Modern evolutionary picture of the world about laws. Biology and the formation of a modern evolutionary picture of the world
29. Global evolutionism and the modern scientific picture of the world.
Global evolutionism is a direction of philosophical thought that considers the development of animate and inanimate nature in a single evolutionary process; man in such constructions usually acts as the crown of evolution.
As an integral trend, Global evolutionism developed by the early 1990s, when the concepts of evolutionary cosmology were widely recognized and a clear continuity was noticed in the development of the cosmos, the Earth, life and society. A complex of theoretical problems related to the need to somehow reconcile the ideas of classical natural science (where the second law of thermodynamics remains the basic law of irreversibility) and an array of empirical data indicating that over a period of about 15 billion years the Universe has consistently changed from simple to the complex, from equilibrium to disequilibrium, i.e. from most likely to least likely.
The principle of global evolutionism. The universe as a whole and in all its manifestations cannot exist without development.
Darwin proposed a mechanism for its implementation, for the first time applying the principle of evolutionism to one of the areas of reality, thus laying the foundations of theoretical biology. G. Spencer, tried to apply Darwin's ideas in the field of sociology, he proved the fundamental possibility of applying the evolutionary concept to other areas of the world that are not the subject of biology. But in general, the classical nature of knowledge remained untouched by the ideas of evolutionism, evolving systems were considered as a random deviation, the result of local perturbations. They were the first to try to extend the application of the principle of evolutionism beyond the limits, biological and social sciences physics. They put forward the hypothesis of the expansion of the Universe, the data of astronomy forced to recognize the inconsistency of the assumption of its stationarity. The Universe is clearly evolving, starting with the hypothetical Big Bang that gave energy for its development. This concept was proposed in the 1940s and finally established in the 1970s. Thus, evolutionary ideas penetrated into cosmology, the concept of the Big Bang influenced the ideas about the sequence of the appearance of substances in the Universe.
The scientific picture of the world is a set of theories in the aggregate describing known to man the natural world, a holistic system of ideas about general principles and laws of the universe. The functions of the scientific picture of the world include systematizing, explanatory, informative and heuristic. The systematizing function of the scientific picture of the world is ultimately determined by the synthetic nature of scientific knowledge. The scientific picture of the world seeks to organize and streamline the scientific theories, concepts and principles that make up its structure in such a way that most of the theoretical provisions and conclusions are obtained from a small number of fundamental laws and principles (this corresponds to the principle of simplicity). The explanatory function of the scientific picture of the world is determined by the fact that knowledge is aimed not only at describing a phenomenon or process, but also at clarifying its causes and conditions of existence. The informative function of the picture of the world comes down to the fact that the latter describes the alleged structure of the material world, the connections between its elements, the processes occurring in nature and their causes.
The heuristic function of the scientific picture of the world is determined by the fact that “the knowledge of the objective laws of nature contained in it makes it possible to foresee the existence of objects not yet discovered by natural science, to predict their most significant features.
Since the picture of the world is a systemic formation, its change cannot be reduced to any single, albeit the largest and most radical discovery. Usually, we are talking about a whole series of interrelated discoveries, mainly fundamental sciences. There are three such clearly and unambiguously fixed radical changes in the scientific picture of the world, scientific revolutions in the history of the development of science:
1. Aristotelian (VI-IV centuries BC), as a result of this scientific revolution, science itself arose, there was a separation of science from other forms of knowledge and development of the world, certain norms and models of scientific knowledge were created.
2. Newtonian scientific revolution (XVI-XVIII centuries), Its starting point is the transition from the geocentric model of the world to the heliocentric, this transition was due to a series of discoveries associated with the names of N. Copernicus, G. Galileo, I. Kepler, R. Descartes, I. Newton.
3. Einsteinian revolution (the turn of the XIX-XX centuries). It was determined by a series of discoveries (the discovery of the complex structure of the atom, the phenomenon of radioactivity, the discrete nature of electromagnetic radiation, etc.). As a result, the most important premise of the mechanistic picture of the world was undermined - the conviction that with the help of simple forces acting between unchanging objects can explain all the phenomena of nature.
Introduction
“The first step – the creation of a picture of the world from everyday life – is a matter of pure science,” wrote the outstanding physicist of the 20th century. M. Plank.
Historically, the first natural-science picture of the world of modern times was a mechanistic picture that resembled a clock: any event is uniquely determined by the initial conditions that are set (at least in principle) absolutely exactly, and in such a world there is no place for chance. It may contain a "Laplace's demon" - a being capable of covering the entire set of data on the state of the Universe at any moment in time, could not only accurately predict the future, but also restore the past to the smallest detail. The idea of the Universe as a giant clockwork toy prevailed in the 17th-18th centuries. v. It had religious basis because science itself came out of the bowels of Christianity.
God, as a rational being, created a basically rational world, and man, as a rational being, created by God in his own image and likeness, is able to cognize the world. This is the basis of the faith of classical science in itself and people in science. Rejecting religion, the Renaissance man continued to think religiously. The mechanistic picture of the world assumed God as a watchmaker and builder of the universe.
The mechanistic picture of the world was based on the following principles: connection between theory and practice; use of mathematics; real and mental experiment; critical analysis and data validation; the main question is how, not why; there is no "arrow of time" (regularity, determinism and reversibility of trajectories).
But the 19th century came to a paradoxical conclusion: “If the world were a gigantic machine,” thermodynamics proclaimed, “then such a machine would inevitably have to stop, since the supply of useful energy would sooner or later be exhausted.” Then came Darwin with his theory of evolution and there was a shift of interest from physics to biology.
The main result of modern natural science, according to Heisenberg, is that it has destroyed the immobile system of concepts of the 19th century. and increased interest in the ancient predecessor of science - the philosophical rationality of Aristotle.
“One of the main sources of Aristotelian thinking was the observation of embryonic development - a highly organized process in which interrelated, albeit superficially independent events occur, as if obeying a single global plan. Like a developing embryo, all Aristotelian nature is built on final causes. The aim of every change, if it is in accordance with the nature of things, is to realize in every organism the ideal of its rational essence.
In this essence, which, when applied to the living being, is at the same time its final, formal and effective cause, is the key to understanding nature. The birth of modern science - the clash between the followers of Aristotle and Galileo - is a clash between two forms of rationality.
So, we can distinguish three pictures of the world: electromagnetic, mechanistic, evolutionary. In modern natural scientific picture world there is self-development. In this picture there is a man and his thought. It is evolutionary and irreversible. In it, natural science knowledge is inextricably linked with humanitarian knowledge.
1. Mechanistic picture of the world.
It was the private sciences that were striving for perfection in the 17th-19th centuries, which were just beginning to acquire the status of independence and science. It was a period of their breakthrough to new horizons of truths.
Classical mechanics developed other ideas about the world, matter, space and time, movement and development, marked from the previous ones and created new categories of thinking - a thing, property, relationship, element, part, whole, cause, effect, system - through the prism of which it itself became look at the world, describe and explain it.
New ideas about the structure of the world led to the creation of a New Picture of the World - a mechanistic one, which was based on the idea of the universe as a closed system, likened to a mechanical clock, which consists of irreplaceable elements subordinate to each other, the course of which strictly obeys the laws of classical mechanics.
Everyone and everything that is part of the universe obeys the laws of mechanics, and, consequently, universality is attributed to these laws. As in a mechanical watch, in which the course of one element is strictly subordinate to the course of another, so in the universe, according to the mechanistic picture of the world, all processes and phenomena are strictly causally connected with each other, there is no place for chance and everything is predetermined.
In the mechanistic picture of the world, worldview orientations and methodological principles of cognition are set. Mechanism, determinism, reductionism form a system of principles that regulate human research activity. By discovering the laws that describe natural phenomena and processes, a person opposes himself to nature, elevates himself to the level of the master of nature.
Thus, a person puts his activity on a scientific basis, because, proceeding from the mechanistic picture of the world, he is convinced that it is possible, with the help of scientific thinking, to reveal the universal laws of the functioning of the world. This activity is formalized in a rationalistic one. Of course, it is assumed that such activity should be entirely based on the goals, principles, norms, methods of cognition of the object. The actions (scientific) and actions of the researcher, based on the prescriptions of a methodological nature, acquire the features of a sustainable way of activity.
During the period under review, research activities in astronomy, mechanics, and physics were sufficiently rationalized, and these sciences themselves occupied a leading position in natural science.
Physics, as the most developed area of natural science, set the background for the development of other branches of science. The latter gravitated towards rational methodological principles and concepts of physics and mechanics. How this actually happened can be traced on the historical and scientific material of biology.
In the XVII - early. 19th century there was a period of domination of the mechanical picture of the world. The laws of mechanics are considered as universal and uniform for all branches of natural science.
Empirical facts of biology, which are a fixation of single phenomena observed in a period, are reduced to mechanical laws. In other words, the way facts are formed in biology is based on mechanistic ideas about the world.
For example, such facts as: "The bird, which is attracted by the need to water in order to find its life food here, spreads its toes, preparing to row and swim on the water surface"; "The skin that connects the fingers at the base becomes accustomed to stretching due to this incessantly repeated spreading of the fingers.
So, over time, those wide membranes between the fingers of ducks, gray, which we see now, "were completely determined by the ideas of mechanistic determinism. This is clearly evident from the interpretation of these facts. "Frequent use of an organ, which has become a habit, increases the ability of that organ, develops it and informs him of the size and strength of action"; "The disuse of the organ, which has become permanent due to acquired habits, gradually weakens this organ and, in the end, leads it to disappearance and even to complete annihilation."
The mechanistic approach to the adaptation system "animal organism - environment" provides the relevant empirical material.
Already in the last century, physicists supplemented the mechanistic picture of the electromagnetic world. Electric and magnetic phenomena had been known to them for a long time, but they were studied separately from each other. Their further study showed that there is a deep relationship between them, which forced scientists to look for this connection and create a unified electromagnetic theory.
Indeed, the scientist Oersted (1777-1851), having placed over the conductor along which electricity, a magnetic needle, found that it deviates from its original position. This led the scientist to the idea that an electric current creates a magnetic field.
Later, the English physicist Michael Faraday (1791-1867), rotating a closed circuit in a magnetic field, discovered that an electric current arises in it. Based on the experiments of Faraday and other scientists, the English physicist James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) created his electromagnetic theory. In this way, it was proved that in the world there are not only matter in the form of bodies, but also various physical fields. One of them was known in Newton's time and is now called the gravitational field, and earlier it was considered simply as an attractive force arising between material bodies. After various fields became objects of study for physicists along with matter, the picture of the world became more complex. Nevertheless, it was a picture of classical physics, which studied the macrocosm familiar to us. The situation changed radically when scientists turned to the study of processes in the microworld. Here new extraordinary discoveries and phenomena awaited them.
The study of economics also implies a preliminary consideration of the panorama of modern natural science, since the study of ongoing economic processes is impossible without the use of modern scientific methods to understand natural phenomena as an integral part of human life, including economic. At the same time, consideration of the trends in the development of modern natural science will make it possible to distinguish between the extensive and intensive nature of the change in the ways of understanding nature, by analogy with the extensive and intensive development of the economy. Thus, the extensive development of natural science is ensured by the manifestation and improvement of existing methods of studying nature, while the intensive development is ensured by the emergence of qualitatively new methods.
At the end of the last and the beginning of the present centuries, the largest discoveries were made in natural science, which radically changed our ideas about the picture of the world. First of all, these are discoveries related to the structure of matter, and discoveries of the relationship between matter and energy. If earlier the last indivisible particles of matter, the original bricks that make up nature, were considered atoms, then at the end of the last century, electrons that make up atoms were discovered. Later, the structure of the nuclei of atoms, consisting of protons (positively charged particles) and neutrons (devoid of charge particles), was established.
According to the first model of the atom, built by the English scientist Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937), the atom was likened to a miniature solar system in which electrons revolve around the nucleus. Such a system was, however, unstable: the rotating electrons, losing their energy, eventually had to fall onto the nucleus. But experience shows that atoms are very stable formations and enormous forces are required to destroy them. In this regard, the previous model of the structure of the atom was significantly improved by the outstanding Danish physicist Niels Bohr (1885-1962), who suggested that electrons do not radiate energy when rotating in so-called stationary orbits. Such energy is emitted or absorbed in the form of a quantum, or a portion of energy, only when an electron moves from one orbit to another.
Views on energy have also changed significantly. If earlier it was assumed that energy was emitted continuously, then carefully designed experiments convinced physicists that it could be emitted by individual quanta. This is evidenced, for example, by the phenomenon of the photoelectric effect, when visible light quanta cause an electric current. This phenomenon is known to be used in photometers, which are used in photography to determine the shutter speed during exposure.
In the 30s of the XX century. Another important discovery was made, which showed that the elementary particles of matter, such as electrons, have not only corpuscular, but also wave properties. In this way, it was experimentally proved that there is no impassable boundary between matter and field: under certain conditions, elementary particles of matter exhibit wave properties, and field particles exhibit properties of corpuscles. This became known as wave-particle dualism and was a notion that defied common sense.
Prior to this, physicists adhered to the belief that matter, consisting of various material particles, can only have corpuscular properties, and physical fields - wave properties. The combination of corpuscular and wave properties in one object was completely excluded. But under the pressure of irrefutable experimental results scientists were forced to admit that microparticles simultaneously possess both the properties of corpuscles and waves.
In 1925-1927. to explain the processes occurring in the world of the smallest particles of matter - the microworld, a new wave, or quantum, mechanics was created. The last name was approved for new science. Subsequently, various other quantum theories arose: quantum electrodynamics, the theory elementary particles and others who explore the patterns of movement in the microcosm.
Another fundamental theory modern physics- the theory of relativity, which radically changed scientific ideas about space and time. In the special theory of relativity, the principle of relativity established by Galileo was further applied in mechanical movement. According to this principle, in all inertial systems, i.e. reference systems moving uniformly and rectilinearly relative to each other, all mechanical processes occur in the same way, and therefore their laws have a covariant, or the same mathematical, form. Observers in such systems will not notice any difference in the course of mechanical phenomena. Later, the principle of relativity was also used to describe electromagnetic processes. More precisely, the special theory of relativity itself appeared in connection with overcoming the difficulties that arose in the description of physical phenomena.
An important methodological lesson that was learned from the special theory of relativity is that it clearly showed for the first time that all motions occurring in nature are relative. This means that in nature there is no absolute frame of reference and, therefore, no absolute motion, which Newtonian mechanics allowed.
Even more radical changes in the doctrine of space and time occurred in connection with the creation of the general theory of relativity, which is often called the new theory of gravitation, which is fundamentally different from the classical Newtonian theory. This theory for the first time clearly and clearly established the relationship between the properties of moving material bodies and their space-time metrics. Theoretical conclusions from it were experimentally confirmed during the observation of a solar eclipse. According to the predictions of the theory, a beam of light coming from a distant star and passing near the Sun should deviate from its rectilinear path and bend, which was confirmed by observations. We will explore these issues in more detail in the next chapter. Here it is enough to note that the general theory of relativity has shown a deep connection between the motion of material bodies, namely gravitating masses, and the structure of physical space-time.
The scientific and technological revolution that has unfolded in recent decades has brought a lot of new things to our understanding of the natural-scientific picture of the world. The emergence of a systematic approach made it possible to look at the world around us as a single, holistic formation, consisting of a huge variety of systems interacting with each other.
On the other hand, the emergence of such an interdisciplinary area of research as synergetics, or the doctrine of self-organization, made it possible not only to reveal the internal mechanisms of all evolutionary processes that occur in nature, but also to present the whole world as a world of self-organizing processes. The merit of synergetics lies primarily in the fact that it was the first to show that self-organization processes can occur in the simplest systems of an inorganic nature, if there are certain conditions(openness of the system and its non-equilibrium, sufficient distance from the equilibrium point, and some others). The more complex the system, the more high level have processes of self-organization in it. So, already at the prebiological level, autopoietic processes arise, i.e. self-renewal processes, which in living systems act as interrelated processes of assimilation and dissimilation. The main achievement of synergetics and the new concept of self-organization that emerged on its basis is that they help to look at nature as a world that is in the process of continuous evolution and development.
What is the relation of the synergetic approach to the system-wide one? First of all, we emphasize that these two approaches do not exclude, but, on the contrary, presuppose and complement each other. Indeed, when considering a set of any objects as a system, they pay attention to their interconnection, interaction and integrity.
The synergetic approach focuses on the study of the processes of change and development of systems. He studies the processes of emergence and formation of new systems in the process of self-organization. The more complex these processes are in various systems, the higher such systems are on the evolutionary ladder. Thus, the evolution of systems is directly related to the mechanisms of self-organization. The study of specific mechanisms of self-organization and the evolution based on it is the task of specific sciences. Synergetics, on the other hand, reveals and formulates the general principles of self-organization of any systems, and in this respect it is similar to the system method, which considers the general principles of functioning, development and structure of any systems. On the whole, the systems approach is of a more general and broader nature, since, along with dynamic, developing systems, it also considers static systems.
These new worldview approaches to the study of the natural-scientific picture of the world had a significant impact both on the specific nature of knowledge in certain branches of natural science and on understanding the nature of scientific revolutions in natural science. But it is precisely with the revolutionary transformations in natural science that the change in ideas about the picture of the world is connected.
To the greatest extent, changes in the nature of concrete knowledge have affected the sciences that study living nature. The transition from research at the cellular level to the molecular level was marked by major discoveries in biology related to the deciphering of the genetic code, the revision of previous views on the evolution of living organisms, the clarification of old and the emergence of new hypotheses of the origin of life, and much more. Such a transition became possible as a result of the interaction of various natural sciences, wide use in biology of exact methods of physics, chemistry, computer science and computer technology.
In turn, living systems served as a natural laboratory for chemistry, the experience of which scientists sought to embody in their research on the synthesis of complex compounds. The teachings and principles of biology seem to have influenced physics to no lesser extent. Indeed, as we will show in subsequent chapters, the concept of closed systems and their evolution towards disorder and destruction was in clear contradiction with evolutionary theory Darwin, who proved that in living nature new species of plants and animals arise, their improvement and adaptation to environment. This contradiction was resolved due to the emergence of non-equilibrium thermodynamics, based on new fundamental concepts of open systems and the principle of irreversibility.
The advancement of biological problems to the forefront of natural science, as well as the special specificity of living systems, gave rise to a number of scientists to declare a change in the leader of modern natural science. If earlier physics was considered such an undisputed leader, now biology is increasingly acting as such. The basis of the structure of the surrounding world is now recognized not as a mechanism and a machine, but as a living organism. However, numerous opponents of this view, not without reason, declare that since a living organism consists of the same molecules, atoms, elementary particles and quarks, physics should still remain the leader of natural science.
Apparently, the issue of leadership in natural science depends on a variety of factors, among which the decisive role is played by: the importance of the leading science for society, the accuracy, elaboration and generality of its research methods, the possibility of their application in other sciences. Undoubtedly, however, the most impressive for contemporaries are the largest discoveries made in leading science and the prospects for its further development. From this point of view, biology of the second half of the 20th century can be regarded as the leader of modern natural science, because it was within its framework that the most revolutionary discoveries were made.
The difference in ways of considering the organization of the sphere of nature leads to the formation of different concepts of describing nature, which also corresponds to the existence of similar ways of considering the economy. Thus, the corpuscular and conceptual concepts of describing nature are displayed, respectively, in micro- and macroeconomics through the presence of general algorithms for the study of nature and economics, either as consisting of separate elements, or as representing a single whole. At the same time, the concepts of the existence of order or disorder in nature are also reflected in the sphere of economics, where they distinguish between the concept of self-sufficiency of the economic system that does not need to be regulated by the state, and the concept of the need for state regulation of the economic system that is incapable of automatically establishing equilibrium (order ).
The scientific method is a vivid embodiment of the unity of all forms of knowledge about the world. The fact that knowledge in the natural, technical, social and human sciences as a whole is carried out according to some general principles, rules and methods of activity, testifies, on the one hand, to the interconnection and unity of these sciences, and on the other hand, to a common, single source of their knowledge, which is served by the surrounding objective real world: nature and society.
The widespread dissemination of ideas and principles of the systemic method contributed to the emergence of a number of new problems of an ideological nature. Moreover, some Western leaders of the systems approach began to consider it as a new scientific philosophy, which, in contrast to the previously dominant philosophy of positivism, which emphasized the priority of analysis and reduction, focuses on synthesis and anti-reductionism. In this regard, the old philosophical problem of the relationship between the part and the whole is of particular relevance.
Many supporters of mechanism and physicalism argue that the parts play a decisive role in this relationship, since it is from them that the whole arises. But at the same time, they ignore the indisputable fact that, within the framework of the whole, the parts not only interact with each other, but also experience the action of the whole. The attempt to understand the whole by reducing it to an analysis of parts fails precisely because it ignores the synthesis that plays a decisive role in the emergence of any system. Any complex substance or a chemical compound differs in its properties from the properties of its constituent simple substances or elements. Each atom has properties that are different from the properties of its constituent elementary particles. In short, any system is characterized by special holistic, integral properties that are absent from its components.
The opposite approach, based on the priority of the whole over the part, has not received wide distribution in science because it cannot rationally explain the process of the emergence of the whole. Often, therefore, his supporters resorted to the assumption of irrational forces, such as entelechy, life force, and other similar factors. In philosophy, such views are defended by supporters of holism (from the Greek holos - the whole), who believe that the whole always precedes the parts and is always more important than the parts. When applied to social systems, such principles justify the suppression of the individual by society, ignoring his desire for freedom and independence.
At first glance, it may seem that the concept of holism about the priority of the whole over the part is consistent with the principles of the system method, which also emphasizes the great importance of the ideas of integrity, integration and unity in the knowledge of the phenomena and processes of nature and society. But on closer examination, it turns out that holism exaggerates the role of the whole in comparison with the part, the importance of synthesis in relation to analysis. Therefore, it is the same one-sided concept as atomism and reductionism.
The systems approach avoids these extremes in the knowledge of the world. He proceeds from the fact that the system as a whole does not arise in some mystical and irrational way, but as a result of a specific, specific interaction of quite specific real parts. It is due to this interaction of parts that new integral properties of the system are formed. But the newly emerged integrity, in turn, begins to influence the parts, subordinating their functioning to the tasks and goals of a single integral system.
We have seen that not every collection or whole forms a system, and in connection with this we introduced the concept of an aggregate. But any system is a whole formed by its interconnected and interacting parts. Thus, the process of cognition of natural and social systems can be successful only when in them the parts and the whole are studied not in opposition, but in interaction with each other, and analysis is accompanied by synthesis.
3. Ideas about the evolutionary picture of the world.
“What is evolution – a theorem, a system, a hypothesis?. No, something much more than all this: it is the basic condition that all theories, hypotheses, systems must henceforth obey and satisfy if they want to be reasonable and true. The light that illumines the facts, the curve in which all lines must close - this is what evolution is.
In the words of P. Teilhard de Chardin, the word "evolution" should be replaced by the word "evolutionism", since he is not talking about evolution as such, which is understood as the development of the world, but about an evolutionary worldview or evolutionism. Evolutionism is the worldview of the future. Evolution itself, no matter how humanity resists it, will force evolutionism to take over the mass, social consciousness.
But what is this - an evolutionary worldview?
A worldview is generally understood as a system of views through which a person sees the world. The result of such a vision is one or another picture of the world. The bearer of the evolutionary outlook sees the world as the result of its multi-million dollar development. That is why his picture of the world can be called evolutionary.
How can one depict the evolutionary picture of the world in the general view?
From an evolutionary point of view, the entire universe (we can metaphorically call our world with this word) has four floors. Its first floor is physical (dead, inorganic, inert) nature. It is eternal, although it evolves. Physical evolution we will call physiogenesis. Part of this evolution is geogenesis - the origin and development of the Earth.
The second floor of the universe is wildlife. She emerged from the depths of physical matter. Its origin is the greatest mystery. The origin of life and its evolution is otherwise called biogenesis.
The third floor of the universe is non-material. This is the psyche. It is the result of the evolution of the animal kingdom. Its evolution is called psychogenesis.
The fourth floor of the universe is culture. What it is? Culture is everything that is created by man to satisfy his biological (in food, clothing, housing) and spiritual (in religion, science, art, morality, etc.) needs. We will call cultural evolution cultural genesis.
Cultural genesis is nothing but the process of humanization or hominization. Culture and man are synchronous concepts: from the moment our animal ancestors, thanks to their long mental evolution, became able to create the first products of culture, they ceased to be animals, or rather, they embarked on the path of hominization, transformation into people. This process is ongoing. With one person he has made more progress, with another less. This means that the first became a man to a greater extent, and the other - to a lesser extent, i.e. retained a great affinity with our animal ancestors.
Thus, the concept of "man" is an evolutionary concept. In addition, the concepts of "culture" and "man" are homogeneous concepts. That is why humanization (hominization) is nothing but culturalization. To be cultivated (or humanized) means to assimilate the cultural values created in the past, reproduce them in the present and create new ones for the future.
So, let's summarize what has been said. The first floor of the universe is physical nature (physiogenesis takes place inside it), the second floor of the universe is wildlife (biogenesis takes place inside it), the third floor of the universe is the psyche (psychogenesis takes place inside it) and the fourth floor of the universe is culture, within which cultural genesis takes place. The oldest of these floors is the first, the youngest is the last. That is why the universe is more like not a modern high-rise building, but not a porch. True, its lower step has neither beginning nor end. As for the next three steps, they have a beginning and, sadly to admit, an end is possible. It is possible, say, with the cessation of solar energy coming to Earth.
The fact is that in each floor of the universe (or the “microwing”) not only progressive, evolutionary, processes, but also regressive, in-evolutionary ones take place. Progress always struggles with regression, evolution with involution. So, in wildlife, in-evolutionary processes are associated with biological degeneration, in the psyche - with mental degeneration, in culture - with its destruction.
But not only within each level of the universe is the struggle between evolution and involution, this struggle is also carried out between its different levels: dead nature destroys the living, living nature attacks the dead, etc. But culture now has the greatest involutionary potential. It not only protects itself and the whole world, but also destroys it: it pollutes the physical nature, destroys the living, oversaturates the human psyche with harmful information that makes us psychopaths.
What follows from here? It follows from this that the evolutionist sees in the world not only one evolution, he sees in it also its opposite - inevolution. He sees in the world the unity and struggle of evolution against involution. But seeing is not enough, you have to do something! What should people do who have embarked on the path of evolutionism? Contribute to the victory of evolution over involution! But first, we need to understand the concept evolutionary picture peace.
The picture of the world is usually understood as "the totality of worldview knowledge about the world". The evolutionist sees modern world the result of its long development. He can single out four parts in it - physical (dead) nature, living nature, psyche and culture.
Each of the parts of the world is the subject of four particular sciences - physics (in the broad sense of the term), biology, psychology and cultural studies. These sciences are called private because each of them studies the corresponding part of the world.
Above the particular sciences rises the general science - the science of the world as a whole. This is philosophy. It explores all four types of objects - physical, biological, psychological and cultural, but from the side of their common features. These features are the objective basis of philosophical categories (part and whole, essence and phenomenon, quality and quantity, time and space, etc.). Each object is a part and a whole, an essence and a phenomenon, and so on.
Any part of the world has a complex structure. Thus, physical nature consists of the stars, to which the Sun belongs, and the planets, to which the Earth belongs. Our Earth is covered by the atmosphere and hydrosphere, and it itself consists of the core, mantle and earth's crust. The physical world is being studied physical sciences, which includes astronomy, geology, geography, chemistry, microphysics, etc.
Perhaps the most complex of the four parts of the world is culture. It consists of everything that is created by man to satisfy his material and spiritual needs. That is why it is divided into material and spiritual. The main components of material culture are food, clothing, housing and technology; the main components of spiritual culture - religion, science, art, morality, politics and language.
Each of the selected components of culture is studied by the corresponding science.
So, religion is studied by religious studies, science - by science of science, art - by art history, morality - by ethics, politics - by political science, and language - by linguistics (linguistics). Moreover, the six spheres of spiritual culture - religion, science, art, morality, politics and language - depict our world in their own way. In other words, this world is displayed in its different pictures. That is why there are six basic varieties of the picture of the world - religious (mythological), scientific, artistic, moral, political and linguistic.
The professional carriers of the religious picture of the world are priests, scientific - scientists, artistic - artists, moral - moral teachers (moralists), political - politics and language - ordinary speakers of a particular language.
Conclusion
At the turn of the twenty-first century, natural science, apparently, is entering a new historical phase of its development - to the level of post-non-classical science.
Post-non-classical science is characterized by the promotion of interdisciplinary, complex and problem-oriented forms of research activity. Increasingly, in determining the cognitive goals of science, not internal scientific goals, but goals of an economic and socio-political nature are beginning to play a decisive role.
The objects of modern interdisciplinary research are increasingly becoming unique systems characterized by openness and self-development. Historically developing systems are a more complex type of object even in comparison with self-regulating systems. A historically developing system forms over time new levels of its organization, changes its structure, is characterized by the fundamental irreversibility of processes, etc. Among such systems special place occupied by natural complexes, in which the person himself is included (objects of ecology, medical and biological objects, objects of biotechnology, man-machine systems, etc.)
The formation of post-non-classical science leads to a change in the methodological principles of natural science knowledge:
special ways of describing and predicting the possible states of a developing object are formed - the construction of scenarios for possible lines of development of the system (including at bifurcation points);
the ideal of constructing a theory as an axiomatic-deductive system is increasingly combined with the creation of competing theoretical descriptions based on approximation methods, computer programs, etc.;
in the natural sciences, methods are increasingly being used historical reconstruction object, established in the humanities;
in relation to developing objects, the strategy of experimental research also changes: the results of experiments with an object at different stages of development can only be agreed upon taking into account the probabilistic lines of evolution of the system; this is especially true for systems that exist only in one copy - they also require a special strategy for experimental research, since there is no way to reproduce the initial states of such an object;
there is no freedom of choice to experiment with systems in which a person is directly involved;
the ideas of classical and non-classical natural science about the value-neutral nature are changing scientific research- modern methods of describing objects (especially those in which the person himself is directly included) not only allow, but even suggest the introduction of axiological factors into the content and structure of the description method (ethics of science, social expertise of programs, etc.).
Bibliography
Vashchekin N.P. Concepts of modern natural science. – M.: MGUK, 2003, 234 p.
Heisenberg V. Physics and Philosophy. Part and whole. – M.: 2001., 220 p.
Gorelov A.A. The concept of modern natural science. – M.: Ed. Center, 1999., 332 p.
Grushevskaya T.G., Sadokhin P.P. Concepts of modern natural science: Proc. Benefit: High school. - M.: 2003., 178 p.
Danilova B.C., Kozhevnikov N.N. Basic concepts of modern natural science. - M.: Aspect Press, 2000., 257 p.
Dubnishcheva T. Ya. Concepts of modern natural science. - Novosibirsk: YuKEA Publishing House LLC, 2005., 832p.
Kokin A.V. Concepts of modern natural science. - M.: "PRIOR", 1998., 190 p.
Concepts of modern natural science / Ed. V.N. Lavrinenko, V.P. Ratnikov. - M.: UNITI-DANA, 2000., 356 p.
Concepts of modern natural science. / Ed. S.I. Samygin. - Rostov / ND: "Felix", 2002. - 448s.
Brief Philosophical Encyclopedia // Ed. E.F. Gubsky. – M., 1994. – P.201.
Site materials http://www.helpeducation.ru/
Naidysh V.M. The concept of modern natural science. "Guardians". – M.: 2001., 285 p.
Plank M. Introduction to theoretical physics. Mechanics of deformable bodies. - M .: 3rd ed., Rev. – 2005.
Poteev M. I. Concepts of modern natural science, St. Petersburg., "Piter", 2002., 319 p.
Prigogine I., Stengers I. Order out of chaos. – M.: 1986.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin The Phenomenon of Man. - M., 1987.
The work was provided by the user Student.site.
Plank M. Introduction to theoretical physics. Mechanics of deformable bodies. - M .: 3rd ed., Rev. – 2005.
Poteev M. I. Concepts of modern natural science, St. Petersburg., "Piter", 2002., 319 p.
The idea of world development is the most important idea of world civilization. In its far from perfect forms, it began to penetrate into natural science as early as the 18th century. But already in the nineteenth century can be safely called the age of ideas of evolution. At this time, the concepts of development began to penetrate into geology, biology, sociology and humanitarian sciences. In the first half of the XX century. science recognized the evolution of nature, society, man, but the philosophical general principle of development was still absent.
And only by the end of the 20th century, natural science acquired a theoretical and methodological basis for creating a unified model of universal evolution, identifying universal laws of direction and driving forces of the evolution of nature. Such a basis is the theory of self-organization of matter, which represents synergetics. (As mentioned above, synergetics is the science of the organization of matter.) The concept of universal evolutionism, which has reached the global level, connected the origin of the Universe (cosmogenesis), the emergence of solar system and planet Earth (geogenesis), the emergence of life (biogenesis), man and human society (anthroposociogenesis). Such a model of the development of nature is also called global evolutionism, since it covers all the existing and mentally represented manifestations of matter in a single process of self-organization of nature.
Global evolutionism should be understood as the concept of the development of the Universe as a natural whole developing in time. At the same time, the entire history of the Universe, starting from the Big Bang and ending with the emergence of mankind, is considered as a single process, where the cosmic, chemical, biological and social types of evolution are successively and genetically closely interconnected. Space, geological and biological chemistry in a single process of evolution of molecular systems reflects their fundamental transitions and the inevitability of transformation into living matter. Consequently, the most important regularity of global evolutionism is the direction of development of the world whole (universe) to increase its structural organization.
In the concept of universal evolutionism, an important role is played by the idea natural selection. Here, the new always arises as a result of the selection of the most effective shaping. Ineffective neoplasms are rejected by the historical process. A qualitatively new level of the organization of matter is "asserted" by history only when it turns out to be capable of absorbing the previous experience of the historical development of matter. This pattern is especially pronounced for the biological form of motion, but it is characteristic of the entire evolution of matter in general.
The principle of global evolutionism is based on understanding the internal logic of the development of the cosmic order of things, the logic of the development of the Universe as a whole. For this understanding, an important role is played by anthropic principle. Its essence is that consideration and knowledge of the laws of the universe and its structure is carried out by a reasonable person. Nature is what it is only because there is a person in it. In other words, the laws of construction of the Universe must be such that it will certainly give rise to an observer someday; if they were different, there would simply be no one to know the Universe. The anthropic principle indicates the internal unity of the patterns of the historical evolution of the Universe and the prerequisites for the emergence and evolution of living matter up to anthroposociogenesis.
The paradigm of universal evolutionism is a further development and continuation of various ideological pictures of the world. As a result, the very idea of global evolutionism has an ideological character. Its leading goal is to establish the direction of the processes of self-organization and development of processes on the scale of the Universe. In our time, the idea of global evolutionism plays a dual role. On the one hand, it represents the world as an integrity, allows you to comprehend the general laws of being in their unity; on the other hand, modern natural science focuses on the identification of certain patterns of evolution of matter at all structural levels of its organization and at all stages of its self-development.
List of used literature:
1. Louis de Broglie. Selected scientific works. T. 1. Formation of quantum physics: works of 1921-1934. - M.: Logos, 2010. - 556 p.
2. Hawking S. The shortest history of time. Spb. Amphora. 2011.
3. Bunge Mario. Philosophy of Physics. Progress, 1975.- 342 p.
4. History and philosophy of science (Philosophy of science): textbook. Alfa-M: INFRA-M, 2011.-416s. (2nd ed., revised and additional)
5. Grof S. Beyond the Brain, 1993.
Chapter I Global evolutionism…………………………. ………...5
Chapter II. Anthropic principle in cosmology……………………………8
Conclusion………………………………………………………………11
Literature……………………………………………………………….14
INTRODUCTION
Natural Science Worldview (ENMP)- a system of knowledge about nature, formed in the mind of a person in the process of studying natural science subjects, and mental activity to create this system.
The concept of "picture of the world" is one of the fundamental concepts of philosophy and natural science and expresses general scientific ideas about the surrounding reality in their integrity. The concept of "picture of the world" reflects the world as a whole as a single system, that is, a "coherent whole", the knowledge of which implies "knowledge of all nature and history ..." (Marx K., Engels F., collected works, 2nd volume 20, p.630).
The construction of a scientific picture of the world is based on the principle of the unity of nature and the principle of the unity of knowledge. The general meaning of the latter lies in the fact that knowledge is not only infinitely diverse, but at the same time it has features of generality and integrity. If the principle of the unity of nature acts as a general philosophical basis for constructing a picture of the world, then the principle of the unity of knowledge, implemented in the system of ideas about the world, is a methodological tool, a way of expressing the integrity of nature.
The knowledge system in the scientific picture of the world is not built as a system of equal partners. As a result of the uneven development of individual branches of knowledge, one of them is always put forward as the leading one, stimulating the development of others. In the classical scientific picture of the world, such a leading discipline was physics with its perfect theoretical apparatus, mathematical saturation, clarity of principles and scientific rigor of ideas. These circumstances made her the leader of classical natural science, and the methodology of information gave the entire scientific picture of the world a clear physical coloring. However, the severity of these problems has been somewhat smoothed out due to the deep organic interaction of the methods of these sciences and the understanding of the correlation of establishing one or another of their correlations.
In accordance with the modern process of "humanization" of biology, its role in the formation of a scientific picture of the world is increasing. Two "hot spots" are found in its development ... This is the junction of biology and the sciences of inanimate nature .., and the junction of biology and social sciences ...
It seems that with the solution of the issue of the relationship between social and biological, the scientific picture of the world will reflect the world in the form of an integral system of knowledge about inanimate nature, wildlife and the world of social relations. If we are talking about ENKM, then we should keep in mind the most general laws of nature that explain individual phenomena and particular laws.
ENKM is an integrated image of nature, created by synthesizing natural science knowledge based on a system of fundamental laws of nature and including ideas about matter and motion, interactions, space and time.
1. Global evolutionism
One of the most important ideas of European civilization is the idea of world development. In its simplest and undeveloped forms (preformism, epigenesis, Kantian cosmogony), it began to penetrate into natural science as early as the eighteenth century. And already the 19th century can rightly be called the century of evolution. First, geology, then biology and sociology began to pay more and more attention to the theoretical modeling of developing objects.
But in the sciences of inorganic nature, the idea of development made its way very difficult. Until the second half of the 20th century, it was dominated by the original abstraction of a closed reversible system, in which the time factor plays no role. Even the transition from classical Newtonian physics to non-classical (relativistic and quantum) did not change anything in this respect. True, some timid breakthrough in this direction was made by classical thermodynamics, which introduced the concept of entropy and the idea of irreversible time-dependent processes. Thus, the “arrow of time” was introduced into the sciences of inorganic nature. But, ultimately, classical thermodynamics also studied only closed equilibrium systems. And non-equilibrium processes were viewed as perturbations, minor deviations, which should be neglected in the final description of a cognizable object - a closed equilibrium system.
And, on the other hand, the penetration of the idea of development into geology, biology, sociology, and the humanities in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century was carried out independently in each of these branches of knowledge. The philosophical principle of the development of the world (nature, society, man) that was general, pivotal for all natural science (as well as for all science) had no expression. In each branch of natural science, he had his own (independent of other branches) forms of theoretical and methodological concretization.
And only by the end of the 20th century, natural science finds theoretical and methodological means to create a unified model of universal evolution, to identify the general laws of nature that link the origin of the Universe (cosmogenesis), the emergence of the solar system and our planet Earth (geogenesis), the emergence of life into a single whole ( biogenesis) and, finally, the emergence of man and society (anthroposociogenesis). Such a model is the concept of global evolutionism.
It is necessary to dwell on the clarification of the meaning of the use of the term "universal" in relation to the concept of "evolution". The concept of universality is used in two semantic meanings: relative and absolute. Relatively universal concepts apply to all objects known in a given historical epoch, absolutely universal ones apply both to all known objects and to any objects outside of a given historically limited experience. What type of universality is claimed by the concept of "global evolutionism"?
It is known that such relatively universal concepts as quality, quantity, space, time, movement, interaction, etc. are the result of generalizations of true theories relating to both nature and society. The concept of "global evolutionism" has a similar origin, being a generalization of the evolutionary knowledge of various areas of natural science: cosmology, geology, biology. Thus, it can be argued that the concept of "evolution", similarly to the one stated above, is relatively universal. All such relatively universal concepts contain an absolutely universal component. The term "global" in the context of the concept of "evolution" and indicates the presence of such a component. "Global evolutionism" explains such a well-known concept as, for example, "evolution" and predicts a new concept, for example, "self-organization". The main question is whether this new concept exhibits a heuristic function in the construction of a new fundamental theory.
Some hopes are associated with the concept of self-organization in terms of explaining the content of the cosmological anthropic principle. It is believed that within the framework of a broad theory describing the processes of organization in the Universe-Man system, the anthropic principle will be explained or even elevated to the rank of a law.
Such a hope is due to the fact that in the modern era one can state the presence of a certain result of such self-organization. The fact that life, reason came to current state its relationship with the environment in the process of organization is beyond doubt, based on the historical analysis of this organization at the level of geogenesis, biogenesis, sociogenesis
In the concept of global evolutionism, the Universe is presented as a natural whole developing in time. The entire history of the Universe from the “Big Bang” to the emergence of mankind is considered in this concept as a single process in which the cosmic, chemical, biological and social types of evolution are successively and genetically linked. Cosmochemistry, geochemistry, biochemistry here reflect the fundamental transitions in the evolution of molecular systems and the inevitability of their transformation into organic matter.
The concept of global evolutionism emphasizes the most important pattern - the direction of the development of the world as a whole to increase its structural organization. The entire history of the Universe, from the moment of singularity to the emergence of man, appears as a single process of material evolution, self-organization, self-development of matter. An important role in the concept of universal evolutionism is played by the idea of selection: the new arises as a result of the selection of the most effective shaping, while inefficient innovations are rejected by the historical process; A qualitative new level of the organization of matter finally asserts itself when it is able to absorb the previous experience of the historical development of matter. This pattern is characteristic not only for the biological form of motion, but also for the entire evolution of matter. The principle of global evolutionism requires not just knowledge of the temporal order of the formation of matter levels, but a deep understanding of the internal logic of the development of the cosmic order of things, the logic of the development of the Universe as a whole.
2. Anthropic principle in cosmology
The anthropic principle plays a very important role on this path. The content of this principle is that the emergence of humanity, the cognizing subject (and, therefore, anticipating the social form of the movement of matter in the organic world) was possible due to the fact that the large-scale properties of our Universe (its deep structure) are exactly what they are; if they were different, there would simply be no one to know the Universe. This principle indicates the presence of a deep internal unity of the laws of the historical evolution of the Universe, the Universe with the prerequisites for the emergence and evolution of the organic world up to anthroposociogenesis.
The anthropic principle indicates the existence of a certain type of universal systemic connections that determine the integral nature of the existence and development of our Universe, our world as a certain systematically organized fragment of an infinitely diverse material nature. Understanding the content of such universal connections, the deep internal unity of the structure of our world (the Universe) gives the key to the theoretical and ideological justification of programs and projects for the future space activity of human civilization. , and due to the self-consistency of the system of attributes, it fixes the type of reality. By identifying observability-participation with the representation of the Universe as a space-time phenomenon, it is possible to give a modified version of the anthropic principle of participation:
"The simplest pre-geometric Universe should be such that it would be possible to construct a space-time representation of it inside it." From here it can be deduced that the anthropic principle of participation fixes not only the type of macroscopic reality, but also all other types of reality, ontologically independent, but, according to the concept of "superspace", underlying the first. Thus, it receives further development the concept of ontological non-geocentrism: the anthropic principle states the selection of content in relation to universal features, corresponding types of reality, interconnected. The emergence, genesis of the Universe means the constitution of the objective content of the concept of the Universe in the form of thinking of human civilization.
So, analysis of the concept of the anthropic principle of participation shows that
here, evolution, the history of human knowledge and cognition are presented in a logically summarized form, and the dialectics of the content and form of cognition by Man of our Universe is revealed on specific examples. Global evolutionism manifested itself here in the prediction of such concepts as "self-correlation", "observability", "irreversibility", "nonequilibrium". In this conception, the very process of cognition is subject to evolution: "Physics finally becomes as historical as history itself." The appeal to history gave impetus to the self-consciousness of physics itself, to the development of a new type of physical rationality, or, in the words of I.Prigozhin and I.Stengers, a new dialogue between man and nature.
At present, the idea of global evolutionism is not only a statement, but also a regulative principle. On the one hand, it gives an idea of the world as a whole, allows us to think of the general laws of being in their unity, and, on the other hand, directs modern natural science to identify specific patterns of global evolution of matter at all its structural levels, at all stages of its self-organization.
conclusion
One of the old mottos says: “knowledge is power.” Science makes man powerful before the forces of nature. With the help of natural science, man exercises his dominance over the forces of nature, develops material production, and improves social relations. Only through knowledge of the laws of nature can a person change and adapt natural things and processes so that they satisfy his needs.
Natural science is both a product of civilization and a condition for its development. With the help of science, a person develops material production, improves social relations, educates and educates new generations of people, heals his body. The progress of natural science and technology significantly changes the way of life and well-being of a person, improves the living conditions of people.
Natural science is one of the most important engines of social progress. As the most important factor in material production, natural science is a powerful revolutionary force. Great scientific discoveries (and technical inventions closely related to them) have always had a tremendous (and sometimes completely unexpected) impact on the destinies of human history. Such discoveries were, for example, discoveries in the 17th century. the laws of mechanics that made it possible to create the entire machine technology of civilization; discovery in the nineteenth century. electromagnetic field and the creation of electrical engineering, radio engineering, and then radio electronics; creation in the twentieth century, theories atomic nucleus, and after him - the discovery of means of releasing nuclear energy; expansion in the middle of the twentieth century. molecular biology of the nature of heredity (DNA structure) and the possibilities of genetic engineering for the management of heredity that have opened up as a result; and etc. Most of modern material civilization would be impossible without the participation in its creation of scientific theories, scientific and design developments, technologies predicted by science, etc.
In the modern world, science causes people not only admiration and admiration, but also fears. You can often hear that science brings a person not only benefits, but also the greatest misfortunes. Atmospheric pollution, catastrophes at nuclear power plants, an increase in the radioactive background as a result of nuclear weapons tests, an “ozone hole” above the planet, a sharp reduction in plant and animal species - people tend to explain all these and other environmental problems by the very fact of the existence of science. But the point is not in science, but in whose hands it is, what social interests stand behind it, what public and state structures direct its development.
The growing global problems of mankind increase the responsibility of scientists for the fate of mankind. question about historical destinies and the role of science in its relation to man, the prospects for his development has never been so sharply discussed as at the present time, in the context of the growing global crisis of civilization. The old problem of the humanistic content of cognitive activity (the so-called “Rousseau problem”) has acquired a new concrete historical expression: can a person (and if so, to what extent) count on science in solving the global problems of our time? Is science able to help humanity in getting rid of the evil that modern civilization carries in itself with the technologization of people's way of life?
Science is a social institution, and it is closely connected with the development of the whole society. The complexity and inconsistency of the current situation is that science, of course, is involved in the generation of global, and, above all, environmental problems of civilization (not in itself, but as a part of society dependent on other structures); and at the same time, without science, without its further development, the solution of all these problems is in principle impossible. And this means that the role of science in the history of mankind is constantly increasing. And therefore, any belittling of the role of science, natural science is currently extremely dangerous, it disarms humanity in the face of the growing global problems of our time. And such derogation, unfortunately, sometimes takes place, it is represented by certain mindsets, tendencies in the system of spiritual culture.
Literature
1. Davis P. Random Universe. M., 1985
2. Kazyutinsky V.V. General patterns evolution and the problem of extraterrestrial civilizations // The problem of the search for life in the Universe. S. 58
3. Krymsky S.B., Kuznetsov V.I. Worldview categories in modern natural science. Kiev, 1983
4. Mostepanenko A.M. Physics and cosmology of the 20th century: from subjective to objective dialectics // Materialistic dialectics and ways of development of natural sciences. L., 1987
- Panovkin B.N. Principles of self-organization and problems of the origin of life in the Universe. S. 62.
- Pinmkin B.N. Principles of self-organization and problems of the origin of life in the Universe // Problem of the search for life in the Universe. M., 1986
- Stepin V.S. Philosophical anthropology and philosophy of science. - M., 1992
8. Wheeler J. Knant and the Universe // Astrophysics, quanta and the theory of relativity. M., 1982
Tutoring
Need help learning a topic?
Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
1. The concept of a natural-science picture of the world
2. Evolution of the natural-science picture of the world
3. Scientific method and its evolution
Bibliography
1. THE CONCEPT OF THE NATURAL SCIENTIFIC PICTURE OF THE WORLD
natural science picture of the world evolution
The natural-science picture of the world is a set of theories in the aggregate describing the natural world known to man, an integral system of ideas about the general principles and laws of the universe. Since the picture of the world is a systemic formation, its change cannot be reduced to any single, albeit the largest and most radical discovery. As a rule, we are talking about a whole series of interconnected discoveries in the main fundamental sciences. These discoveries are almost always accompanied by a radical restructuring of the research method, as well as significant changes in the very norms and ideals of scientificity.
The scientific picture of the world is a special form of theoretical knowledge that represents the subject of science research according to a certain stage of its historical development, through which specific knowledge obtained in various fields of scientific research is integrated and systematized. The term "picture of the world" is used in various senses. It is used to refer to the worldview structures that underlie the culture of a certain historical era. The terms "image of the world", "model of the world", "vision of the world", characterizing the integrity of the worldview, are used in the same meaning. The term "picture of the world" is also used to refer to scientific ontologies, i.e. those ideas about the world that are a special type of scientific theoretical knowledge. In this sense, the concept of "scientific picture of the world" is used to denote the horizon of systematization of knowledge obtained in various scientific disciplines. At the same time, the scientific picture of the world acts as a holistic image of the world, including ideas about nature and society. Secondly, the term "scientific picture of the world" is used to refer to a system of ideas about nature that are formed as a result of the synthesis of natural science knowledge (in a similar way, this concept refers to the totality of knowledge obtained in the humanities and social sciences). Thirdly, through this concept, a vision of the subject of a particular science is formed, which is formed at the corresponding stage of its history and changes during the transition from one stage to another. According to the indicated meanings, the concept of the scientific picture of the world is split into a number of interrelated concepts, each of which denotes a special type of scientific picture of the world as a special level of systematization of scientific knowledge: "general scientific", "natural science" and "social scientific"; "special (private, local) scientific" picture of the world. The main components of the scientific picture of the world are ideas about fundamental objects, about the typology of objects, about their relationship and interaction, about space and time.
In the real process of development of theoretical knowledge, the scientific picture of the world performs a number of functions, among which the main ones are heuristic (functioning as a research program of scientific search), systematizing and worldview. These functions have a systemic organization and are characteristic of both special and general scientific pictures of the world. The scientific picture of the world is a developing entity. In its historical dynamics, three major stages can be distinguished: N.K.M. predisciplinary science, N.K.M. disciplinary-organized science and modern N.K.M., corresponding to the stage of strengthening interdisciplinary interactions. The first stage of functioning is associated with the formation in the culture of the New Age of a mechanical picture of the world as a single, acting as both general scientific, and as natural science, and as a special N.K.M. Its unity was set through a system of principles of mechanics, which were broadcast to neighboring branches of knowledge and acted as explanatory provisions in them. Formation of special N.K.M. (the second stage in dynamics) is associated with the formation of the disciplinary organization of science. The emergence of natural-science, technical, and then humanitarian knowledge contributed to the formation of the subject areas of specific sciences and led to their differentiation. Each science in this period did not strive to build a generalized picture of the world, but developed within itself a system of ideas about its own subject of research (special N.K.M.). New stage in the development of the scientific picture of the world (third) is associated with the formation of post-non-classical science, characterized by the strengthening of the processes of disciplinary synthesis of knowledge. This synthesis is based on the principles of global evolutionism. A feature of the modern scientific picture of the world is not the desire to unify all areas of knowledge and reduce them to the ontological principles of any one science, but unity in the diversity of disciplinary ontologies. Each of them appears as part of a more complex whole, and each concretizes within itself the principles of global evolutionism. The development of the modern scientific picture of the world is one of the aspects of the search for new worldview meanings and answers to the historical challenge facing modern civilization. General cultural meaning of N.K.M. is determined by its involvement in solving the problem of choosing the life strategies of mankind, the search for new ways of civilizational development. Changes taking place in modern science and fixed in N.K.M., correlate with the search for new worldview ideas which are produced in various fields culture (philosophy, religion, art, etc.). Modern N.K.M. embodies the ideals of open rationality, and its ideological consequences are associated with philosophical and ideological ideas and values that arise on the basis of various and in many ways alternative cultural traditions.
2. EVOLUTION OF THE NATURAL SCIENTIFIC PICTURE OF THE WORLD
In the history of the development of science, three clearly and unambiguously fixed radical changes in the scientific picture of the world, scientific revolutions, can be distinguished, they are usually personified by the names of the three scientists who played the greatest role in the changes taking place.
1. Aristotelian (VI-IV centuries BC), as a result of this scientific revolution, science itself arose, there was a separation of science from other forms of knowledge and development of the world, certain norms and models of scientific knowledge were created. This revolution is most fully reflected in the writings of Aristotle. He created formal logic, i.e. theory of proof, main instrument derivation and systematization of knowledge, developed a categorical conceptual apparatus. He affirmed a kind of canon for the organization of scientific research (history of the issue, statement of the problem, arguments for and against, justification of the decision), differentiated knowledge itself, separating the sciences of nature from mathematics and metaphysics.
2. Newtonian scientific revolution (XVI-XVIII centuries), Its starting point is the transition from the geocentric model of the world to the heliocentric, this transition was due to a series of discoveries associated with the names of N. Copernicus, G. Galileo, I. Kepler, R. Descartes, I. Newton, summed up their research and formulated the basic principles of a new scientific picture of the world in general terms. Main changes:
1. Classical natural science spoke the language of mathematics, managed to single out strictly objective quantitative characteristics terrestrial bodies (shape, magnitude, mass, movement) and express them in strict mathematical patterns.
2. The science of modern times has found a powerful support in the methods of experimental research, phenomena under strictly controlled conditions.
3. The natural sciences of that time abandoned the concept of a harmonious, complete, expediently organized cosmos, according to their ideas, the Universe is infinite and united only by the action of identical laws.
4. Mechanics becomes the dominant feature of classical natural science, all considerations based on the concepts of value, perfection, goal-setting were excluded from the scope of scientific research.
5. In cognitive activity, a clear opposition of the subject and object of research was implied. The result of all these changes was a mechanistic scientific picture of the world based on experimental mathematical natural science.
3. Einsteinian revolution (the turn of the XIX-XX centuries). It was determined by a series of discoveries (the discovery of the complex structure of the atom, the phenomenon of radioactivity, the discrete nature of electromagnetic radiation, etc.). As a result, the most important premise of the mechanistic picture of the world was undermined - the conviction that with the help of simple forces acting between immutable objects, all natural phenomena can be explained.
Fundamentals of the new picture of the world:
1. general and special theory of relativity (the new theory of space and time has led to the fact that all frames of reference have become equal, therefore all our ideas make sense only in a certain frame of reference. The picture of the world has acquired a relative, relative character, the key ideas about space have changed, time, causality, continuity, the unambiguous opposition of the subject and the object was rejected, the perception turned out to be dependent on the frame of reference, which includes both the subject and the object, the method of observation, etc.)
2. quantum mechanics (it revealed the probabilistic nature of the laws of the microworld and the irremovable corpuscular-wave dualism in the very foundations of matter). It became clear that it will never be possible to create an absolutely complete and reliable scientific picture of the world, any of them has only relative truth.
Later, within the framework of the new picture of the world, there were revolutions in particular sciences in cosmology (the concept of a non-stationary Universe), in biology (the development of genetics), etc. Thus, throughout the 20th century, natural science has greatly changed its appearance, in all its sections.
Three global revolutions predetermined three long periods in the development of science; they are key stages in the development of natural science. This does not mean that the periods of evolutionary development of science lying between them were periods of stagnation. At this time, the most important discoveries were also made, new theories and methods were being created, it was in the course of evolutionary development that material was accumulated that made revolution inevitable. In addition, between the two periods of development of science separated by the scientific revolution, as a rule, there are no irremovable contradictions, according to the principle of correspondence formulated by N. Bohr, the new scientific theory does not completely reject the previous one, but includes it as a special case, that is, establishes for its limited scope. Even now, when even a hundred years have not passed since the emergence of the new paradigm, many scientists are suggesting the proximity of new global revolutionary changes in the scientific picture of the world.
3. THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND ITS EVOLUTION
The main and specific feature of science, which distinguishes it from all other phenomena of human activity, is the scientific method. This term is understood as a set of rules of varying degrees of generality that help the scientist move along a certain path among many and often contradictory facts. At the same time, many believe that the scientific method does not relieve the scientist of the elements inherent in art - fantasy, surprise and intuition. Practice confirms that strict rules here and there are sometimes not so much useful as harmful.
Thus, the scientific method is a set of basic methods for obtaining new knowledge and methods for solving problems within the framework of any science.
The method includes ways to study phenomena, systematization, correction of new and previously acquired knowledge. Inferences and conclusions are made using the rules and principles of reasoning based on empirical (observed and measured) data about the object. Observations and experiments are the basis for obtaining data. To explain the observed facts, hypotheses are put forward and theories are built, on the basis of which conclusions and assumptions are formulated. The resulting predictions are tested by experiment or by collecting new facts.
An important side of the scientific method, its integral part for any science, is the requirement of objectivity, excluding the subjective interpretation of the results. Any statements should not be taken on faith, even if they come from reputable scientists. To ensure independent verification, observations are documented, and all initial data, methods and research results are made available to other scientists. This allows not only to obtain additional confirmation by reproducing experiments, but also to critically assess the degree of adequacy (validity) of experiments and results in relation to the theory being tested.
The scientific method implies that scientific statements contain the fundamental possibility of refutation. This means that they may be available in their entirety for verification and reproduction by other scientists. For this reason, the description of a scientific study must be complete and unambiguous. This requirement is extraordinarily carefully observed in the fundamental sciences - chemistry, physics and biology. The limited existence of biological objects in time and space, high adaptability, i.e. the ability to change under the influence of external conditions, turns even a simple description of the experiment into a logically coherent sequence, starting from the name of the study and ending with the conclusion and conclusions. Refutability and reproducibility are the most important features of scientific knowledge. Knowledge that can neither be refuted nor reproduced is classified as extra-scientific and para-scientific.
Such is religious knowledge. It was originally built on the basis of unknowability, and there is no room in it for a thought experiment to test the idea of a higher being - God.
Among the areas of pseudoscientific knowledge, outwardly similar to science, astrology stands out. The focus of astrology on the construction of predictions by relative position celestial bodies harmonizes with the idea of the unity of animate and inanimate nature, nature and man, earth and space. Ordinary consciousness attracts the idea of unity as a key argument that gives the systems of astrological knowledge the position of scientific character. However, the external scientific nature of astrology and the unity of the whole world cannot hide the fact that the purpose of astrology has never been to explain reality, to build and improve a rational idea of the world, such as it is in itself. The bottom line is that the form of scientific knowledge is presented in a form suitable for subsequent use, for further increment of knowledge, but astrology as a system of knowledge is not suitable for such purposes. Its main object of prediction is the person himself. For this reason, astrological knowledge belongs to the field of socio-psychological phenomena. Psychological, personal conviction, of course, is not at all equivalent to the logic of objective, rationally justified knowledge. The criterion for the refutation of astrological knowledge, if it were scientific, should be realized through the discrepancy between the prediction model and actual events. Verification should take place regardless of the person in respect of whom the astrological forecast was made. It is easy to see that the individuality of the psyche, its inconsistency in assessing what is really taking place, deprive the application of this criterion of meaning. The uncertainty of the astrological forecast and the vagueness of individual assessments of the essence of real events are so wide that they will definitely come into contact.
Separate parts of the scientific method were used by philosophers ancient greece. They developed the rules of logic and principles for conducting a dispute, the pinnacle of which was sophistry. Socrates is credited with saying that truth is born in a dispute. However, the goal of the sophists was not so much scientific truth how much win in lawsuits where the formalism exceeded any other approach. At the same time, the conclusions obtained as a result of reasoning were given preference over observed practice. A famous example is the assertion that swift-footed Achilles will never overtake a tortoise.
In the 20th century, a hypothetical-deductive model of the scientific method was formulated, consisting in the consistent application of the following steps:
1. Use Experience: Consider a problem and try to make sense of it. Find previously known explanations. If this is a new issue for you, go to step 2.
2. Formulate a hypothesis: If nothing known fits, try to formulate an explanation, state it to someone else or in your notes.
3. Draw conclusions from the assumption: If the assumption (step 2) is true, which of its consequences, conclusions, predictions can be made according to the rules of logic?
4. Check: Find facts that contradict each of these conclusions in order to disprove the hypothesis (step 2). Using the findings (step 3) as evidence for the hypothesis (step 2) is a logical fallacy. This error is called "confirmation by the investigation."
About a thousand years ago, Ibn al-Haytham demonstrated the importance of the 1st and 4th steps. Galileo in his treatise "Conversations and Mathematical Foundations of Two New Sciences Concerning Mechanics and the Laws of Fall" (1638) also showed the importance of the 4th step (also called experiment). The steps of the method can be performed in order - 1, 2, 3, 4. If, following the results of step 4, the conclusions from step 3 passed the test, you can continue and go back to the 3rd, then 4th, 1st and so on steps. But if the results of the verification from step 4 showed the predictions from step 3 to be false, you should return to step 2 and try to formulate a new hypothesis (“new step 2”), at step 3, substantiate new assumptions based on the hypothesis (“new step 3”), check them in step 4 and so on.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Elfimov T.M. The emergence of the new. M., 2003. - 157 p.
2. Nemirovskaya L.Z. Culturology. History and theory of culture. M., 2001. - 264 p.
3. Stepin V.S., Gorokhov V.G., Rozov M.A. Philosophy of science and technology. M., 2005. - 326 p.
4. E-library[Electronic resource] - access mode: http://slovari.yandex.ru/
5. Yazev S.A. What is the scientific method? [Electronic resource] / S.A. Yazev // Chemistry and life. - 2008. - № 5. - Access mode: http://elementy.ru
