Theory as the highest form of organization of scientific knowledge is understood as a holistic idea, structured in diagrams, about the universal and necessary laws of a certain area of ​​reality - the object of the theory, existing in the form of a system of logically interconnected and deducible propositions.

The basis of the existing theory is a mutually agreed upon network of abstract objects that determines the specifics of this theory, called the fundamental theoretical scheme and the particular schemes associated with it. Based on them and the corresponding mathematical apparatus, the researcher can obtain new characteristics of reality, without always turning directly to empirical research.

The following main elements of the theory structure are identified:

1) Initial foundations - fundamental concepts, principles, laws, equations, axioms, etc.

2) An idealized object is an abstract model of the essential properties and connections of the objects being studied (for example, “absolutely black body”, “ideal gas”, etc.).

3) The logic of the theory is a set of certain rules and methods of proof aimed at clarifying the structure and changing knowledge.

4) Philosophical attitudes, sociocultural and value factors.

5) A set of laws and statements derived as consequences from the fundamentals of the theory in accordance with specific principles.

For example, in physical theories two main parts can be distinguished: formal calculus ( mathematical equations, logical symbols, rules, etc.) and meaningful interpretation (categories, laws, principles). The unity of the substantive and formal aspects of the theory is one of the sources of its improvement and development.

A. Einstein noted that “the theory has two goals:

1. To cover, if possible, all phenomena in their interrelation (completeness).

2. To achieve this by taking as a basis as few logically mutually related logical concepts and arbitrarily established relationships between them (basic laws and axioms). I will call this goal "logical uniqueness"

Types of theories

The variety of forms of idealization and, accordingly, types of idealized objects corresponds to the variety of types (types) of theories that can be classified according to for various reasons(criteria). Depending on this, theories can be distinguished:

mathematical and empirical,

deductive and inductive,

fundamental and applied,

formal and substantive,

"open" and "closed"

explaining and describing (phenomenological),

physical, chemical, sociological, psychological, etc.

1. Modern (post-non-classical) science is characterized by the increasing mathematization of its theories (especially natural science) and the increasing level of their abstraction and complexity. The importance of computational mathematics (which has become an independent branch of mathematics) has sharply increased, since the answer to a given problem often needs to be given in numerical form, and mathematical modeling.

Most mathematical theories rely on set theory as their foundation. But in last years They are increasingly turning to the relatively recently emerged algebraic theory of categories, considering it as a new foundation for all mathematics.

Many mathematical theories arise through the combination, the synthesis, of several basic, or generative, structures. The needs of science (including mathematics itself) have led to Lately to the emergence of a number of new mathematical disciplines: graph theory, game theory, information theory, discrete mathematics, optimal control theory, etc.

The theories of experimental (empirical) sciences - physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, history - according to the depth of penetration into the essence of the phenomena being studied can be divided into two large classes: phenomenological and non-phenomenological.

Phenomenological (they are also called descriptive, empirical) describe the experimentally observed properties and quantities of objects and processes, but do not delve deeply into their internal mechanisms (for example, geometric optics, thermodynamics, many pedagogical, psychological and sociological theories, etc.). Such theories solve, first of all, the problem of ordering and primary generalization of the facts related to them. They are formulated in ordinary natural languages ​​using special terminology of the relevant field of knowledge and are predominantly qualitative in nature.

With the development of scientific knowledge, theories of the phenomenological type give way to non-phenomenological ones (they are also called explanatory). Along with observable empirical facts, concepts and quantities, very complex and unobservable, including very abstract concepts, are introduced here.

One of the important criteria by which theories can be classified is the accuracy of predictions. Based on this criterion, two large classes of theories can be distinguished. The first of these includes theories in which the prediction is reliable (for example, many theories of classical mechanics, classical physics and chemistry). In theories of the second class, prediction has a probabilistic character, which is determined by the cumulative action large number random factors. This kind of stochastic (from the Greek - guess) theories are found in modern physics, biology and social sciences and humanities due to the specificity and complexity of the very object of their research.

A. Einstein distinguished two main types of theories in physics - constructive and fundamental:

Most physical theories are constructive, i.e. their task is to construct a picture of complex phenomena on the basis of some relatively simple assumptions (such as, for example, the kinetic theory of gases).

basis fundamental theories are not hypothetical provisions, but empirically found general properties of phenomena, principles from which mathematically formulated criteria that have universal applicability follow (this is the theory of relativity).

V. Heisenberg believed that a scientific theory should be consistent (in the formal logical sense), have simplicity, beauty, compactness, a defined (always limited) scope of its application, integrity and “final completeness.” But the strongest argument in favor of the correctness of the theory is its “multiple experimental confirmation.”

The theories of social sciences and humanities have a specific structure. Thus, in modern sociology, since the work of the great American sociologist Robert Merton (i.e., from the beginning of the 20th century) has adopted three levels of substantive study of social phenomena and, accordingly, three types of theories.

general sociological theory ("general sociology"),

· private ("middle rank") sociological theories - special theories (sociology of gender, age, ethnicity, family, city, education, etc.)

· sectoral theories (sociology of labor, politics, culture, organization, management, etc.)

Ontologically, all sociological theories are divided into three main types:

1) theories of social dynamics (or theories of social evolution, development);

2) theories of social action;

3) theories of social interaction.

The theory (regardless of its type) has the main features:

1. Theory is not individual, reliable scientific propositions, but their totality, an integral organic developing system. The unification of knowledge into a theory is carried out primarily by the subject of research itself, by its laws.

2. Not every set of provisions about the subject being studied is a theory. To turn into a theory, knowledge must reach a certain degree of maturity in its development. Namely, when it not only describes a certain set of facts, but also explains them, i.e. when knowledge reveals the causes and patterns of phenomena.

3. For a theory, justification and proof of the provisions included in it are mandatory: if there is no justification, there is no theory.

4. Theoretical knowledge should strive to explain the widest possible range of phenomena, to continuously deepen knowledge about them.

5. The nature of the theory determines the degree of validity of its defining principle, reflecting the fundamental regularity of a given subject.

6. The structure of scientific theories is meaningfully “determined by the systemic organization of idealized (abstract) objects (theoretical constructs). Statements of theoretical language are directly formulated in relation to theoretical constructs and only indirectly, thanks to their relationship to extralinguistic reality, describe this reality.”

7. Theory is not only ready-made, established knowledge, but also the process of obtaining it, therefore it is not a “bare result”, but must be considered together with its emergence and development.

The main functions of the theory include the following:

1. Synthetic function - combining individual reliable knowledge into a single, holistic system.

2. Explanatory function - identifying causal and other dependencies, the variety of connections of a given phenomenon, its essential characteristics, the laws of its origin and development, etc.

3. Methodological function - on the basis of theory, various methods, methods and techniques of research activity are formulated.

4. Predictive - the function of foresight. Based on theoretical ideas about the “present” state of known phenomena, conclusions are drawn about the existence of previously unknown facts, objects or their properties, connections between phenomena, etc. Prediction about the future state of phenomena (as opposed to those that exist but have not yet been identified) is called scientific foresight.

5. Practical function. The ultimate purpose of any theory is to be translated into practice, to be a “guide to action” for changing reality. Therefore, it is quite fair to say that there is nothing more practical than good theory.

How to choose a good one from many competing theories?

K. Popper introduced the "criterion of relative acceptability." The best theory is the one that:

a) communicates the greatest amount of information, i.e. has deeper content;

b) is logically more strict;

c) has greater explanatory and predictive power;

D) can be more accurately verified by comparing predicted facts with observations.

Term "theory" is used quite widely. So, sometimes theory is called mental activity in general. Often a theory is meant to mean something that is actually a hypothesis. For example, Oparin’s theory of the origin of life and other theories on this subject are hypotheses, and not theories in the proper sense of the word. Often a theory is a concept, a set of views or opinions of an individual, or a point of view on a certain issue, in particular, Lysenko’s theory, “theory of violence,” “racial theory,” etc.

In the philosophy of science, a theory is a system of objective knowledge. The scientific definition of a theory is as follows: theory is a qualitatively unique form of scientific knowledge, existing as a certain system of logically interconnected proposals that reflect essential, i.e., natural, general and necessary internal connections of a particular subject area.

From the point of view of scientific methodology, theory should be understood as true knowledge presented in the form of a system. What is theory as a system of knowledge?

Like any system, theory is characterized by a certain composition, i.e., a set of elements that determine its ideological content, and structure or structure , i.e., a set of relationships and connections between its elements. The composition or content of the theory includes: basic and special concepts, principles and laws, ideas, language, mathematical apparatus, logical means . They constitute the epistemological structure of the theory.

All these elements of the content of the theory are not arranged in an arbitrary order or purely externally(as in the dictionary), and represent serial system connections in which concepts and statements are connected by the laws of logic so that from one sentence, using the laws and rules of logic, other sentences can be deduced. This is the logical structure of the theory . It does not follow from the subject area, but from logical laws.

In accordance with the logical structure, three types of theories are distinguished: 1) axiomatic, 2) genetic, 3) hypothetico-deductive.

Axiomatic theory is constructed as follows: the initial proposals are accepted without proof, and all others are deductively derived from them.

Genetic theory arises from the need to substantiate the initial proposals, therefore they indicate ways to obtain these proposals, which, as a rule, are seen in induction.

Hypothetico-deductive theory is constructed from a hypothetically put forward general proposition from which all other propositions are deductively derived.

Let us dwell in more detail on the epistemological structure of the theory.

The main and most important, as well as the initial element of the epistemological structure of the theory, is the principle that organically connects other elements of the theory into a single whole, into a coherent system.

Under the principle(from Latin principium - beginning, basis) in the theory of knowledge they understand the fundamental principle, the starting point of any concept, that which underlies a certain body of knowledge.

In a scientific theory, the principle constitutes its fundamental basis, around which all its concepts, judgments, laws, etc. are synthesized, revealing, justifying and developing this principle. Thus, the theory of materialist dialectics is based on the principle of development. All its laws and categories are subject to the disclosure of the essence of development, its manifestation in all areas of reality, at different levels, in different conditions. Therefore, while there is no synthesizing principle, there is no theory.

This position is well illustrated by the history of the formation of classical mechanics. Galileo also managed to formulate a number of laws related to classical mechanics, including the law of inertia. However, he failed to create a logically coherent, unified theory. There was only a simple sum of disparate provisions, not united by a single synthesizing principle, a single principle. It was later I. Newton who succeeded in completing the formation of the theory of classical mechanics, who took the law of inertia as the main one and united around it all the concepts, laws and other principles of mechanics (dynamics, statics, kinematics, Kepler’s laws, etc.)

When a contradiction arose between classical mechanics and the data obtained as a result of the study of electromagnetic phenomena by Maxwell, Lorentz and Hertz, Einstein took up the solution to the problem. He wrote: “Gradually I began to despair of the possibility of getting to the bottom of the true laws through constructive generalizations of well-known facts. The more and more desperately I tried, the more I came to the conclusion that only the discovery of a general formal principle could lead us to reliable results.” Einstein was able to discover this principle only after ten years of reflection. This is the principle of relativity.

From the examples it is clear that the principle is not given ready-made at the beginning of the formation of the theory. This is preceded by a long process of studying the phenomena of the corresponding area of ​​reality covered by the theory being created. The formation of a theory essentially occurs after the principle has been found.

Typically, when creating a theory, a number of principles are used that differ in the degree of generality. But at the same time they must be compatible with each other and satisfy two conditions: first , they should not be in formal-logical contradiction with each other, and second, the principle of a lesser degree of generality must specify the principle of a greater degree of generality. The latter, as a rule, represents philosophical positions. Such principles include the principle of development, the principle of interconnection, and the principle of world unity. Philosophical principles play a very important guiding, methodological role in the creation of any scientific theory.

The value of a principle is determined by the degree of its development and truth. It is clear that a scientific theory cannot be built on the basis of false, unscientific or anti-scientific principles. Theologians also create their theories, but on the basis of false principles, and therefore their theories are not scientific.

In its synthesizing role, the principle resembles the idea discussed above. These concepts are quite close in their meaning and content, but still not identical. The idea is put forward before the hypothesis as abstract theoretical knowledge of the essence of the object of study in the most general approximation. The principle is already concrete theoretical knowledge that underlies a certain body of knowledge, thanks to which a knowledge system arises.

Laws occupy an important place in the epistemological structure of the theory. Law is a reflection of significant, stable, repeating and necessary connections between the phenomena studied by this theory. The theory, as a rule, includes several laws of varying degrees of generality. The core of the theory is one or several laws that are relatively independent from each other and have equal rights. They are the most general and cannot be derived from other laws of this theory.

The second group of laws of this theory consists of those that are deducible from the first group, but in their action retain relative independence in relation to each other. The third group of laws includes those that can be derived from the second group, etc., until the consequences of these laws that characterize a specific phenomenon are obtained. Consequences make it possible to discover new properties, aspects of these phenomena, as well as to discover previously unknown phenomena. Thus, Mendeleev discovered a number of elements purely theoretically, thanks to consequences from the periodic law.

The principle of the theory and the laws that reveal it, located at the top step of the hierarchical ladder discussed above, form the core of a scientific theory, its main essence.

The problem of recognizing the objective nature of laws is key in the methodology of science. Materialism recognizes the objective nature of the laws of science; objective idealism considers laws to be an expression of the world mind, embodied in nature and society. This is, in particular, Hegel’s position. In a more general form, we can say that objective idealism understands laws as a certain metaphysical, i.e., above natural essence, standing on the other side of phenomena.

Subjective idealism, represented by J. Berkeley, did not recognize the existence of any general concepts, especially objective laws. A more sophisticated position is taken by neopositivists. For them, a sign of a law is the repeatability or regularity of phenomena detected in systematic observations. Thus, R. Carnap believes that “the laws of science are nothing more than statements that express these regularities as accurately as possible. If a certain regularity is observed at all times and in all places without exception, then it appears in the form of a universal law."

If regularities are established by comparing observations, then, Carnap believes, we get empirical laws . They do not have the certainty of logical and mathematical laws, but they tell us something about the structure of the world. The laws of logic and mathematics tell us nothing about what would distinguish the actual world from some other possible world. Carnap argues that empirical laws are laws that can be confirmed directly by empirical observations.

Unlike them theoretical laws are not observable quantities. They are laws about objects such as molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, electromagnetic fields and other unobservable objects that cannot be measured in a simple direct way. Theoretical laws are more general than empirical ones, but they are not formed by generalizing empirical ones. Theoretical laws, according to neopositivism, are formed by the subject of knowledge, the scientist. They are confirmed indirectly through empirical laws derived from the theory, which includes these theoretical laws.

Thus, we can draw conclusions:

1) neopositivism does not consider the law to be a reflection of essence, but only a fixation of repetition;

2) empirical laws do not go beyond sensory experience and do not reach an abstract level;

3) theoretical laws are subjective in nature and the results of the constructive activity of a scientist.

If neopositivism in its interpretation recognizes the existence of empirical laws, then the previous form of positivism - empirio-criticism or Machism - considers law as a description of events in terms of law. Mach argued that science should ask not “why?”, “how?” Carnap explains this position by saying that earlier philosophers believed that describing how the world works was insufficient. They wanted a more complete understanding of the essence by finding metaphysical reasons behind phenomena and unattainable scientific method. To this the physicists, supporters of Machism, replied: “Don’t ask us “why?” There is no answer other than that given by empirical laws." Empiriocritics believed that the question “why?” touches on metaphysical aspects, and they are not the field of science. In this formulation, science was denied the right to penetrate into the essence of things. This means that positivism and neopositivism take the position of agnosticism.

Concepts– also an epistemological element of the theory. A concept is a form of thinking and a form of expression scientific knowledge, which records the most general, essential properties of objects, phenomena of reality, their most important connections and relationships. In scientific concepts, all our knowledge about the essential properties of objects and phenomena is accumulated, the most important connections and patterns are reflected and consolidated. We can say that all the basic scientific data that make up the content of the theory are concentrated in scientific concepts expressed in the corresponding laws.

Concepts as forms of thinking are of the following types: ordinary language, special scientific concepts, general scientific and philosophical concepts and categories, characterized by the greatest degree of generality. The last three special scientific, general scientific and philosophical, are not only forms of thinking, but also forms of the theoretical level of knowledge as part of scientific theory.

Scientific picture of the world

It can be defined as a concept that expresses the evolution of everyday, scientific and philosophical ideas about nature, society, man and his knowledge, depending on specific historical methods and forms cognitive activity and social practice in general. NCM develops as an understanding of the images of the world that underlie human life, culture and practice; simplifies, schematizes and interprets reality as any cognitive image, at the same time isolating essential, basic connections from the infinite variety of relationships.

The difficulties of analyzing NCM as a value-ideological form of knowledge are largely associated with the fact that it exists in science mainly implicitly in texts and subtexts, in various unsystematized statements of scientists about the premises of the theory, and special methodological efforts are needed to identify it. NCM became the subject of special reflection in philosophical and scientific research in the second half of the 20th century; it is not always recognized as having the right to be an independent unit of knowledge; it is accepted as a metaphor, a certain auxiliary illustrated image, etc. A meaningful logical-epistemological analysis reveals that everything The three terms included in the concept of NCM - “world”, “picture”, “scientific” - are very polysemantic and carry a significant philosophical and ideological load. IN modern literature it is realized that, although the term “world” is completely legitimate, its correct use involves clarifying this term and taking into account the fact that the concept of “world” does not exist outside the framework of certain philosophical and scientific ideas and concepts, that with their change the subject-semantic meaning and the methodological role of this concept also changes. “World” is an evolving concept that captures the evolution of scientific and philosophical ideas about nature, society and knowledge, changing its scope and content depending on specific historical methods and forms scientific activity and social practice in general.

Another component of the concept of NCM is “picture”. It is this term that is often taken literally for a long time kept ideas about NCM at an intuitive level, gave this concept a metaphorical meaning, and emphasized its sensory-visual nature. Obviously, the term “picture” is a tribute to early ideas about the synthesis of knowledge as a visual colorful picture of nature, into which each science adds colors and details.

In the 20th century, M. Heidegger, reflecting on the picture of the world, posed questions to himself: “...why, when interpreting a certain historical era, do we ask about the picture of the world? Does each era of history have its own picture of the world, and in such a way that each time it is concerned with constructing its own picture of the world? Or is it just the new European way of representing that asks the question of the picture of the world? What is a picture of the world? Apparently a picture of the world. But what is called the world here? What does the picture mean? The world appears here as a designation of existence as a whole. This name is not limited to space, nature. History also belongs to the world. And yet, even nature, history, and both together in their latent and aggressive interpenetration do not exhaust the world. This word also means the basis of the world, regardless of how its relationship to the world is conceived” (Heidegger M. Time of the Picture of the World // He. Time and Being. Articles and Speeches. M., 1993. P. 49).

For Heidegger, the “world” acts “as a designation of existence as a whole”; it is not limited to space and nature; history also belongs to the world. The picture of the world is not something copied, but something that a person aims at as “set before himself”; it is not a picture of the world, but “the world understood in the sense of such a picture”; It is not the picture that transforms from medieval to modern European, but the world, and beings becoming represented by beings. By composing such a picture for himself, a person brings himself onto the stage. This means that the transformation of the world into a picture is the same process as the transformation of a person into a subject as a thinking-representing being, possessing a “new freedom” and independently deciding what can be considered reliable and true. The more aggressively the subject behaves, the more irresistibly the science of the world turns into the science of man, anthropology, and therefore only where the world becomes a picture, “humanism rises for the first time,” existence as a whole is interpreted and assessed by man, which has come to be denoted by the word “worldview.” "

In modern knowledge, other terms are increasingly being used instead of “picture”: model, integral image, ontological scheme, picture of reality. These concepts, along with ideas about nature, its causality and patterns, space and time, increasingly include ideas about man, his activity, cognition, social organization environment. This fact reflects two significant trends in the development of NCM as a form of knowledge. Firstly, the methods of synthesizing and integrating scientific knowledge are changing, a transition is taking place from NCM as an image, model, visual picture to NCM as a special complex structured logical form of scientific knowledge, representing the world in its integrity. The first modification of the concept - “pictoriality” is presented mainly in everyday consciousness and in the early stages of the development of science, the second - “modelling”, “integrality” - in more developed, especially in modern, science. Secondly, in historically changing NCMs, the “visibility function” was performed not only by images, models, but also by certain rather abstract constructions. It is known that Descartes’ picture of the world already lost its colors and became monochromatic, and as a result of Newton’s work it became a drawing, a graph, a diagram of quantitative relationships between phenomena, unambiguously reflecting reality, which was, in principle, a huge step forward. What is happening is not a loss of visibility, but a change in the very nature of visibility and a change in objects that perform this function; in particular, objects that have operational clarity receive the status of visual, since they began to denote a certain, fixed development of the conceptual apparatus, the relationship of principles, and methodological stereotypes.

Today, NCM is understood as one of the foundations of scientific research, a picture of the reality under study, presented in a special form of systematization of knowledge, which allows us to identify and interpret the subject of science, its facts and theoretical schemes, new research problems and ways to solve them. It is through NCM that fundamental ideas and principles are transferred from one science to another; it begins to play an increasingly important role, and not so much as a model of the world or its image, but as a synthesizing logical form of knowledge, which is more of a theoretical concept than a picture of the world in in the literal sense of the word. Thus, the most studied physical picture of the world characterizes the subject physical research through the following ideas: about fundamental physical objects, about the typology of objects studied in physics, about the general features of the interaction of objects (causality and patterns physical processes), about the spatiotemporal characteristics of the physical world. A change in these ideas due to changes in practice and knowledge leads to a restructuring and change of physical NCMs. Three historical types are known: mechanical, electrodynamic and quantum-relativistic pictures of the world. The construction of the latter is not yet completed. In the case when special pictures are included in the content of the general scientific picture of the world, this happens on the basis of philosophical ideas and principles and in close connection with the foundations of the theories of these sciences and the empirical layer of knowledge. It is important to note that one of the procedures for substantiating theoretical schemes is to correlate them with the picture of the world, due to which they are objectified, as well as the interpretation of equations expressing theoretical laws. The construction of a theory, in turn, clarifies the picture of the world. In general, NCM performs several theoretical and methodological functions, combining knowledge into a single whole, objectifying scientific knowledge and incorporating it into culture, and finally, methodologically determining the paths and directions of the research process.

Variability of interpretations of facts

An important issue that requires special attention is the problem of multiple interpretations of facts. This is understandable from the point of view of the incompleteness of scientific knowledge. Interpretation acts as one of key points scientific knowledge, since it represents the relationship between a certain amount of scientific knowledge and areas of objective reality.

There are two most important types of interpretation in science: semantic and empirical. Empirical interpretation means attributing (identifying, identifying) certain empirical meanings to the terms of a theory, while semantic interpretation means attributing not necessarily empirical meanings to terms.

A distinction is made between a scientific theory and its interpretation, in particular, an empirical one. This distinction is necessary because the same theory can have several empirical interpretations, for which it receives experimental confirmation.

At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that what is tested, confirmed or refuted by experience is always not the theory itself, but a certain system: the theory and its specific empirical interpretation. This means the fact that theory has a relatively independent and independent existence in relation to the world of experience, is not completely reducible to the latter, and has its own design rules and logic of functional development.

Topic 7. Theory and hypothesis as the highest forms of scientific thinking.(4 hours)

1. Theory as a logical form: complexity and consistency. Structural elements theories and their relationships. Object and subject of theory. Types and types of scientific theories.

2. Verification, justification and truth of theories. Variety of functions of the theory. The main functions of the theory: description, explanation and prediction (forecasting).

3. The logical structure of the explanation and the conditions for its adequacy. Variety of types of scientific explanations. Deductive-nomological explanation. Probabilistic explanation. Explanation as a demonstration of possibility - necessity. The relationship between understanding and explanation. Understanding as interpretation. Logical structure of prediction. The role of prediction in the development of scientific knowledge.

4. The problem of consistency and completeness of scientific theories. The logical nature of paradoxes and their role in the development of theories.

5. Hypothesis as a form of thought. Types of hypotheses. Induction, deduction and analogy as methods for constructing hypotheses. Heuristic role of hypotheses.

Logic studies not only forms of thinking (logical forms), but also forms and patterns of development of scientific knowledge. The forms of development of scientific knowledge are (1) facts of science, (2) a scientific problem arising from the need for explanation scientific facts, (3) a hypothesis containing the initial solution to a scientific problem, (4) confirmation or refutation of the hypothesis during the proof, and finally, (5) a theory containing principles and laws. There is a deep internal connection between all these forms. Each subsequent form includes the most important results of the previous one.

Theory is considered the basic unit of scientific knowledge. The term “theory” comes from the Greek Jewria, more precisely Jewrew (theoría, more precisely from theoréo - I consider, I examine). In a broad sense, theory is a complex of views, ideas, ideas aimed at interpreting and explaining any fragment of the world. In a narrower (i.e. in such a sphere of culture as science) and special sense, theory– the highest, most developed form of organization of scientific knowledge, containing a finite set of interrelated concepts and statements, and giving a holistic view and explanation of the natural relationships of a certain area of ​​reality; the latter forms the subject of this theory.

Taken as a specific form of scientific knowledge and in comparison with its other forms (hypothesis, law, etc.), theory acts as the most complex and developed form. As such, theory should be distinguished from other forms of scientific knowledge - laws of science, classifications, typologies, primary explanatory schemes, etc. These forms can genetically precede the theory itself, forming the basis for its formation and development; on the other hand, they often coexist with theory, interacting with it in the course of the forward movement of scientific knowledge, and can even be included in the theory as its elements (theoretical laws, typologies based on theory, etc.).

Along with concepts and judgments, theory is one of the logical forms of mental reproduction of reality in thinking. At the same time, unlike the former, scientific theory is not an elementary form of thought. From a logical point of view, theory is in a certain way organized system statements that meet a number of logical requirements.

These requirements are as follows:

1) theoretical statements must record the essential connections (laws), properties and relationships of the reflected (displayed) area of ​​reality;

2) each proposal of the theory must affirm or deny something regarding the fragment of the world under consideration, that is, it must have a logical form of statement;

3) propositions included in the theory must be elements of logical inference (as a rule, deductive [reduction should also be considered as a type of deductive inference]);

4) statements of the theory can take a truth value from a fixed set of such values ​​from 1 to k (for example, in two-valued logic k = 2, i.e. 1 is true, 0 is false).

Systematicity of the theory lies in the fact that the logical connections between the statements of the theory are located in a certain order, which is determined by the nature of the logical conclusion through which these statements were obtained. The logical conclusion itself is subject to certain rules (= logical laws and rules, for example, Locke's rule or modus ponens). Thus, each statement of the theory at least once acts as a premise or conclusion within the framework of some type of deductive reasoning. The exception is the initial sentences of the theory (axioms, initial definitions, postulates), which, being elements of a theoretical system, act only as premises, and some sets of descriptive sentences, which always act as conclusions (“final consequences”). In this case, the statements of the theory must necessarily contain basic and/or derivative terms of the own language of science, which ensures their correlation with the objects and objective subject area of ​​this science.

Complexity same theories is determined by the product of the number of elements included in it (postulates and axioms, empirical statements, facts, laws, etc.), which forms the quantitative aspect of the complexity of scientific theories, and the variety of their qualitative characteristics (empirical and theoretical statements, initial statements and consequences, and etc.).

In its structure, a theory is an internally differentiated, simultaneously holistic system of knowledge, which is characterized by the logical dependence of some elements on others, the deducibility of the content of a given theory from a certain set of initial statements and concepts (the basis of the theory) according to certain logical and methodological principles and rules.

First of all, it should be pointed out that a theory, with a number of exceptions (for example, some mathematical theories), is based on a certain set of facts established using empirical methods. Such a set of statements, which are facts, is called empirical basis theories. Strictly speaking, the empirical basis is not included in the structure of the theory.

IN structure theories include concepts and statements that are interconnected in a certain way (the logic of the theory).

I. Theory concepts are divided into two main types:

1) concepts reflecting the main classes of objects considered in the theory (absolute and relative space, absolute and relative time, etc. in mechanics);

2) concepts in which the main characteristics of the phenomena being studied are highlighted and generalized (for example, mass, momentum, speed, etc.).

Operating with these concepts, a scientist can construct an object of research, which will be expressed in a derived concept. Thus, in quantum theory, a certain quantum object can be represented in the case of a collection of n particles in the form of a y-wave in N-dimensional space, the properties of which are associated with the quantum of action.

II. Based on the concepts, theories are formulated theoretical statements, among which four types should be distinguished:

1) statements containing initial provisions, which are called postulates, axioms or principles of a given theory (for example, the axioms of Euclid’s geometry, the principle of constancy of the speed of light of the theory of relativity, etc.)

2) statements containing formulations of the laws of this theory (laws of physics [Newton’s second law], biology [law of the unity of phylogeny and ontogenesis], logic [law of sufficient reasons], etc.);

3) a set of statements derived in the theory with their evidence, constituting the main body of theoretical knowledge (for example, consequences of the theory of relativity);

4) statements (also called correspondence sentences), which express connections between empirical and theoretical terms (“Electric current is the movement of a flow of electrically charged particles”); with the help of such proposals, the essential side of the observed phenomena is revealed. From the point of view of the logical classification of definitions (definitions), correspondence sentences represent real definitions (attributive, genetic, operational), the main function of which is to explain these phenomena.

Considering the relationship between theory and its empirical basis, one should distinguish between the modality of theoretical and empirical statements. The former are distinguished by their necessary character, while the latter are distinguished by their actual character.

III. Logic theory– a set of rules of logical inference and proof acceptable within the framework of the theory. The logic of a theory determines the mechanism of its construction, the internal development of theoretical content, and embodies a certain research program. As a consequence, the integrity of the theory as a unified system of knowledge is generated.

Mature science is distinguished by a variety of types and types of theories.

First of all, it is necessary to distinguish between two types of theories, distinguished based on the relationship between form and content:

1) formal theories are characterized by the absence of any interpretations of the terms included in the formulation of the axioms (the formal theory of Euclidean geometry, built by Hilbert); as a consequence, these axioms themselves are not meaningfully interpreted; such theories are a consequence of extreme generalizations;

The types of theories are as follows.

First, theories distinguish by subject, i.e., according to the nature of the fragment of the world or aspect of reality they reflect (= the nature of the objects under consideration). In this aspect, the fundamental dichotomy of the world specifies two types of theories:

1) theories that reflect fragments and/or aspects of real reality - material existence (such theories constitute the basic knowledge of specific sciences), for example, Newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, social and humanitarian theories, etc.;

2) theories that display fragments and/or aspects of ideal existence (in some cases we're talking about about unobservable phenomena, such theories are characteristic of abstract sciences), for example, the theory natural numbers in mathematics or the theory of natural inference in logic, etc.

Secondly, theories are divided into types by the way they are built:

1) axiomatic theories have the clearest and most formalized structure - the system-forming part (core) of these theories is a set of axioms (statements that are postulated as true) and a number of initial concepts that are necessary for a clear and precise formulation of the axioms; As a rule, axioms are justified outside the theory itself, for example, in practical activities(Euclidean geometry); another important part of axiomatic theories is a set of derivatives (derived) from the axioms of statements of a given theory;

2) hypothetico-deductive theories do not provide a clear division of statements into initial and derivative ones; as a rule, they highlight some initial provisions, but these provisions are substantiated within the theory itself.

Third, according to the degree of correlation with reality There are theories:

1) fundamental, in which the core of the development of the entire theoretical system is an idealized object (material point in mechanics, absolutely elastic material points in molecular kinetic theory, etc.); as a consequence, the laws formulated within the framework of such theories do not relate to empirically given reality, but to reality as it is given by an idealized object, and are theoretical laws that, unlike empirical laws, are not formulated directly on the basis of the study of experimental data, but through certain mental actions with an idealized object;

2) applied, in which the fundamental provisions contained in fundamental theories must be appropriately specified (applied) when applied to the study of real reality, as well as its transformations (compare: ideal gas or computer and real gas or computer).

Fourthly, by function theories are divided into:

1) descriptive (phenomenological or empirical), solving mainly the problems of describing and organizing extensive empirical material, while the construction of an idealized object actually comes down to isolating the original system of concepts (Copernican theory);

2) explanatory ones, in which the problem of isolating the essence of the considered area of ​​reality is solved (Newtonian mechanics in relation to the Copernican theory).

Testing, justification and truth of theories. Variety of functions of the theory. The main functions of the theory: description, explanation and prediction (forecasting)

The most important logical characteristics of a theory are the validity and truth of the theory. A theory acts as real knowledge only when it receives an empirical interpretation . Empirical interpretation contributes to the experimental testing of a theory and the identification of its explanatory and predictive capabilities.

Testing the theory– a complex and multi-stage process. Testing a theory is not limited to its confirmation by individual empirical facts. At the same time, the contradiction between the theory and individual facts is not its refutation; but at the same time, such a contradiction serves as a powerful incentive to improve the theory up to the revision and clarification of its initial principles.

The truth of the theory– this is the correspondence of its constituent statements to the displayed area of ​​the world. The final criterion for the truth of a theory, as in the case of individual judgments, is the practical activity of people, including such a form as experiment. However, we cannot talk about the absoluteness of this criterion. That is, the relativity of practice as a criterion of truth is determined by three factors: (1) the practice itself is limited; (2) practice can confirm individual false statements of the theory, or, conversely, confirm individual consequences of false theories (for example, this was the case with the “theories” of phlogiston and caloric); (3) practice provides only confirmation of the theory, but does not prove the truth of the statements of the theory. Thus, here we are talking about practical reliability [ à ] judgments of theory, about probability [ P] their truth.

The source of logical necessity [ L] the truth of a theory is its consistency, which is expressed in logical consistency and mutual consistency (coherence) of the concepts and statements of a given theory.

However, even if a theory has all the above characteristics, this does not mean that it is accurate. The history of science is a constant replacement of some theories by others. This means that not a single theory known from the history of science, even despite the statements of its creators, represents a complete logical system.

To the number main functions theories include the following:

1) descriptive - recording a set of data about the essential properties and relationships of objects, processes of reality;

2) synthetic – combining diverse elements of reliable scientific knowledge into a single and holistic system;

3) explanatory - identifying causal and other dependencies, the variety of connections of a given fragment of reality, its essential properties and relationships, the laws of its origin and development, etc.;

4) methodological – identification of various methods and techniques of research activity;

5) predictive - an indication of new properties and relationships of the object under study, new levels of organization of the world and new types and classes of objects (for reference: a prediction about the future state of objects, in contrast to those that exist but have not yet been identified, is called scientific foresight) ;

6) practical - establishing the possibility and determining ways of applying the acquired knowledge in various spheres of social life (Austrian physicist L. Boltzmann: “There is nothing more practical than a good theory”).

Any theory is an integral developing system of true knowledge (including elements of error), which has a complex structure and performs a number of functions. In modern scientific methodology, the following are distinguished: main components, elements theories: 1. Initial foundations - fundamental concepts, principles, laws, equations, axioms, etc. 2. Idealized objects - abstract models of essential properties and connections of the objects being studied (for example, “absolutely black body”, “ideal gas” and etc.). 3. The logic of the theory is a set of certain rules and methods of proof aimed at clarifying the structure and changing knowledge. 4. Philosophical attitudes and value factors. 5. A set of laws and statements derived as consequences from the principles of a given theory in accordance with specific principles.

For example, in physical theories two main parts can be distinguished: formal calculus (mathematical equations, logical symbols, rules, etc.) and meaningful interpretation (categories, laws, principles). The unity of the substantive and formal aspects of the theory is one of the sources of its improvement and development.

A methodologically important role in the formation of theory is played by abstract, idealized object(“ideal type”), the construction of which is a necessary stage in the creation of any theory, carried out in specific different areas knowledge forms. This object acts not only as a mental model of a certain fragment of reality, but also contains a specific research program that is implemented in the construction of a theory.

B.C. Stepin considers it necessary to highlight in the structure of the theory as its basis a special organization of abstract objects - a fundamental theoretical scheme associated with the corresponding mathematical formalism. In the content of the developed theory, in addition to its fundamental scheme, the author identifies another layer of organization of abstract objects - the level of particular theoretical schemes. The fundamental theoretical scheme, together with its derivatives, is presented as “ internal skeleton theoretical knowledge." The problem of the genesis of theoretical schemes is called the fundamental problem of the methodology of science. It is noted that in the theory there is no linear chain of abstract objects, but there is a complex multi-level hierarchical system of them.

Speaking about the goals and paths of theoretical research in general, A. Einstein noted that “theory pursues two goals: 1. To cover, if possible, all phenomena in their interrelation (completeness). 2. To achieve this by taking as a basis as few logically mutually related logical concepts and arbitrarily established relationships between them (basic laws and axioms). I will call this goal “logical uniqueness.”

The variety of forms of idealization and, accordingly, types of idealized objects corresponds to I am the variety of types (types) of theories, which can be classified on different grounds (criteria). Depending on this, theories can be distinguished: descriptive, mathematical, deductive and inductive, fundamental and applied, formal and substantive, “open” and “closed”, explanatory and descriptive (phenomenological), physical, chemical, sociological, psychological, etc. d.

So, mathematical theories characterized by a high degree of abstraction. Deduction is of decisive importance in all constructions of mathematics. The dominant role in the construction of mathematical theories is played by axiomatic and hypothetico-deductive methods, as well as formalization. Many mathematical theories arise through the combination, the synthesis, of several basic or generative abstract structures.

Theories of experimental (empirical) sciences- physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, history, etc. - according to the depth of penetration into the essence of the phenomena being studied, they can be divided into two large classes: phenomenological and non-phenomenological.

Phenomenological (them. also called empirical) describe the experimentally observed properties and quantities of objects and processes, but do not delve deeply into their internal mechanisms (for example, geometric optics, thermodynamics, many pedagogical, psychological and sociological theories, etc.). Such theories do not analyze the nature of the phenomena under study and therefore do not use any complex abstract objects, although, of course, to a certain extent they schematize and construct some idealizations of the studied area of ​​phenomena.

Phenomenological theories solve, first of all, the problem of ordering and primary generalization of the facts related to them. They are formulated in ordinary natural languages ​​using special terminology of the relevant field of knowledge and are predominantly qualitative in nature. Researchers encounter phenomenological theories, as a rule, at the first stages of the development of any science, when the accumulation, systematization and generalization of factual empirical material occurs. Such theories are a completely natural phenomenon in the process of scientific knowledge.

With the development of scientific knowledge, theories of the phenomenological type give way to non-phenomenological ones.(they are also called explanatory). They not only reflect the essential connections between phenomena and their properties, but also reveal the deep internal mechanism of the phenomena and processes being studied, their necessary interrelations, essential relationships, i.e. their laws.

But these are no longer empirical, but theoretical laws, which are formulated not directly on the basis of the study of experimental data, but through certain mental actions with abstract, idealized objects. “At the basis of an established theory one can always find a mutually consistent network of abstract objects that determines the specificity of this theory.”

One of the important criteria by which theories can be classified is the accuracy of predictions. Based on this criterion, two large classes of theories can be distinguished. The first of these includes theories in which the prediction is reliable (for example, many theories of classical mechanics, classical physics and chemistry). In theories of the second class, prediction is probabilistic in nature, which is determined by the combined action of a large number of random factors. This kind of stochastic (from the Greek - guess) theories are found not only in modern physics, but also in large numbers in biology and the social and human sciences due to the specificity and complexity of the very objects of their research.

A. Einstein distinguished two main types of theories in physics - constructive and fundamental. Most physical theories, in his opinion, are constructive, that is, their task is to construct a picture of complex phenomena based on some relatively simple assumptions (such as, for example, the kinetic theory of gases). The starting point and basis of fundamental theories are not hypothetical provisions, but empirically found general properties of phenomena, principles from which mathematically formulated criteria that have universal applicability follow (this is the theory of relativity). Fundamental theories use not a synthetic, but an analytical method. Einstein considered the advantages of constructive theories to be their completeness, flexibility and clarity. He considered the advantages of fundamental theories to be their logical perfection and the reliability of their starting points 1 .

Despite the fact that no matter what type of theory it is, no matter what methods it is constructed, “the most essential requirement for any scientific theory always remains unchanged - the theory must correspond to the facts... Ultimately, only experience will make a decisive verdict” 2, - sums up the great thinker.

In this conclusion, it is not at all accidental that Einstein uses the expression “ultimately.” The fact is that, as he himself explained, in the process of the development of science, our theories become more and more abstract, their connection with experience (facts, observations, experiments) becomes more and more complex and indirect, and the path from theory to observations becomes longer , thinner and more complex. In order to realize our constant ultimate goal - “a better and better understanding of reality”, we must clearly understand the following objective circumstance. Namely, that “new links are added to the logical chain connecting theory and observation. In order to clear the path leading from theory to experiment from unnecessary and artificial assumptions, in order to cover an increasingly vast area of ​​facts, we must make the chain ever longer and longer. longer." At the same time, Einstein adds, the simpler and more fundamental our assumptions become, the more complex the mathematical tool of our reasoning.

V. Heisenberg believed that a scientific theory should be consistent (in the formal mathematical sense), have simplicity, beauty, compactness, a specific (always limited) scope of its application, integrity and “final completeness.” But the strongest argument in favor of the correctness of the theory is its “multiple experimental confirmation.” “The decision about the correctness of a theory thus turns out to be a lengthy one. historical process, behind which stands not the proof of a chain of mathematical conclusions, but the persuasiveness historical fact. A complete theory, one way or another, is never an exact reflection of nature in the corresponding area; it is a kind of idealization of experience, carried out with the help of the conceptual foundations of the theory and ensuring a certain success.”

They have a specific and complex structure theories of social and human sciences. Thus, based on the ideas of the American sociologist R. Merton, in modern sociology it is customary to distinguish the following levels of sociological knowledge and, accordingly, types of theories:

General sociological theory(“theoretical sociology”), which provides an abstract and generalized analysis of social reality in its integrity, essence and history of development; at this level of cognition the structure, general patterns of functioning and development are fixed social reality. At the same time, the theoretical and methodological basis of the general sociological theory is social philosophy.

Level of substantive consideration - private (“mid-rank”) sociological theories, having general sociology as their theoretical and methodological basis and providing a description and analysis of the socially special. Depending on the uniqueness of their objects of study, private theories are represented by two relatively independent classes of private theories - special and sectoral theories:

A) Special theories explore the essence, structure, general patterns of functioning and development of objects (processes, communities, institutions) of the social sphere of public life itself, understanding the latter as a relatively independent area of ​​social activity, responsible for the direct reproduction of man and personality. These are the sociologies of gender, age, ethnicity, family, city, education, etc. Each of them, exploring a special class of social phenomena, acts primarily as a general theory of this class of phenomena. In essence, noted P. A. Sorokin, these theories do the same thing as general sociology, “but in relation to a special class of sociocultural phenomena.”

b) Industry theories explore the social (in the above sense of the term) aspects of classes of phenomena belonging to other spheres of social life - economic, political, cultural. These are the sociologies of labor, politics, culture, organization, management, etc. Unlike special theories, sectoral theories are not general theories of these classes of phenomena, because they study only one aspect of their manifestation - social.

However, some sociologists believe that “the building of sociological science consists of five floors.” Others believe that Merton's scheme (general theory - middle-range theory - empirical research), having played a certain role in the development of sociology, has "exhausted its possibilities." Therefore, this scheme should not be improved, but “we must abandon it.”

Thus, a theory (regardless of its type) has the following main features: 1. Theory is not individual reliable scientific propositions, but their totality, an integral organic developing system. The unification of knowledge into a theory is carried out primarily by the subject of research itself, by its laws.

Not every set of provisions about the subject being studied is a theory. To turn into a theory, knowledge must reach a certain degree of maturity in its development. Namely, when it not only describes a certain set of facts, but also explains them, that is, when knowledge reveals the causes and patterns of phenomena.

For a theory, justification and proof of the provisions included in it are mandatory: if there is no justification, there is no theory.

Theoretical knowledge should strive to explain the widest possible range of phenomena and to continuously deepen knowledge about them.

The nature of a theory is determined by the degree of validity of its defining principle, reflecting the fundamental regularity of a given subject.

The structure of scientific theories is meaningfully “determined by the systemic organization of idealized (abstract) objects (theoretical constructs). Statements of theoretical language are directly formulated in relation to theoretical constructs and only indirectly, thanks to their relationship to extra-linguistic reality, describe this reality.”

Theory is not only ready-made, established knowledge, but also the process of obtaining it; therefore, it is not a “bare result”, but must be considered together with its emergence and development.

In modern philosophy of science (both Western and domestic), theory is no longer considered as an unchanging, “closed” static system with a rigid structure, but various models of the dynamics (growth, change, development) of knowledge are built (see Chapter IV, §1 ). In this regard, it is emphasized that with all the fruitfulness of formalization and axiomatization of theoretical knowledge, one cannot fail to take into account that the real process of constructive development of theory, oriented by the tasks of covering new empirical material, does not fit into the framework of the formal-deductive idea of ​​​​the development of theories.

However, the development of a theory is not only “the movement of thought within itself” (“ideas”), but the active processing by thought of diverse empirical material into its own internal content of theories, the concretization and enrichment of its conceptual apparatus. The image of the actual deployment (development) of theory given by Hegel - the “snowball” - has not lost its relevance to this day. That is why the most important method of constructing, developing and presenting theories is the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete.

To the number basic functions - theory The following can be included:

Synthetic function is the combination of individual reliable knowledge into a single, holistic system.

The explanatory function is the identification of causal and other dependencies, the variety of connections of a given phenomenon, its essential characteristics, the laws of its origin and development, etc.

Methodological function - on the basis of theory, various methods, methods and techniques of research activity are formulated.

Predictive - the function of foresight. Based on theoretical ideas about the “present” state of known phenomena, conclusions are drawn about the existence of previously unknown facts, objects or their properties, connections between phenomena, etc. Prediction about the future state of phenomena (as opposed to those that exist but have not yet been identified ) is called scientific foresight.

Practical function. The ultimate purpose of any theory is to be translated into practice, to be a “guide to action” for changing reality. Therefore, it is quite fair to say that there is nothing more practical than a good theory. But how do you choose a good one from many competing theories? According to K. Popper, an important role in choosing theories is played by the degree of their testability: the higher it is, the greater the chances of choosing a good and reliable theory. The so-called “relative acceptability criterion,” according to Popper, gives preference to the theory that: a) communicates the greatest amount of information, that is, has a deeper content; b) is logically more strict; h) has greater explanatory and predictive power; D) can be more accurately verified by comparing predicted facts with observations. In other words, Popper summarizes, we choose the theory that best withstands competition with other theories and, in the course of natural selection, turns out to be most suitable for survival. In the course of the development of the science of communication with new fundamental discoveries (especially during periods of scientific revolutions), fundamental changes in the understanding of the mechanism of the emergence of scientific theories occur. As A. Einstein noted, the most important methodological lesson that quantum physics taught is the rejection of a simplified understanding of the emergence theory as a simple inductive generalization of experience. A theory, he emphasized, can be inspired by experience, but is created as if from above in relation to it, and only then verified by experience. What Einstein said does not mean that he rejected the role of experience as a source of knowledge. In this regard he wrote that "purely logical thinking in itself cannot provide any knowledge about the world of facts; all knowledge of the real world comes from experience and is completed by it. Positions obtained by purely logical means do not say anything about reality" 1. However, Einstein believed that " “It is not always harmful” in science to use concepts in which they are considered independently of the empirical basis to which they owe their existence. The human mind must, in his opinion, “freely construct forms” before their actual existence is confirmed: “knowledge cannot blossom from bare empiricism.” Einstein compared the evolution of experimental science “as a continuous process of induction” with the compilation of a catalog and considered such development of science a purely empirical matter, since such an approach, from his point of view, does not cover the entire actual process of cognition as a whole. Namely, “it is silent about the important role of intuition and deductive thinking in the development of exact science. As soon as any science leaves the initial stage of its development, the progress of theory is no longer achieved simply through the process of ordering. The researcher, starting from experimental facts, tries to develop a system of concepts that, generally speaking, would be logically based on a small number of basic assumptions, the so-called axioms. We call such a system of concepts theory... For the same set of experimental facts, there may be several theories that differ significantly from each other.”

In other words, theories modern science are created not simply through inductive generalization of experience (although such a path is not excluded), but through the initial movement in the field of previously created idealized objects, which are used as a means of constructing hypothetical models of a new area of ​​interactions. The substantiation of such models by experience turns them into the core of a future theory. “It is theoretical research, based on relatively independent operation of idealized objects, that is capable of discovering new subject areas before they begin to be mastered by practice. Theorization acts as a kind of indicator of the development of science.”

The idealized object thus acts not only as a theoretical model of reality, but it implicitly contains a certain research program, which is implemented in the construction of a theory. The relationships between the elements of an idealized object, both initial and inferred, are theoretical laws, which (unlike empirical laws) are formulated not directly on the basis of the study of experimental data, but through certain mental actions with the idealized object.

It follows from this, in particular, that the laws formulated within the framework of theory and essentially relating not to empirically given reality, but to reality as it is represented by an idealized object, must be appropriately specified when applied to the study of real reality. With this circumstance in mind, A. Einstein introduced the term “physical reality” and identified two aspects of this term. Its first meaning was used by him to characterize the objective world that exists outside and independently of consciousness. "Faith in existence outside world“,” Einstein noted, “independent of the perceiving subject, lies at the basis of all natural science.”

In its second meaning, the term “physical reality” is used to consider the theorized world as a collection of idealized objects that represent the properties of the real world within the framework of a given physical theory. “The reality studied by science is nothing more than a construction of our mind, and not just a given” 2. In this regard, physical reality is defined through the language of science, and the same reality can be described using different languages.

When characterizing science, scientific knowledge as a whole, it is necessary to highlight its main task, its main function - the discovery of the laws of the area of ​​reality being studied. Without establishing the laws of reality, without expressing them in a system of concepts, there is no science, there can be no scientific theory. To paraphrase the words of a famous poet, we can say: we say science - we mean law, we say law - we mean science.

The very concept of scientificity (which was already discussed above) presupposes the discovery of laws, delving into the essence of the phenomena being studied, and determining the diverse conditions for the practical applicability of laws.

The study of the laws of reality finds its expression in the creation of a scientific theory that adequately reflects the subject area under study in the integrity of its laws and patterns. Therefore the law is key element of the theory, which is nothing more than a system of laws expressing the essence, deep connections of the object under study (and not just empirical dependencies) in all its integrity and concreteness, as a unity of the diverse.

In its most general form, a law can be defined as a connection (relationship) between phenomena and processes, which is:

a) objective, since it is inherent primarily in the real world, the sensory-objective activity of people, expresses the real relationships of things;

b) essential, concrete-universal. Being a reflection of what is essential in the movement of the universe, any law is inherent in all processes of a given class, of a certain type (type) without exception, and operates always and wherever the corresponding processes and conditions unfold;

c) necessary, because, being closely connected with the essence, the law acts and is implemented with “iron necessity” in appropriate conditions;

d) internal, since it reflects the deepest connections and dependencies of a given subject area in the unity of all its moments and relationships within the framework of some integral system;

e) repeating, stable, since “the law is solid (remaining) in the phenomenon”, “identical in the phenomenon”, their “calm reflection” (Hegel). It is an expression of a certain constancy of a certain process, the regularity of its occurrence, the uniformity of its action under similar conditions.

The stability and invariance of laws is always correlated with the specific conditions of their action, the change of which removes this invariance and gives rise to a new one, which means a change in the laws, their deepening, expansion or narrowing of the scope of their action, their modifications, etc. Any law is not something immutable , but is a concrete historical phenomenon. With changes in relevant conditions, with the development of practice and knowledge, some laws disappear from the scene, others reappear, the forms of action of laws, methods of their use, etc. change.

The most important, key task of scientific research is to “raise experience to the universal”, to find the laws of a given subject area, a certain sphere (fragment) of real reality, to express them in relevant concepts, abstractions, theories, ideas, principles, etc. The solution to this problem can to be successful if the scientist proceeds from two main premises: the reality of the world in its integrity and development and the conformity of this world with laws, i.e., the fact that it is “permeated” by a set of objective laws. The latter regulate the entire world process, provide it with a certain order, necessity, and the principle of self-propulsion and are completely knowable. The outstanding mathematician A. Poincaré rightly argued that laws as the “best expression” inner harmony the world there are basic principles, prescriptions that reflect the relationships between things. “However, are these regulations arbitrary? No; otherwise they would be sterile. Experience gives us free choice, but at the same time it guides us.”

It must be borne in mind that the thinking of people and the objective world are subject to the same laws and that therefore they must be consistent in their results with each other. The necessary correspondence between the laws of objective reality and the laws of thinking is achieved when they are properly cognized.

Understanding laws is a complex, difficult and deeply contradictory process of reflecting reality. But the cognizing subject cannot reflect the entire real world, especially at once, completely and entirely. He can only forever approach this, creating various concepts and other abstractions, formulating certain laws, applying a whole range of techniques and methods in their entirety (experiment, observation, idealization, modeling, etc.). Describing the features of the laws of science, the famous American physicist R. Feynman wrote that, in particular, “the laws of physics often do not have an obvious direct relationship to our experience, but represent its more or less abstract expression... Very often, between elementary laws and fundamental aspects of real phenomena, a distance of enormous size.”

W. Heisenberg, believing that the discovery of laws is the most important task science, noted that, firstly, when the great comprehensive laws of nature are formulated - and this became possible for the first time in Newtonian mechanics - “we are talking about the idealization of reality, and not about it itself.” Idealization arises because we explore reality with the help of concepts. Secondly, each law has a limited scope of application, outside of which it is unable to reflect phenomena, because its conceptual apparatus does not cover new phenomena (for example, all natural phenomena cannot be described in the concepts of Newtonian mechanics). Third, the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are "very general idealizations of a very wide sphere of experience and their laws will be valid in any place and at any time - but only relative to that sphere of experience in which the concepts of these theories are applicable."

Laws are first discovered in the form of assumptions and hypotheses. Further experimental material, new facts lead to the “purification of these hypotheses”, eliminating some of them, correcting others, until, finally, the law is established in its pure form. One of the most important requirements that a scientific hypothesis must satisfy is, as noted earlier, its fundamental verifiability in practice (in experience, experiment, etc.), which distinguishes a hypothesis from all kinds of speculative constructions, groundless inventions, unfounded fantasies, etc.

Since laws belong to the sphere of essence, the deepest knowledge about them is achieved not at the level of direct perception, but at the stage of theoretical research. It is here that the reduction of the random, visible only in phenomena, to actual internal movement ultimately occurs. The result of this process is the discovery of a law, or more precisely, a set of laws inherent in a given area, which in their interconnection form the “core” of a certain scientific theory.

Revealing the mechanism for discovering new laws, R. Feynman noted that “... the search for a new law is carried out as follows. First of all, they guess about him. Then they calculate the consequences of this guess and find out what this law would entail if it turns out to be true. Then the results of calculations are compared with what is observed in nature, with the results of special experiments or with our experience, and based on the results of such observations it is determined whether this is true or not. If the calculations disagree with the experimental data, then the law is incorrect.”

At the same time, Feynman draws attention to the fact that at all stages of the movement of knowledge, an important role is played by the philosophical guidelines that guide the researcher. Already at the beginning of the path to the law, it is philosophy that helps to make guesses; here it is difficult to make a final choice.

The discovery and formulation of a law is the most important, but not the last task of science, which must still show how the law it discovers makes its way. To do this, it is necessary, with the help of the law, relying on it, to explain all the phenomena of a given subject area (even those that seem to contradict it), to derive them all from the corresponding law through a number of intermediary links.

It should be borne in mind that each specific law almost never appears in its “pure form”, but always in conjunction with other laws of different levels and orders. In addition, we must not forget that although objective laws act with “iron necessity”, they themselves are by no means “iron”, but very “soft”, elastic in the sense that, depending on specific conditions, the one who wins the advantage is the one who that's a different law. The elasticity of laws (especially social ones) is also manifested in the fact that they often act as laws of tendencies, implemented in a very confusing and approximate manner, like some never firmly established average of constant fluctuations.

The conditions under which each given law is implemented can stimulate and deepen, or vice versa - “suppress” and remove its effect. Thus, any law in its implementation is always modified by specific historical circumstances, which either allow the law to gain full force, or slow down, weaken its action, expressing the law in the form of a breaking through trend. In addition, the effect of a particular law is inevitably modified by the concomitant effect of other laws.

Each law is “narrow, incomplete, approximate” (Hegel), since it has boundaries of its action, a certain sphere of its implementation (for example, the framework of a given form of movement of matter, a specific stage of development, etc.). As if echoing Hegel, R. Feynman noted that even the law of universal gravitation is not exact - “the same applies to our other laws - they are inaccurate. Somewhere on the edge there is always a mystery, there is always something to puzzle over.”

On the basis of laws, not only the explanation of phenomena of a given class (group) is carried out, but also prediction, foresight of new phenomena, events, processes, etc., possible paths, forms and trends in the cognitive and practical activities of people.

Open laws, the known patterns can - if they are skillfully and correctly applied - be used by people so that they can change nature and their own social relations. Since the laws of the external world are the basis for purposeful human activity, people must consciously be guided by the requirements arising from objective laws, as regulators of their activities. Otherwise, the latter will not become effective and efficient, but will be carried out, at best, by trial and error. Based on the known laws, people can truly scientifically control both natural and social processes and regulate them optimally.

Relying in his activities on the “kingdom of laws,” a person can at the same time, to a certain extent, influence the mechanism for implementing a particular law. It can promote its action in a purer form, create conditions for the development of the law to its qualitative completeness, or, on the contrary, restrain this action, localize it or even transform it.

Let us emphasize two important methods that cannot be missed when “working” with scientific laws. Firstly, the formulations of the latter directly relate to the system of theoretical constructs (abstract objects), i.e., they are associated with the introduction of idealized objects that simplify and schematize empirically necessary situations.

Secondly, in every science (if it is such) “ideal theoretical models (schemes) are an essential characteristic of the structure of any scientific theory,” the key element of which is the law.

The variety of types of relationships and interactions in reality serves as the objective basis of existence many forms (types) of laws, which are classified according to one or another criterion (basis). According to the forms of movement of matter, laws can be distinguished: mechanical, physical, chemical, biological, social (public); in the main spheres of reality - the laws of nature, the laws of society, the laws of thinking; according to the degree of their generality, more precisely - according to the breadth of the scope of their action - universal (dialectical), general (special), particular (specific); according to the mechanism of determination - dynamic and statistical, causal and non-causal; according to their significance and role - basic and non-basic; in terms of fundamentality - empirical (formulated directly on the basis of experimental data) and theoretical (formed through certain mental actions with idealized objects), etc.

One-sided (and therefore erroneous) interpretations of the law can be expressed as follows.

The concept of law is absolutized, simplified, fetishized. What is overlooked here is the fact (noted by Hegel) that this concept, which is certainly important in itself, is only one of the stages in man’s cognition of the unity of interdependence and integrity of the world process. The law is only one of the forms of reflection of real reality in knowledge, one of the facets, moments of the scientific picture of the world in connection with others (reason, contradiction, etc.).

The objective nature of laws and their material source are ignored. It is not real reality that must be consistent with principles and laws, but on the contrary - the latter are true only insofar as they correspond to the objective world.

The possibility of people using a system of objective laws as the basis of their activity in its diverse forms is denied - primarily in the sensory-objective one. However, ignoring the requirements of objective laws still makes itself felt sooner or later, “revenges itself” (for example, pre-crisis and crisis phenomena in society).

A theory is an internally consistent system of knowledge about a part of reality; it is the highest form of scientific knowledge. According to K. Popper, “theories are networks designed to capture what we call the “world” in order to understand, explain and master it. We strive to make the cells of these networks ever smaller.

Each theory includes the following components:

Initial empirical basis;

Many assumptions (postulates, hypotheses);

Logic - rules of logical inference;

Theoretical statements, which are basic theoretical knowledge.

There are qualitative theories that are built without mathematical apparatus (psychoanalysis by S. Freud, theory of self-actualization by A. Maslow) and formalized theories in which the main conclusions are based on mathematical analysis data (field theory by K. Lewin, theory of cognitive development by J. Piaget).
A theory is created not only to describe, but also to explain and predict reality. It is considered scientific if there is a possibility of rejecting it (recognizing it as false) in the process of empirical testing. Such verification is not carried out on the entire volume of objects under study - population, but on a part or subset of this totality, which has all its properties. This part of the population is called a sample.

The basic rules for sampling are:

2) the criterion of equivalence (criterion of internal validity), according to which the subjects must be equalized according to other (as opposed to the independent variable) characteristics;

3) the criterion of representativeness (criterion of external validity), which determines the compliance of the subjects with that part of the population to which the results of the study will then be transferred.

The theory, according to S.L. Rubinstein, “this is a circle of phenomena that develop and function according to their internal laws. Each discipline that rises to the level of science must reveal the specific laws of determination of the phenomena being studied.” The main task of any science, including psychological science, is to reveal the basic specific patterns of the phenomena being studied.
The theoretical foundation of psychological theory is the principle of determinism, i.e. the principle of causality of mental phenomena, aimed at explaining and revealing these causes. The functions of psychological theory are:

1) an explanation of the occurrence of certain phenomena (for example, anxiety), or a retro-story;

2) prediction of their occurrence;

3) detection and proof of connections between several determinants and a mental phenomenon.

The features of psychological theory are: explanation of the causality of mental phenomena, justification of the variety of factors influencing a mental phenomenon, differentiation of everyday and scientific concepts.

Implicit and Explicit Concepts

In a certain sense of the word, all people are researchers, and like true researchers, they strive to construct their own system of ideas about a part of reality, to create their own theory. This concept is called ordinary or implicit. In comparison, a scientific theory is called explicit. What distinguishes a scientific theory from an implicit one is that it can be explicated, verified, and made explicit. Implicit theories are considered not explicit, not articulated, and not tested in experiment.

The concept of “implicit personality theory” was proposed by J. Bruner and R. Tagiuri in 1954 and is still used to designate an unconscious hierarchical system of ideas about the mental organization of other people. Its content consists of ideas about personality qualities. In the study of implicit theories of personality, there are two main approaches - traditional and alternative (psychosemantic). The traditional direction is represented by the works of J. Bruner and R. Tagiuri, as well as psychology " common sense"L. Ross, the theory of causal attribution G. Kelly, D. Shader, etc. The alternative approach, thus named by its founder J. Kelly, arose in line with the theory of personal constructs and was developed in the psychosemantic direction (P. Vernon, V.F. Petrenko, A.G. Shmelev, etc.). Representatives of the latter approach, in addition to identifying the content components of the implicit theory of personality, conduct factor analysis, which allows one to evaluate and combine the qualities and connections between individual components into a personal semantic space.

A theory is considered explicit if it is articulated, understood and tested empirically, or, more strictly, experimentally. The criteria for an explicit theory are breadth of scope, parsimony, and relevance to empirical research. Let's consider the most famous explicit theories of personality.