Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Современные проблемы...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

О критериях научности в эмпирическом и теоретическом знании

О критериях научности в эмпирическом и теоретическом знании

Abstract

В статье представлены гносеологические подходы в оценке научности эмпирического и теоретического уровня знаний. На протяжении всей истории ученые и философы стремились отыскать универсальный критерий научности. Таковыми в частности являлись критерии верификации и фальсификации. Научно-философский анализ свидетельствует о том, что данные критерии приемлемы только для эмпирического знания. Теоретические знания, в которых присутствуют идеализированные объекты, нуждаются в иных научных критериях, таких как объективность, непротиворечивость, рациональность, обоснованность. Продемонстрирована сложность оценки некоторых ранее признанных теорий (закон Мюллера – Геккеля) на предмет научности. «Научность», по определению Л. Витгенштейна, это «понятие с нечеткими границами». Термин «научность» является идеализированным, так как идеальный образ расходится с реально существующей наукой. Определяющим критерием научности как показателя сформированности знания к настоящему времени можно считать сформулированный закон достаточного основания с опорой на рациональность и рефлексивный контроль со стороны научного сообщества.

The article presents the epistemological approaches to assessing the scientific theoretical and empirical knowledge. Throughout history, scientists and philosophers have sought to find a universal criterion of the scientific. In particular those were the criteria of verification and falsification. Scientific and philosophical analysis shows that these criteria are acceptable only for empirical knowledge. Theoretical knowledge, in which there are idealized objects need other scientific criteria, such as objectivity, consistency, rationality, reasonableness. The difficulty of valuing certain previously recognized theories (Mueller – Haeckel´s law) for the scientific is demonstrated. "Scientific" as defined by Wittgenstein is a "concept with fuzzy boundaries." The term "scientific" is idealized as a perfect image at odds with the real science. The determining factor as an indicator of formation of scientific knowledge to date can be considered sufficient reason worded law with reliance on rationality and reflexive control by the scientific community.

Keywords

РАЦИОНАЛЬНОСТЬ., ОПРОВЕРГАЕМОСТЬ, ПРОВЕРЯЕМОСТЬ, ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКОЕ ЗНАНИЕ, ЭМПИРИЧЕСКОЕ ЗНАНИЕ, НАУЧНОСТЬ

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
gold