Scientific methods in the context of discovery and in the context of justifying its results
Representations about the role of methods in the mechanism of scientific discoveries changed with the development of science itself.
Method in the context of discovery
In the era of the New Time (XVII-XVIII centuries), when experimental natural science was formed, scientists solved the problems of discovering the simplest empirical laws (in fact, regularities, since the deep essential connections of phenomena were not yet available). Many at that time believed in the possibility of constructing a special logic, with which one could almost mechanically make new discoveries in science. They believed that such a logic of discovery will replace talent, insights, and the process of scientific research will turn almost into a craft.
Such a view was held, in particular, by F. Bacon, who believed that the inductive methods created by him would help solve this problem: "Our way of discovering the sciences is such that it leaves little to the sharpness and power of talent, but almost equals them. Just as for the direct or description of the perfect circle the hardness, skill and hand experience are of much importance, if you act only with your hand, little or nothing matters if you use the compass and ruler. So it is with our method & quot;.
German mathematician and philosopher GV Leibniz dreamed of creating such a universal method that would allow any reasoning to be reduced to computation. With his help, he hoped to resolve any disputes, not only in science, but also in politics and philosophy: "In the event of disputes, two philosophers will not have to resort to a dispute any more than counters do not resort to it. Instead of a dispute, they will take the feathers in their hands, sit at the boards and say to each other: "We will calculate" & quot;.
The subsequent development of science has refuted these hopes. The methods of F. Bacon and J. St. Mill could only identify the simplest empirical generalizations and laws. For example, when the only difference is that the pen and the coin in the vacuum tube fall at the same time, and in the air the pen falls more slowly than the coin, then the cause of the latter phenomenon is easy to determine: it consists in the resistance of air to the fall of the pen.
Thus, inductive methods can help to formulate only the simplest empirical relationship between the properties of directly observable phenomena. The discovery of genuinely deep, theoretical laws on unobservable objects can not be made inductively.
Thus, in the framework of classical thermodynamics, direct observation and measurement have established that when the gas pressure in a vessel of a particular volume is heated, the gas pressure increases. However, such an observation does not explain the reasons for the increase in pressure. Here, the molecular-kinetic theory comes to the rescue, which, in contrast to classical thermodynamics (dealing with observable strong> objects, like molecules and atoms. The laws of molecular motion, in particular, the theoretical law of increasing the mean free path of molecules, helps us explain why the length of the rod changes when heated.Thus, the path to a deep and complete explanation of phenomena with the help of theoretical laws lies through the promotion of assumptions and hypotheses, the derivation of logical consequences from them, their verification by experience, correction and refinement of hypotheses. "
In the course of the development of science, it became clear that both the empirical model of the scientific discovery constructed by F. Bacon and the rational-deductive model of Leibniz proved to be equally untenable. These models were attempts to identify a universal algorithm of the logic of scientific discovery, but too simplistic interpreted the process of scientific search, so in the first half of the XIX century. became aware of the futility of attempts to construct the discovery logic. Well-known historian of science W. Wewell noted in this connection: "The scientific discovery should depend on a happy thought, trace the origin of which we can not . Therefore, some favorable twists of thought are beyond any rules and, therefore, one can not give any rules that would inevitably lead to the discovery of & quot;.
Method in the context of the justification of scientific knowledge. Thus, the field of the discovery context turned out to be much wider than the field of inductive logic, so from the middle of the last century, deductive logic is being persistently advanced to justify existing assumptions and hypotheses.
The main attention begins to be paid to the context of the justification. In this regard, the hypothetico-deductive method analysis of the structure of scientific research. The approach of this method is based on the fact that the problem of the origin of the hypotheses themselves, their occurrence does not have any relation neither to the methodology, nor to the philosophy of science, therefore both the philosophy of science and methodology science should explore only the logical structure of existing of scientific knowledge.
Such a task as central was put forward in neopositivism, which dealt with the logical analysis of the proposals of the language of science. The neopositivistic model of the structure of scientific knowledge, based on the hypothetical-deductive method, prevailed in the Western philosophy of science almost until the 1960s. and even got the name "standard model". Eventually, even one of the creators of this model, Carl Hempel (1905- 1997), had to admit that he "feels more and more doubts about the adequacy of this concept."
After opting out of the & quot; standard model & quot; attempts were made to create concepts for the development of scientific knowledge, in which it was suggested that historical, social and psychological aspects of the development of scientific knowledge.
Noteworthy is the concept of Norwood Russell Hanson (1924-1967), who at one time criticized the hypothetical-deductive model, noting that it allows analyzing only the finished results of scientific research. This model can serve as the basis for the acceptance hypothesis, but does not show how the come to it. Η. R. Hanson believed that "if the establishment of hypotheses through their predictions has its own logic, then the corresponding logic should exist and when creating hypotheses".
Such logic is not reduced to either induction or deduction. Using the example of constructing new physical theories, Η. R. Hanson showed that "from observable properties of phenomena the scientist seeks to find a reasonable way to key ideas by which these properties can actually be explained". Thus, the logic of discovery is essentially a heuristic (from the Greek heuristiko - search, open), a search method of reasoning, and therefore it does not guarantee an unerring way of finding new truths.
Now the philosophers of science speak not of a return to building the logic of discovery, but of an analysis of the norms and methods of scientific research, of disclosing heuristic devices that facilitate the search for scientific truth. Thus, authoritative researcher of the problems of the logic of discovery, T. Nichles notes: "Today, many advocates of the methodology of discovery not only deny such an identification with the logic of discovery, but also reject the very existence of the logic of discovery ... Their slogan is" the methodology of discovery without the logic of discovery. " . "& Quot;.
Thus, it is necessary to distinguish norms and methods of analysis that are heuristic in nature and are related to the process of searching and exploring new things in science. The system of these methods forms the context of discovery. The methods and methods of substantiating the existing scientific knowledge form the context of the justification. Both of these contexts complement each other.
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay