Scientific thinking. Development of natural scientific thinking of schoolchildren How does scientific thinking differ from

The theme we have chosen comes from the Age of Enlightenment, when the brilliant answers to the questions of the relationship between faith and knowledge, given by Bl. Augustine in European philosophy, were forgotten, and the question of confrontation between science and religion was raised on the shield in the light of growing positivism and scientism. In that era, this was not a matter of philosophy or even science, but of secular ideology, designed to impress the inhabitants and the intelligentsia that the monolith of medieval theology was no longer the defining worldview.

In fact, behind this was the desire to wrest from the hands of the church organization, namely the papacy, the initiative of the ideological hegemony in Europe of the emerging new forces. It was a reaction to the fact that "for many centuries various forms Christian churches exposed and cultural life European peoples the doctrine of a single religious worldview, replacing completely and exclusively all forms of scientific and philosophical worldviews” - (1).
However, why are these questions raised even today, when, on the one hand, science has grown to its full age and, it would seem, should leave the "childhood disease of leftism", and on the other hand, Christian theology and its applied sections, such as apologetics, have developed a serious the apparatus of the Gnostic substantiation of Christian truths?
The answer to this question lies outside of this work, but it also has a purely ideological character of opposition to Christianity by secular forces and competition with it in the field of worldview.

What is science?

To understand the issue of the possibility for a scientist to be a Christian or, more broadly, a believer of any religion, it is necessary to determine the state of today's science in terms of worldview. modern science is developing at a very fast pace, currently the volume of scientific knowledge is doubling every 10-15 years. About 90% of all scientists who have ever lived on Earth are our contemporaries.

Science was the main reason for such a rapidly flowing scientific and technological revolution, the transition to a post-industrial society, the widespread introduction of information technologies, the emergence of a “new economy”, for which the laws of classical economic theory do not apply, the beginning of the transfer of human knowledge into electronic form, etc.

“Science is steadily, constantly capturing areas that for many centuries were the lot of only philosophy or religion; it meets there with ready-made and rooted constructions and generalizations that do not stand up to criticism and verification by scientific methods of searching” - (1). From here comes the positivist enthusiasm among the representatives of science and scientism, as a belief in the omnipotence of science.

As part of this process, there is a conviction that since science is able to answer all questions, then religion is just an archaic form of culture and contradicts the only true way of knowing - scientific. The scientist Bube spoke about it this way: "Many scientists engaged in psychoanalysis believe that God is an unknown name, a crutch for the undiscovered, and that the more we know the world, the less room there is for God" - (7).

In this regard, it is important for us to understand: is science a source of worldview attitudes? To answer this question, one should decide what is the method of modern science.

scientific method

scientific method is a set of obtaining new knowledge and methods for solving problems within a particular science. Moreover, for different sciences, the method may be different. The main property here is that the scientific method is based on observation and experiments, i.e. purely on empirical grounds. Moreover, any experiment must be repeated by all means. Without this, the evidence of this or that experience loses its force.
Here the most important question is subject of science. The subject is practically the entire intelligible world, moreover, not only material, but also mental, including the system of abstract ideas. In fact, science does not set a limit to its research, and therefore it can be assumed from it a claim to omniscience, the completeness of which will increase with the development of scientific methods and the accumulation of knowledge.
Also, the methods of obtaining knowledge cannot be limited to material experiences and external observations. Today science has stepped deeply into the essence of matter and into inner world man himself through the psychological sciences. Became an object scientific research and religion itself.

Universality of the scientific method

Is the scientific method universal for knowing everything?
As we have determined, the scientific method itself does not set limits for the penetration of the mind of a scientist into the secrets of the universe. But is this method capable of comprehending all aspects of being? Here is a question that can reveal to us the limit of science and its place in cognition.
Modern sciences are diverse and conventionally divided into natural and humanitarian. Moreover, in the old fashioned way, it is customary to talk about the accuracy of the natural sciences and the amorphousness of the humanities. However, the current state of humanitarian knowledge allows us to define it as strictly scientific due to the expansion of understanding of the methods and objects of knowledge. Phenomenology shows how important it is for any research to understand the mutual influence of the object and the subject in the process of cognition.
In this regard, the distinction made by Husserl between the worldview of the cognizing subject, the picture of the world he represents, and objective scientific knowledge is important. “World outlook and science,” Husserl believed, “have their own various sources values, different functions, and their different ways of acting and teaching. The worldview must be regarded as a habitus and the creation of an individual, while science as the creation of the collective labor of investigating generations” (2).
Here we come to the most important topic - scientific thinking.

scientific thinking

I. Kant wrote: “Without a doubt, all our knowledge begins with experience…”. Experience underlies knowledge, including scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is based on experience obtained and verified in a special system of scientific thinking, where the universality and repeatability of experience are a necessary condition.
But here we are faced with a problem posed in philosophy, namely, with the question of the reliability of our knowledge obtained through sensory perceptions. Different philosophers have proposed different solutions to this problem. I. Kant considers this topic in his three works with criticism of "pure reason", "practical reason" and "judgment ability". Be that as it may, but sensual and psychological perceptions are superimposed on our minds as a kind of matrix, through which it is not easy to break through to the so-called. objective reality. Here you can say a lot about the conditionality of the thinking of scientists through their worldview presets, which often influenced their scientific conclusions, but this is not important if we consider science in its “pure form”, as it would like to see itself.

So, if the scientific method is based on a certain perception of experience, on a system of thinking, then it is dependent on this “experience of thought” that came to science from the philosophical teachings that preceded it. The purity of thinking, in this case, is very doubtful, because. postulation is based on the experience of an unscientific worldview.
If we assume that scientific thinking achieves “purity” in itself, then it means that the system of scientific thinking itself is “nourished” from the individual mental abilities of scientists participating in the process of improving the method of scientific thinking. But here there must be a conditionality of the thinking of these scientists by the worldview attitudes of their culture, religion, and society. It turns out that scientific thinking is also a product of the era surrounding it, and therefore cannot be “pure”.
Speaking of scientific thinking, one should also point out the level of thinking involved in the procedures of scientific thinking. Strictly speaking, it is the rational part of the mind. Although, of course, many scientists used intuition and even insight, however, this experience is already beyond their own scientific. And as it becomes clear from the existential philosophy of the same Kant or phenomenology, this species thinking is in no way capable of overcoming the aporias that philosophy has revealed to it. And more subtle ways of thinking are already hardly perceptible in order to be scientifically formalized. Here we should talk about the limitations of scientific thinking within the framework of rational knowledge of the world. This means that the scientific method is also limited to a certain range of phenomena that can be observed and studied by scientific thinking.

Scientist and science.

Next, we come close to the possibility of personal faith for the scientist. As we have shown above, science explores and explains the range of phenomena available to the rational type of thinking. It is also important that scientific thinking is not a closed system, but constantly replenished and evolving, while inevitably ideologically oriented. Whether this is good or bad for science is another question. It is important for us to just state this.
A scientist, doing science, inevitably introduces his worldview attitudes into it in two senses: the definition of the purpose of research and the method of scientific knowledge. This is different from the ideal of a pure scientist, spiritual ideals, morality, the morality of which does not affect the result of research or experiment. Not to mention the possibility of practical harm from an immoral scientist, the very fact of the influence of the scientist's internal presets on the process of scientific cognition speaks volumes, although this should not be exaggerated. Rather, we can talk about the level of intellectual and other abilities that depend on the spiritual state of a person.
A scientist may well engage in science apart from his religion, but this does not mean that his religion does not affect science. That's exactly how it is better to put the question, and not in line with the fact that science allegedly does not give the scientist "the illusion of superbeing."
It is not science that can supplant religion, but religion can replace science. And the more a scientist realizes, reflects on his religion, the more he will be a scientist, correctly understanding the limits of scientific knowledge and the possibilities of knowledge outside of science. Here the Christian religion comes to the aid of science, shielding it from the unreflected religious influences of primitive cults like scientism and positivism.

Conclusion.

A scientist may well be a Christian, which is shown by a whole host of scientists - Christians and the above reasoning. It is even very good if the mind of a scientist has developed to an understanding of the deepest Christian truths that allow one to penetrate beyond the limits of rational thinking. And more, morally strong man in scientific activity will adhere to the principle - do no harm.
A Christian engaged in science, among other things, restores the true continuity of knowledge, because science, the scientific method, by its nature, by the demand of sanity and prudence, by asceticism, betrays its Christian origin.
For a Christian scientist, the pathos of the positivist thinking of the Enlightenment, which led to rationalistic narcissism, is not appropriate in the context of modern scientific ideas. We are now in a situation of forming a scientific worldview on completely new principles.

Sources:

1. IN AND. Vernadsky. Scientific outlook.
2. Danilevsky I.N. "Source study".
3. Audio lectures by prof. Osipov on apologetic topics.
4. Audiolecture deac. Andrei Kuraev on the topic "Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo".
5. Audio course of lectures by V.P. Lie down on basic theology.
6. Osipov A.I. The path of the mind in search of truth. Basic theology. M., 1999.
7. A selection of quotes from scientists about faith. http://prediger.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=1583

Science is the main form of human knowledge.

Scientific knowledge is different from ordinary:

• the desire for maximum objectivity in the description of the studied objects and phenomena;
• a special (scientific) language used to describe the objects of study;
• specific ways of substantiating the truth of the acquired knowledge;
• the desire to acquire knowledge that satisfies not only the momentary needs of society, but also those that are important for future generations.

Allocate two levels of scientific knowledge - empirical and theoretical. The main task empirical level scientific knowledge is a description of objects and phenomena, and the main form of knowledge obtained is empirical (scientific) fact. At the theoretical level, the phenomena under study are explained; the acquired knowledge is fixed in the form of laws, principles and scientific theories, which reveal the essence of the objects being known.

The main methods used in the process of empirical knowledge are observation, empirical description, experiment, etc.

Observation is a purposeful study of individual objects and phenomena, during which the observer receives knowledge about the external properties and features of the object under study. Observation is based on such forms of sensory knowledge as sensation, perception, representation.

The outcome of the observation is empirical description, in the course of which the received information is recorded using language means or other sign forms.

A special place among the above methods is occupied by the experiment. An experiment is such a method of studying phenomena, which is carried out under strictly defined conditions, and the latter can, if necessary, be recreated and controlled by the subject of knowledge (scientist). A special kind of experiment is thought experiment, under which the specified conditions are imaginary, but necessarily corresponding to the laws of science and the rules of logic. When conducting a thought experiment, a scientist operates not with real objects of knowledge, but with their images or theoretical models. On this basis, this type of experiment is referred not to empirical, but to theoretical methods of scientific knowledge. We can say that it is a link between two levels of scientific knowledge - theoretical and empirical.

Other methods used in the process of theoretical scientific knowledge include the method hypotheses, as well as the formulation scientific theory and etc.

Essence hypothesis method is the advancement and substantiation of certain assumptions, with the help of which they expect to explain those empirical facts that do not fit into the framework of previous teachings. The purpose of hypothesis testing is to formulate laws, principles or theories that explain the phenomena of the surrounding world. Such hypotheses are called explanatory. Along with them, there are so-called existential hypotheses, i.e. assumptions about the existence of phenomena that are not yet known to science, but may soon be discovered (an example of such a hypothesis is the assumption of the existence of not yet open elements periodic table of D. I. Mendeleev).

The construction of scientific theories is based on testing hypotheses. scientific theory is called a logically consistent description of the phenomena of the surrounding world, which is expressed by a special system of concepts. Any scientific theory performs not only a descriptive, but also a prognostic function: it helps to determine the direction of the further development of society, as well as the phenomena and processes occurring in it. This is its main meaning.

Social sciences, their classification

Society is such a complex object that science alone cannot study it. Only by the joint efforts of many sciences can one fully and consistently study and describe the most complex formation that exists in this world - human society. The totality of sciences that study society as a whole is called social science. Among these sciences are philosophy, history, sociology, economics, political science, psychology and social psychology, anthropology and cultural studies. These are fundamental sciences, consisting of many subdisciplines, sections, directions, scientific schools.

Having arisen later than many other sciences, social science absorbs their concepts and concrete results - statistics, tabular data, graphs, conceptual schemes and theoretical categories.

In the totality of sciences related to social science, there are two varieties - social and Humanities.

If a Social sciencies are the sciences of human behavior Humanities are the sciences of the spirit. In other words, the subject of the social sciences is society, and the subject humanitarian disciplines- culture. The main subject of the social sciences is people's behavior.

Sociology, psychology, social psychology, economics, political science, as well as anthropology and ethnography (the science of peoples) are social sciences. They have a lot in common, they are closely related and form a kind of scientific union. A group of other related disciplines adjoins it - philosophy, history, art history, cultural studies, and literary criticism. They are referred to humanitarian knowledge.

Since related sciences constantly interact and enrich each other with new knowledge, the boundaries between social philosophy, social psychology, economics, sociology and anthropology can be considered very arbitrary. At their intersection, interdisciplinary sciences constantly arise - for example, social anthropology appeared at the junction of sociology and anthropology, and economic psychology appeared at the junction of economics and psychology. In addition, there are such integrative disciplines as legal anthropology, sociology of law, economic sociology, cultural anthropology, psychological and economic anthropology, and historical sociology.

The leading social sciences include:

Economy- the science that studies the principles of organization economic activity people, the relations of production, exchange, distribution and consumption, which are formed in every society, formulates the foundations for the rational behavior of the producer and consumer of goods. Economics also studies the behavior of large masses of people in a market situation. In small and large - in public and private life - people cannot take a single step without affecting economic relations. Arranging a job, buying goods in the market, counting our income and expenses, demanding payment of wages, and even going to visit, we somehow take into account the principles of economy.

Sociology- a science that studies the relationships that arise between groups and communities of people, the nature of the structure of society, the problems of social inequality and the principles of resolving social conflicts.

Political science- a science that studies the phenomenon of power, the specifics social management, as well as relations arising in the process of carrying out state-power activities.

Psychology- the science of the laws, mechanisms and facts of the mental life of humans and animals. The main theme of the psychological thought of antiquity and the Middle Ages is the problem of the soul. Psychologists study persistent and repetitive behavior in individuals. The focus is on the problems of perception, memory, thinking, learning and development of the human personality. AT modern psychology many branches of knowledge, including psychophysiology, animal psychology and comparative psychology, social psychology, child psychology and educational psychology, age-related psychology, psychology of work, psychology of creativity, medical psychology, etc.

Anthropology- the science of the origin and evolution of man, the formation of human races and normal variations physical structure person. She studies primitive tribes that have survived from primitive times in the lost corners of the planet: their customs, traditions, culture, manners of behavior.

Social Psychology studies small groups. A small group can be a family, a group of friends, a sports team. Social psychology is a borderline discipline. It was formed at the intersection of sociology and psychology, taking on those tasks that these sciences could not solve. It turned out that a large society affects the individual not directly, but through an intermediary - small groups. This world of friends, acquaintances and relatives, closest to a person, plays an exceptional role in our life. We do not live in big worlds, and in small ones - in a particular house, family, company, etc. The small world sometimes affects us even more than the big one. That is why science appeared, which came to grips with its study.

Story- one of the most important sciences in the system of social and humanitarian knowledge. The object of its study is man, his activities throughout the existence of human civilization. The word "history" is of Greek origin and means "research", "search". Some scholars believed that the object of study of history is the past. The famous French historian M. Blok categorically objected to this: "The very idea that the past as such is capable of being an object of science is absurd." Is it so?

The emergence of historical science dates back to the times of ancient civilizations. The "father" of history is considered to be the ancient Greek historian Herodotus, who compiled a work devoted to the Greco-Persian wars. However, this is hardly fair: Herodotus used not so much historical data as legends, legends and myths, so his work cannot be considered completely reliable. There are much more grounds to consider the "fathers" of the history of Thucydides, Polybius, Arrian, Tacitus, Marcellinus. These ancient historians used documents, their own observations, and eyewitness accounts to describe events. All ancient peoples considered themselves historiographers and revered history as a teacher of life. Polybius wrote: “Lessons drawn from history most truly lead to enlightenment and prepare for public affairs, the story of the trials of other people is the most intelligible and only mentor that teaches us to courageously endure the vicissitudes of fate.”

And although over time people began to doubt that history could teach future generations not to repeat the mistakes of previous ones, the importance of studying this science was not disputed. The famous Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevsky, in his reflections on history, wrote: “History does not teach anything, but only punishes for ignorance of the lessons.”

Culturology primarily interested in the world of art - painting, architecture, sculpture, dancing, entertainment and mass spectacles, educational institutions and science. The subjects of cultural creativity are individuals, small and large groups. In this sense, culturology covers all types of people's associations, but only to the extent that it concerns the creation of cultural values.

Demography studies the population - the whole set of people that make up human society. Demography is primarily interested in how people reproduce, how long they live, why and in what quantity they die, and where large human masses move. She looks at man partly as a natural, partly as a social being. All living beings are born, die and reproduce. These processes are regulated primarily by biological laws. For example, science believes that a person cannot live more than 110–150 years. Such is its biological resource. However, most people live to an average of 60-70 years. But this is today, and two hundred years ago, the average life expectancy did not exceed 30-40 years. In poor and underdeveloped countries, even today people live less than in rich and developed ones. The duration of a person's life is determined both by biological, hereditary characteristics, and by social conditions (life, work, rest, food).

Social and humanitarian knowledge

social cognition is the knowledge of society. Cognition of society is a very complex process for a number of reasons.

1. Society is the most complex of objects of knowledge. In social life, all events and phenomena are so complex and diverse, so different from each other and so intricately intertwined that it is very difficult to detect certain patterns in it.
2. In social cognition, not only material (as in natural science), but also ideal, spiritual relationships are explored. They are much more complex, diverse and contradictory than the connections in nature.
3. In social cognition, society acts both as an object and as a subject of cognition: people create their own history and they also cognize it.

Speaking about the specifics of social cognition, extremes should be avoided. On the one hand, it is impossible to explain the reasons for the historical backwardness of Russia with the help of Einstein's theory of relativity. On the other hand, one cannot assert that all those methods by which nature is studied are unsuitable for social science.

The primary and elementary method of social cognition is observation. But it differs from the observation that is used in natural science. In social science, knowledge concerns animate objects endowed with consciousness. And if, for example, the stars, even after observing them for many years, remain completely unperturbed in relation to the observer and his intentions, then in social life everything is different. As a rule, a back reaction is detected on the part of the object under study, which either makes observation impossible from the very beginning, or interrupts it somewhere in the middle, or introduces into it such interference that significantly distorts the results of the study. That's why non-included observation in social science gives insufficiently reliable results. Another method is needed, which is called included observation. It is carried out not from the outside, not from the outside in relation to the object under study ( social group), but from within it.

For all its importance and necessity, observation in social science demonstrates the same fundamental shortcomings as in other sciences. Observing, we cannot change the object in the direction we are interested in, regulate the conditions and course of the process under study, reproduce it as many times as is required for the completion of the observation. Significant shortcomings of observation are largely overcome in experiment.

The experiment is active, transformative. In the experiment, we interfere with the natural course of events. According to V. A. Shtoff, experiment can be defined as a type of activity undertaken for the purpose of scientific knowledge, the discovery of objective patterns and consisting in the impact on the object (process) under study through special tools and devices. Thanks to the experiment, it is possible: 1) to isolate the object under study from the influence of secondary, insignificant and obscuring its essence phenomena and to study it in its pure form; 2) repeatedly reproduce the course of the process in strictly fixed, controllable and accountable conditions; 3) systematically change, vary, combine various conditions in order to obtain the desired result.

social experiment has a number of significant features.

1. The social experiment has a concrete historical character. Experiments in the field of physics, chemistry, biology can be repeated in different epochs, in different countries, because the laws of the development of nature do not depend either on the form and type of production relations, or on national and historical characteristics. And social experiments aimed at transforming the economy, the national state structure, the system of upbringing and education, etc., into various historical eras, in different countries can give not only different, but also directly opposite results.
2. The object of a social experiment has a much lesser degree of isolation from similar objects remaining outside the experiment and from all the influences of a given society as a whole. Here, such reliable insulating devices as vacuum pumps, protective screens, etc., used in the course of a physical experiment, are impossible. And this means that the social experiment cannot be carried out with a sufficient degree of approximation to "pure conditions".
3. A social experiment places higher demands on the observance of "safety precautions" in the process of its implementation in comparison with natural science experiments, where even experiments performed by trial and error are acceptable. The social experiment constantly has a direct impact on the well-being, well-being, physical and mental health of people involved in the "experimental" group. Underestimation of any detail, the slightest failure in the course of the experiment can have a detrimental effect on people, and no good intentions of its organizers can justify this.
4. A social experiment should not be carried out in order to obtain directly theoretical knowledge. To put experiments (experiments) on people is inhumane in the name of any theory. A social experiment is an experiment that establishes, confirms or denies.

One of the theoretical methods of cognition is historical method research, i.e. a method that reveals significant historical facts and stages of development, which ultimately allows you to create a theory of the object, reveal the logic and patterns of its development.

Another method is modeling. Under modeling understand such a method of scientific knowledge, in which research is carried out not on the object of interest to us (original), but on its substitute (analogue), similar to it in certain respects. As in other branches of scientific knowledge, modeling in social science is used when the subject itself is not available for direct study (say, it does not yet exist, as, for example, in predictive studies), or this direct study requires enormous costs, or is generally impossible due to ethical considerations.

In his goal-setting activity, which makes history, man has always sought to comprehend the future. Interest in the future has intensified in the modern era in connection with the formation of the information and computer society, as well as because of those global problems that question the very existence of humanity. foresight came out on top.

scientific foresight is such knowledge about the unknown, which is based on already known knowledge about the essence of the phenomena and processes that interest us and about the trends of their further development. Scientific foresight does not claim to be absolutely accurate and complete knowledge of the future and mandatory reliability: even carefully verified and balanced forecasts are justified only with a certain degree of certainty.

signs of science
Subject of study	Consistency of knowledge	Specific methods of cognition related to the essence of the subject of study

The science- one of the forms of spiritual culture.

Historically, science arose from practice and develops on its basis.
The main engine of the development of science is social needs and, above all, the needs of material production.
The most profound discoveries in our time can be made either at the intersection of sciences, or at the intersection of their interweaving.

Modern science is the most important component of the scientific and technological revolution (STR), its driving force.

scientific and technological revolution- these are fundamental shifts in the system of scientific knowledge and technology, inextricably linked with the historical process of human development.
Achievements of NTR:
- Application of robots (automatically controlled machines);
- Use of fundamentally new materials with desired properties (plastics, artificial fibers);
- Introduction into production of ultrasonic and other processing methods;
- Use of new types of energy;
- The use of lasers in technology;
- Space exploration.

But: to deal with the harmful effects of scientific and technological revolution is possible only with the help of the scientific and technological revolution itself.

Don't lose. Subscribe and receive a link to the article in your email.

Despite the fact that the concept of thinking is very multifaceted and includes many features, ways of thinking can always be conditionally divided into empirical and scientific.

The empirical way of thinking, which is considered ordinary, everyday, suggests that a person perceives the world subjectively, simply constantly interacting with it. The scientific way is different. What, what it is and what kind of thinking is considered scientific - we will analyze in this article.

The essence of scientific thinking and its place in our life

The formation of scientific thinking as the main way of cognizing the surrounding reality began relatively recently, but its foundations and basic laws began to be laid by ancient Greek thinkers. And despite the fact that now the concept of "scientific thinking" is more familiar to scientists, researchers and scientists, it is closely connected with the empirical thinking of a person, and each of us knows and applies certain elements of it in life.

But still, to establish the difference between ordinary and scientific thinking, we should identify two central concepts:

• Thinking is the cognitive and exploratory activity of a person striving for an objective reflection in his mind of the essence of objects, objects and phenomena of reality around him.
• Science is an activity consisting in the collection, development and systematization of data about the world, which sets itself the goal of explaining the events and phenomena of the surrounding world on the basis of scientific laws.

From this we can conclude: if in empirical thinking a person operates with his subjective experience and uses the simplest forms of analysis, then in scientific thinking he applies the methods of objectivity, consistency and evidence.

But as science has developed, man has come to the conclusion that the difference between the two ways of thinking under consideration is not at all as categorical as it might seem at first glance. Both of them are built on a single mechanism - abstraction.

This means that a person, cognizing the world, uses his ability to "disconnect" from the specific characteristics of objects and phenomena in order to see the essential. An example is the comparison of objects and phenomena, people and objects and their sorting.

To illustrate this, it suffices to recall how we divide our environment into close people and those with whom we do not want to communicate, we divide colleagues into subordinates and bosses, we define food as tasty or not tasty, and so on. We need all this so that we can better understand how to act in certain situations, based on our goals and objectives.

But, one way or another, we can still distinguish two categories of people:

• Scientifically oriented people. As a rule, they are very active, psychologically flexible, independent, willing to accept new things and ready for change. They prefer, tend to evaluate the world objectively.
• People oriented to the style of unscientific thinking. Such people gravitate towards everything interesting, mysterious and of practical use. In life, they are guided by feelings, leaving the essence of things, evidence and verification of results in the background.

We do not undertake to judge which style of thinking is better, because everyone can have their own views on this matter. But still we can point out that scientific thinking (even if it is applied only occasionally) has a number of tangible advantages. Firstly, it contributes to the acquisition of basic knowledge about the multitude of objects and phenomena of the surrounding world, and therefore serves as insurance against ignorance, stupidity and illiteracy.

Secondly, this way of thinking perfectly develops not only exact and mathematical, but also creative and.

Thirdly, scientific thinking forms an inquisitive mind and motivates a person to solve a huge number of tasks - educational, professional, business, personal. In addition, it lays the foundation for teamwork, and therefore creates the value of mutual understanding and mutual support. However, the importance of science in human life and society is very well described in this video.

Features of scientific thinking

Science is a special sphere of human life, in which knowledge about the surrounding reality is developed and theoretically systematized; it simultaneously represents both an activity to obtain new knowledge and its result, i.e. the totality of the knowledge that underlies the scientific picture of the world.

And, of course, the thinking of people who gravitate towards science is different from the thinking of “ordinary people”. Here are some features of scientific thinking that we can highlight:

• Objectivity. If we take any other way of thinking and cognition, then we will see a symbiosis of objective and subjective perception. In scientific thinking, subjective and objective are clearly distinguished. For example, when we look at an artist's painting, you will always see the imprint of his subjective view, but when we study Newton's laws, we do not get any information about the scientist's personality.
• Consistency. Theoretical basis, on which any complex of scientific knowledge is based, creates a specific system. This system can be built up over tens and even hundreds of years, and includes both descriptions and explanations of phenomena and facts that later define terms and concepts.
• Validity. The array of scientific knowledge includes a huge number of theories, hypotheses and assumptions. Some of them are proven and some are not. But in any case, each of them pursues the goal of being reasonably proven or refuted in the future.
• Focus on the future. Science and scientific thinking involve the study of phenomena, objects and objects that are not only relevant for the current time period, but also those that will be important in the future. Science seeks to foresee the development, modification and transformation of what it studies into something that will be useful to humanity in the future. This is the reason for one of the fundamental tasks of science - the definition of laws and patterns of development of objects and phenomena. Scientific thinking allows you to construct the future from the individual elements of the present.
• Conceptuality. With the scientific way of thinking, all laws, terms and theories are fixed in a specific language - with the help of symbols, formulas and other signs. At the same time, this language has been formed throughout the time that science exists, and is also in a state of constant development, additions and improvements.
• . Absolutely all the scientific methods that scientists and researchers use in their work, studying phenomena, objects and the connections between them, are extremely accurately realized by people and are under their constant control.
• Experimental Approach. Like empirical methods of cognition, scientific cognition involves experiments, in particular in those cases when any concepts and theories are formed. But only the scientific way of thinking contributes to obtaining a sufficient amount of results with which to draw reliable conclusions.
• Theory building. Using the experimental method of obtaining information, scientists compose theories from the information.

In addition to the above features of scientific thinking, we can point out a few more:

• logical consistency - scientific knowledge and its elements should not contradict each other;
• Validation and reproducibility - all reliable scientific knowledge must, if necessary, be again confirmed empirically;
• simplicity - the maximum possible range of phenomena should be explained using a relatively small number of bases and without the use of arbitrary assumptions;
• continuity - out of many new ideas competing with each other, preference should be given to the one that is “less aggressive” with respect to previous knowledge;
• availability of methodology - scientific knowledge should involve the use of special methods and techniques, and they should be justified;
• accuracy and formalization - knowledge obtained through scientific thinking must be extremely accurate and recorded in the form of clear laws, principles and concepts.

If we summarize all of the above, we can conclude that scientific thinking can perform cognitive, practical-activity, cultural and cultural-ideological functions, as well as a social function, because it contributes to the study of the life and activities of people and often determines the ways and means of practical application of the knowledge and skills.

Here it would be appropriate to say that any scientific knowledge (knowledge obtained through scientific thinking) has two levels - empirical and theoretical.

Empirical level of knowledge

Empirical knowledge is knowledge, the reliability of which has been proven; knowledge based on hard facts. Things that exist separately cannot be called facts. For example, a thunderstorm, Pushkin or the Yenisei are not facts. The facts will be statements that fix a specific relationship or property: during a thunderstorm it rains, the novel "Eugene Onegin" was written by A. S. Pushkin, the Yenisei flows into the Kara Sea, etc.

Speaking of scientific thinking, we can say that science never operates with "pure" facts. All knowledge obtained empirically requires interpretation based on specific premises. In this respect, facts will only make sense within the framework of certain theories. An empirical law is a law whose validity is established solely from experimental data, but not from theoretical considerations.

Theoretical level of knowledge

Theoretical knowledge can take one of four basic forms:

• Theory. It is defined either as a system of central ideas regarding a certain field of knowledge, or as a form of scientific knowledge, thanks to which one can get a holistic view of the patterns and relationships of the surrounding world.
• Hypothesis. It can be interpreted either as a form of scientific knowledge, or as a hypothetical judgment about the causal relationships of the phenomena of the surrounding world.
• Problem. It is always a contradictory situation in which contradictions arise when explaining some phenomena. The problem requires an objective theory for its solution.
• Law. A law is an established, repetitive and significant relationship between any phenomena of the surrounding world. Laws may be general (for large groups phenomena), universal and particular (for individual phenomena).

These forms of scientific thinking are designed to stimulate scientific research and contribute to the justification of the results obtained with their help. They also clearly show the complexity of the nature of the type of thought presented.

The peculiarities of scientific thinking and the presence of two main levels of scientific knowledge determine, among other things, the principles and methods of scientific thinking. Let's consider their main provisions.

Principles and methods of scientific thinking

One of the basic principles of scientific thinking is the use of experiment. This is similar to empirical thinking, but the difference is that with a scientific approach, the results of experiments apply to a wider range of phenomena, and the researcher has the opportunity to draw more diverse conclusions.

This is done through the construction of theories. In other words, one of the features of the scientific approach is that we can analyze and generalize the data obtained as a result of experiments.

Another principle of scientific thinking is that the researcher should always strive for detachment and objectivity. While empirical thinking always involves the direct participation of a person in the experiment and his subsequent assessment of what is happening, scientific thinking allows you to observe from the outside. Thanks to this, we no longer run the risk of accidentally or deliberately distorting the results of the experiment.

And, according to another important principle of scientific thinking, the researcher must systematize data to build theories. Even so long ago (before the 19th century), the empirical approach was most often used, when phenomena were considered separately from each other, and the relationships between them were almost not studied. But now much greater value has a theoretical synthesis of knowledge and their systematization.

As for obtaining knowledge itself, the scientific way of thinking requires the use of special methods for this - ways to achieve a specific goal or solve a specific problem. The methods of scientific thinking (knowledge), as well as the levels of scientific knowledge, are divided into empirical and theoretical, as well as universal.

Empirical methods include:

• Observation- purposeful and meaningful perception of what is happening, due to the task. The main condition here is objectivity, which makes it possible to repeat the observation or use some other research method, for example, an experiment.
• Experiment- purposeful participation of the researcher in the process of studying an object or phenomenon, involving an active influence on it (an object or phenomenon) using any means.
• Measurement- a set of actions aimed at determining the ratio of the measured quantity to another quantity. In this case, the latter is taken by the researcher as a unit stored in the measuring instrument.
• Classification- distribution of phenomena and objects by types, categories, departments or classes based on their common features.

Theoretical methods are divided into the following:

• Formalization- a method in which scientific knowledge is expressed through the signs of an artificially created language.
• Mathematization- a method in which mathematical achievements and methods are introduced into the studied area of ​​\u200b\u200bknowledge or the field of human activity.

At the same time, it is important to remember that theoretical methods are designed to work with historical, abstract and concrete knowledge and concepts:

• historical is what has developed over time;
• abstract is an undeveloped state of an object or phenomenon, in which it is still impossible to observe its established features and properties;
• concrete is the state of an object or phenomenon in its organic integrity, when all the diversity of its properties, connections and sides is manifested.

There are a few more universal methods:

• Analysis- real or mental division of a phenomenon or object into separate elements.
• Synthesis- a real or mental connection of individual elements of a phenomenon or object into a single system.
• - selection from the general private, from general provisions- special provisions.
• Induction- reasoning leading from particular provisions and facts to general conclusions.
• Application of analogies- a logical method in which, by the similarity of objects and phenomena in one way, conclusions are drawn about their similarity in other ways.
• abstraction- mental selection essential features and connections of the object and diverting them from others that are insignificant.
• Modeling– study of phenomena and objects through the construction and study of their models.
• Idealization- mental construction of concepts about phenomena and objects that do not exist in the real world, but have prototypes in it.

These are the basic methods of scientific thinking. Naturally, we have omitted a lot of details and indicated only the basics, but we do not pretend to comprehensively address this issue. Our task is to introduce you to the basic ideas and concepts, and we think that we have coped with it. Therefore, it remains only to sum up.

Brief Summary

The development of scientific thinking influenced the formation of a scientific picture of the world - a special type of knowledge system from different areas, united by a single general scientific doctrine. It combines biological, chemical, physical and mathematical laws that give general description peace.

In addition to the scientific picture, people have philosophical, artistic and religious beliefs to the surrounding reality. But only scientific perception can be called objective, systemic, synthesizing and analyzing. In addition, the reflection of scientific perception can be found in religion, and in philosophy, and in the products of artistic activity.

Scientific knowledge and scientific thinking have most seriously influenced alternative ways of perceiving the world. AT modern world one can observe that on the basis of the achievements of science, changes are taking place in church dogmas, social norms, art, and even the everyday life of people.

We can safely say that scientific thinking is a method of perceiving reality that improves the very quality of knowledge, contributing to. As a result, a person has a set of tangible advantages: he begins to realize and understand the most relevant individual tasks, set more realistic and achievable goals, and more effectively overcome difficulties.

Scientific thinking contributes to the improvement of everyone's life individual person and society as a whole, as well as understanding the meaning of life and its purpose.

Each person, as he moves along the line of life, learns the world. To do this, he uses the senses and logic, comparing appearance objects, smells, texture, distances, sizes, as well as the influence of the properties of objects on each other during their interaction. I think it's not a secret for anyone: someone needs superficial knowledge, and someone wants to get to the bottom of things. There is an opinion that the second approach not only allows us to understand many aspects of our life, but also to spend it calmly and happily.

Surely you have thought about the fact that often our conclusions are devoid of objectivity, distorted by incomplete knowledge of the facts and biased due to ignorance. However, the quality of life and what we do directly depends on the way we think. As a result, you can pay dearly for such frivolity, or you can try to develop the mastery of scientific knowledge in the broad sense of the word.

scientific thinking - this is a way of perceiving the world, in which the quality of knowledge is improved, thanks to skillful control over the components of this process and following the criteria of intellectuality.

As a result of such work on oneself, a person has a number of undeniable advantages. He is able to raise issues that are important to him, expressing them clearly and precisely. Collect information about them and soberly evaluate it, using abstract thinking for a more efficient presentation. Come to informed conclusions and decisions by testing them under appropriate conditions. For him, the opportunity opens up to think openly in terms of various concepts and realize their meaning, put forward assumptions and test them in practice. As a result, a person can interact productively with people, offering solutions to complex problems.

AT At the same time, the researcher must have a certain degree of courage in defending his opinion, even if it is unpopular.

How can such results be achieved? What tools should you use? One of the components of scientific thinking is. In the previous paragraph, the phrase “criteria of intelligence” was heard - what is it? These are personality, thought process and speech traits that help to structure information about the subject of reflection and get a more complete picture of the problem posed.

Among them, first of all, such qualities as accuracy and clarity. The clarity of the problem posed is formed by clarification. For example, asking the question “How do I arrange the furniture in the bedroom?” sounds completely different. and “How can I arrange the furniture in my bedroom so that there is enough space for morning exercises and the opportunity to watch movies?”. In order not to waste time on unnecessary information, the information should be related to the problem posed - be relevant.

Obviously, to solve the issue of the location of furniture, its color is not always so important. In addition, consideration of the problem should be deep and take into account the full breadth of aspects and opinions. So, it is worth considering whether to watch a movie from a projector or is it better to hang a plasma panel? If there is a projector, will there be enough space between it and the wall for comfortable viewing of the picture? Won't the color of the wall change the color of the image a lot? What kind of exercises will I do - twist the holo hoop or warm up on the rug? How much space do I need?

This is the initial toolkit of scientific thinking. Scientists studying various fields of knowledge apply it to form links in the chain of scientific research, combining theoretical and empirical methods. Let's take a look at what such a historical discipline as archeology does. Let's start with setting the task - the search for material sources of the past and their interpretation in order to study the history of mankind.

Obviously, the excavation site is not chosen by chance: before that, scientists think about where they can collect more useful information required to answer a specific historical question? To do this, they analyze the available data by studying the area, historical written sources and the works of other researchers.

Character traits such as empathy and honesty will allow you to develop points of view that are different from your own.

During excavations, archaeologists strictly record the circumstances of the discovery of artifacts, classify the objects found, establish their age, considering the entire complex of archaeological material in the context of the area where they were discovered. Based on this, they put forward versions and assumptions that can be confirmed by the found antiquities. At the same time, archaeologists understand that future research may force us to reconsider the beliefs of the past.

In addition to meeting the criteria of intellectuality and the application of scientific methods, a scientist must possess some character traits that will help him develop the objectivity of his judgments. A modest scientist is able to be sensitive to his knowledge, being aware of where he may be mistaken and on what issues his point of view will be limited. At the same time, the researcher must have a certain degree of courage in defending his opinion, even if it is unpopular.

At the same time, such qualities of character as empathy and honesty will allow you to realize the value of the views of other people and develop points of view that are different from your own, as well as avoid double standards. However, do not forget about confidence in your reasoning, while maintaining intellectual autonomy - the ability to follow logic, instead of blindly accepting the opinions of others. Of course, on the research path there will be difficulties that cannot be overcome without perseverance.

“According to the generally accepted view, science operates with a set ofexperimentally verifiable facts ordered in a certain way. It is clear that a telephone book or a train schedule is an ordered collection of facts, but still it is not science. In science, we are looking for general statements that have explanatory power, from which many verifiable facts can be deduced.

M. Goldstein, I. Goldstein, How We Know. Study of the process of scientific knowledge, M., "Knowledge", 1984, p. 43.

Paradoxically, a person who has higher education and living in major city The Russian Federation may never encounter a major scientist in his life ... Moreover, work together with him. (Scientists are only about 1% in society).

Firstly, not always a great scientist is a good lecturer in the same university.

Secondly, it is not a fact that a really demanded Specialist will want to spend his time on students, graduate students and “just interested”.

Thirdly, now opinions about scientists are formed on television talk shows, where the main thing is to surprise, give emotion, but not thoughtfully understand the essence of the issue. Probably soon the question: "Does evolution proceed according to Darwin or not?" will be decided by SMS-voting of TV viewers…

For this reason, the vast majority of the population honestly does not understand that everyday, everyday thinking and the thinking of a scientist-researcher have a number of qualitative differences. Below is a table comparing the various qualities of ordinary and scientific thinking:

Ordinary thinking	scientific thinking
Faith in the obvious: what I see/feel is what I believe	The obvious is nothing more than one of the first stages of knowledge. So, the horizon is obvious to everyone, but it is nothing more than a conditional line ... A cute red panda is not a bear (although it is very similar), but a relative of raccoons.From the point of view of scientific thinking, only facts that have been repeatedly confirmed by different scientists inspire confidence. In addition, in science it is customary to separate the individual and his opinion.So, for example, a person who is personally unsympathetic to you can express the right idea.
Comparison of new information with the fact that: - "I personally know", - "I personally feel", - "My friend / relative said this", - "I personally like / dislike / want"	Comparison of new information with the best achievements in the world on this topic- regardless of emotional reactions such as: "I personally ..."
Long conversations about democracy and its elements have taught - in words, but not in deeds - to value "everyone's opinion."	It is not opinion that is valued, but knowledge.Formally, the Constitution of the Russian Federation does not prohibit citizens from creating an academy named after themselves, and about 500 such "academies" have been created. But science is fundamentally undemocratic and is not an analogue of a trade union meeting, where everyone is equal in rights. And the qualifications of the members of "one trade union" can differ hundreds of times... Emotionally it is very unpleasant, but it is true.