Criteria for the existence of scientific knowledge. What is scientificity - criteria The main features of scientific knowledge

​​​​​​​“... Criteria for the scientific nature of knowledge are its validity, reliability, consistency, empirical confirmation and fundamentally possible falsifiability, conceptual coherence, predictive power and practical effectiveness ... ”

The main ones among the criteria are truth, objectivity and consistency: “... the specificity of scientific knowledge is reflected in the criteria of scientific character, which distinguish scientific knowledge from non-scientific: 1. Truth scientific knowledge…. … science seeks to obtain true knowledge by exploring various ways of establishing the reliability of scientific knowledge. 2. Intersubjectivity of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is ... knowledge of objective relationships and laws of reality. 3. Consistency and validity of scientific knowledge. The most important ways to substantiate the knowledge gained are: A). at the empirical level: - Multiple verifications by observation and experiments. B). not at the theoretical level: - Determination of logical coherence, deducibility of knowledge; - Identification of their consistency, compliance with empirical data; - Establishing the ability to describe known phenomena and predict new ones ... "

Scientists doubt the usefulness of the discoveries of psychologists

The researchers concluded that most of the discoveries from the world of psychology are questionable, since the results of the research cannot be replicated.

300 psychologists from different parts of the Earth were involved in the study of this issue. They were faced with the task of analyzing in detail the results of about a hundred psychological research that have been featured in prestigious peer-reviewed journals. The conclusions turned out to be disappointing: it was possible to achieve such results again only in 39% of cases. Project leader Brian Nosek said this is the first time such a study has been conducted.

For four years, scientists have analyzed the previously published work of their colleagues and accurately reproduced the described methods. Only in a third of cases they managed to achieve similar results. In other words, the conclusions of most psychologists are incorrect: they may contain errors, or they are the product of the desire to get a "beautiful" result.

Some experts have already said that this casts a shadow on psychology as a science. Brian Nosek himself is in no hurry to bury her and believes that psychology and the discoveries made within it are very important. Meanwhile, he emphasizes the need to improve research methods. A number of journals have already changed the rules for publishing materials, listening to new findings.

How we are working

1 Contacting the company You can either call or order a call on the site, as well as come to our office. 2 Negotiation of the contract If you have no more questions and our offer satisfies your requirements, we draw up a contract and proceed to the study, or we prepare an information letter for submission to the court. 3 Performance of work After receiving the documents and payment, the specialist starts work, organizes a trip if necessary. 4 The result of the work! The result of our work is an act of expert opinion (opinion of a specialist), prepared in accordance with the current methods and regulations.

Do you need expertise?

You can find out detailed information about the examination, the timing of its implementation, the necessary documents and cost, as well as get a free consultation from our specialist:

The principle of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of research is of decisive importance, since it is this principle that determines the requirements imposed by the legislator on the quality of the main area of ​​forensic activity - the production of an examination.

Objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of research are closely interrelated and mutually compatible requirements for expert research, but they have their own content. The objectivity of the study lies in the impartiality, impartiality and independence in the conduct of the study and implies that in the course of the examination, the expert must take into account all the factors that are important in the conduct of the study, as well as use the methods recommended by modern science and expert practice. When examining and evaluating the materials submitted for examination, preparing and formulating the conclusions of an expert study, the expert must exclude dishonesty, bias, bias. Objectivity implies that the conclusions drawn will follow from objectively conducted research and will reflect the circumstances of the case in accordance with the way it happened in reality.

The law establishes that the objectivity of an expert presupposes the conduct of research on a strictly scientific and practical basis. This basis should be based on provisions that make it possible to verify the validity and reliability of the conclusions drawn on the basis of generally accepted scientific and practical data. The scientific basis involves the use of only evidence-based methods applicable to this particular study. Practical basis conducting an expert study means:

Availability of not only evidence-based, but also practically tested methodology used in the study;

Carrying out in the course of the examination of specific practical actions to study the submitted materials based on theoretical knowledge. In this regard, instead of real research, it is unacceptable to confine ourselves to theoretical calculations and conclusions and conclusions drawn on their basis.

The objectivity of an expert study largely depends on the availability and objectivity of the available methods for conducting a particular examination and the quality of the materials submitted for examination. Compliance with the requirements for the objectivity of the conducted expert studies implies that the expert must refuse to give an opinion in cases where the materials presented to him are insufficient for giving an opinion (clause 6, part 3, article 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation), unsuitable for conducting research, the current level of science is not allows you to answer the questions posed (part 1 of article 16 of FZ-73). At the same time, the Law gives the expert the right to apply for additional materials necessary for giving an opinion (clause 2, part 3, article 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; part 3, article 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation; part 3, article 55 of the APC of the Russian Federation).

One of the main conditions for the objectivity of the research being conducted, the law calls the implementation of expertise within the relevant specialty. A specialty is a field of special knowledge, skills and abilities in a certain branch of science, which is owned by the corresponding expert. It is obvious that the expert is not able to give an objective conclusion in the event that the research necessary for the performance of the examination goes beyond the expert's special knowledge. In this regard, the law establishes the right of an expert to refuse to give an opinion on issues that go beyond the expert's special knowledge (clause 6, part 3, article 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; part 5, article 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). And part 1 of article 16 calls it no longer a right, but an expert's duty. It is obvious that in this case the decision on the issue of refusal to conduct an examination and give an opinion depends on the expert himself, his level of knowledge and inner conviction. However, if there are established conditions (lack of knowledge, narrowness of the expert's specialty for conducting a specific expert study), this right acquires the character of an obligation, and the expert must exercise it. The exception is cases when the expert does not refuse to give an opinion, but petitions the head of the relevant forensic institution to involve other experts in the forensic examination (part 1 of article 17 of the Federal Law-73; paragraph 2 of part 3 of article 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure RF), and this request is granted. Otherwise, the principle of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of the research will be violated, the results of the examination will be called into question, and the expert's conclusion may be recognized as inadmissible evidence.

The comprehensiveness of the expert study involves the clarification from all sides of the specific issues that are significant for resolving the case, posed to the expert on the basis of the study of the materials submitted for examination. Comprehensiveness means the study of all the most important properties, qualities and features of the presented materials, their connections, relationships and dependencies. Comprehensiveness involves the study of all objectively options during the examination, thereby preventing the one-sidedness and subjectivity of the expert study. The completeness of the expert study lies in the study of all the qualities and properties of the materials submitted for examination, carried out deeply and completely. Completeness involves the study of such a set of properties of the submitted materials, which allows not only to fully and objectively answer the questions posed, but also, possibly, to draw deeper conclusions and find out the circumstances that are relevant to the case, but about which the expert was not asked questions ( part 2 of article 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; part 2 of article 86 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

Comprehensiveness and completeness of the expert study apply only to those circumstances, properties and qualities of the objects under study that are important for resolving the case. In fact, comprehensiveness and completeness are limited by the framework of those circumstances that are subject to proof in a particular case (Article 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; Part 2 of Article 65 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; Article 26.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation; Part 2 of Article 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation ).

The principle of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of the expert study is directly reflected in Article 16 of the Federal Law-73, where one of the main duties of the expert is the obligation to conduct a full study of the objects and materials of the case presented to him, to give a reasonable and objective conclusion on the questions posed to him .

The principle of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of the expert study is not absolute, it, having great independent significance, is ultimately still subject to the principles of legality and respect for human rights and freedoms in the course of the examination. So, if the tasks of carrying out a complete and comprehensive study can only be implemented using means and methods that affect the honor and dignity of an individual, are dangerous to life and health, violate personal and family secrets and unlawfully restrict other important constitutional rights, then the interests of a particular individual, tasks protection of human rights and freedoms will take precedence over the requirements of comprehensiveness and completeness of the study. For example, the law prohibits the use of research methods associated with severe pain or that can adversely affect the health of a person, methods of surgical intervention, etc. in the production of a forensic examination of living persons. (Art. 35 FZ-73).

The principle of objectivity, completeness and comprehensiveness of an expert study can be fully implemented only if the requirements of the procedural law are observed when collecting and providing the expert with materials for examination. Thus, the materials provided to the expert must be of a procedural nature, be collected by the appropriate subjects of the procedural activity in compliance with the norms of the procedural law regulating the procedure for collecting such materials. The materials submitted for research should be objective in a certain sense - reflect the properties and qualities of objects and phenomena in accordance with the way it actually took place, and in certain cases - have the properties of representativeness, reflect all aspects of the object or phenomenon under study. As one of the guarantees of the objectivity of the expert in the implementation of the study, there is a ban on independently collecting materials for the production of a forensic examination (part 3 of article 16 of the Federal Law-73; paragraph 2 of part 4 of article 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). The expert is not a subject of proof, the materials collected by him are not of a procedural nature and cannot become the subject of an expert study.

The principle of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of research conducted by an expert is closely related to the principle of expert independence. Only a procedurally independent expert, disinterested in the outcome of the case and impartial, can give a fully objective and comprehensive opinion. Indeed, in fact, what is important is not the independence of an expert in itself, but the ability of an expert to give an objective, unbiased and comprehensive opinion used as evidence in civil, arbitration, criminal and administrative cases. In this regard, all guarantees of the expert's independence (see the commentary to Article 7 of the Federal Law-73) are ultimately aimed at achieving objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of the research conducted by the expert.

The principle of objectivity, completeness and comprehensiveness of research is closely related to the provisions that provide the expert with the opportunity to make statements to be entered in the protocol of the investigative action or court session regarding the misinterpretation of the participants in the process of his conclusion or testimony (part 1 of article 17 of FZ-73), as well as allowing to interrogate an expert in order to clarify the conclusion given by him (Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).

Among the guarantees of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of expert research should include a number of procedural rights granted to the expert in order to get the most complete acquaintance with the materials related to the ongoing research: the right to get acquainted with the materials of the criminal case related to the subject of the examination; apply for the provision of additional materials necessary for giving an opinion; participate with the permission of the interrogator, investigator, prosecutor and court in the proceedings and ask questions related to the subject of forensic examination (part 3 of article 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). Similar procedural rights are granted to an expert by arbitration procedural legislation (part 3, article 55 of the APC of the Russian Federation) and civil procedural legislation (art. 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

Among other guarantees of the principle of objectivity, completeness and comprehensiveness of research, one should also include the rules on the challenge of an expert who is interested in the outcome of the case or who, for other reasons, is unable to give a complete, comprehensive and objective opinion (see the commentary on this to Article 7 of the Federal Law-73), norms providing for the possibility of recognizing the conclusion and testimony of an expert as evidence that has no legal force (Article 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; Part 3 of Article 64 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; Part 2 of Article 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

Subject to the principle of objectivity, completeness and comprehensiveness of the research, the expert fully and reasonably gives answers to all the questions put to him, and possibly reveals other circumstances that are relevant to the case, about which no questions were raised. The expert opinion contains a description of the content and results of the research, indicating the methods used, an assessment of the research results, the rationale and formulation of conclusions on the issues raised, as well as materials illustrating the expert's opinion and being an integral part of the opinion (Article 25 of the Federal Law-73).

Incompleteness, groundlessness and bias of the expert examination act as a basis for the production of additional or repeated examinations, as well as for questioning the expert. Thus, the production of additional expertise is carried out in the case when the previously given conclusion is not clear enough or not complete. Additional expertise is carried out by the same or another expert. A re-examination is appointed in connection with the doubts that have arisen in the court, judge, investigator, interrogating officer, prosecutor about the correctness or validity of the earlier conclusion. She is appointed on the same issues and entrusted to another expert or another commission of experts (Article 20 of the Federal Law-73; Article 87 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; Article 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation; Article 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).

The interrogation of the expert is carried out to clarify the conclusion given by him (Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).

Verification of the expert opinion in terms of the validity and reliability of the conclusions drawn on the basis of generally accepted scientific and practical data can be carried out by a person who owns special knowledge, in particular, specific generally accepted scientific and practical data necessary to verify one or another expert opinion. The law does not provide for a special procedure for such verification, although it does not exclude such a possibility. It is obvious that verification of the scientific and practical side of the expert's opinion in the framework of legal proceedings can only be carried out indirectly, when the opinion of the expert who carried out the re-examination does not give reason to doubt its correctness and validity. Accordingly, if the conclusions made by the expert as a result of the initial examination differ significantly from the conclusions presented by the expert as a result of the re-examination, it is possible with sufficient probability to speak of the groundlessness and unreliability of the conclusion of the first expert.

The provision of the Law on the basis of an expert opinion on the basis of generally accepted scientific and practical data has the character of a limitation that establishes the framework for the use of means and methods in the implementation of an examination. This allows you to check the validity and reliability of the conclusions made by the expert, but within the framework of the procedural activity, it has no real effect.

It is obvious that such a check cannot be carried out by a judge, court, prosecutor, investigator, interrogating officer, the person conducting the proceedings on an administrative offense, since they do not have special knowledge for this. For persons responsible for the proceedings, the expert opinion has the nature of evidence, and its verification and evaluation are carried out according to the general rules established by the relevant procedural act for verification and evaluation of all evidence available in the case. This means that it is not the essence of the expert's opinion that is subject to verification by the court, the investigator, the prosecutor, the interrogating officer, the person responsible for the proceedings on the case of an administrative offense, but its legally significant properties and qualities. So, in accordance with Articles 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the expert’s opinion is subject to verification, which consists in comparing it with other evidence available in the criminal case, obtaining other evidence confirming or refuting the expert’s opinion, as well as assessing from the point of view of its relevance , admissibility and reliability. At the same time, the evaluation of evidence is carried out according to internal conviction, based on the totality of all evidence available in the case, guided by the law and conscience. The rules for assessing evidence in civil and arbitration proceedings, as well as administrative proceedings are similar (Articles 59, 60, 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation; Articles 67, 68, 71 of the APC of the Russian Federation; Article 26.11 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

Assessment of the reliability and accuracy, as well as the validity (verification) of the forecast - the refinement of hypothetical models, usually by interviewing experts. The reliability of the forecast includes: 1) the depth and objectivity of the analysis; 2) knowledge of specific conditions; 3) efficiency and speed in carrying out and processing materials.1.

Validity "by content". This technique is mainly used in achievement tests. Usually, achievement tests do not include all the material that students have passed, but some small part of it (3-4 questions). Is it possible to be sure that the correct answers to these few questions testify to the assimilation of all the material. This is what the content validity check should answer. To do this, a comparison of success on the test with expert assessments of teachers (for this material) is carried out. Validity "by content" also applies to criteria-based tests. This technique is sometimes called logical validity. 2. "Simultaneity" validity, or current validity, is determined by an external criterion by which information is collected at the same time as the test method experiments. In other words, data is collected relating to the present time performance in the test period, performance in the same period, etc. The success results on the test are correlated with it. 3. "Predictive" validity (another name is "predictive" validity). It is also determined by a fairly reliable external criterion, but information on it is collected some time after the test. The external criterion is usually the ability of a person, expressed in some assessments, to the type of activity for which he was selected based on the results of diagnostic tests. Although this approach is most suitable for the task diagnostic techniques- predicting future success, it is very difficult to apply it. The accuracy of the forecast is inversely related to the time given for such forecasting. The more time elapses after the measurement, the large quantity factors must be taken into account when assessing the prognostic significance of the technique. However, it is almost impossible to take into account all the factors that affect the prediction. 4. "Retrospective" validity. It is determined on the basis of a criterion that reflects the events or state of quality in the past. It can be used to quickly obtain information about the predictive capabilities of the technique. Thus, to check the extent to which good scores on an aptitude test correspond to rapid learning, one can compare past grades, past expert opinions, and so on. in individuals with high and low diagnostic indicators at the moment. The principle of alternativeness is associated with the possibility of developing political life and its individual links along different trajectories, with different interconnections and structural relationships. The need to build alternatives, i.e. determining possible ways of developing political relations always arises in the transition from imitation of existing processes and trends to foreseeing their future. The main task is to separate feasible development options from options that, under the prevailing and foreseeable conditions, cannot be implemented. Each alternative for the development of the political process corresponds to its “own” set of problems that must be taken into account when forecasting. What is the source of alternatives? First of all, they are served by possible qualitative shifts, for example, during the transition to a new political course. The formation of alternatives is influenced by specific policy objectives. They are determined by the prevailing trends in the development of social needs, the need to solve specific political problems. The principle of consistency means that, on the one hand, policy is considered as a single object, and on the other hand, as a set of relatively independent directions (blocks) of forecasting. A systematic approach involves building a forecast based on a system of methods and models characterized by a certain hierarchy and sequence. It allows you to develop a consistent and consistent forecast of political life. The principle of continuity. The task of the subject developing the forecast is to continuously correct the forecast developments as new information becomes available. For example, any long-term forecast in the original version is inevitably large-scale. Over time, this or that tendency manifests itself more clearly and reveals itself from many sides. In this regard, the information coming to the forecaster and containing new data makes it possible to more accurately predict the onset of a political event: the need to convene a congress political party, holding various political actions, rallies, strikes, etc. Pr-p verification (verifiability) is aimed at determining the reliability of the developed forecast. Verification can be direct, indirect, consequential, duplicate, inverse. All these forecasting principles cannot be taken in isolation, in isolation from each other. Pr-p consistency - requires the harmonization of normative and search forecasts of various nature and different lead times. Pr-p variance - requires the development of forecast options based on the options for the prognostic background. Pr-p profitability - requires the excess of the economic effect of using the forecast over the costs of its development.

Aggregate scientific criteria defines a very specific model of science, which is denoted by the term classical science. The system of selected criteria can be represented as follows. First of all, scientific identified with objectivity. Objectivity is understood as focusing on an object, as objectivity. For science, everything is an object comprehended through experience.

The second feature of science - experienced the nature of knowledge. Observation, experiment, measurement are the main methods of obtaining and confirming knowledge. In this regard, the scientific experiment is required reproducibility and repeatability. Experience at any time and in any place can be repeated and its result will not change. The scientific result does not depend on who received it.

Finally, scientific knowledge is knowledge aimed at finding the truth. The deep connection between classical scientificity and truth is expressed by the common statement: to be scientific means to be true. Truth is the litmus test for science. No other knowledge is evaluated for truth: neither poetry, nor a piece of music, nor a religious treatise ... It is the truth of scientific knowledge that makes them universal and universal, allows them to be implemented and applied in technology, in control systems.

Scientific criteria - objectivity, truth, intersubjectivity, universalism, reproducibility, reliability and experience of knowledge characterize the classical model of science. This is a kind of ideal model, which in real history science hardly fully corresponded to any theoretical construction. As a rule, not all of the criteria of scientific character listed here are given in textbooks, but only some of them, for example, the experimental nature and reliability of scientific statements, or universalism and fundamentalism. The fact is that these criteria are a system of restrictions, extremely closely bound friend with a friend, in a sense, tautological. It is worth abandoning one, as all the others will turn out to be impossible. The system of requirements for knowledge being tested for scientific character is far from accidental, but is conditioned by that socio-cultural situation.

Several criteria demarcations scientific and pseudoscientific ideas- This:

The principle is used in the logic and methodology of science to establish the truth of scientific statements as a result of their empirical verification.

Distinguish:

Direct verification - as a direct verification of the statements that formulate the data of observation and experiment;

Indirect verification - as the establishment of logical relationships between indirectly verified statements.

The principle of verification allows, as a first approximation, to limit scientific knowledge from clearly extra-scientific knowledge. However, he cannot help where the system of ideas is tailored in such a way that absolutely all possible empirical facts can be interpreted in its favor - ideology, religion, astrology, etc.

2. The principle of falsification.

Its essence: the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutation, that is, only that knowledge can claim the title of "scientific", which is refutable in principle. The principle of falsification makes knowledge relative, depriving it of immutability, absoluteness, completeness.

falsifiability (refutability, Popper's criterion) - scientific criterion empirical theory formulated by K. Popper. A theory satisfies Popper's criterion (it is falsifiable) if there is a methodological possibility of its refutation by setting up one or another experiment, even if such an experiment has not been set up. The philosophical doctrine, according to which the falsifiability of a theory is a necessary condition for its scientific character, is called falsificationism .

The essence of the criterion.

The criterion of falsifiability requires that a theory or hypothesis not be fundamentally irrefutable. According to Popper, a theory cannot be considered scientific just on the basis that there is one, a few, or an unlimited number of experiments that confirm it. Since almost any theory formed on the basis of at least some experimental data allows for the setting of a large number of confirmatory experiments, the presence of confirmations cannot be considered a sign of the scientific nature of the theory.

According to Popper, theories differ in relation to the possibility of setting up an experiment that can, at least in principle, give a result that will disprove a given theory. The theory for which this possibility exists is called falsifiable. A theory for which there is no such possibility, that is, within a framework that can explain any result of any conceivable experiment (in the area that the theory describes), is called unfalsifiable.

Popper's criterion is only a criterion for classifying a theory as scientific, but is not a criterion for its truth or the possibility of its successful application. The ratio of the falsifiability of a theory and its truth can be different. If an experiment that calls into question a falsifiable theory, when staged, really gives a result that contradicts this theory, then the theory becomes falsified, that is, false, but this will not stop being falsifiable, that is scientific.

“At that time, I was not interested in the question of “when is a theory true?”, And not in the question of “when is a theory acceptable?”. I set myself another problem. I wanted to make a distinction between science and pseudoscience, knowing full well that science is often wrong and that pseudoscience can stumble upon the truth by chance."

Justifying just such a criterion of scientificity, Popper cited as an example the difference between such theories as Einstein's general theory of relativity, historical Marx's materialism and the theories of psychoanalysis by Freud and Adler. He drew attention to the fact that these theories are very different in terms of the possibility of their experimental verification and refutation. Theories of psychoanalysis such verification is impossible in principle. No matter how a person behaves, his behavior can be explained from the standpoint of psychoanalytic theories, there is no such behavior that would refute these theories.

Unlike psychoanalysis, general theory of relativity allows verification. So, according to GR, the bodies large mass(for example, stars) bend the course of light rays with their attraction. As a result, the light from a distant star seen near the sun changes direction, and the star appears to be displaced from where it is when viewed away from the solar disk. This effect can be observed during a total solar eclipse, when the light of the Sun does not interfere with seeing stars near it. If, as a result of the verification, it turns out that the effect is not observed, its absence will become evidence of the inconsistency of general relativity, i.e. such an experiment, theoretically, could falsify general relativity. This prediction was tested by Eddington during an eclipse on May 29, 1919, with the previously predicted effect.

“In the example under consideration, the risk associated with such a prediction is impressive. If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply rejected. This theory is inconsistent with certain possible outcomes of observation - outcomes that anyone before Einstein would have expected. This situation is quite different from that previously described, where the relevant [psychological] theories were found to be compatible with any human behavior, and it was practically impossible to describe any form of human behavior that was not a confirmation of these theories.

More difficult is the matter with Marxist theory . In its original form, it was completely falsifiable, and therefore scientific. She gave predictions that could be tested: she predicted future social revolutions, their timing and the states in which they would occur. However, all these predictions did not come true. Thus, Marxism was falsified, but its supporters, instead of accepting the refutation and recognizing the theory as false, took a different path: they reinterpreted the theory and its predictions so that the conclusions of the theory were in agreement with practice. As a result, they "saved" the theory, but did so at the cost of losing falsifiability - Marxism turned from a scientific theory into pseudoscience. Subsequently, as K. Yeskov noted, “in the USSR, Marxism turned into pure theology, that is, the interpretation of sacred texts.”

The criterion of falsifiability does not require that already at the moment of putting forward a theory, it is possible to actually set up an experiment to test the theory. He only requires that the possibility of staging such an experiment exists in principle.

“Einstein's theory of gravity obviously satisfies the falsifiability criterion. Even if at the time of its advancement, our measuring instruments did not yet allow us to speak about the results of its tests with complete certainty, the possibility of refuting this theory undoubtedly existed even then.

Astrology is not tested. Astrologers are so delusional about what they consider to be supporting evidence that they pay no attention to examples that are unfavorable to them. Moreover, by making their interpretations and prophecies sufficiently vague, they are able to explain everything that could prove to be a refutation of their theory, if it and the prophecies that follow from it were more accurate. To avoid falsification, they destroy the testability of their theories. This is the usual trick of all soothsayers: to predict events so indefinitely that the predictions always come true, that is, that they are irrefutable.

The two previously mentioned psychoanalytic theories belong to a different class. They are simply untestable and irrefutable theories... This does not mean that Freud and Adler did not say anything correct at all... But it does mean that those "clinical observations" that psychoanalysts naively believe confirm their theory, do so no more than the daily confirmations found by astrologers in their practice. As for Freud's description of the I (Ego), Super-I (Super-Ego) and It (Id), it is essentially no more scientific than history. Homer about Olympus. The theories under consideration describe some facts, but do so in the form of a myth. They contain very interesting psychological assumptions, but they express them in an unverifiable form.

An interesting result of the application of Popper's criterion: some statements can be considered scientific, but their negations cannot, and vice versa. So, for example, the assumption of the existence of God (not of any particular god, but of God in general) is not falsifiable, and therefore cannot be accepted as a scientific hypothesis (non-falsifiability is due to the fact that it is impossible to refute the existence of God - any refutation can be rejected by stating that God is outside the physical world, physical laws, outside logic, and so on). At the same time, the assumption of the non-existence of God is falsifiable (to refute it, it is enough to present God and demonstrate his supernatural features), therefore, it can be accepted as a scientific hypothesis.

Falsifiability of claims about the existence of anything at all.

If we have an internally consistent idea of ​​some physical object, then we can question whether it exists anywhere in the universe.

There are two theories:

1) it exists somewhere;

2) it doesn't exist anywhere in the universe.

These two theories are fundamentally different from the point of view of the principle of falsifiability.

The theory of non-existence is naturally falsifiable: to refute it, it is enough to present something whose existence is denied. Thus, the theory of the non-existence of anything will always be scientific, regardless of the existence of which is denied.

With falsifiable theory existence is much more difficult. We need to come up with an experiment to refute it. But all our experiments are always limited both in space and in time. As for space: in principle, the universe can have an infinite extent (if its average density is less than some critical one). In this case, at any age of the earth's civilization, we will have only a finite number of people (who lived or are living at this point in time) and, of course, a finite number of all possible experiments conducted by a given point in time. And since each experiment covers a limited space, then all of them will cover a limited space. Well, in the space not covered by our experiments, theoretically, there can be anything, including that, the existence of which is refuted.

Thus, when the average density of matter in the universe is less than the critical one, any theory of existence cannot be refuted at any stage of the development of civilization (i.e., never), and therefore cannot be recognized as scientific, as unfalsifiable.

3. rational principle is the main means of validating knowledge. It acts as a guide to certain norms, ideals of scientific character, standards of scientific results.

Within the rational style of thinking, scientific knowledge is characterized by the following methodological criteria:

Universality, that is, the exclusion of any specifics - place, time, subject, etc.;

Consistency, or consistency, provided by the deductive way of deploying a knowledge system;

Simplicity; a theory that explains the widest possible range of phenomena, based on the minimum number of principles, is considered good;

explanatory potential;

Science Criteria

There are 6 criteria for scientific knowledge:

1. systematic knowledge - scientific knowledge always has a systematic, orderly character;

2. target - any scientific knowledge is the result of a scientific goal;
3. activity - scientific knowledge is always the result of the activities of scientists to achieve the set scientific goal;

4. rationalistic - scientific knowledge is always based on reason (in the traditions of the East, the priority of intuition as a supersensory perception of reality has been established);

5. experimental - scientific knowledge must be confirmed experimentally;

6. mathematical - mathematical apparatus should be applicable to scientific data.

The knowledge accumulated by people has three levels: ordinary, empirical (experimental) and theoretical (level of scientific knowledge).

The result of scientific activity is scientific knowledge, which, depending on the content and application, is divided into:

1. factual - are a set of systematized facts of objective reality;

2. theoretical (fundamental) - theories that explain the processes occurring in objective reality;

3. technical and applied (technologies) - knowledge about the practical application of the acquired knowledge;

4. practically applied (praxeological) - knowledge about the economic effect obtained as a result of the application of scientific achievements.

The forms of scientific knowledge are: scientific concepts, programs, typologies, classifications, hypotheses, theories.

Solution to any scientific problem includes the promotion of various conjectures, assumptions. A scientific assumption put forward to eliminate a situation of uncertainty is called a hypothesis. This is not certain, but probable knowledge. The truth or falsity of such knowledge needs to be verified. The process of establishing the truth of a hypothesis is called verification. A hypothesis confirmed experimentally is called a theory.

1. Ideals and norms n. research - a scheme for the development of objects, the characteristics of which are presented in a theoretical-empirical form. Ideals and norms express the values ​​and goals of science, answering the questions: why are certain cognitive actions needed, what type of product (knowledge) should be obtained as a result of their implementation, and how to get this product.

Allocate:

1) ideals and norms explanations and descriptions;

2) evidence and substantiation of knowledge;

3) building a knowledge organization.

It is necessary to distinguish scientific knowledge from non-scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge must also be distinguished from pre-scientific knowledge.

The problem of demarcation. Demarcation - drawing a dividing line. The problem of the demarcation of science is the problem of the lines of distinction separating science from non-science. The problem of demarcation leads us to the problem scientific criteria ; difference between true knowledge and false knowledge.

The main features of scientific knowledge

The listed features also act as ideals and norms of science and together form scientific criteria . A criterion is a way to determine what is scientific and what is not.

Scientific norms- these are the requirements that science, scientific knowledge satisfies, the requirements have imperativeness, imperativeness.

Since there are many sciences, different sciences to varying degrees satisfy one or another norm of scientific character.

The norms of scientific character are the validity of knowledge, empirical confirmation, logical sequence.

Ideals are not fully achievable. Ideal - this is the state of scientific knowledge to which science should strive, a kind of perfection of science, in truth, the proper state.

Truth is the ideal.

Objectivity - scientific knowledge is objective. Signs of scientific knowledge act as norms and ideals. Norms can act as ideals and vice versa.

Scientific criteria (signs)

1. Presence in scientific knowledge of the laws of science.

Laws are essential recurring stable connections between properties, processes, etc.

The laws of science fix effective connections in a special form with the help of the language of science. Science strives to cognize the essence of the studied processes of phenomena. The essence is expressed through the law. Laws are a fundamental component of scientific knowledge. Not all sciences formulate laws. Nomothetic - legislating. There are nomothetic sciences. For a long time it was believed that the real mature sciences were the nomothetic sciences. In some sciences, instead of laws, the presence of stable tendencies is formulated - the trend of development.

2. scientific knowledge.

This is systemically organized built knowledge. The systemic organization of scientific knowledge manifests itself at various levels. The systems are separate scientific theories and concepts, individual sciences, scientific disciplines strive for systemicity, science as a whole strives for systemicity. The requirement of consistency is sometimes clarified through the requirement of coherence of scientific knowledge. Coherence - consistency. Scientific knowledge must be self-consistent, it excludes internal contradictions.

3. Empirical validity of scientific knowledge.

Scientific knowledge must be confirmed by experience, that is, by the results of observations and experiments.

Verification(verificism from Lat words truth and do) Verification - to do the truth; Verification is empirical confirmation. Neopositivists of the 20th - 50th of the 20th century formulated the principle of verification, with the help of which, in their opinion, scientific knowledge is distinguished from non-scientific. Scientific knowledge is the knowledge that can be verified - empirically confirmed. In this way they tried to solve the problem of demarcation. Indeed, the neopositivist approach has shown its limitations. The edge of criticism was directed against the philosophy of metaphysics.

It turned out that the most important fundamental elements of scientific knowledge itself do not fully satisfy this principle. The laws of science, from a logical point of view, are universal necessary judgments. The wording of the laws includes phrases.

In other words, neo-positivists underestimated independence (autonomy) theoretical knowledge, they absolutized the values ​​of empirical knowledge of the theory for them, it is only a convenient form of representation of empirical knowledge.

falsification is the opposite of verification. Falsification - to make false. When the limitations of verifiability became obvious, they began to look for a different approach to solving the problem of demarcation of scientific knowledge. This approach was proposed by K. Popper.

Popper formulated the principle of falsifiability - scientific knowledge must be falsifiable - refutable, if some system of knowledge is not falsifiable, it is not scientific.

Popper drew attention to the fundamental asymmetry, a huge number of confirmations of a certain element of knowledge does not guarantee its truth, at the same time, the only falsification of this element is sufficient to assert its falsity. Criticism K. Popper directed against Marxism, and Freudianism. Popper sought to show that Marxism and Freudianism are not scientific because they do not have the principle of falsifiability. The essence of Popper's approach - denies the existence of universal theories and concepts applicable everywhere, any theory and concept has a limited area of ​​applicability. In a sense, any statement, any concept can be empirically confirmed, reality is infinitely rich. The facts are theoretically loaded.

4. Logical sequence, validity, evidence of scientific knowledge.

Scientific texts should be compiled taking into account the requirements, rules, laws logical thinking, logic. This feature is especially clearly presented in the logical and mathematical sciences, in general, thinking should be logically consistent in any science. Reality cannot be represented as a linear system. Albert Schweitzer. Validity of scientific knowledge. Justify - Provide an appropriate justification. To substantiate some statement, which we consider justified.

The most rigorous kind of justification is proof, and more or less rigorous proof is found in the disciplines of logic or mathematics. Some judgment is empirical evidence on the other hand more or less theorized statements. This sign of rational knowledge concentrates

5. Specialization, objectivity, discipline of scientific knowledge.

Scientific knowledge is knowledge about a certain subject, about a certain subject area, disciplinary organized scientific knowledge. Science exists as a set of aggregates of sciences or scientific disciplines. The development of science is accompanied by the differentiation of scientific cognition and knowledge, i.e., the emergence of ever new, highly specialized scientific disciplines. Identifying the subject matter of a science or scientific discipline is often a difficult task. The history of this science, including the history of the subject self-determination of science: the development of science is accompanied by a refinement of the subject area. The subject of science is often created by people, researchers.

6. Objectivity, adequacy, truth, scientific knowledge.

Truth is both the greatest value and the greatest problem of both philosophy and science. The complexity of this problem has brought to life the position of both philosophy and science, whose representatives call for abandoning the concept of truth.

At a certain stage of his career, Popper also defended this position. Abandon the concept of a true theory, even if we somehow construct a true theory, we cannot prove that it is true. True knowledge is knowledge corresponding to its subject. In place of the concept of true knowledge, he proposed the concept of plausible knowledge.

Later, when Popper got acquainted with the works, A Tarski created a semantic concept of truth. The problem of meaning and meaning. Semiotics is the science of sign systems. Semantics is a branch of semiotics. Objectification - the transition from thoughts, ideas, plans, through activity to the subject. Deobjectification is the transition from the logic of objects to the logic of concepts. In real, actual scientific knowledge, elements of the objective and the subjective are intertwined. convention. Conventionalism - the importance of conventions in science.

7. Necessity of methods and means of scientific knowledge.

Diversification - the growth, quantity and rise in the cost of methods and means of knowledge.

8. Specific language.

Scientific knowledge is expressed in a specific language. The narrow specialization of manufacturability, the language of science strives for rigor and unambiguity. The language of science is necessary to express the deep properties of the corresponding subject area. To master a science, one must master its language. Not only every science has its own language, but also every scientific concept. The understanding of the term is determined by the context.

9. Economy of scientific knowledge.

Thrift - the desire to get by with a minimum of means (theoretical and linguistic) Occam's "blade or razor": do not invent the essence beyond what is necessary. This rule cuts off everything superfluous - that's why a blade or a razor. Minimax - using a minimum of theoretical means to describe, explain, the widest possible area of ​​\u200b\u200bthinking, this is the beauty of scientific theories.

Science seeks to bring unity into diversity.

10. Openness of scientific knowledge to criticism and self-criticism.

It is dogmatic in nature. In science, any element of knowledge must be criticized. This is true in relation to those elements of knowledge that the subject contributes. Each element of knowledge is part of scientific knowledge if it satisfies the norms and ideals of scientific character that take place in science at a given stage of its development. Any element of knowledge will sooner or later be ousted from the composition of science. Categories of being and due. Science must be real and non-dogmatic. In real science there are both dogmatists and conservatives; criticism and self-criticism of science is carried out in scientific disputes.

Eristic- the art of argument. Distinguish between discussion and polemic. The controversy comes from other Greek. war. Disputes in science must have a definite goal, a scientific goal, advancement towards adequate, objective, true knowledge. Disputes in science should not have false goals. Victory at any cost protection of the scientific interests of this group. Disputes in science must meet the requirements of the ethics of science. Criticism and self-criticism is an integral part. The dogmatists are opposed to the relativists. Dogmatists absolutize certain truths, relativists prove that everything is relative.

11. The cumulative nature of scientific knowledge

Cumulativeness - comes from the word accumulation, in science there is an undoubted progress, an expansion of the circle of the known, from less detailed to more detailed. The development of science is the growth of the volume of scientific knowledge. True, in the 20th century, in the 2nd half of the 20th century, a trend was formed which was called anticumulativeism, which called into question the movement of science. Anticumulativeism, Karl Popper, T. Kuhn, the thesis was put forward about the incommensurability of successive scientific paradigms (theories, concepts) exemplary theory. These signs can act as ideals and norms of science . The combination or system of these features can act as scientific criteria.

CRITERIA AND NORMS OF SCIENCE

Theory is the highest form of organization of scientific knowledge, which gives a holistic view of the essential connections and relationships in any area of ​​reality. The development of a theory is accompanied, as a rule, by the introduction of concepts that fix directly unobservable aspects of objective reality. Therefore, the verification of the truth of a theory cannot be directly carried out by direct observation and experiment.

Such a "separation" of theory from directly observed reality gave rise in the 20th century. there are many discussions on the topic of what kind of knowledge can and should be recognized as scientific, and what kind of this status should be denied. The problem was that the relative independence of theoretical knowledge from its empirical basis, the freedom to construct various theoretical constructions involuntarily create the illusion of the unthinkable ease of inventing universal explanatory schemes and complete scientific impunity of authors for their stunning ideas.

Honored authority science is often used to give more weight to the revelations of all kinds of prophets, healers, researchers of "astral entities", traces of extraterrestrial aliens, etc. The external scientific form and the use of semi-scientific terminology give the impression of involvement in the achievements of big science and even more. unknown secrets universe at the same time.

Critical remarks about “non-traditional” views are beaten off in a simple but reliable way: traditional science is conservative in nature and tends to persecute everything new and unusual - after all, they burned Giordano Bruno, and they did not understand Mendel, etc. The question arises: "It is possible Is it possible to clearly distinguish pseudoscientific ideas from the ideas of science proper? Verification principle. For these purposes, several principles have been formulated by different areas of the methodology of science. One of them is called the principle of verification: any concept or judgment has a value if it is reducible to direct experience or statements about it, i.e. empirically verifiable.

If you find something empirically fixed for such a judgment fails, then it is either a tautology or meaningless. Since the concepts of a developed theory, as a rule, are not reducible to experimental data, a relaxation has been made for them: indirect verification is also possible. For example, it is impossible to indicate an experimental analogue of the concept of "quark". But the quark theory predicts a number of phenomena that can already be fixed empirically, experimentally. And thereby indirectly verify the theory itself. However, in this case, such a verification with respect to quarks is a delusion. There is the following form of duality between elementary particles and quarks: To understand the essence of this identity, let us consider the relationship between the geocentric and geocentric system movements of the planets in the solar system

The theoretical model for describing the motion of the planets here can be represented adequately to observations, but physical meaning is diametrically opposed. The principle of verification makes it possible, as a first approximation, to delimit scientific knowledge from clearly extra-scientific knowledge. However, he cannot help where the system of ideas is tailored in such a way that absolutely all possible empirical facts are able to interpret in their favor - ideology, religion, astrology, etc.

In such cases it is useful to resort to another principle of distinguishing between science and non-science, proposed by the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. K. Popper, - the principle of falsification. The principle of falsification states that the criterion for the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability or falsification. In other words, only that knowledge can claim the title of "scientific", which is refutable in principle. Despite the outwardly paradoxical form, and perhaps because of it, this principle has a simple and deep meaning. K. Popper drew attention to the significant asymmetry of the procedures of confirmation and refutation in cognition.

No amount of falling apples is sufficient to finally confirm the truth of the law of universal gravitation. However, just one apple flying away from the Earth is enough to recognize this law as false. Therefore, it is attempts to falsify, i.e. disprove a theory should be most effective in terms of confirming its truth and scientific character. A theory that is irrefutable in principle cannot be scientific. The idea of ​​the divine creation of the world is, in principle, irrefutable. For any attempt to refute it can be presented as the result of the action of the same divine plan, all the complexity and unpredictability of which is simply too tough for us.

But since this idea is irrefutable, therefore, it is outside of science. However, it should be noted that the consistent principle of falsification makes any knowledge hypothetical, i.e. deprives it of completeness, absoluteness, immutability. Therefore, the constant threat of falsification keeps science "in good shape", does not allow it to stagnate, rest on its laurels. Criticism is the most important source of the growth of science and an integral feature of its image. But criticism is good when it is not about a fundamental change in the existing scientific paradigm. Therefore, criticism in relation to qualitatively new knowledge has always generated (and still generates) rejection of the new. Scientists working in science consider the issue of distinguishing between science and non-science not too difficult.

The fact, that they intuitively feel the truly and pseudo-scientific nature of knowledge, as they are guided by certain norms and ideals of scientific character, certain standards research work. These ideals and norms of science express ideas about the goals of scientific activity and ways to achieve them. And these ideals and norms bear the imprint of the existing scientific paradigm. Suffice it to recall the rejection of cybernetics and genetics, and it will become clear to us that classifying cybernetics and genetics as pseudosciences is not the result of a subjective decision of one or another scientific institution. The accepted scientific decisions, as a rule, are of an objective nature, but they reflect the essence of the existing scientific paradigm.

Scientists are well aware that these ideals and norms of scientific character are historically changeable, but nevertheless, in all eras, a certain invariant of such norms remains, due to the unity of the style of thinking formed back in Ancient Greece. It is called rational.

This style of thinking is essentially based on two fundamental ideas:

Natural order, i.e. recognition of the existence of universal, regular and accessible to reason causal relationships;

Formal proof as the main means of justifying knowledge.

Versatility, i.e. exclusion of any specifics - place, time, subject, etc.;

explanatory potential;

The presence of predictive power.

These general criteria

The principle of global deductionism. The principle of global deductionism is a completely different way of thinking. It reflects the essence of the new scientific thinking. This principle is a consequence of the consistent multi-level application of simple rules for deriving consequences from causes, in the image and likeness, reflecting the interconnection and complementarity of dual relations.

Thus, a double chain of the genetic code of systems of any nature is formed. This chain is fully applicable to the methods of Cognition, if we replace the abstract dual relationship in it with the following identity. This identity reflects the unity of the methods of deduction and induction at all levels of the hierarchy of scientific Cognition. modern science uses double chaining

Here, scientific knowledge begins with induction (the numerator of the left side) and ends with deduction (the denominator of the right side of the identity). At the same time, deduction performs the role of generalizing the received Private Knowledge and deriving new knowledge from it, within the framework of this Unified, but Private knowledge. Attention should be paid to the following feature of scales with two "beam arms". One of them reflects the manifested side of the relationship. This is what an external observer sees: "Induction" - "Deduction". The other reflects the internal essence of the external form: "deduction" - "induction".

Thus, the inner essence of the category "Induction" on the left side of the identity is "deduction", while the inner essence of the category "Deduction" is "induction". Such an interpretation of the essence of "external" and "internal" applies in general to any identity that reflects the relationship of the laws of conservation of the symmetry of relations in systems of any nature. But the laws of evolution of the dual relation give rise to the following identity

From which the paradigm of new thinking follows. Therefore, such a double chain will be able to verify the existing scientific knowledge in any field of scientific activity in the most natural way, cutting off all scientific conjectures and fabrications from the Knowledge of the One, separating true scientific Knowledge from False knowledge.

Criteria and norms of scientific character

Theory is the highest form of organization of scientific knowledge, which gives a holistic view of the essential connections and relationships in any area of ​​reality. The development of a theory is accompanied, as a rule, by the introduction of concepts that fix directly unobservable aspects of objective reality. Therefore, the verification of the truth of a theory cannot be directly carried out by direct observation and experiment. Such a "separation" of theory from directly observed reality gave rise in the 20th century. there are many discussions on the topic of what kind of knowledge can and should be recognized as scientific. The problem was that the relative independence of theoretical knowledge from its empirical basis, the freedom to construct various theoretical constructions involuntarily create the illusion of the ease of inventing universal explanatory schemes and the scientific impunity of authors for their stunning ideas.

The well-deserved authority of science is often used to give greater weight to the revelations of all kinds of prophets, healers, researchers of "astral entities", traces of extraterrestrial aliens, etc. In this case, semi-scientific terminology is also used. Critical remarks about "non-traditional" views are beaten off in a simple but reliable way: traditional science is conservative in nature and tends to persecute everything new and unusual - D. Bruno was burned, Mendel was not understood, etc.

The question arises: Is it possible to clearly distinguish between pseudoscientific ideas and science proper? For these purposes, several principles have been formulated by different areas of the methodology of science. One of them was named verification principle: any concept or judgment has a meaning if it is reducible to direct experience or statements about it, i.e. empirically verifiable. If it is not possible to find something empirically fixable for such a judgment, then it is considered that it either represents a tautology or is meaningless.

Since the concepts of the developed theory, as a rule, are not reducible to experimental data, a relaxation has been made for them: indirect verification is also possible. For example, it is impossible to indicate an experimental analogue of the concept of "quark" (a hypothetical particle). But the quark theory predicts a number of phenomena that can already be fixed empirically, experimentally. And thereby indirectly verify the theory itself. The principle of verification makes it possible, as a first approximation, to delimit scientific knowledge from clearly extra-scientific knowledge. However, it will not help where the system of ideas is tailored in such a way that absolutely all possible empirical facts can be interpreted in its favor - ideology, religion, astrology, etc.

In such cases, it is useful to use to another principle of distinguishing between science and non-science, proposed by the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. K. Popper, - principle of falsification. It states that the criterion for the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability or refutation. In other words, only that knowledge can claim the title of "scientific", which is refutable in principle. Despite the outwardly paradoxical form, and perhaps because of it, this principle has a simple and deep meaning. K. Popper drew attention to the significant asymmetry of the procedures of confirmation and refutation in cognition.

No amount of falling apples is sufficient to finally confirm the truth of the law of universal gravitation. However, just one apple is enough to fly away from the Earth in order to recognize this law as false. Therefore, it is attempts to falsify, i.e. disprove a theory should be most effective in terms of confirming its truth and scientific character. It can be noted, however, that the consistent principle of falsification makes any knowledge hypothetical, i.e. deprives it of completeness, absoluteness, immutability. But this is probably not bad: it is the constant threat of falsification that keeps science "in good shape", does not allow it to stagnate, as they say, rest on its laurels.

Criticism is essential a source of science growth and an integral feature of its image. At the same time, it can be noted that scientists working in science consider the issue of distinguishing between science and non-science not too complicated. They intuitively feel the true and pseudo-scientific nature of knowledge, as they are guided by certain norms and ideals of scientific character, certain standards of research work. These ideals and norms of science express ideas about the goals of scientific activity and ways to achieve them. Although they are historically changeable, a certain invariant of such norms remains in all eras, due to the unity of the style of thinking formed back in Ancient Greece. It is called rational. This style of thinking is based, in fact, on two fundamental ideas: - natural order, i.e. recognition of the existence of universal, regular and accessible to reason causal relationships; and formal proof as the main means of justifying knowledge.

Within the rational style of thinking, scientific knowledge is characterized by the following methodological criteria:

- universality, i.e. the exclusion of any specifics - place, time, subject, etc.;

Consistency or consistency provided by the deductive way of deploying a knowledge system;

Simplicity; a good theory is one that explains the widest possible range of phenomena, based on the minimum number of scientific principles;

explanatory potential;

The presence of predictive power.

These general criteria, or norms of scientific character, are constantly included in the standard of scientific knowledge. More specific norms that determine the schemes of research activity depend on the subject areas of science and on the socio-cultural context of the birth of a particular theory.

Basic principles of management of pedagogical systems

Management of pedagogical systems is based on the observance of a number of principles.

Management principles- these are the fundamental ideas for the implementation of managerial functions. The principles reflect the patterns of management.

The main principles of management include:

ü democratization and humanization of management;

ü consistency and integrity in management;

ü rational combination of centralization and decentralization;

ü the relationship of unity of command and collegiality;

ü scientific validity (scientific) management;

ü objectivity, completeness and regularity of information provision.

Let's take a closer look at these principles.

Democratization and humanization of management. The principle of democratization and humanization of management involves the development of initiative and initiative of all participants educational process(leaders, teachers, students and parents), involving them in an open discussion and collective preparation of management decisions. Democratization school life begins with the introduction of the practice of electing school leaders, the introduction of a competitive election mechanism and a contract system in the selection of leadership and teaching staff. Publicity in school management is based on openness, accessibility of information, when each participant in the educational process not only knows about the affairs and problems of the school, but also takes part in their discussion and expresses his point of view on school life. The democratization of school management is implemented through regular reports from the administration, the school council to the general school staff and the public, through the transparency of decisions made.

Management of educational processes in last years acquires a tendency to move from subject-object to subject-subject relations, from a monologue to a dialogue between the controlling and controlled subsystems.

Consistency and integrity in the management of pedagogical systems are determined by the systemic nature of the pedagogical process and create real prerequisites for its effective management.

A systematic approach to the management of pedagogical systems encourages the leader educational institution and other participants in management activities to carry it out in the system, in the unity and integrity of all interacting components and subsystems.

The implementation of this principle contributes to making management activities consistent, logical, harmonious and, ultimately, effective.

Considering the school as an integral system, they mean that it consists of parts (components), which can be teams of teachers, students, parents. You can represent the same system through processes.

For example, the learning process is a subsystem of a holistic pedagogical process, and a lesson is a subsystem of the learning process. At the same time, the lesson itself is difficult. dynamic system, the structural element of which is the educational process, embodying the educational task, the methods of training and education selected for it, the content of educational material and forms of organization cognitive activity students. To establish the exact application of managerial influence, it is extremely important to be able to divide the system into parts, blocks, subsystems and structure-forming elements.

The real result is an assessment of the effectiveness of the system. If the teacher correctly formulated the educational task at one or another educational moment of the lesson, but failed to select educational material appropriate content, then no matter what teaching methods and forms of organization of cognitive activity he applies, it is impossible to get a high positive result.

Τᴀᴋᴎᴍ ᴏϬᴩᴀᴈᴏᴍ, the level of system integrity depends on its purposefulness, the completeness of the set of components, the quality of each component and the density of relationships both between the components and between each of them and the whole.

The study of the essence of socio-pedagogical systems is impossible without an integrated approach. An integrated approach to studying the education system involves:

ü systematic and comprehensive analysis of the results of managerial and pedagogical activity;

ü identification of regular connections (vertically and horizontally);

ü definition of specific conditions and problems of society;

ü development of a dynamic structure and management technology;

substantiation of the content of management.

Rational combination of centralization and decentralization. Excessive centralization of managerial activity inevitably leads to increased administration, fetters the initiative of managed subsystems (leaders of lower levels, teachers and students), which in this case become mere executors of someone else's managerial will. In conditions of excessive centralization, duplication of managerial functions often occurs, which leads to loss of time, financial and other resources, overload of all participants in the educational process from school leaders to students.

On the other hand, the decentralization of management, understood as the transfer of a number of functions and powers from higher authorities to lower ones, with its immoderate execution, as a rule, leads to a decrease in the efficiency of the pedagogical system. This is expressed in the following negativisms: a decrease in the role of the control subsystem (manager and administration as a whole), a complete or partial loss of analytical and control functions carried out by management bodies. Excessive enthusiasm for decentralization leads to serious problems in the activities of the team, to the emergence of interpersonal and inter-level conflicts and misunderstandings, unjustified opposition of the administrative and public authorities of the educational institution.

A reasonable combination of centralization and decentralization in school management based on the latest scientific achievements ensures optimal interaction between the managing and managed subsystems of an educational institution, its administrative and public bodies in order to achieve the goal. The optimal combination of centralization and decentralization creates the necessary conditions for a democratic, interested and qualified discussion, adoption and subsequent implementation of managerial decisions at a professional level, eliminating duplication of managerial functions and increasing the efficiency of interaction between all structural divisions of the system.

The problem of combining centralization and decentralization in management is the optimal delegation (distribution) of powers when making managerial decisions. The practice of delegation of authority involves the following types of managerial responsibility: general - for the creation necessary conditions activities, functional - for specific actions. Powers are delegated to the position, and not to the individual who currently occupies it. The following types of managerial powers are distinguished: conciliatory (preventive), administrative (linear, functional), advisory, control and reporting, coordination.

Subject to delegation: routine work; specialized activities; private questions; preparatory work. Not subject to delegation: the functions of a leader, setting goals, making decisions on developing a school strategy, monitoring results; management of employees, their motivation; tasks of particular importance; tasks high degree risk; unusual, exceptional cases; urgent matters that leave no time for explanation and rechecking; tasks of a strictly confidential nature.

The limits of authority are determined by policies, procedures, rules and job descriptions. The reason for violations of authority is most often the abuse of power.

The relationship of unity of command and collegiality. One of the conditions for the effective implementation of management activities is to rely on the experience and knowledge of the direct organizers of the educational process (teachers, educators), skillful, tactful involvement of them in the development, discussion and adoption of optimal management decisions based on a comparison of different, including number of opposite points of view. At the same time, it is necessary to clearly understand that collegiality should have its limits, especially when it comes to the personal responsibility of each member of the team for the implementation of a decision taken collectively.

On the other hand, unity of command in management is designed to ensure discipline and order, a clear delimitation of the powers of the participants in the pedagogical process, occupying various levels of management. At the same time, the leader exercises control over the observance and maintenance of the status of each member of the teaching staff. All the activities of the head of the educational system are based not so much on formal, administrative authority, but on the experience of working with people, high professionalism, based on a deep knowledge of pedagogy, psychology, social psychology and philosophy, management, as well as taking into account the individual psychological characteristics of teachers, students, parents.

If collegiality is a priority at the strategic stage (discussion and decision-making), then unity of command is extremely important, first of all, at the stage of implementing the decisions made (at the stage of tactical actions).

Unity of command and collegiality in management is a manifestation of the law of the unity of opposites.

The principle of the relationship of unity of command and collegiality in management educational system implemented in the activities of public authorities (various types of commissions and councils acting on a voluntary basis; in the work of congresses, rallies, conferences, where a collective search and personal responsibility for the decisions taken are necessary). The state-public nature of education management, which we will discuss in more detail in the next chapter, creates real opportunities at the center and in the localities for the establishment in practice of the principle of unity of command and collegiality.

The effectiveness and efficiency of management largely depends on the observance of the correct balance between unity of command and collegiality.

In conclusion, we note that the implementation of this principle is aimed at overcoming subjectivity, authoritarianism in the management of the pedagogical process.

Scientific validity (scientific) management. This principle involves the construction of a management system based on the latest achievements of management science. Scientific management is incompatible with subjectivism. The leader must understand and take into account the patterns, objective trends in the development of society, pedagogical systems, make decisions taking into account the current situation and scientific forecasts.

The implementation of the principle of scientific validity of management is largely determined by the availability of reliable and complete information about the state of the managed pedagogical system.

Objectivity, completeness and regularity of information provision. The effectiveness of the management of pedagogical systems is largely determined by the availability of reliable and extremely important information.

In the management of the pedagogical system, any information is important, but first of all, management information, which is necessary for the optimal functioning of the managed subsystem. The formation of information databanks, technologies for their operational use increases scientific organization managerial work.

Management information is subdivided: by time - into daily, monthly, quarterly, annual; by management functions - into analytical, evaluative, constructive, organizational; by sources of income - intra-school, departmental, non-departmental; according to the intended purpose - for directive, fact-finding, advisory, etc.

In control educational institution information plays the same important role as in any institution. A fairly significant number of information relationships can be traced in the activities of the school: teacher - student, teacher - parents, administration - teacher, administration - students, administration - parents, etc. At the same time, the school administration is constantly in informational contacts with the authorities public education, methodological institutions, other institutions and organizations involved in the upbringing of children and adolescents. All this testifies to the unique variety of information flows: incoming, outgoing and moving within the school, in connection with which high demands are placed on its quality (objectivity and completeness).

Difficulties in using information in management often come from information excess or, conversely, from its lack. Both that and another complicates process of decision-making, operative regulation of their performance. In pedagogical systems, the lack of information is more often felt in the field of educational activities.

In addition to the principles of management of pedagogical systems discussed above, there are others:

ü the principle of conformity (the work performed must correspond to the intellectual and physical capabilities of the performer);

ü the principle of automatic replacement of the missing;

ü the principle of the first leader (when organizing the implementation of an important task, control over the progress of work should be left to the first leader);

ü the principle of new tasks (vision of prospects);

ü the principle of feedback (assessment of the progress and results of the case);

ü the principle of controllability (optimization of the number of teaching staff reporting directly to the head). A. Fayol advocated strict observance of the rule of controllability. L. Urwick believed that "the ideal number of subordinates for all top leaders should be four."

There are other classifications and interpretations of the principles of pedagogical management. V.P. Simonov identifies the following principles:

ü goal-setting as the basis for planning, organizing and controlling all the activities of a manager at any level of management;

ü purposefulness of management (the ability to set goals taking into account reality, social significance and prospects);

ü cooperation and division of managerial labor, i.e., reliance on collective creativity and reason;

ü functional approach - constant updating, clarification and concretization of the functions of performers;

ü the complexity of not only the definition of goals and objectives, but also the organization of the implementation of decisions made, pedagogical control, correction of activities;

ü systematic self-improvement of pedagogical management at all levels of management.