it, in the last two centuries, tremendous success has been achieved in many areas of various sciences. Also, “as a result of improving the methodology of experimental research, the use of the most complex instruments and equipment in it, an extremely wide range of application of this method has been achieved. Depending on the goals, the subject of the study, the nature of the technique used, a classification of various types of experiment has been developed.
According to their goals, they can be divided into two groups:
I. - experiments with the help of which various theories and hypotheses are tested;
II. - experiments with which you can collect information to clarify certain assumptions.
According to the object under study and the nature of the scientific discipline, they can be:
* physical;
* chemical;
* biological;
* space;
* psychological;
* social.
If it is necessary to study any special phenomena or properties of an object, then their circle can be expanded.
Today, the nature of the experiment has changed a lot, as its technical equipment has increased. Therefore, a new method of empirical knowledge appeared - modeling. Models (samples, layouts, copies of the original object) replace the objects of study when, for example, human health problems are studied or the properties of an object that occupies vast spaces, is located quite far from the research center, etc.
According to the nature of the methods and the results of the study, they are divided as follows:
1. “Qualitative experiments aimed at identifying the consequences of the impact of various factors on the process under study, when it is possible to neglect the establishment of accurate quantitative characteristics.
2. Quantitative experiments, when the task of accurately measuring the studied parameters of a process or object comes to the fore.
Both types contribute to a more complete disclosure of the properties and characteristics of an object, ultimately leading to its holistic knowledge. Today, an experiment cannot be imagined without its preliminary planning, and forecasts of expected results occupy an important place in this.
Theoretical experience - based on the power of abstract thinking, penetrates into the essence of phenomena through rational processing of experience data. Signs of theoretical knowledge: the creation of a theoretical model, the overall picture and its in-depth analysis. At the same time, such cognitive techniques as abstraction, idealization, synthesis, deduction, intrascientific reflection are widely used.
Both levels of knowledge, that is, empirical and theoretical, are interconnected, the boundary between them is conditional and mobile. And the absolutization of one of the levels to the detriment of the other is unacceptable.
Considering theoretical knowledge, let us define its structural components that determine the dynamics of scientific knowledge. These include scientific fact, problem, hypothesis, theory.
A scientific fact is a fact described in scientific terms and verifiable.
A problem is a form of knowledge born from the need to explain a fact. It is a kind of knowing about not knowing, a question that needs to be answered. Correctly solving a problem means posing questions and determining the means of solving them.
A hypothesis is a form of knowledge containing an assumption formulated on the basis of facts, the true meaning of which is not defined and needs to be proven. A tested and proven hypothesis passes into the category of reliable truths and becomes a scientific truth.
Theory is the highest form of scientific knowledge, which gives a holistic display of the regular and essential connections of a certain area of reality (Newton's mechanics, Darwin's evolutionary theory, Einstein's theory of relativity).
A theory must satisfy two requirements: consistency and experimental verifiability. It has the following structural elements:
1. Initial foundations - concepts, principles, laws, equations, axioms;
2. Idealized object - an abstract model of the essential properties of objects (“ideal gas”);
3. Logic theory;
4. The totality of the laws of a given theory;
The key element of the theory is the law.
The main functions of the theory include functions: synthetic, explanatory, methodological, predictive, practical.
In improving the quality of scientific research, the right method is important.
A method (Greek, “the path to something”) is a set of certain rules, techniques, methods, norms of cognition and action. In other words, a method, a tool by which knowledge is obtained. The method is developed on the basis of a certain theory. And in cognition it acts as a system of regulators.
The variety of human activities determines the variety of methods.
Among the scientific methods of theoretical research are:
1. Formalization - the display of meaningful knowledge in a formalized language, where a formalized language is a system of specialized language tools or their symbols with precise combinability rules.
2. Axiomatic method - a method of constructing a scientific theory, the foundations of which are axioms. From the axiom, all the provisions of the theory are deduced in a logical way.
3. Hypothetical-deductive method - a method, the essence of which is to create a system of hypotheses, from which statements about experimental facts are deduced.
General logical methods are also widely used in scientific research:
1. Analysis - real or mental division of an object into parts, and synthesis - their unification into a single whole;
2. Abstraction - the process of abstraction from a number of properties with the selection of properties of interest to the researcher;
3. Idealization - a mental procedure associated with the formation of abstract objects that do not exist in reality;
4. Induction - the movement of thought from the individual (experience, facts) to the general;
5. Deduction - the reverse process of induction, that is, the movement of thought from the general to the particular;
5. Analogy - the establishment of similarities in the sides, properties and relationships between non-identical objects;
6. Systems approach- a set of general scientific methods, which are based on the consideration of objects as systems.
All these and other methods should be applied in epistemological research not separately, but in their close unity and dynamic interaction.
“At present, the expansion of the subject of the theory of knowledge is going on simultaneously with the renewal and enrichment of its methodological arsenal: epistemological analysis and argumentation are beginning to include rethought results and methods of the special sciences of knowledge in a certain way.”
empirical knowledge truth
Means and methods are the most important components of the logical structure of the organization of activities. Therefore, they constitute a major section of methodology as a doctrine of the organization of activities.
It should be noted that there are practically no publications that systematically disclose the means and methods of activity. The material about them is scattered across various sources. Therefore, we decided to consider this issue in sufficient detail and try to build the means and methods of scientific research in a certain system. In addition, the means and most of the methods relate not only to scientific, but also to practical activities, to educational activities, etc.
Means of scientific research (means of knowledge). In the course of the development of science, means of cognition are developed and improved: material, mathematical, logical, linguistic. In addition, in recent times, it is obviously necessary to add information tools to them as a special class. All means of knowledge are specially created means. In this sense, material, informational, mathematical, logical, linguistic means of cognition have a common property: they are designed, created, developed, substantiated for certain cognitive purposes.
Material means of cognition are, first of all, instruments for scientific research. In history, the emergence of material means of cognition is associated with the formation of empirical methods of research - observation, measurement, experiment.
These funds are directly aimed at the objects under study, they play the main role in the empirical testing of hypotheses and other results of scientific research, in the discovery of new objects, facts. The use of material means of cognition in science in general - a microscope, a telescope, a synchrophasotron, satellites of the Earth, etc. - has a profound influence on the formation of the conceptual apparatus of sciences, on the ways of describing the subjects studied, the methods of reasoning and ideas, on the generalizations, idealizations and arguments used.
Information means of knowledge. The mass introduction of computer technology, information technology, and telecommunications is fundamentally transforming research activities in many branches of science, making them the means of scientific knowledge. Including in recent decades Computer Engineering is widely used to automate experiments in physics, biology, technical sciences, etc., which allows hundreds, thousands of times to simplify research procedures and reduce data processing time. In addition, information tools can significantly simplify the processing of statistical data in almost all branches of science. And the use of satellite navigation systems greatly increases the accuracy of measurements in geodesy, cartography, etc.
Mathematical means of knowledge. The development of mathematical means of cognition has an ever greater influence on the development of modern science; they also penetrate into the humanities and social sciences.
Mathematics, being the science of quantitative relations and spatial forms abstracted from their specific content, has developed and applied specific means of abstracting form from content and formulated the rules for considering form as an independent object in the form of numbers, sets, etc., which simplifies, facilitates and accelerates the process of cognition, allows you to more deeply reveal the connection between objects from which the form is abstracted, to isolate the initial positions, to ensure the accuracy and rigor of judgments. Mathematical tools make it possible to consider not only directly abstracted quantitative relations and spatial forms, but also logically possible ones, that is, those that are deduced according to logical rules from previously known relations and forms.
Under the influence of mathematical means of cognition, the theoretical apparatus of the descriptive sciences undergoes significant changes. Mathematical tools make it possible to systematize empirical data, to identify and formulate quantitative dependencies and patterns. Mathematical tools are also used as special forms of idealization and analogy (mathematical modeling).
Logical means of knowledge. In any study, the scientist has to solve logical problems:
- what logical requirements must satisfy the reasoning, allowing to make objectively true conclusions; how to control the nature of these reasoning?
- what logical requirements should satisfy the description of empirically observed characteristics?
- how to logically analyze the original systems of scientific knowledge, how to coordinate some knowledge systems with other knowledge systems (for example, in sociology and closely related psychology)?
- how to build a scientific theory that allows you to give scientific explanations, predictions, etc.?
The use of logical means in the process of constructing reasoning and evidence allows the researcher to separate controlled arguments from intuitive or uncritically accepted, false from true, confusion from contradictions.
Language means of knowledge. An important linguistic means of cognition are, among other things, the rules for constructing definitions of concepts (definitions). In any scientific research, the scientist has to clarify the introduced concepts, symbols and signs, to use new concepts and signs. Definitions are always associated with language as a means of cognition and expression of knowledge.
The rules for using languages, both natural and artificial, with the help of which the researcher builds his reasoning and evidence, formulates hypotheses, draws conclusions, etc., are the starting point for cognitive actions. Knowledge of them has a great influence on the effectiveness of the use of linguistic means of cognition in scientific research.
Along with the means of cognition are the methods of scientific cognition (methods of research).
Methods of scientific research. An essential, sometimes decisive role in the construction of any scientific work is played by the applied research methods.
Research methods are divided into empirical (empirical - literally - perceived through the senses) and theoretical (see Table. 3).
Regarding research methods, the following circumstance should be noted. In the literature on epistemology and methodology, there is a kind of double division, a division of scientific methods, in particular, theoretical methods, everywhere. Thus, the dialectical method, theory (when it acts as a method - see below), the identification and resolution of contradictions, the construction of hypotheses, etc. It is customary to call them, without explaining why (at least, the authors of such explanations could not be found in the literature), methods of cognition. And such methods as analysis and synthesis, comparison, abstraction and concretization, etc., that is, the main mental operations, are methods of theoretical research.
A similar division takes place with empirical research methods. So, V.I. Zagvyazinsky divides empirical research methods into two groups:
1. Working, private methods. These include: the study of literature, documents and results of activities; observation; survey (oral and written); method of expert assessments; testing.
2. Complex, general methods, which are based on the use of one or more private methods: survey; monitoring; study and generalization of experience; experimental work; experiment.
However, the name of these groups of methods is probably not entirely successful, since it is difficult to answer the question: "private" - in relation to what? Similarly, "general" - in relation to what? The distinction, most likely, goes on a different basis.
It is possible to resolve this double division both in relation to theoretical and empirical methods from the standpoint of the structure of activity.
We consider methodology as a doctrine of the organization of activities. Then, if scientific research is a cycle of activity, then its structural units are directed actions. As you know, an action is a unit of activity, the distinguishing feature of which is the presence of a specific goal. The structural units of action are operations correlated with the objective-objective conditions for achieving the goal. The same goal, correlated with action, can be achieved in different conditions; an action can be implemented by different operations. At the same time, the same operation can be included in different actions (A.N. Leontiev).
Based on this, we distinguish (see Table 3):
- methods-operations;
- action methods.
This approach does not contradict the definition of the method, which gives the Encyclopedic Dictionary:
- firstly, a method as a way to achieve a goal, solve a specific problem - a method-action;
- secondly, the method as a set of techniques or operations of practical or theoretical mastering of reality is a method-operation.
Thus, in the future we will consider research methods in the following grouping:
Theoretical methods:
- methods - cognitive actions: identifying and resolving contradictions, posing a problem, building a hypothesis, etc.;
- methods-operations: analysis, synthesis, comparison, abstraction and concretization, etc.
Empirical methods:
- methods - cognitive actions: examination, monitoring, experiment, etc.;
- methods-operations: observation, measurement, questioning, testing, etc.
Theoretical methods (methods-operations). Theoretical methods-operations have a wide field of application, both in scientific research and in practice.
Theoretical methods - operations are defined (considered) according to the main mental operations, which are: analysis and synthesis, comparison, abstraction and concretization, generalization, formalization, induction and deduction, idealization, analogy, modeling, thought experiment.
Analysis is the decomposition of the whole under study into parts, the selection of individual features and qualities of a phenomenon, process or relations of phenomena, processes. Analysis procedures are an integral part of any scientific research and usually form its first phase, when the researcher moves from an undivided description of the object under study to the identification of its structure, composition, properties and features.
One and the same phenomenon, process can be analyzed in many aspects. A comprehensive analysis of the phenomenon allows you to consider it deeper.
Synthesis is the combination of various elements, aspects of an object into a single whole (system). Synthesis is not a simple summation, but a semantic connection. If we simply connect phenomena, no system of connections will arise between them, only a chaotic accumulation of individual facts is formed. Synthesis is opposed to analysis, with which it is inextricably linked. Synthesis as a cognitive operation appears in various functions of theoretical research. Any process of formation of concepts is based on the unity of the processes of analysis and synthesis. Empirical data obtained in a particular study are synthesized during their theoretical generalization. In theoretical scientific knowledge, synthesis acts as a function of the relationship of theories related to the same subject area, as well as a function of combining competing theories (for example, the synthesis of corpuscular and wave representations in physics).
Synthesis also plays an important role in empirical research.
Analysis and synthesis are closely related. If the researcher has a more developed ability to analyze, there may be a danger that he will not be able to find a place for details in the phenomenon as a whole. The relative predominance of synthesis leads to superficiality, to the fact that details essential for the study, which can be of great importance for understanding the phenomenon as a whole, will not be noticed.
Comparison is a cognitive operation that underlies judgments about the similarity or difference of objects. With the help of comparison, quantitative and qualitative characteristics of objects are revealed, their classification, ordering and evaluation are carried out. A comparison is a comparison of one with another. In this case, an important role is played by the bases, or signs of comparison, which determine the possible relationships between objects.
Comparison makes sense only in a set of homogeneous objects that form a class. Comparison of objects in a particular class is carried out according to the principles essential for this consideration. At the same time, objects that are comparable in one feature may not be comparable in other features. The more accurately the signs are estimated, the more thoroughly the comparison of phenomena is possible. Analysis is always an integral part of comparison, since for any comparison in phenomena, it is necessary to isolate the corresponding signs of comparison. Since comparison is the establishment of certain relationships between phenomena, then, naturally, synthesis is also used in the course of comparison.
Abstraction is one of the main mental operations that allows you to mentally isolate and turn individual aspects, properties or states of an object in its pure form into an independent object of consideration. Abstraction underlies the processes of generalization and concept formation.
Abstraction consists in isolating such properties of an object that do not exist by themselves and independently of it. Such isolation is possible only in the mental plane - in abstraction. Thus, the geometric figure of the body does not really exist by itself and cannot be separated from the body. But thanks to abstraction, it is mentally singled out, fixed, for example, with the help of a drawing, and independently considered in its special properties.
One of the main functions of abstraction is to highlight the common properties of a certain set of objects and fix these properties, for example, through concepts.
Concretization is a process opposite to abstraction, that is, finding a holistic, interconnected, multilateral and complex. The researcher initially forms various abstractions, and then, on their basis, through concretization, reproduces this integrity (mental concrete), but at a qualitatively different level of cognition of the concrete. Therefore, dialectics distinguishes in the process of cognition in the coordinates "abstraction - concretization" two processes of ascent: ascent from the concrete to the abstract and then the process of ascent from the abstract to the new concrete (G. Hegel). The dialectic of theoretical thinking consists in the unity of abstraction, the creation of various abstractions and concretization, the movement towards the concrete and its reproduction.
Generalization is one of the main cognitive mental operations, consisting in the selection and fixation of relatively stable, invariant properties of objects and their relationships. Generalization allows you to display the properties and relationships of objects, regardless of the particular and random conditions of their observation. Comparing objects of a certain group from a certain point of view, a person finds, singles out and designates with a word their identical, common properties, which can become the content of the concept of this group, class of objects. Separating general properties from private ones and designating them with a word makes it possible to cover the entire variety of objects in an abbreviated, concise form, reduce them to certain classes, and then, through abstractions, operate with concepts without directly referring to individual objects. One and the same real object can be included in both narrow and wide classes, for which the scales of common features are built according to the principle of genus-species relations. The function of generalization consists in ordering the variety of objects, their classification.
Formalization - displaying the results of thinking in precise terms or statements. It is, as it were, a mental operation of the “second order”. Formalization is opposed to intuitive thinking. In mathematics and formal logic, formalization is understood as the display of meaningful knowledge in a sign form or in a formalized language. Formalization, that is, the abstraction of concepts from their content, ensures the systematization of knowledge, in which its individual elements coordinate with each other. Formalization plays an essential role in the development of scientific knowledge, since intuitive concepts, although they seem clearer from the point of view of ordinary consciousness, are of little use for science: in scientific knowledge it is often impossible not only to solve, but even to formulate and pose problems until the structure of the concepts related to them will be clarified. True science is possible only on the basis of abstract thinking, consistent reasoning of the researcher, proceeding in a logical language form through concepts, judgments and conclusions.
In scientific judgments, connections are established between objects, phenomena or between their specific features. In scientific conclusions, one judgment proceeds from another; on the basis of already existing conclusions, a new one is made. There are two main types of inference: inductive (induction) and deductive (deduction).
Induction is a conclusion from particular objects, phenomena to a general conclusion, from individual facts to generalizations.
Deduction is a conclusion from the general to the particular, from general judgments to particular conclusions.
Idealization is the mental construction of ideas about objects that do not exist or are not feasible in reality, but those for which there are prototypes in the real world. The process of idealization is characterized by abstraction from the properties and relations inherent in the objects of reality and the introduction into the content of the formed concepts of such features that, in principle, cannot belong to their real prototypes. Examples of concepts that are the result of idealization can be the mathematical concepts of "point", "line"; in physics - " material point”, “absolutely black body”, “ideal gas”, etc.
It is said about the concepts that are the result of idealization that idealized (or ideal) objects are conceived in them. Having formed concepts of this kind about objects with the help of idealization, one can subsequently operate with them in reasoning as with really existing objects and build abstract schemes of real processes that serve for a deeper understanding of them. In this sense, idealization is closely related to modeling.
Analogy, modeling. Analogy is a mental operation when the knowledge obtained from the consideration of any one object (model) is transferred to another, less studied or less accessible for study, less visual object, called the prototype, the original. It opens up the possibility of transferring information by analogy from model to prototype. This is the essence of one of the special methods of the theoretical level - modeling (building and researching models). The difference between analogy and modeling lies in the fact that if analogy is one of the mental operations, then modeling can be considered in different cases both as a mental operation and as an independent method - a method-action.
Model - an auxiliary object, selected or transformed for cognitive purposes, giving new information about the main object. Modeling forms are diverse and depend on the models used and their scope. By the nature of the models, subject and sign (information) modeling are distinguished.
Object modeling is carried out on a model that reproduces certain geometric, physical, dynamic, or functional characteristics of the object of modeling - the original; in a particular case - analog modeling, when the behavior of the original and the model is described by common mathematical relationships, for example, by common differential equations. In sign modeling, diagrams, drawings, formulas, etc. serve as models. The most important type of such modeling is mathematical modeling (see more details below).
Simulation is always used together with other research methods, it is especially closely related to the experiment. The study of any phenomenon on its model is a special kind of experiment - a model experiment, which differs from a conventional experiment in that in the process of cognition an "intermediate link" is included - a model that is both a means and an object of experimental research replacing the original.
A special kind of modeling is a thought experiment. In such an experiment, the researcher mentally creates ideal objects, correlates them with each other within the framework of a certain dynamic model, mentally imitating the movement and those situations that could take place in a real experiment. At the same time, ideal models and objects help to identify “in pure form” the most important, significant connections and relationships, to mentally play out possible situations, to weed out unnecessary options.
Modeling also serves as a way of constructing a new one that did not exist earlier in practice. The researcher, having studied the characteristic features of real processes and their tendencies, looks for new combinations of them on the basis of the leading idea, makes their mental redesign, that is, models the required state of the system under study (just like any person and even an animal, he builds his activity, activity on the basis of initially formed "model of the required future" - according to N.A. Bernshtein). At the same time, models-hypotheses are created that reveal the mechanisms of communication between the components of the studied, which are then tested in practice. In this understanding, modeling has recently become widespread in the social and human sciences - in economics, pedagogy, etc., when different authors offer different models of firms, industries, educational systems, etc.
Along with the operations of logical thinking, theoretical methods-operations can also include (possibly conditionally) imagination as a thought process for creating new ideas and images with its specific forms of fantasy (creation of implausible, paradoxical images and concepts) and dreams (as the creation of images of the desired).
Theoretical methods (methods - cognitive actions). The general philosophical, general scientific method of cognition is dialectics - the real logic of meaningful creative thinking, reflecting the objective dialectics of reality itself. The basis of dialectics as a method of scientific knowledge is the ascent from the abstract to the concrete (G. Hegel) - from general and content-poor forms to dissected and richer content, to a system of concepts that make it possible to comprehend an object in its essential characteristics. In dialectics, all problems acquire a historical character, the study of the development of an object is a strategic platform for cognition. Finally, dialectics is oriented in cognition to the disclosure and methods of resolving contradictions.
The laws of dialectics: the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones, the unity and struggle of opposites, etc.; analysis of paired dialectical categories: historical and logical, phenomenon and essence, general (universal) and singular, etc. are integral components of any well-structured scientific research.
Scientific theories verified by practice: any such theory, in essence, acts as a method in the construction of new theories in this or even other areas of scientific knowledge, as well as in the function of a method that determines the content and sequence of the researcher's experimental activity. Therefore, the difference between scientific theory as a form of scientific knowledge and as a method of cognition in this case is functional: being formed as a theoretical result of past research, the method acts as a starting point and condition for subsequent research.
Proof - method - theoretical (logical) action, during which the truth of a thought is substantiated with the help of other thoughts. Any proof consists of three parts: the thesis, arguments (arguments) and demonstration. According to the method of conducting evidence, there are direct and indirect, according to the form of inference - inductive and deductive. Evidence Rules:
1. The thesis and arguments must be clear and precise.
2. The thesis must remain identical throughout the proof.
3. The thesis should not contain a logical contradiction.
4. The arguments given in support of the thesis must themselves be true, not subject to doubt, must not contradict each other and be a sufficient basis for this thesis.
5. The proof must be complete.
In the totality of methods of scientific knowledge, an important place belongs to the method of analyzing knowledge systems (see, for example,). Any scientific knowledge system has a certain independence in relation to the reflected subject area. In addition, knowledge in such systems is expressed using a language whose properties affect the relationship of knowledge systems to the objects being studied - for example, if any sufficiently developed psychological, sociological, pedagogical concept is translated into, say, English, German, French- will it be unambiguously perceived and understood in England, Germany and France? Further, the use of language as a carrier of concepts in such systems presupposes one or another logical systematization and logically organized use of linguistic units to express knowledge. And, finally, no system of knowledge exhausts the entire content of the object under study. In it, only a certain, historically concrete part of such content always receives a description and explanation.
The method of analysis of scientific knowledge systems plays an important role in empirical and theoretical research tasks: when choosing an initial theory, a hypothesis for solving a chosen problem; when distinguishing between empirical and theoretical knowledge, semi-empirical and theoretical solutions to a scientific problem; when substantiating the equivalence or priority of the use of certain mathematical tools in various theories related to the same subject area; when studying the possibilities of disseminating previously formulated theories, concepts, principles, etc. to new subject areas; substantiation of new possibilities for the practical application of knowledge systems; when simplifying and clarifying knowledge systems for training, popularization; to harmonize with other knowledge systems, etc.
Further, the theoretical methods-actions will include two methods of constructing scientific theories:
- deductive method (synonym - axiomatic method) - a method of constructing a scientific theory, in which it is based on some initial provisions of the axiom (synonym - postulates), from which all other provisions of this theory (theorem) are derived in a purely logical way through proof. The construction of a theory based on the axiomatic method is usually called deductive. All concepts of the deductive theory, except for a fixed number of initial ones (such initial concepts in geometry, for example, are: point, line, plane) are introduced by means of definitions expressing them through previously introduced or derived concepts. The classic example of a deductive theory is the geometry of Euclid. Theories are built by the deductive method in mathematics, mathematical logic, theoretical physics;
- the second method has not received a name in the literature, but it certainly exists, since in all other sciences, except for the above, theories are built according to the method, which we will call inductive-deductive: first, an empirical basis is accumulated, on the basis of which theoretical generalizations (induction) are built, which can be built into several levels - for example, empirical laws and theoretical laws - and then these obtained generalizations can be extended to all objects and phenomena covered by this theory (deduction) - see Fig. 6 and Fig. 10. The inductive-deductive method is used to construct most of the theories in the sciences of nature, society and man: physics, chemistry, biology, geology, geography, psychology, pedagogy, etc.
Other theoretical research methods (in the sense of methods - cognitive actions): identifying and resolving contradictions, posing a problem, building hypotheses, etc., up to the planning of scientific research, we will consider below in the specifics of the temporal structure of research activity - building phases, stages and stages scientific research.
Empirical methods (methods-operations).
The study of literature, documents and results of activities. The issues of working with scientific literature will be considered separately below, since this is not only a research method, but also an obligatory procedural component of any scientific work.
A variety of documentation also serves as a source of factual material for research: archival materials in historical research; documentation of enterprises, organizations and institutions in economic, sociological, pedagogical and other research, etc. The study of performance results plays an important role in pedagogy, especially in studying the problems of professional training of pupils and students; in psychology, pedagogy and sociology of labor; and, for example, in archeology, during excavations, an analysis of the results of people's activities: based on the remains of tools, utensils, dwellings, etc., makes it possible to restore their way of life in a particular era.
Observation is, in principle, the most informative research method. This is the only method that allows you to see all aspects of the phenomena and processes under study, accessible to the perception of the observer - both directly and with the help of various instruments.
Depending on the goals that are pursued in the process of observation, the latter can be scientific and non-scientific. Purposeful and organized perception of objects and phenomena of the external world, associated with the solution of a certain scientific problem or task, is commonly called scientific observation. Scientific observations involve obtaining certain information for further theoretical understanding and interpretation, for the approval or refutation of any hypothesis, etc.
Scientific observation consists of the following procedures:
- determination of the purpose of observation (for what, for what purpose?);
- choice of object, process, situation (what to observe?);
- choice of method and frequency of observations (how to observe?);
- choice of methods for registering the observed object, phenomenon (how to record the information received?);
- processing and interpretation of the information received (what is the result?) - see, for example,.
Observed situations are divided into:
- natural and artificial;
- controlled and not controlled by the subject of observation;
- spontaneous and organized;
- standard and non-standard;
- normal and extreme, etc.
In addition, depending on the organization of observation, it can be open and hidden, field and laboratory, and depending on the nature of fixation, it can be ascertaining, evaluating and mixed. According to the method of obtaining information, observations are divided into direct and instrumental. According to the scope of the studied objects, continuous and selective observations are distinguished; by frequency - constant, periodic and single. A special case of observation is self-observation, which is widely used, for example, in psychology.
Observation is necessary for scientific knowledge, since without it science would not be able to obtain initial information, would not have scientific facts and empirical data, therefore, the theoretical construction of knowledge would also be impossible.
However, observation as a method of cognition has a number of significant drawbacks. The personal characteristics of the researcher, his interests, and finally, his psychological state can significantly affect the results of observation. The objective results of observation are even more subject to distortion in those cases when the researcher is focused on obtaining a certain result, on confirming his existing hypothesis.
To obtain objective results of observation, it is necessary to comply with the requirements of intersubjectivity, that is, observation data must (and / or can) be obtained and recorded, if possible, by other observers.
Replacing direct observation with instruments indefinitely expands the possibilities of observation, but also does not exclude subjectivity; evaluation and interpretation of such indirect observation is carried out by the subject, and therefore the subjective influence of the researcher can still take place.
Observation is most often accompanied by another empirical method - measurement
Measurement. Measurement is used everywhere, in any human activity. So, almost every person during the day takes measurements dozens of times, looking at the clock. The general definition of measurement is as follows: “Measurement is a cognitive process that consists in comparing ... a given quantity with some of its value, taken as a comparison standard” (see, for example,).
In particular, measurement is an empirical method (method-operation) of scientific research.
You can select a specific dimension structure that includes the following elements:
1) a cognizing subject that carries out measurement with certain cognitive goals;
2) measuring instruments, among which there can be both devices and tools designed by man, and objects and processes given by nature;
3) the object of measurement, that is, the measured quantity or property to which the comparison procedure is applicable;
4) method or method of measurement, which is a set of practical actions, operations performed using measuring instruments, and also includes certain logical and computational procedures;
5) the measurement result, which is a named number, expressed using the appropriate names or signs.
The epistemological substantiation of the measurement method is inextricably linked with the scientific understanding of the ratio of qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the object (phenomenon) being studied. Although only quantitative characteristics are recorded using this method, these characteristics are inextricably linked with the qualitative certainty of the object under study. It is thanks to the qualitative certainty that it is possible to single out the quantitative characteristics to be measured. The unity of the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the object under study means both the relative independence of these aspects and their deep interconnection. The relative independence of quantitative characteristics makes it possible to study them during the measurement process, and use the measurement results to analyze the qualitative aspects of the object.
The problem of measurement accuracy also refers to the epistemological foundations of measurement as a method of empirical knowledge. The measurement accuracy depends on the ratio of objective and subjective factors in the measurement process.
Among these objective factors relate:
- the possibility of identifying certain stable quantitative characteristics in the object under study, which in many cases of research, in particular, social and humanitarian phenomena and processes, is difficult, and sometimes even impossible;
- the capabilities of measuring instruments (the degree of their perfection) and the conditions in which the measurement process takes place. In some cases, finding the exact value of the quantity is fundamentally impossible. It is impossible, for example, to determine the trajectory of an electron in an atom, etc.
The subjective factors of measurement include the choice of measurement methods, the organization of this process, and a whole range of cognitive capabilities of the subject - from the qualifications of the experimenter to his ability to correctly and competently interpret the results.
Along with direct measurements in the process of scientific experimentation, the method of indirect measurement is widely used. With indirect measurement, the desired value is determined on the basis of direct measurements of other quantities associated with the first functional dependence. According to the measured values of the mass and volume of the body, its density is determined; the resistivity of a conductor can be found from the measured values of resistance, length and cross-sectional area of the conductor, etc. The role of indirect measurements is especially great in cases where direct measurement is impossible under objective reality. For example, the mass of any space object (natural) is determined using mathematical calculations based on the use of measurement data from other physical quantities.
Special attention should be paid to the discussion of measurement scales.
Scale - a numerical system in which the relationships between the various properties of the studied phenomena, processes are translated into the properties of a particular set, as a rule, a set of numbers.
There are several types of scales. Firstly, we can distinguish between discrete scales (in which the set of possible values of the estimated value is finite - for example, the score in points - "1", "2", "3", "4", "5") and continuous scales (for example, mass in grams or volume in liters). Secondly, there are relationship scales, interval scales, ordinal (rank) scales and nominal scales (name scales) - see Fig. 5, which also reflects the power of the scales - that is, their "resolution". The power of the scale can be defined as the degree, the level of its ability to accurately describe phenomena, events, that is, the information that the ratings carry in the corresponding scale. For example, a patient's condition can be assessed on a scale of names: "healthy" - "sick". Much information will be carried by measurements of the state of the same patient in a scale of intervals or ratios: temperature, arterial pressure etc. It is always possible to move from a more powerful scale to a "weaker" one (by aggregating - compressing - information): for example, if you enter a "threshold temperature" of 37 C and consider that the patient is healthy if his temperature is less than the threshold and sick otherwise, then you can go from the scale of relations to the scale of names. The reverse transition in the example under consideration is impossible - the information that the patient is healthy (that is, that his temperature is less than the threshold) does not allow us to say exactly what his temperature is.
Consider, following mainly, the properties of the four main types of scales, listing them in descending order of power.
The relationship scale is the most powerful scale. It allows you to evaluate how many times one measured object is greater (less) than another object taken as a standard, unity. For ratio scales, there is a natural reference point (zero). Ratio scales measure almost all physical quantities - linear dimensions, areas, volumes, current strength, power, etc.
All measurements are made with some degree of accuracy. Measurement accuracy - the degree of closeness of the measurement result to the true value of the measured quantity. Measurement accuracy is characterized by measurement error - the difference between the measured and the true value.
A distinction is made between systematic (constant) errors (errors) due to factors that act in the same way when measurements are repeated, for example, a malfunction of a measuring device, and random errors caused by variations in measurement conditions and / or threshold accuracy of the measurement tools used (for example, devices).
It is known from probability theory that with a sufficiently large number of measurements, the random measurement error can be:
- greater than the standard error (usually denoted by the Greek letter sigma and equal to the square root of the variance - see definition below in section 2.3.2) in about 32% of cases. Accordingly, the true value of the measured value is in the interval of the mean value plus / minus the standard error with a probability of 68%;
- more than twice the mean square error only in 5% of cases. Accordingly, the true value of the measured value is in the interval of the mean value plus/minus twice the standard error with a probability of 95%;
- more than triple the mean square error only in 0.3% of cases. Accordingly, the true value of the measured value is in the interval of the mean value plus/minus three times the standard error with a probability of 99.7%
Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that the random measurement error will be greater than three times the root mean square error. Therefore, as the range of the "true" value of the measured value, the arithmetic mean plus/minus three times the standard error (the so-called "rule of three sigma") is usually chosen.
It must be emphasized that what has been said here about the accuracy of measurements refers only to the scales of ratios and intervals. For other types of scales, the situation is much more complicated and requires the reader to study special literature (see, for example,).
The interval scale is used quite rarely and is characterized by the fact that there is no natural reference point for it. An example of an interval scale is the Celsius, Réaumur, or Fahrenheit temperature scale. The Celsius scale, as you know, was set as follows: the freezing point of water was taken as zero, its boiling point as 100 degrees, and, accordingly, the temperature interval between freezing and boiling water was divided into 100 equal parts. Here already the statement that the temperature of 30C is three times more than 10C will be incorrect. The interval scale stores the ratio of interval lengths (differences). We can say: a temperature of 30C differs from a temperature of 20C twice as much as a temperature of 15C differs from a temperature of 10C.
The ordinal scale (rank scale) is a scale, with respect to the values of which it is no longer possible to talk about how many times the measured value is greater (less) than another, nor how much it is greater (less). Such a scale only arranges objects by assigning certain points to them (the result of measurements is simply the ordering of objects).
For example, the Mohs mineral hardness scale is constructed in this way: a set of 10 reference minerals is taken to determine the relative hardness by scratching. Talc is taken as 1, gypsum as 2, calcite as 3, and so on up to 10 as diamond. A certain hardness can be unambiguously assigned to any mineral. If the studied mineral, for example, scratches quartz (7), but does not scratch topaz (8), then, accordingly, its hardness will be equal to 7. The scales of the Beaufort wind force and Richter earthquakes are similarly constructed.
Order scales are widely used in sociology, pedagogy, psychology, medicine, and other sciences that are not as precise as, say, physics and chemistry. In particular, the ubiquitous scale of school grades in points (five-point, twelve-point, etc.) can be attributed to the order scale.
A special case of the ordinal scale is the dichotomous scale, in which there are only two ordered gradations - for example, “entered the institute”, “did not enter”.
The scale of names (nominal scale) is actually no longer associated with the concept of "value" and is used only to distinguish one object from another: telephone numbers, state registration numbers of cars, etc.
The measurement results must be analyzed, and for this it is often necessary to build derivative (secondary) indicators on their basis, that is, to apply one or another transformation to the experimental data. The most common derived indicator is the averaging of values - for example, average weight people, average height, average per capita income, etc. The use of one or another measurement scale determines the set of transformations that are acceptable for measurement results in this scale (for more details, see publications on measurement theory).
Let's start with the weakest scale - the scale of names (nominal scale), which distinguishes pairwise distinguishable classes of objects. For example, in the scale of names, the values of the attribute "gender" are measured: "male" and "female". These classes will be distinguishable no matter what different terms or signs are used to designate them: "female" and "male", or "female" and "male", or "A" and "B", or "1" and "2", or "2" and "3", etc. Therefore, for the naming scale, any one-to-one transformations are applicable, that is, preserving a clear distinguishability of objects (thus, the weakest scale - the naming scale - allows the widest range of transformations).
The difference between the ordinal scale (rank scale) and the naming scale is that classes (groups) of objects are ordered in the rank scale. Therefore, it is impossible to change the values of features arbitrarily - the ordering of objects (the order in which one object follows another) must be preserved. Therefore, for an ordinal scale, any monotonic transformation is admissible. For example, if the score of object A is 5 points, and object B is 4 points, then their ordering will not change if we multiply the number of points by a positive number that is the same for all objects, or add it to some number that is the same for all, or square it and etc. (for example, instead of "1", "2", "3", "4", "5" we use "3", "5", "9", "17", "102" respectively). In this case, the differences and ratios of the “points” will change, but the ordering will remain.
For the interval scale, not any monotonic transformation is allowed, but only one that preserves the ratio of the differences in estimates, that is, a linear transformation - multiplication by a positive number and / or adding a constant number. For example, if 2730C is added to the temperature value in degrees Celsius, then we get the temperature in Kelvin, and the difference of any two temperatures in both scales will be the same.
And, finally, in the most powerful scale - the scale of relations - only similarity transformations are possible - multiplication by a positive number. Substantially, this means that, for example, the ratio of the masses of two objects does not depend on the units in which the masses are measured - grams, kilograms, pounds, etc.
We summarize what has been said in Table. 4, which reflects the correspondence between the scales and the allowed transformations.
As noted above, the results of any measurements, as a rule, refer to one of the main (listed above) types of scales. However, obtaining measurement results is not an end in itself - these results must be analyzed, and for this it is often necessary to build derived indicators based on them. These derived indicators can be measured on other scales than the original ones. For example, a 100-point scale can be used to assess knowledge. But it is too detailed, and, if necessary, it can be rebuilt into a five-point scale ("1" - from "1" to "20"; "2" - from "21" to "40", etc.), or a two-point scale (for example , positive score - everything above 40 points, negative - 40 or less). Consequently, the problem arises - what transformations can be applied to certain types of source data. In other words, the transition from which scale to which is correct. This problem in measurement theory is called the problem of adequacy.
To solve the problem of adequacy, one can use the properties of the relationship between the scales and the transformations allowed for them, since by no means any operation in the processing of initial data is acceptable. So, for example, such a common operation as calculating the arithmetic mean cannot be used if the measurements are obtained in an ordinal scale. The general conclusion is that it is always possible to move from a more powerful scale to a less powerful one, but not vice versa (for example, based on the scores obtained on the ratio scale, you can build scores on the ordinal scale, but not vice versa).
Having completed the description of such an empirical method as measurement, let us return to the consideration of other empirical methods of scientific research.
Survey. This empirical method is used only in the social and human sciences. The survey method is divided into oral survey and written survey.
Oral survey (conversation, interview). The essence of the method is clear from its name. During the survey, the questioner has personal contact with the respondent, that is, he has the opportunity to see how the respondent reacts to a particular question. The observer can, if necessary, ask various additional questions and thus obtain additional data on some uncovered issues.
Oral surveys give concrete results, and with their help you can get comprehensive answers to complex questions of interest to the researcher. However, the respondents answer the questions of a “delicate” nature in writing much more frankly and at the same time give more detailed and thorough answers.
The respondent spends less time and energy on an oral answer than on a written one. However, this method also has its downsides. All respondents are in different conditions, some of them can get additional information through leading questions of the researcher; facial expression or any gesture of the researcher has some effect on the respondent.
Questions used for interviews are planned in advance and a questionnaire is drawn up, where space should also be left for recording (recording) the answer.
Basic requirements for writing questions:
1) the survey should not be random, but systematic; at the same time, questions that are more understandable to the respondent are asked earlier, more difficult - later;
2) questions should be concise, specific and understandable for all respondents;
3) questions should not contradict ethical standards.
Survey Rules:
1) during the interview, the researcher should be alone with the respondent, without extraneous witnesses;
2) each oral question is read from the question sheet (questionnaire) verbatim, unchanged;
3) exactly adheres to the order of the questions; the respondent should not see the questionnaire or be able to read the questions following the next one;
4) the interview should be short - from 15 to 30 minutes, depending on the age and intellectual level of the respondents;
5) the interviewer should not influence the respondent in any way (indirectly prompt the answer, shake his head in disapproval, nod his head, etc.);
6) the interviewer can, if necessary, if this answer is unclear, ask additionally only neutral questions (for example: “What did you mean by that?”, “Explain a little more!”).
7) answers are recorded in the questionnaire only during the survey.
The responses are then analyzed and interpreted.
Written survey - questioning. It is based on a pre-designed questionnaire (questionnaire), and the answers of respondents (interviewees) to all positions of the questionnaire constitute the desired empirical information.
The quality of empirical information obtained as a result of a survey depends on such factors as the wording of the questionnaire questions, which should be understandable to the interviewee; qualifications, experience, conscientiousness, psychological characteristics of researchers; the situation of the survey, its conditions; the emotional state of the respondents; customs and traditions, ideas, everyday situation; and also - the attitude to the survey. Therefore, when using such information, it is always necessary to make allowances for the inevitability of subjective distortions due to its specific individual “refraction” in the minds of the respondents. And when it comes to fundamentally important issues, along with the survey, they also turn to other methods - observation, expert assessments, and analysis of documents.
Particular attention is paid to the development of a questionnaire - a questionnaire containing a series of questions necessary to obtain information in accordance with the objectives and hypothesis of the study. The questionnaire must meet the following requirements: be reasonable in relation to the purposes of its use, that is, provide the required information; have stable criteria and reliable rating scales that adequately reflect the situation under study; the wording of the questions should be clear to the interviewee and consistent; Questionnaire questions should not cause negative emotions in the respondent (respondent).
Questions can be closed or open-ended. A question is called closed if it contains a complete set of answers in the questionnaire. The respondent only marks the option that coincides with his opinion. This form of the questionnaire significantly reduces the time of filling out and at the same time makes the questionnaire suitable for processing on a computer. But sometimes there is a need to find out directly the opinion of the respondent on a question that excludes pre-prepared answers. In this case, open-ended questions are used.
When answering an open question, the respondent is guided only by his own ideas. Therefore, such a response is more individualized.
Compliance with a number of other requirements also contributes to the increase in the reliability of answers. One of them is that the respondent should be given the opportunity to evade the answer, to express an uncertain opinion. To do this, the rating scale should provide for answer options: “hard to say”, “difficult to answer”, “it happens differently”, “whenever”, etc. But the predominance of such options in the answers is evidence of either the incompetence of the respondent, or the unsuitability of the wording of the question to obtain the necessary information.
In order to obtain reliable information about the phenomenon or process under study, it is not necessary to interview the entire contingent, since the object of study can be numerically very large. In cases where the object of study exceeds several hundred people, a selective survey is used.
Method of expert assessments. In essence, this is a kind of survey associated with the involvement in the assessment of the phenomena under study, the processes of the most competent people, whose opinions, complementing and rechecking each other, make it possible to fairly objectively evaluate the researched. The use of this method requires a number of conditions. First of all, it is a careful selection of experts - people who know well the area being assessed, the object under study and are capable of an objective, unbiased assessment.
The choice of an accurate and convenient system of assessments and appropriate measurement scales is also essential, which streamlines judgments and makes it possible to express them in certain quantities.
It is often necessary to train experts to use the proposed scales for an unambiguous assessment in order to minimize errors and make assessments comparable.
If experts acting independently of each other consistently give identical or similar estimates or express similar opinions, there is reason to believe that they are approaching objective ones. If the estimates differ greatly, then this indicates either an unsuccessful choice of the grading system and measurement scales, or the incompetence of experts.
Varieties of the expert assessment method are: the commission method, the brainstorming method, the Delphi method, the heuristic forecasting method, etc. A number of these methods will be discussed in the third chapter of this work (see also).
Testing is an empirical method, diagnostic procedure, which consists in the application of tests (from the English test - task, test). Tests are usually given to the test subjects either in the form of a list of questions requiring short and unambiguous answers, or in the form of tasks, the solution of which does not take much time and also requires unambiguous solutions, or in the form of some short-term practical work of the test subjects, for example, qualifying trial work in vocational education, in labor economics, etc. Tests are divided into blank, hardware (for example, on a computer) and practical; for individual and group use.
Here, perhaps, are all the empirical methods-operations that the scientific community has at its disposal today. Next, we will consider empirical methods-actions, which are based on the use of methods-operations and their combinations.
Empirical methods (methods-actions).
Empirical methods-actions should, first of all, be divided into two classes. The first class is the methods of studying an object without its transformation, when the researcher does not make any changes, transformations in the object of study. More precisely, it does not make significant changes to the object - after all, according to the principle of complementarity (see above), the researcher (observer) cannot but change the object. Let's call them object tracking methods. These include: the tracking method itself and its particular manifestations - examination, monitoring, study and generalization of experience.
Another class of methods is associated with the active transformation of the object being studied by the researcher - let's call these methods transforming methods - this class will include such methods as experimental work and experiment.
Tracking, often, in a number of sciences is, perhaps, the only empirical method-action. For example, in astronomy. After all, astronomers can not yet influence the studied space objects. The only possibility is to track their state through methods-operations: observation and measurement. The same, to a large extent, applies to such branches of scientific knowledge as geography, demography, etc., where the researcher cannot change anything in the object of study.
In addition, tracking is also used when the goal is to study the natural functioning of an object. For example, when studying certain features of radioactive radiation or when studying the reliability of technical devices, which is checked by their long-term operation.
Survey - as a special case of the tracking method - is the study of the object under study with one or another measure of depth and detail, depending on the tasks set by the researcher. A synonym for the word "examination" is "inspection", which means that the examination is basically the initial study of an object, carried out to familiarize itself with its condition, functions, structure, etc. Surveys are most often used in relation to organizational structures - enterprises, institutions, etc. - or in relation to public entities, for example, settlements, for which surveys can be external and internal.
External surveys: survey of the socio-cultural and economic situation in the region, survey of the goods and services market and labor market, survey of the state of employment of the population, etc. Internal surveys: surveys within the enterprise, institutions - survey of the state of the production process, surveys of the contingent of employees, etc. .
The survey is carried out through the methods-operations of empirical research: observation, study and analysis of documentation, oral and written survey, involvement of experts, etc.
Any survey is carried out according to a detailed program developed in advance, in which the content of the work, its tools (compilation of questionnaires, test kits, questionnaires, a list of documents to be studied, etc.), as well as criteria for evaluating the phenomena and processes to be studied, are planned in detail. This is followed by the following stages: collecting information, summarizing materials, summing up and preparing reporting materials. At each stage, it may be necessary to adjust the survey program when the researcher or a group of researchers conducting it is convinced that the collected data is not enough to obtain the desired results, or the collected data does not reflect the picture of the object under study, etc.
According to the degree of depth, detail and systematization, surveys are divided into:
- Pilot (reconnaissance) surveys carried out for preliminary, relatively surface orientation in the object under study;
- specialized (partial) surveys conducted to study certain aspects, aspects of the object under study;
- modular (complex) examinations - for the study of whole blocks, complexes of questions programmed by the researcher on the basis of a sufficiently detailed preliminary study of the object, its structure, functions, etc.;
- system surveys - conducted already as full-fledged independent studies on the basis of isolating and formulating their subject, purpose, hypothesis, etc., and involving a holistic consideration of the object, its system-forming factors.
At what level to conduct a survey in each case, the researcher or the research team decides, depending on the goals and objectives of scientific work.
Monitoring. This is constant supervision, regular monitoring of the state of the object, the values of its individual parameters in order to study the dynamics of ongoing processes, predict certain events, and also prevent undesirable phenomena. For example, environmental monitoring, synoptic monitoring, etc.
Study and generalization of experience (activity). When conducting research, the study and generalization of experience (organizational, industrial, technological, medical, pedagogical, etc.) is used for various purposes: to determine the existing level of detail of enterprises, organizations, institutions, the functioning of the technological process, to identify shortcomings and bottlenecks in practice a particular field of activity, studying the effectiveness of the application of scientific recommendations, identifying new patterns of activity that are born in the creative search of advanced leaders, specialists and entire teams. The object of study can be: mass experience - to identify the main trends in the development of a particular sector of the national economy; negative experience - to identify typical disadvantages and bottlenecks; advanced experience, in the process of which new positive findings are identified, generalized, become the property of science and practice.
The study and generalization of best practices is one of the main sources for the development of science, since this method makes it possible to identify actual scientific problems, creates the basis for studying the patterns of development of processes in a number of areas of scientific knowledge, primarily in the so-called technological sciences.
Best Practice Criteria:
1) Novelty. It can manifest itself in varying degrees: from the introduction of new provisions in science to effective application already known positions.
2) High performance. Best practices should deliver above average results for the industry, group of similar facilities, etc.
3) Compliance with modern achievements of science. Achieving high results does not always indicate the correspondence of experience to the requirements of science.
4) Stability - maintaining the effectiveness of the experience under changing conditions, achieving high results for a sufficiently long time.
5) Replicability - the ability to use experience by other people and organizations. Best practices can be made available to other people and organizations. It cannot be associated only with the personal characteristics of its author.
6) Optimal experience - achieving high results with a relatively economical expenditure of resources, and also not to the detriment of solving other problems.
The study and generalization of experience is carried out by such empirical methods-operations as observation, surveys, the study of literature and documents, etc.
The disadvantage of the tracking method and its varieties - survey, monitoring, study and generalization of experience as empirical methods-actions - is the relatively passive role of the researcher - he can study, track and generalize only what has developed in the surrounding reality, without being able to actively influence what is happening. processes. We emphasize once again that this shortcoming is often due to objective circumstances. This shortcoming is deprived of methods for transforming an object: experimental work and experiment.
The methods that transform the object of study include experimental work and experiment. The difference between them lies in the degree of arbitrariness of the researcher's actions. If the experimental work is a non-strict research procedure, in which the researcher makes changes to the object at his own discretion, based on his own considerations of expediency, then the experiment is a completely strict procedure, where the researcher must strictly follow the requirements of the experiment.
Experimental work is, as already mentioned, a method of making deliberate changes to the object under study with a certain degree of arbitrariness. So, the geologist himself determines where to look, what to look for, by what methods - to drill wells, dig pits, etc. In the same way, an archaeologist, paleontologist determines where and how to excavate. Or in pharmacy, a long search for new drugs is carried out - out of 10 thousand synthesized compounds, only one becomes medicine. Or, for example, experience in agriculture.
Experimental work as a research method is widely used in the sciences related to human activities - pedagogy, economics, etc., when models are created and tested, as a rule, author's ones: firms, educational institutions, etc., or created and tested various proprietary methods. Or an experimental textbook, an experimental preparation, a prototype are created and then they are tested in practice.
Experimental work is in a sense similar to a thought experiment - both here and there, as it were, the question is posed: “what happens if ...?” Only in a thought experiment the situation is played out “in the mind”, while in experimental work the situation is played out by action.
But, experimental work is not a blind chaotic search through “trial and error”.
Experimental work becomes a method of scientific research under the following conditions:
1. When it is put on the basis of data obtained by science in accordance with a theoretically justified hypothesis.
2. When accompanied by deep analysis, conclusions are drawn from it and theoretical generalizations are made.
In experimental work, all methods-operations of empirical research are used: observation, measurement, analysis of documents, peer review, etc.
Experimental work occupies, as it were, an intermediate place between object tracking and experiment.
It is a way of active intervention of the researcher in the object. However, experimental work gives, in particular, only the results of the effectiveness or inefficiency of certain innovations in a general, summary form. Which of the factors of implemented innovations give a greater effect, which less, how they influence each other - experimental work cannot answer these questions.
For a deeper study of the essence of a particular phenomenon, the changes occurring in it, and the reasons for these changes, in the process of research, they resort to varying the conditions for the occurrence of phenomena and processes and the factors influencing them. Experiment serves this purpose.
An experiment is a general empirical research method (method-action), the essence of which is that phenomena and processes are studied under strictly controlled and controlled conditions. The basic principle of any experiment is a change in each research procedure of only one of some factors, while the rest remain unchanged and controllable. If it is necessary to check the influence of another factor, the following research procedure is carried out, where this last factor is changed, and all other controlled factors remain unchanged, and so on.
During the experiment, the researcher deliberately changes the course of some phenomenon by introducing a new factor into it. A new factor introduced or changed by the experimenter is called the experimental factor, or independent variable. Factors that have changed under the influence of the independent variable are called dependent variables.
There are many classifications of experiments in the literature. First of all, depending on the nature of the object under study, it is customary to distinguish between physical, chemical, biological, psychological experiments, etc. According to the main purpose, experiments are divided into verification (empirical verification of a certain hypothesis) and search (collection of the necessary empirical information to build or refine the put forward conjecture , ideas). Depending on the nature and variety of the means and conditions of the experiment and the methods of using these means, one can distinguish between direct (if the means are used directly to study the object), model (if a model is used that replaces the object), field (in natural conditions, for example, in space), laboratory (under artificial conditions) experiment.
Finally, one can speak of qualitative and quantitative experiments, based on the difference in the results of the experiment. Qualitative experiments, as a rule, are undertaken to identify the impact of certain factors on the process under study without establishing an exact quantitative relationship between characteristic quantities. To ensure the exact value of the essential parameters that affect the behavior of the object under study, a quantitative experiment is necessary.
Depending on the nature of the experimental research strategy, there are:
1) experiments carried out by the method of "trial and error";
2) experiments based on a closed algorithm;
3) experiments using the "black box" method, leading to conclusions from knowledge of the function to knowledge of the structure of the object;
4) experiments with the help of an “open box”, which allow, based on knowledge of the structure, to create a sample with specified functions.
In recent years, experiments have become widespread, in which the computer acts as a means of cognition. They are especially important when real systems do not allow either direct experimentation or experimentation with the help of material models. In a number of cases, computer experiments dramatically simplify the research process - with their help, situations are “played out” by building a model of the system under study.
In talking about experiment as a method of cognition, one cannot fail to note one more type of experimentation, which plays an important role in natural science research. This is a mental experiment - the researcher operates not with concrete, sensual material, but with an ideal, model image. All knowledge gained in the course of mental experimentation is subject to practical verification, in particular in a real experiment. Therefore, this type of experimentation should be attributed to the methods of theoretical knowledge (see above). P.V. Kopnin, for example, writes: “Scientific research is really experimental only when the conclusion is drawn not from speculative reasoning, but from sensory, practical observation of phenomena. Therefore, what is sometimes called a theoretical or thought experiment is not actually an experiment. A thought experiment is ordinary theoretical reasoning that takes on the external form of an experiment.
The theoretical methods of scientific knowledge should also include some other types of experiment, for example, the so-called mathematical and simulation experiments. "The essence of the method of mathematical experiment is that experiments are carried out not with the object itself, as is the case in the classical experimental method, but with its description in the language of the corresponding section of mathematics" . A simulation experiment is an idealized study by modeling the behavior of an object instead of actual experimentation. In other words, these types of experimentation are variants of a model experiment with idealized images. More details about mathematical modeling and simulation experiments are discussed below in the third chapter.
So, we tried to describe the research methods from the most general positions. Naturally, in each branch of scientific knowledge, certain traditions have developed in the interpretation and use of research methods. Thus, the method of frequency analysis in linguistics will refer to the tracking method (method-action) carried out by the methods-operations of document analysis and measurement. Experiments are usually divided into ascertaining, training, control and comparative. But all of them are experiments (methods-actions) carried out by methods-operations: observations, measurements, tests, etc.