Each person has his own image of the surrounding reality and the society in which he exists. This image includes ideas about personality, freedom, equality and justice in relation to other people, family, organization of activities and other attributes of life. Unlike sciences such as physics, chemistry or biology, sociology operates with clear concepts that are constantly used in everyday life. Burdened with erroneous opinions, prejudices, and false stereotypes, people in many cases misinterpret the content of social phenomena. In this regard, it is important to separate ordinary knowledge, which is often erroneous and incomplete, from scientific knowledge. To do this, we will give brief characteristics of various methods and sources of obtaining knowledge about the physical and social reality around us.
Intuition. The famous ancient Roman physician, physiologist and anatomist Galen, who lived in the 2nd century. AD, developed a diagram of the structure of the human body, indicating precisely the places where it could be opened without death. How could he determine the vulnerabilities of the human body? Of course, he proceeded from knowledge of human anatomy obtained through observation. But, according to modern scientists, this was not enough. Much was based on intuition, which Galen trusted very much. It was his intuition that suggested to him the zones in which interference from the outside could be fatal for a person.
Scientists, public and political figures, and generals often base their actions on intuition, which can lead to situations favorable to them, justify their assumptions, but can also turn out to be erroneous, causing long-term delusions and serious consequences.
Speaking about the intuitive way of obtaining knowledge, we will proceed from the fact that intuition is a flash of insight (true or false), the source of which cannot be accurately identified or explained. Intuition serves as the basis for many very important hypotheses that can be tested by other methods. The experience of the development of science shows that intuition is an indispensable component of scientific knowledge and its main value lies in finding and formulating hypotheses of a scientific theory, which, after testing, can become the defining moments of a scientific discovery.
At the same time, intuition cannot be considered a satisfactory source of knowledge about the surrounding reality for formulating deep conclusions. Indeed, flashes of insight are not enough to determine the essence of the phenomena of the physical and social world around us. To be fair, it must be said that in some cases, intuition based on vague information and fragmentary, unfinished experiments can lead to remarkable, ingenious conclusions and even to the construction of scientific theories. But how can such intuitive knowledge be tested and verified? Often this is simply impossible to do. For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Anaximander, based on intuition, came to construct the theory of evolution. This happened in the 6th century. BC, but only in the 19th century. AD there was an opportunity to check and confirm it. In most cases, intuitive knowledge cannot be verified at the moment the intuitive hunch occurs. As for the study of relationships between people, the behavior of individuals and social groups, social movements and processes, in this case intuitive knowledge most often cannot be verified at all, or such an opportunity is provided only when the situation in society has already changed.
Reliance on scientific authorities. Two thousand years ago, Galen knew more about human anatomy than any mortal, and is still revered by physiologists and anatomists as an authority in this field of knowledge. Euclid established that two parallel lines never intersect, and many generations of schoolchildren and students had to trust this axiom without a doubt, because otherwise they would be considered ignorant of elementary truths. For centuries, the scientific creative thought of Europe was suppressed by the authority of Aristotle, and a great many such examples can be cited. Even now, situations are common when everyone is convinced that an authority on some issue is certainly right, and ideas that do not correspond to his judgment are wrong, that he is a leader in the world around us and shows the way to researchers.
There is a danger of abuse of authority in science, but we cannot do without an authoritative opinion. This is due to the fact that all the knowledge we have accumulated is too voluminous and vague, and therefore difficult to assimilate and practically use. We need guidelines and basic provisions, points of reference from which we can start. We will take on faith what has been collected and processed in certain areas of knowledge by specialists, considering them authorities. But only information obtained by scientists and specialists in those fields in which they are competent is recognized as authoritative; people, as a rule, do not recognize authorities who judge everything in general.
There are usually several types of authority in the field of obtaining, mastering and using knowledge. Sacred authority, or the authority of faith, rests on the unshakable conviction that certain traditions or documents (for example, the Bible, Koran, Vedas, etc.) are supernatural objects and, therefore, all knowledge, all information contained in them must be considered absolutely true and cannot be doubted. Sacral authority also includes the belief that certain groups or categories of people, as well as social institutions, actually possess supernatural knowledge and means of influencing people (church, doctors, healers, saints, psychics, etc.). Unlike sacred secular authority appears as a result of faith not in supernatural insights and abilities, but in the power of knowledge and human experience. Secular authority is divided into secular scientific authority, which is based on empirical research, data obtained from experiments, and secular humanist authority, which is based on the belief that a certain remarkable or great person actually has outstanding insight into the phenomena of the world around us or in the field of human behavior.
The area in which a particular authority is recognized by society, a social stratum or a social group is usually very narrow and limited by rigid boundaries. People incompetent in a given area of knowledge must rely on other authorities- specialists, professionals. This is the only way not to be funny in the eyes of others. Each person, depending on their level of development and social environment, solves the problem of choosing the most significant authorities in various fields of human knowledge in their own way.
However, the acquisition of true scientific knowledge is based on the indispensable condition that there are no scientific authorities who would have the last word in achieving the truth on any issue. A scientist must respect scientific authorities, but at the same time he creates and puts forward new scientifically based assumptions and tests authoritative conclusions. Authority should not hinder future researchers, but, on the contrary, can and should become a springboard to new research. Scientific knowledge expands, ruthlessly rejecting "final" solutions, constantly questioning the theories and conclusions of recognized authorities.
Tradition. One of the most convincing sources of obtaining and transmitting knowledge is tradition, since it is in it that the wisdom of centuries is accumulated. But does this mean that those who disdain traditional ideas and conclusions can be considered either mentally defective or fools, or if a tradition has proven itself well in the past, then its main provisions should be accepted unchanged? In answering these questions, it should be borne in mind that tradition preserves both the cumulative wisdom and the cumulative stupidity accumulated by past generations. It can be imagined as the attic of society, into which are squeezed all kinds of useful models and all kinds of errors, useless and outdated relics. The great task of scientific knowledge is to help avoid repeating the mistakes of our ancestors. As for sociology, one of its tasks can be considered to be the selection of the present, the true from these traditions and the sweeping away of everything outdated, which is an obstacle to the study of society.
Public common sense. For thousands of years, people have believed that the earth is flat, that stone and iron are absolutely solid bodies, that the true character of a person can be recognized by the expression of his face, that the Sun is smaller than the Earth, etc. Today we know that many of these statements, based on common sense, on public opinion, are not true.
In the case when we do not know where certain ideas or statements come from and on what they are based, we explain them with common sense. Having given such an explanation to our ideas, we usually believe that they do not need to be tested, and we convince ourselves that the idea or statement is true because it is self-evident. This belief can unite people in a collective self-deception, suggesting that all these ideas and statements can always be verified, that their truth can be proven at any time. The term "public common sense" gives significance and importance to various concepts (views, opinions) that have no systematic evidence of truth to which to refer.
Public common sense and tradition are closely related to each other, since behind the multiple and varied statements of public common sense there is a certain past experience, some traditional ideas. The difference between tradition and public common sense can be seen primarily in the fact that traditional truths are trusted over some long period of time, while statements made on the basis of public common sense are accepted, uncritical and usually short-lived conclusions about various aspects of the reality around us , which can be believed and followed by a very limited circle of people.
Often positions and statements put forward by public common sense arise from collective guesses, premonitions, accidents, and mistakes. It is the use of past experience by public common sense that allows, in some cases, to come to useful and correct guesses and conclusions. For example, the statement that “when people clash, a gentle response relieves irritation and tension” is a valuable practical observation of the events that occur in the course of everyday human interaction. However, observations based on public common sense often lead to erroneous conclusions.
Common sense can be determined both by folk wisdom and by misconceptions, the task of science is to separate them from each other. Sociologists, more often than representatives of other sciences, have to fight the misconceptions of public common sense, since people encounter the subject of sociological research almost every day and have fairly stable judgments about it. Therefore, sociologists, presenting the results of their scientific developments, must be able to connect scientific knowledge with the foamy everyday experience accumulated by people in the course of their social activities.
Scientific knowledge. Only in the last two and a half centuries has the scientific method become generally accepted for obtaining answers to questions that arise when people interact with the surrounding reality. As for the study of the social world, in this area science became an authoritative source of knowledge relatively recently (about 100 years ago), and in such a short period of time humanity has gained more knowledge about the social world than in the previous 10 thousand years. Effective acquisition of new reliable knowledge is associated, first of all, with the use of scientific methods. What makes scientific methods so productive? How do they differ from other ways of understanding the world around us, from other ways of comprehending the truth?
The main distinguishing feature of scientific knowledge is that it is based on evidence that can be verified. By evidence in this case we will mean the specific results of actual observations that other observers have the opportunity to see, weigh, measure, count or check for accuracy. Nowadays, evidence-based knowledge has become commonplace among members of society, and many are somewhat knowledgeable about scientific methods. But just a few centuries ago, medieval scholastics could carry on lengthy debates about how many teeth a horse has, without taking the trouble to look into its mouth and count the teeth.
Since human knowledge is associated with factually verifiable evidence, science deals only with questions on which this evidence can be given. Questions such as whether there is a God, how to predict fate, or what makes objects beautiful are not within the scope of scientific knowledge, since the facts relating to them cannot be weighed, evaluated and verified. These questions may be incredibly important to people, but the scientific method does not have the tools to address them. Scientists can study the reasons for a person's belief in God, in fate, in beauty, or in anything else, or determine the personal or social consequences of a particular belief, but this will do nothing to establish the truth or fallacy of the beliefs themselves. Thus, science cannot provide answers to all questions important to humanity; many of them are beyond its competence. The scientific method is the most effective source of real knowledge about human behavior and the reality around them, but science cannot answer questions about supernatural phenomena or fundamental principles of aesthetics. The answers to these questions are found in metaphysics or religion.
Each scientific conclusion serves as the best interpretation of all the evidence available at that moment, but new evidence may appear the next day, and a seemingly comprehensively and carefully proven scientific conclusion will instantly turn out to be untenable. Constant criticism and refutation of what has been previously proven is a common and even obligatory phenomenon in science: the fundamental property of scientific knowledge is that all conclusions and hypotheses obtained using the scientific method can be criticized and refuted. This leads to the fact that the process of scientific knowledge is endless and there cannot be absolute truth. All scientific truths are based on experimental data corresponding to a certain stage in the development of human thought. Therefore, they are constantly revised in the light of new evidence, new experimental data. Some scientific conclusions (for example, that the Earth is a spheroid, that innate abilities manifest only in certain cultural environments) are based on such a strong foundation of evidence that scientists doubt whether they can be refuted by new evidence.
It is difficult to imagine a person who is completely free in his actions, the formation of personal goals and the choice of behavioral alternatives. Every person living in society is influenced not only by the individuals, associations, and groups surrounding him, but also by the results of their past activities: a system of values, norms, rules, legal laws. In addition, it is obvious that an important factor limiting the free activity of a person is his environment: climatic conditions, objects of material culture created by human hands, natural terrestrial and cosmic phenomena. If we add to this the influence of character traits and other personality traits, it becomes obvious that the number of barriers and restrictions that change human behavior is quite large.
As a result of this, the actions of people associated in social groups and the activities of social institutions become largely unidirectional, and the behavior of people, controlled by the influence of the group and institutions, becomes less diverse and more standardized. This determines the repeatability of human behavior patterns and, to a certain extent, the predictability of his aspirations, attitudes and actions, which grows as the structure of society becomes more complex and new ways of controlling people’s actions emerge. Thus, the activities and behavior of people in society are subject to the influence of objective, i.e. social laws independent of people's consciousness.
What's happened social law? G. V. Osipov defines social law as “relatively stable and systematically reproduced relations between peoples, nations, classes, socio-demographic and professional groups, as well as between society and social organization, society and the work collective, society and family, society and the individual , city and countryside, social organization and personality, etc.”
Social laws operate in all spheres of human activity and may differ in their scope. Thus, there are laws that apply to a small group, to a certain social stratum, social stratum or class, and, finally, to society as a whole. In other words, the scope of the law may include society as a whole or parts of it.
Like all scientific laws, social laws have the following main features: 1) the law can come into effect only in the presence of certain, strictly specified conditions; 2) under these conditions, the law applies always and everywhere without any exceptions (an exception that confirms the law is nonsense); 3) the conditions under which the law operates are not fully implemented, but partially and approximately.
The presence of these features in all scientific laws without exception is extremely important for researchers. When analyzing the operation of the law and formulating its content, the researcher must, as exhaustively as possible, stipulate the conditions for such action. Therefore, statements such as “individuals always tend to form social groups” are not social laws, since they do not specify the conditions for their operation. At the same time, a statement like “a business, constructive social conflict in an organization is always resolved after eliminating the causes of its occurrence, unless external (non-organizational) factors influence and there is no redistribution of resources within the organization” describes the operation of social law, since its conditions are clearly specified. It is obvious that it is impossible to completely avoid the influence of external factors in an organization and ensure that material resources, information, and influences do not move within the organization. But you can find a situation that is as close as possible to the conditions of the law in a particular organization. If a business conflict in an organization is not resolved after eliminating its cause, this only means that the conditions specified in the wording of the law have not been met.
Another example of social law is given by A. Zinoviev. The social law is contained in the following statement: “If in one institution a person is paid more for the same work than in another, then the person will go to work in the first of them, provided that for him the work in this institution does not differ in anything other than the salary.” . It may happen that the employee chooses an institution that pays less, but is located closer to home or has better working conditions. This does not refute the above statement, since in this case the conditions of the law are clearly not met. There cannot be institutions with absolutely identical working conditions, except for wages, but it is quite possible to get closer to this.
Scientific laws operate in exactly the same way in all other sciences. For example, the terms of physical laws very often introduce concepts such as uniform and rectilinear motion, an absolutely rigid body, an absolutely black body, which do not exist in real life. This means that we are only talking about a more or less close approximation of real conditions to these concepts. But, perhaps, the main requirement for a social law should be that it must be fulfilled under specified conditions. Otherwise, the statement does not reflect current law.
People constantly encounter social laws and either submit to their action, or try to avoid them, adapt their behavior to social laws or protest against them. But one thing is obvious: when discovering any social law, a sociologist does not lift the veil over yet unknown, unknown phenomena. On the contrary, people always see features of their everyday life in social laws and always compare their manifestations with their own experience.
Thus, the fundamental scheme of the operation of social law is quite distinguishable and quite simple; its manifestations are always visible to members of society. At the same time, researchers are unanimous that social laws are extremely difficult to discover and study. This is explained by the existence of many conditions, their complexity, as well as the fact that they overlap each other and intertwine, complicating the field of research. That is why the repeatability of people’s behavior in social groups, and therefore the effect of social law, is often simply difficult to isolate due to the accumulation of details, the abundance of initial data and assumptions.
However, there is a circumstance that somewhat simplifies the scientific approach to the study of social laws. It should always be remembered that social laws are objective rules that exist independently of consciousness that regulate the behavior of people in relation to each other and are based on the historically established motives, interests and aspirations of people to satisfy their needs for improving living conditions, security and recognition from others, in self-expression, etc. Therefore, when studying social laws, it is necessary first of all to identify the needs of individuals who make up a social group, stratum, social class or society as a whole, and, starting from these needs, look for repeatability in their behavior, determine the conditions in which the found repeatability is observed, and formulate social laws, knowledge of which is necessary for the successful management of social processes occurring in society.
Man and social laws. When a sociologist publishes materials about the operation of social laws, they may cause distrust among many readers. “How can it be,” the reader says to himself, “the law is something immutable, it cannot be circumvented, and if I want, I can break it.” And there is no doubt that if any person sets out to violate the social law at any cost, he will definitely do it. But does this mean that this law does not exist?
To explain this apparent discrepancy, let us give a simple example from physics. When a body moves forward at a certain speed, then, strictly speaking, not all of its particles move at exactly that speed. Due to movement within a body (for example, due to thermal motion), individual particles can even move against the direction of movement of the body. This is explained by the fact that they simply found themselves in different conditions. Of course, the movement of bodies in the physical world is significantly different from social movements and processes. But in this case we are only interested in the fundamental point: a separate part of the whole can move in a direction different from that stipulated by law, and even in the opposite direction. This circumstance does not affect the law describing the behavior of the whole. An individual, a member of a social group who is not subject to social law, cannot influence the operation of this law in the social group. Why does he fall out of the general movement? Yes, because he finds himself in conditions not specified by this law. But his individual deviation and falling out of the scope of the law cannot prevent the action of the law. Thus, some individuals may for some period renounce essential needs, including the need for self-preservation, but the law based on these needs will continue to operate on the scale of a given social group.
At the same time, the deviation of any individual from the direction of action of the social law (due to conditions that do not correspond to those stipulated) can weaken the manifestation of the social law in this particular group. Despite the fact that the law must be implemented without any exception, that part of the group falls into conditions not specified by the law, as a result, activities within the framework of this law are carried out by fewer people, which weakens its manifestation. Since people in society are influenced by a large number of different forces and have different resources (both material and spiritual), their deviation (or departure) from the operation of social law is often observed. However, the law always makes its way where social conditions become close to those stipulated.
Social laws are not created consciously by members of society or groups, such as cultural norms or legal laws. People act in accordance with social laws unconsciously and learn such “legalized” behavior in the process of communicating with other people and social institutions, based on their needs.
Social laws are of great importance in the study of social phenomena and in the management of social processes. It is the presence and operation of social laws that provide the possibility of applying a scientific approach in sociology. The unpredictability, disorder and chaotic behavior of people in society cannot be studied using scientific methods; on the contrary, predictability, repeatability, and givenness of many aspects of human behavior allow scientists involved in the study of human society to discover social laws, determine the conditions for their action, and predict the behavior of people in social groups and society.
Like many other sciences, sociology developed in two main directions: fundamental and applied. The first direction includes problems of socio-philosophical understanding of the most general issues of the development and functioning of society and the place of the human personality in it, epistemological problematic issues of sociology, problems of constructing structures of social associations, constructing mathematical models of social communities and processes, developing methods for studying social processes and phenomena etc. At the fundamental level, sociology interacts with other sciences and areas of scientific knowledge: philosophy, history, cultural studies, political science, anthropology, psychology, economics, cosmogony, etc. The concepts put forward by sociology at the fundamental level are distinguished by a high degree of abstraction, and, as a rule, , such specific social units as a social group or a social process are not singled out for study. This level of sociological knowledge is usually called general sociological, and the theories that arise at this level are general sociological. Fundamental sociological theories arose from social philosophy and psychology; they were based on observations, conclusions and generalizations of various aspects of social life, which provided information about the laws of human behavior that were common to all social structures.
At the same time, it is obvious that sociology as a science must be based on accurate, specific data about individual social facts that make up the process of change and the structure of society. This data is collected by researchers using a set of empirical research methods (surveys, observations, document studies, experiments). As for the empirical level, in sociology it is the collection of numerous facts, information, opinions of members of social groups, personal data, their subsequent processing, as well as the generalization and formulation of primary conclusions regarding specific phenomena of social life. This includes theoretical generalizations obtained by the method of induction (inferences from particular, isolated cases to general conclusions). General sociological theories and empirical research must be inextricably linked, since theorizing that is not supported by knowledge of specific facts of social reality becomes meaningless and lifeless. At the same time, empirical studies that are not bound by general theoretical conclusions cannot explain the nature of most social phenomena.
As the requirements for practical solutions to social problems of modern society increase, an urgent need arose to study and explain social phenomena occurring in certain areas of people's lives, in individual social communities and social institutions. The sharply increased level of empirical research required a universal theoretical apparatus to explain the results of theoretical research. However, fundamental research in sociology could not adapt its theoretical apparatus to the study of such different social phenomena as family, state, deviant behavior, etc., due to significant differences in the nature of these objects of study. In turn, fundamental science experienced a significant deficit in empirical information, since empirical research, as a rule, was carried out for narrowly practical, utilitarian purposes and it was difficult to link them into a single system. As a result, there was a gap between fundamental sociology and empirical research. In practical activity, this was reflected, on the one hand, in the creation of speculative theoretical constructions not based on a sufficiently broad empirical base, and on the other hand, in the emergence of such directions for obtaining knowledge as positivism and empiricism, which deny the need for general sociological, fundamental theories.
The confrontation between fundamental and empirical research significantly hampered the development of sociology and prevented the cooperation of scientists and the unification of their efforts. A way out of this situation was found as a result of the formation of another level of sociological knowledge - middle-level theories. This scientific term was introduced into the practical activities of researchers by the American sociologist R. Merton. As can be seen from Fig. 2 
, middle-level theories occupy some intermediate position between fundamental theories and empirical generalization of primary sociological information.
According to R. Merton, middle-level theories are “theories located in the intermediate space between private, but also necessary working hypotheses, which arise in large numbers in the course of everyday research, and systematic attempts to create a unified theory that will explain all observed types of social behavior , social organizations and social change." Such theories are designed to generalize and structure empirical data within certain areas of sociological knowledge, such as the study of family, deviant behavior, conflict, etc. In middle-level theories, which generally use ideas and terminology borrowed from fundamental sociological theories, a system of specific concepts and definitions is formed that are used only in this area of sociological research.
Middle-level theories are thus relatively independent and at the same time closely related both to empirical research (which supplies the necessary “raw” material for their creation and development) and to general sociological theoretical constructs, which make it possible to use the most general theoretical developments, models and research methods. This intermediate position of middle-level theories allows them to play the role of a bridge between “high” theory and empirical data obtained as a result of the study of specific phenomena and processes.
Sociologists believe that the identification of middle-level theories creates a number of undeniable conveniences and advantages, the main of which are: the possibility of creating a solid and convenient theoretical basis for studying specific areas of human activity and individual components of social structures without using the cumbersome and overly abstract conceptual apparatus of fundamental theories; close interaction with the real life of people, which is always in the field of view of middle-level theories that reflect the practical problems of society; demonstrating the capabilities and credibility of sociological research in the eyes of managers, scientists and specialists in non-sociological fields of knowledge.
The emergence and development of middle-level theories were greeted with satisfaction by sociologists. Currently, these theories are firmly established in scientific practice. At the same time, they gave rise to a rather narrow specialization of sociologists, for example, sociologists appeared who work only in the field of sociology of family or sociology of education, collect empirical data, generalize them and draw theoretical conclusions and models only within these areas of sociological knowledge. At the same time, with the introduction of middle-level theories into scientific practice, the effectiveness of the activities of sociologists engaged in fundamental research increased, since they began to receive rich theoretical developments in certain areas of sociology and generalize them without constantly turning directly to empirical data.
As can be seen from Fig. 2, all middle-level theories can be divided into three groups: theories of social institutions (studying complex social dependencies and relationships), theories of social communities (considering the structural units of society - from a small group to a social class) and theories of specialized social processes (studying social changes and processes).
Each of the groups we have identified contains a large number of middle-level theories, which increases as the study of society deepens and develops, as sociology develops as a science. Sociologists engaged in narrow fields of study develop a specific conceptual apparatus, conduct empirical research on their group of problems, generalize the data obtained, make theoretical generalizations, and, finally, combine these generalizations into a theory within their narrow field. As a result of these activities, sociologists of middle range theories are in close contact with sociologists of basic research, providing valuable theoretical material that can be considered as an integral part of fundamental theoretical developments.
However, at present, the use of these middle-level theories for the development of general sociological theories is associated with certain difficulties, since sociologists engaged in the study of various aspects of social life use different scientific approaches to the study of the problems facing them (some use concepts related to the field of conflict theory, others to the area of social exchange, etc.). This suggests that fundamental sociology has not yet solved its problems and has not developed a unified, synthesized approach to the study of society.
Each person has his own image of the surrounding reality and the society in which he exists. This image includes ideas about personality, freedom, equality and justice in relation to other people, family, organization of activities and other attributes of his life. Unlike sciences such as physics, chemistry or biology, sociology operates with concepts that are understandable and clear and are constantly used in everyday life. Burdened with erroneous opinions, prejudices, and false stereotypes, people in many cases misinterpret the content of social phenomena. In this regard, it is important to separate ordinary knowledge, which is often erroneous and incomplete, from scientific knowledge. To do this, we will give brief characteristics of various methods and sources of obtaining knowledge about the physical and social reality around us.
Intuition. The famous ancient Roman physician, physiologist and anatomist Galen, who lived in the 2nd century. AD, developed a diagram of the structure of the human body, showing exactly the places where it can be opened without death. How could he determine the vulnerabilities of the human body? Of course, he proceeded from knowledge of human anatomy obtained through observation. But, according to modern scientists, this was not enough. Much was based on intuition, which Galen trusted very much. It was his intuition that suggested to him the zones in which interference from the outside could be fatal for a person.
Scientists, public and political figures, and generals often base their actions on intuition, which can lead to favorable consequences for them, justify their assumptions, but can also turn out to be erroneous, causing long-term delusions and serious consequences.
Speaking about the intuitive way of obtaining knowledge, we will proceed from the fact that intuition is a flash of insight (true or false), the source of which cannot be accurately identified or explained. Intuition serves as the basis for many very important hypotheses that can be tested by other methods. The experience of the development of science shows that intuition is an indispensable component of scientific knowledge and its main value lies in finding and formulating hypotheses of a scientific theory, which, after testing, can become the defining moments of a scientific discovery.
At the same time, intuition cannot be considered a satisfactory source of knowledge about the surrounding reality or the formulation of deep conclusions. Indeed, flashes of insight are not enough to determine the essence of the phenomena of the physical and social world around us. To be fair, dadi must say that in some cases, intuition, based on vague information and fragmentary, unfinished experiments, can lead to wonderful, ingenious conclusions and even to the construction of scientific theories. But how can such intuitive knowledge be tested and verified? Often this is simply impossible to do. For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Anaximander came, on the basis of intuition, to construct the theory of evolution. This happened in the 6th century. BC, but only in the 19th century. AD there were opportunities to test and confirm it. In most cases, intuitive knowledge cannot be verified at the moment the intuitive hunch occurs. As for the study of relationships between people, the behavior of individuals and social groups, social movements and processes, in this case intuitive knowledge most often cannot be verified at all, or such an opportunity is provided only when the situation in society has already changed.
Reliance on scientific authorities. Two thousand years ago, Galen knew more about human anatomy than any mortal, and is still revered by physiologists and anatomists as an authority in this field of knowledge. Euclid established that two parallel lines never intersect, and many generations of schoolchildren and students had to trust this axiom without a doubt, because otherwise they were considered ignorant of elementary truths. For many centuries, the scientific creative thought of Europe was suppressed by the authority of Aristotle, and a great many such examples can be cited. Even now, situations are common when everyone is convinced that an authority on some issue is certainly right, and ideas that do not correspond to his judgment are wrong, that he is a leader in the world around us and shows the way to researchers.
There is a danger of abuse of authority in science, but we cannot do without an authoritative opinion. This is due to the fact that all the knowledge we have accumulated is too voluminous and vague, and therefore difficult to assimilate and practically use. What is needed are guidelines and basic provisions, starting points from which one could start. We will take on faith what has been collected and processed in certain areas of knowledge by specialists, considering them authorities. But only information obtained by scientists and specialists in those fields in which they are competent is recognized as authoritative; people, as a rule, do not recognize authorities who judge everything in general.
There are usually several types of authority in the field of obtaining, mastering and using knowledge. Sacred authority, or the authority of faith, rests on the unshakable conviction that certain traditions or documents (for example, the Bible, Koran, Vedas, etc.) are supernatural objects and, therefore, all knowledge, all information contained in them should be considered absolutely true and cannot be doubted. Sacral authority also includes the belief that certain groups or categories of people, as well as social institutions, actually possess supernatural knowledge and means of influencing people (church, doctors, healers, saints, psychics, etc.). Unlike the sacred, secular authority appears as a result of faith not in supernatural insights and abilities, but in human capabilities, in the power of knowledge and human experience. Secular authority is divided into secular scientific authority, which is based on empirical research, on data obtained from experiments, and secular humanistic authority, which is based on the belief that a certain remarkable or great person really has outstanding insight into understanding the phenomena of the environment. us world or in the field of human behavior.
The area in which a particular authority is recognized by society, a social stratum or a social group is usually very narrow and limited by rigid boundaries. People who are incompetent in this area of knowledge must rely on other authorities: specialists, professionals. This is the only way not to be funny in the eyes of others. Each person, depending on their level of development and social environment, solves the problem of choosing the most significant authorities in various fields of human knowledge in their own way.
However, the acquisition of true scientific knowledge is based on the indispensable condition that there are no scientific authorities who would have the last word in achieving the truth on any issue. A scientist must respect scientific authorities, but at the same time he creates and puts forward new scientifically based assumptions and tests authoritative conclusions. Authority should not hinder future researchers, but, on the contrary, can and should become a springboard to new research. Scientific knowledge expands, ruthlessly rejecting "final" solutions, constantly questioning the theories and conclusions of recognized authorities.
Tradition. One of the most convincing sources of obtaining and transmitting knowledge is tradition, since it is in it that the wisdom of centuries is accumulated. But does this mean that those who disdain traditional ideas and conclusions can be considered either mentally defective or fools, that if a tradition has proven itself well in the past, then its main provisions should be accepted unchanged? In answering this question, it should be borne in mind that tradition preserves both the cumulative wisdom and the cumulative stupidity accumulated by past generations. It can be imagined as the attic of society, into which are squeezed all kinds of useful models and all kinds of errors, useless and outdated relics. The great task of scientific knowledge is to help avoid repeating the mistakes of our ancestors. As for sociology, one of its tasks can be considered to be the selection of the present, the true from these traditions and the sweeping away of everything outdated, which is an obstacle to the study of society.
Public common sense. For thousands of years, people have believed that the earth is flat, that stone and iron are absolutely solid bodies, that the true character of a person can be recognized by the expression of his face, that the Sun is smaller than the Earth, etc. Today we know that many of these statements, based on common sense, on public opinion, are not true. In the case when we do not know where certain ideas or statements come from and on what they are based, we explain them with common sense. Having given such an explanation to our ideas, we usually believe that they do not need to be tested, and we convince ourselves that the idea or statement is true because it is self-evident. This belief can unite people in a collective self-deception, suggesting that all these ideas and statements can always be verified, that their truth can be proven at any time. The term "public common sense" gives significance and importance to various concepts (views, opinions) that have no systematic evidence of truth to which to refer. Public common sense and tradition are closely related to each other, since behind the multiple and varied statements of public common sense there is a certain past experience, some traditional ideas. The difference between tradition and public common sense can be seen primarily in the fact that traditional truths are trusted over some long period of time, while statements made on the basis of public common sense are accepted, uncritical and usually short-lived conclusions about various aspects of the reality around us, which a very limited circle of people can believe in and follow.
Often positions and statements put forward by public common sense arise from collective guesses, premonitions, accidents, and mistakes. It is the use of past experience by public common sense that allows, in some cases, to come to useful and correct guesses and conclusions. For example, the statement that “when people collide, a gentle response relieves irritation and tension” is a valuable practical observation of events that occur in the course of everyday human interaction. However, observations based on public common sense often lead to erroneous conclusions.
Common sense can be determined both by folk wisdom and by misconceptions, the task of science is to separate them from each other. Sociologists, more often than representatives of other sciences, have to fight the misconceptions of public common sense, since people encounter the subject of sociological research almost every day and have fairly stable judgments about it. Therefore, sociologists, presenting the results of their scientific developments, must be able to connect scientific knowledge with the valuable everyday experience accumulated by people in the course of their social activities.
Scientific knowledge. Only in the last two and a half centuries has the scientific method become a generally accepted way of obtaining answers to questions that arise when people interact with the surrounding reality. As for the study of the social world, in this area science became an authoritative source of knowledge relatively recently (about 100 years ago), and in such a short period of time humanity has gained more knowledge about the social world than in the previous 10 thousand years. Effective acquisition of new, reliable knowledge is associated primarily with the use of scientific methods. What makes scientific methods so productive? How do they differ from other ways of understanding the world around us, from other ways of comprehending the truth?
The main distinguishing feature of scientific knowledge is that it is based on evidence that can be verified. By evidence in this case we will mean the specific results of actual observations that other observers have the opportunity to see, weigh, measure, count or check for accuracy. Nowadays, knowledge based on evidence has become commonplace among members of societies, and many are somewhat knowledgeable about scientific methods. But just a few centuries ago, medieval scholastics could carry on lengthy debates about how many teeth a horse has, without taking the trouble to look into its mouth and count the teeth.
Since human knowledge is associated with factually verifiable evidence, science deals only with questions on which this evidence can be given. Questions such as whether there is a God, how to predict fate, or what makes objects beautiful are not within the scope of scientific knowledge, since the facts relating to them cannot be weighed, evaluated and verified. These questions may be incredibly important to people, but the scientific method does not have the tools to address them. Scientists can study the reasons for a person's belief in God, in fate, in beauty, or in anything else, or determine the personal or social consequences of a particular belief, but this does nothing to determine the truth or fallacy of the beliefs themselves. Thus, science cannot provide answers to all questions important to humanity; many of them are beyond its competence. The scientific method is the most effective source of real, valid knowledge about human behavior and the reality around them, but science cannot answer questions about supernatural phenomena or fundamental principles of aesthetics. The answers to these questions are found in metaphysics or religion.
Each scientific conclusion serves as the best interpretation of all the evidence available at that moment, but new evidence may appear the next day, and a seemingly comprehensively and carefully proven scientific conclusion will instantly turn out to be untenable. Constant criticism and refutation of what has been previously proven is a common and even obligatory phenomenon in science: the fundamental property of scientific knowledge is that all conclusions and hypotheses obtained using the scientific method can be criticized and refuted. This leads to the fact that the process of scientific knowledge is endless and there cannot be absolute truth. All scientific truths are based on experimental data corresponding to a certain stage in the development of human thought. Therefore, they are constantly revised in the light of new evidence, new experimental data. Some scientific conclusions (for example, that the Earth is a spheroid, that innate abilities manifest only in certain cultural environments) are based on such a strong foundation of evidence that scientists doubt whether they can be refuted by new evidence.
Each person has his own image of the surrounding reality and the society in which he exists. This image includes ideas about personality, freedom, equality and justice in relation to other people, family, organization of activities and other attributes of life. Unlike sciences such as physics, chemistry or biology, sociology operates with clear concepts that are constantly used in everyday life. Burdened with erroneous opinions, prejudices, and false stereotypes, people in many cases misinterpret the content of social phenomena. In this regard, it is important to separate ordinary knowledge, which is often erroneous and incomplete, from scientific knowledge. To do this, we will give brief characteristics of various methods and sources of obtaining knowledge about the physical and social reality around us.
Intuition. The famous ancient Roman physician, physiologist and anatomist Galen, who lived in the 2nd century. AD, developed a diagram of the structure of the human body, indicating precisely the places where it could be opened without death. How could he determine the vulnerabilities of the human body? Of course, he proceeded from knowledge of human anatomy obtained through observation. But, according to modern scientists, this was not enough. Much was based on intuition, which Galen trusted very much. It was his intuition that suggested to him the zones in which interference from the outside could be fatal for a person.
Scientists, public and political figures, and generals often base their actions on intuition, which can lead to situations favorable to them, justify their assumptions, but can also turn out to be erroneous, causing long-term delusions and serious consequences.
Speaking about the intuitive way of obtaining knowledge, we will proceed from the fact that intuition is a flash of insight (true or false), the source of which cannot be accurately identified or explained. Intuition serves as the basis for many very important hypotheses that can be tested by other methods. The experience of the development of science shows that intuition is an indispensable component of scientific knowledge and its main value lies in finding and formulating hypotheses of a scientific theory, which, after testing, can become the defining moments of a scientific discovery.
At the same time, intuition cannot be considered a satisfactory source of knowledge about the surrounding reality for formulating deep conclusions. Indeed, flashes of insight are not enough to determine the essence of the phenomena of the physical and social world around us. To be fair, it must be said that in some cases, intuition based on vague information and fragmentary, unfinished experiments can lead to remarkable, ingenious conclusions and even to the construction of scientific theories. But how can such intuitive knowledge be tested and verified? Often this is simply impossible to do. For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Anaximander, based on intuition, came to construct the theory of evolution. This happened in the 6th century. BC, but only in the 19th century. AD there was an opportunity to check and confirm it. In most cases, intuitive knowledge cannot be verified at the moment the intuitive hunch occurs. As for the study of relationships between people, the behavior of individuals and social groups, social movements and processes, in this case intuitive knowledge most often cannot be verified at all, or such an opportunity is provided only when the situation in society has already changed.
Reliance on scientific authorities. Two thousand years ago, Galen knew more about human anatomy than any mortal, and is still revered by physiologists and anatomists as an authority in this field of knowledge. Euclid established that two parallel lines never intersect, and many generations of schoolchildren and students had to trust this axiom without a doubt, because otherwise they would be considered ignorant of elementary truths. For centuries, the scientific creative thought of Europe was suppressed by the authority of Aristotle, and a great many such examples can be cited. Even now, situations are common when everyone is convinced that an authority on some issue is certainly right, and ideas that do not correspond to his judgment are wrong, that he is a leader in the world around us and shows the way to researchers.
There is a danger of abuse of authority in science, but we cannot do without an authoritative opinion. This is due to the fact that all the knowledge we have accumulated is too voluminous and vague, and therefore difficult to assimilate and practically use. We need guidelines and basic provisions, points of reference from which we can start. We will take on faith what has been collected and processed in certain areas of knowledge by specialists, considering them authorities. But only information obtained by scientists and specialists in those fields in which they are competent is recognized as authoritative; people, as a rule, do not recognize authorities who judge everything in general.
There are usually several types of authority in the field of obtaining, mastering and using knowledge. sacred authority, or the authority of faith, rests on the unshakable conviction that certain traditions or documents (for example, the Bible, Koran, Vedas, etc.) are supernatural objects and, therefore, all knowledge, all information contained in them must be considered absolutely true and cannot be doubted. Sacral authority also includes the belief that certain groups or categories of people, as well as social institutions, actually possess supernatural knowledge and means of influencing people (church, doctors, healers, saints, psychics, etc.). Unlike sacred secular authority appears as a result of faith not in supernatural insights and abilities, but in the power of knowledge and human experience. Secular authority is divided into secular scientific authority, which is based on empirical research, data obtained from experiments, and secular humanistic authority, which is based on the belief that a certain remarkable or great person actually has outstanding insight into the phenomena of the world around us or in the field of human behavior.
The area in which a particular authority is recognized by society, a social stratum or a social group is usually very narrow and limited by rigid boundaries. People incompetent in a given area of knowledge must rely on other authorities - specialists, professionals. This is the only way not to be funny in the eyes of others. Each person, depending on their level of development and social environment, solves the problem of choosing the most significant authorities in various fields of human knowledge in their own way.
However, the acquisition of true scientific knowledge is based on the indispensable condition that there are no scientific authorities who would have the last word in achieving the truth on any issue. A scientist must respect scientific authorities, but at the same time he creates and puts forward new scientifically based assumptions and tests authoritative conclusions. Authority should not hinder future researchers, but, on the contrary, can and should become a springboard to new research. Scientific knowledge expands, ruthlessly rejecting "final" solutions, constantly questioning the theories and conclusions of recognized authorities.
Tradition. One of the most convincing sources of obtaining and transmitting knowledge is tradition, since it is in it that the wisdom of centuries is accumulated. But does this mean that those who disdain traditional ideas and conclusions can be considered either mentally defective or fools, or if a tradition has proven itself well in the past, then its main provisions should be accepted unchanged? In answering these questions, it should be borne in mind that tradition preserves both the cumulative wisdom and the cumulative stupidity accumulated by past generations. It can be imagined as the attic of society, into which are squeezed all kinds of useful models and all kinds of errors, useless and outdated relics. The great task of scientific knowledge is to help avoid repeating the mistakes of our ancestors. As for sociology, one of its tasks can be considered to be the selection of the present, the true from these traditions and the sweeping away of everything outdated, which is an obstacle to the study of society.
Public common sense. For thousands of years, people have believed that the earth is flat, that stone and iron are absolutely solid bodies, that the true character of a person can be recognized by the expression of his face, that the Sun is smaller than the Earth, etc. Today we know that many of these statements, based on common sense, on public opinion, are not true.
In the case when we do not know where certain ideas or statements come from and on what they are based, we explain them with common sense. Having given such an explanation to our ideas, we usually believe that they do not need to be tested, and we convince ourselves that the idea or statement is true because it is self-evident. This belief can unite people in a collective self-deception, suggesting that all these ideas and statements can always be verified, that their truth can be proven at any time. The term "public common sense" gives significance and importance to various concepts (views, opinions) that have no systematic evidence of truth to which to refer.
Public common sense and tradition are closely related to each other, since behind the multiple and varied statements of public common sense there is a certain past experience, some traditional ideas. The difference between tradition and public common sense can be seen primarily in the fact that traditional truths are trusted over some long period of time, while statements made on the basis of public common sense are accepted, uncritical and usually short-lived conclusions about various aspects of the reality around us , which can be believed and followed by a very limited circle of people.
Often positions and statements put forward by public common sense arise from collective guesses, premonitions, accidents, and mistakes. It is the use of past experience by public common sense that allows, in some cases, to come to useful and correct guesses and conclusions. For example, the statement that “when people clash, a gentle response relieves irritation and tension” is a valuable practical observation of events that occur in the course of everyday human interaction. However, observations based on public common sense often lead to erroneous conclusions.
Common sense can be determined both by folk wisdom and by misconceptions, the task of science is to separate them from each other. Sociologists, more often than representatives of other sciences, have to fight the misconceptions of public common sense, since people encounter the subject of sociological research almost every day and have fairly stable judgments about it. Therefore, sociologists, presenting the results of their scientific developments, must be able to connect scientific knowledge with the valuable everyday experience accumulated by people in the course of their social activities.
Scientific knowledge. Only in the last two and a half centuries has the scientific method become generally accepted for obtaining answers to questions that arise when people interact with the surrounding reality. As for the study of the social world, in this area science became an authoritative source of knowledge relatively recently (about 100 years ago), and in such a short period of time humanity has gained more knowledge about the social world than in the previous 10 thousand years. Effective acquisition of new reliable knowledge is associated, first of all, with the use of scientific methods. What makes scientific methods so productive? How do they differ from other ways of understanding the world around us, from other ways of comprehending the truth?
The main distinguishing feature of scientific knowledge is that it is based on evidence that can be verified. By evidence in this case we will mean the specific results of actual observations that other observers have the opportunity to see, weigh, measure, count or check for accuracy. Nowadays, evidence-based knowledge has become commonplace among members of society, and many are somewhat knowledgeable about scientific methods. But just a few centuries ago, medieval scholastics could carry on lengthy debates about how many teeth a horse has, without taking the trouble to look into its mouth and count the teeth.
Since human knowledge is associated with factually verifiable evidence, science deals only with questions on which this evidence can be given. Questions such as whether there is a God, how to predict fate, or what makes objects beautiful are not within the scope of scientific knowledge, since the facts relating to them cannot be weighed, evaluated and verified. These questions may be incredibly important to people, but the scientific method does not have the tools to address them. Scientists can study the reasons for a person's belief in God, in fate, in beauty, or in anything else, or determine the personal or social consequences of a particular belief, but this will do nothing to establish the truth or fallacy of the beliefs themselves. Thus, science cannot provide answers to all questions important to humanity; many of them are beyond its competence. The scientific method is the most effective source of real knowledge about human behavior and the reality around them, but science cannot answer questions about supernatural phenomena or fundamental principles of aesthetics. The answers to these questions are found in metaphysics or religion.
Each scientific conclusion serves as the best interpretation of all the evidence available at that moment, but new evidence may appear the next day, and a seemingly comprehensively and carefully proven scientific conclusion will instantly turn out to be untenable. Constant criticism and refutation of what has been previously proven is a common and even obligatory phenomenon in science: the fundamental property of scientific knowledge is that all conclusions and hypotheses obtained using the scientific method can be criticized and refuted. This leads to the fact that the process of scientific knowledge is endless and there cannot be absolute truth. All scientific truths are based on experimental data corresponding to a certain stage in the development of human thought. Therefore, they are constantly revised in the light of new evidence, new experimental data. Some scientific conclusions (for example, that the Earth is a spheroid, that innate abilities manifest only in certain cultural environments) are based on such a strong foundation of evidence that scientists doubt whether they can be refuted by new evidence.
EFFECT OF SOCIAL LAWS
It is difficult to imagine a person who is completely free in his actions, the formation of personal goals and the choice of behavioral alternatives. Every person living in society is influenced not only by the individuals, associations, and groups surrounding him, but also by the results of their past activities: a system of values, norms, rules, legal laws. In addition, it is obvious that an important factor limiting the free activity of a person is his environment: climatic conditions, objects of material culture created by human hands, natural terrestrial and cosmic phenomena. If we add to this the influence of character traits and other personality traits, it becomes obvious that the number of barriers and restrictions that change human behavior is quite large.
As a result of this, the actions of people associated in social groups and the activities of social institutions become largely unidirectional, and the behavior of people, controlled by the influence of the group and institutions, becomes less diverse and more standardized. This determines the repeatability of human behavior patterns and, to a certain extent, the predictability of his aspirations, attitudes and actions, which grows as the structure of society becomes more complex and new ways of controlling people’s actions emerge. Thus, the activities and behavior of people in society are subject to the influence of objective, i.e. social laws independent of people's consciousness.
What's happened social law? G. V. Osipov defines social law as “relatively stable and systematically reproduced relations between peoples, nations, classes, socio-demographic and professional groups, as well as between society and social organization, society and the work collective, society and family, society and the individual , city and countryside, social organization and personality, etc.” .
Social laws operate in all spheres of human activity and may differ in their scope. Thus, there are laws that apply to a small group, to a certain social stratum, social stratum or class, and, finally, to society as a whole. In other words, the scope of the law may include society as a whole or parts of it.
Like all scientific laws, social laws have the following main features: 1) the law can come into effect only in the presence of certain, strictly specified conditions; 2) under these conditions, the law applies always and everywhere without any exceptions (an exception that confirms the law is nonsense); 3) the conditions under which the law operates are not fully implemented, but partially and approximately.
The presence of these features in all scientific laws without exception is extremely important for researchers. When analyzing the operation of the law and formulating its content, the researcher must, as exhaustively as possible, stipulate the conditions for such action. Therefore, statements such as “individuals always tend to form social groups” are not social laws, since they do not specify the conditions for their operation. At the same time, a statement like “a business, constructive social conflict in an organization is always resolved after eliminating the causes of its occurrence, unless external (non-organizational) factors influence and there is no redistribution of resources within the organization” describes the operation of social law, since its conditions are clearly specified. It is obvious that it is impossible to completely avoid the influence of external factors in an organization and ensure that material resources, information, and influences do not move within the organization. But you can find a situation that is as close as possible to the conditions of the law in a particular organization. If a business conflict in an organization is not resolved after eliminating its cause, this only means that the conditions specified in the wording of the law have not been met.
Another example of social law is given by A. Zinoviev. The social law is contained in the following statement: “If in one institution a person is paid more for the same work than in another, then the person will go to work in the first of them, provided that for him the work in this institution does not differ in anything other than the salary.” . It may happen that the employee chooses an institution that pays less, but is located closer to home or has better working conditions. This does not refute the above statement, since in this case the conditions of the law are clearly not met. There cannot be institutions with absolutely identical working conditions, except for wages, but it is quite possible to get closer to this.
Scientific laws operate in exactly the same way in all other sciences. For example, the terms of physical laws very often introduce concepts such as uniform and rectilinear motion, an absolutely rigid body, an absolutely black body, which do not exist in real life. This means that we are only talking about a more or less close approximation of real conditions to these concepts. But, perhaps, the main requirement for a social law should be that it must be fulfilled under specified conditions. Otherwise, the statement does not reflect current law.
People constantly encounter social laws and either submit to their action, or try to avoid them, adapt their behavior to social laws or protest against them. But one thing is obvious: when discovering any social law, a sociologist does not lift the veil over yet unknown, unknown phenomena. On the contrary, people always see features of their everyday life in social laws and always compare their manifestations with their own experience.
Thus, the fundamental scheme of the operation of social law is quite distinguishable and quite simple; its manifestations are always visible to members of society. At the same time, researchers are unanimous that social laws are extremely difficult to discover and study. This is explained by the existence of many conditions, their complexity, as well as the fact that they overlap each other and intertwine, complicating the field of research. That is why the repeatability of people’s behavior in social groups, and therefore the effect of social law, is often simply difficult to isolate due to the accumulation of details, the abundance of initial data and assumptions.
However, there is a circumstance that somewhat simplifies the scientific approach to the study of social laws. It should always be remembered that social laws are objective rules that exist independently of consciousness that regulate the behavior of people in relation to each other and are based on the historically established motives, interests and aspirations of people to satisfy their needs for improving living conditions, security and recognition from others, in self-expression, etc. Therefore, when studying social laws, it is necessary first of all to identify the needs of individuals who make up a social group, stratum, social class or society as a whole, and, starting from these needs, look for repeatability in their behavior, determine the conditions in which the found repeatability is observed, and formulate social laws, knowledge of which is necessary for the successful management of social processes occurring in society.
Man and social laws. When a sociologist publishes materials about the operation of social laws, they may cause distrust among many readers. “How can it be,” the reader says to himself, “the law is something immutable, it cannot be circumvented, and if I want, I can break it.” And there is no doubt that if any person sets out to violate the social law at any cost, he will definitely do it. But does this mean that this law does not exist?
To explain this apparent discrepancy, let us give a simple example from physics. When a body moves forward at a certain speed, then, strictly speaking, not all of its particles move at exactly that speed. Due to movement within a body (for example, due to thermal motion), individual particles can even move against the direction of movement of the body. This is explained by the fact that they simply found themselves in different conditions. Of course, the movement of bodies in the physical world is significantly different from social movements and processes. But in this case we are only interested in the fundamental point: a separate part of the whole can move in a direction different from that stipulated by law, and even in the opposite direction. This circumstance does not affect the law describing the behavior of the whole. An individual, a member of a social group who is not subject to social law, cannot influence the operation of this law in the social group. Why does he fall out of the general movement? Yes, because he finds himself in conditions not specified by this law. But his individual deviation and falling out of the scope of the law cannot prevent the action of the law. Thus, some individuals may for some period renounce essential needs, including the need for self-preservation, but the law based on these needs will continue to operate on the scale of a given social group.
At the same time, the deviation of any individual from the direction of action of the social law (due to conditions that do not correspond to those stipulated) can weaken the manifestation of the social law in this particular group. Despite the fact that the law must be implemented without any exception, that part of the group falls into conditions not specified by the law, as a result, activities within the framework of this law are carried out by fewer people, which weakens its manifestation. Since people in society are influenced by a large number of different forces and have different resources (both material and spiritual), their deviation (or departure) from the operation of social law is often observed. However, the law always makes its way where social conditions become close to those stipulated.
Social laws are not created consciously by members of society or groups, such as cultural norms or legal laws. People act in accordance with social laws unconsciously and learn such “legalized” behavior in the process of communicating with other people and social institutions, based on their needs.
Social laws are of great importance in the study of social phenomena and in the management of social processes. It is the presence and operation of social laws that provide the possibility of applying a scientific approach in sociology. The unpredictability, disorder and chaotic behavior of people in society cannot be studied using scientific methods; on the contrary, predictability, repeatability, and givenness of many aspects of human behavior allow scientists involved in the study of human society to discover social laws, determine the conditions for their action, and predict the behavior of people in social groups and society.
OBTAINING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SOCIETY
| Parameter name | Meaning |
| Article topic: | OBTAINING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SOCIETY |
| Rubric (thematic category) | Culture |
Each person has his own image of the surrounding reality and the society in which he exists. This image includes ideas about personality, freedom, equality and justice in relation to other people, family, organization of activities and other attributes of his life. Unlike sciences such as physics, chemistry or biology, sociology operates with concepts that are understandable and clear and are constantly used in everyday life. Burdened with erroneous opinions, prejudices, and false stereotypes, people in many cases misinterpret the content of social phenomena. In this regard, it is important to separate ordinary knowledge, which is often erroneous and incomplete, from scientific knowledge. To do this, we will give brief characteristics of various methods and sources of obtaining knowledge about the physical and social reality around us.
Intuition. The famous ancient Roman physician, physiologist and anatomist Galen, who lived in the 2nd century. AD, developed a diagram of the structure of the human body, showing exactly the places where it should be opened without death. How could he determine the vulnerabilities of the human body? Of course, he proceeded from knowledge of human anatomy obtained through observation. But, according to modern scientists, this was not enough. Much was based on intuition, which Galen trusted very much. It was his intuition that suggested to him the zones in which interference from the outside could be fatal for a person.
Scientists, public and political figures, and generals often base their actions on intuition, which can lead to favorable consequences for them, justify their assumptions, but can also turn out to be erroneous, causing long-term delusions and serious consequences.
Speaking about the intuitive way of obtaining knowledge, we will proceed from the fact that intuition is a flash of insight (true or false), the source of which cannot be accurately identified or explained. Intuition serves as the basis for many very important hypotheses that can be tested by other methods. The experience of the development of science shows that intuition is an indispensable component of scientific knowledge and its main value lies in finding and formulating hypotheses of a scientific theory, which, after testing, can become the defining moments of a scientific discovery.
At the same time, intuition cannot be considered a satisfactory source of knowledge about the surrounding reality or the formulation of deep conclusions. Indeed, flashes of insight are not enough to determine the essence of the phenomena of the physical and social world around us. In fairness, it must be said that in some
In some cases, intuition, based on vague information and fragmentary, unfinished experiments, can lead to remarkable, ingenious conclusions and even to the construction of scientific theories. But how should such intuitive knowledge be tested and verified? Often this is simply impossible to do. For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Anaximander came to construct a theory of evolution on the basis of intuition. This happened in the 6th century. BC, but only in the 19th century. AD there were opportunities to test and confirm it. In most cases, intuitive knowledge does not need to be tested at the moment the intuition occurs. As for the study of relationships between people, the behavior of individuals and social groups, social movements and processes, in this case intuitive knowledge most often should not be tested at all, or such an opportunity is provided only when the situation in society has already changed.
Reliance on scientific authorities. Two thousand years ago, Galen knew more about human anatomy than any mortal, and is still revered by physiologists and anatomists as an authority in this field of knowledge. Euclid established that two parallel lines never intersect, and many generations of schoolchildren and students had to trust this axiom without a doubt, because otherwise they were considered ignorant of elementary truths. For many centuries, the scientific creative thought of Europe was suppressed by the authority of Aristotle, and a great many such examples can be cited. Even now, situations are common when everyone is convinced that an authority on some issue is certainly right, and ideas that do not correspond to his judgment are wrong, that he is a leader in the world around us and shows the way to researchers.
There is a danger of abuse of authority in science, but we cannot do without an authoritative opinion. This is due to the fact that all the knowledge we have accumulated is too voluminous and vague, and therefore difficult to assimilate and practically use. We need guidelines and basic provisions, points of reference from which we could start. We will take on faith what has been collected and processed in certain areas of knowledge by specialists, considering them authorities. But only information obtained by scientists and specialists in those fields in which they are competent is recognized as authoritative; people, as a rule, do not recognize authorities who judge everything in general.
There are usually several types of authority in the field of obtaining, mastering and using knowledge. sacred authority, or the authority of faith, rests on the unshakable conviction that certain traditions or documents (for example, the Bible, Koran, Vedas, etc.) are supernatural objects and, therefore, all knowledge, all information contained in them, must be considered absolutely true and cannot be questioned. Sacral authority also includes the belief that certain groups or categories
people, as well as social institutions, really have supernatural knowledge and means of influencing people (church, doctors, healers, saints, psychics, etc.). Unlike sacred secular authority arises as a result of faith not in supernatural insights and abilities, but in human capabilities, in the power of knowledge and human experience. Secular authority is divided into secular scientific authority, which is based on empirical research, data obtained from experiments, and secular humanistic authority, which is based on the belief that a certain remarkable or great person actually has outstanding insight into the phenomena of the world around us or in the field of human behavior.
The area in which a particular authority is recognized by society, a social stratum or a social group is usually very narrow and limited by rigid boundaries. People incompetent in a given area of knowledge must rely on other authorities - specialists, professionals. This is the only way not to be funny in the eyes of others. Each person, based on their level of development and social environment, solves the problem of choosing the most significant authorities in various fields of human knowledge in their own way.
At the same time, obtaining true scientific knowledge is based on the indispensable condition that there are no scientific authorities who would have the last word in achieving the truth on any issue. A scientist must respect scientific authorities, but at the same time he creates and puts forward new scientifically based assumptions and tests authoritative conclusions. Authority should not hinder future researchers, but, on the contrary, it can and should become a springboard to new research. Scientific knowledge expands, ruthlessly rejecting "final" solutions, constantly questioning the theories and conclusions of recognized authorities.
Tradition. One of the most convincing sources of obtaining and transmitting knowledge is tradition, since it is in it that the wisdom of centuries is accumulated. But does this mean that those who disdain traditional ideas and conclusions can be considered either mentally defective or fools, that if a tradition has proven itself well in the past, then its main provisions should be accepted unchanged? In answering this question, it should be taken into account that tradition preserves both the cumulative wisdom and the cumulative stupidity accumulated by past generations. It can be imagined as the attic of society, into which are squeezed all kinds of useful models and all kinds of errors, useless and outdated relics. The great task of scientific knowledge is to help “avoid repeating the mistakes of our ancestors.” As for sociology, one of its tasks can be considered to be the selection of the present, the true from these traditions and the sweeping aside of everything outdated, which is an obstacle to the study of society .
Public common sense. For thousands of years, people have believed that the earth is flat, that stone and iron are absolutely solid bodies, that the true character of a person can be recognized by the expression of his face, that the Sun is smaller than the Earth, etc. Today we know that many of these statements, based on common sense, on public opinion, are not true.
In the case when we do not know where certain ideas or statements come from and on what they are based, we explain them with common sense. Having given such an explanation to our ideas, we usually believe that they do not need to be tested, and we convince ourselves that the idea or statement is true because it is self-evident. This belief can unite people in a collective self-deception, suggesting that all these ideas and statements can always be tested, that their truth must be proven at any moment. The term "public common sense" will give meaning and importance to various concepts (views, opinions) that have no systematic evidence of truth to which to refer.
Public common sense and tradition are closely related to each other, since behind the multiple and varied statements of public common sense there is a certain past experience, some traditional ideas. The difference between tradition and public common sense can be seen primarily in the fact that traditional truths are trusted over some long period of time, while statements made on the basis of public common sense are accepted, uncritical and usually short-lived conclusions about various aspects of the environment. us reality, which can be believed and followed by a very limited circle of people.
Often positions and statements put forward by public common sense arise from collective guesses, premonitions, accidents, and mistakes. It is the use of past experience by public common sense that allows, in some cases, to come to useful and correct guesses and conclusions. For example, the statement that “when people clash, a gentle response relieves irritation and tension” is a valuable practical observation of events that occur in the process of everyday human interaction. However, observations based on public common sense in many cases lead to erroneous conclusions.
Common sense can be determined both by folk wisdom and by misconceptions, the task of science is to separate them from each other. Sociologists, more often than representatives of other sciences, have to fight the misconceptions of public common sense, since people encounter the subject of sociological research almost every day and have fairly stable judgments about it. For this reason, sociologists, when presenting the results of their scientific research, must be able to connect scientific knowledge with the valuable everyday experience accumulated by people in the course of their social activities.
Scientific knowledge. Only in the last two and a half centuries has the scientific method become a generally accepted way of obtaining answers to questions that arise when people interact with the surrounding reality. As for the study of the social world, in this area science became an authoritative source of knowledge relatively recently (about 100 years ago), and in such a short period of time humanity has gained more knowledge about the social world than in the previous 10 thousand years. Effective acquisition of new reliable knowledge is primarily associated with the use of scientific methods. What makes scientific methods so productive? How do they differ from other ways of understanding the world around us, from other ways of comprehending the truth?
The main distinguishing feature of scientific knowledge is that it is based on evidence that can be verified. By evidence in this case we will mean the specific results of actual observations that other observers have the opportunity to see, weigh, measure, count or check for accuracy. Today, evidence-based knowledge has become commonplace among members of society, and many are somewhat knowledgeable about scientific methods. But just a few centuries ago, medieval scholastics could carry on lengthy debates about how many teeth a horse has, without taking the trouble to look into its mouth and count the teeth.
Since human knowledge is associated with factually verifiable evidence, science deals only with issues on which this evidence is given. Questions such as whether there is a God, how to predict fate, or what makes objects beautiful are not within the scope of scientific knowledge, since the facts relating to them cannot be weighed, evaluated and verified. These questions can be incredibly important to people, but the scientific method does not have the tools to solve them. Scientists can study the reasons for a person's belief in God, in fate, in beauty, or in anything else, or determine the personal or social consequences of any belief, but this does nothing to determine the truth or fallacy of the beliefs themselves. However, science cannot provide answers to all questions important to humanity, many of them are beyond its competence. The scientific method is the most effective source of real, valid knowledge about human behavior and the reality around them, but science cannot answer questions about supernatural phenomena or fundamental principles of aesthetics. The answers to these questions are found in metaphysics or religion.
Each scientific conclusion serves as the best interpretation of all the evidence available at the moment, but new evidence may appear the very next day, and it would seem that a thoroughly and carefully proven scientific conclusion will instantly turn out to be untenable. Constant criticism and refutation of what has been previously proven is a common and even obligatory phenomenon in science: fundamental
The property of scientific knowledge is that all conclusions and hypotheses obtained using the scientific method can be criticized and refuted. This leads to the fact that the process of scientific knowledge is endless and there should be no absolute truth. All scientific truths are based on experimental data corresponding to a certain stage in the development of human thought. For this reason, they are constantly revised in the light of new evidence, new experimental data. Some scientific conclusions (for example, that the Earth is a spheroid, that innate abilities manifest themselves only in a certain cultural environment) are based on such a strong foundation of evidence that scientists doubt that they can be refuted by new evidence.
OBTAINING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SOCIETY - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "OBTAINING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SOCIETY" 2017, 2018.
WAYS OF ACQUIRING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SOCIETY
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE
Each person has his own image of the surrounding reality and the society in which he exists. This image includes ideas about personality, freedom, equality and justice in relation to other people, family, organization of activities and other attributes of his life. Unlike sciences such as physics, chemistry or biology, sociology operates with concepts that are understandable and clear and are constantly used in everyday life. Burdened with erroneous opinions, prejudices, and false stereotypes, people in many cases misinterpret the content of social phenomena. In this regard, it is important to separate ordinary knowledge, which is often erroneous and incomplete, from scientific knowledge. To do this, we will give brief characteristics of various methods and sources of obtaining knowledge about the physical and social reality around us.
Intuition. The famous ancient Roman physician, physiologist and anatomist Galen, who lived in the 2nd century. AD, developed a diagram of the structure of the human body, showing exactly the places where it can be opened without death. How could he determine the vulnerabilities of the human body? Of course, he proceeded from knowledge of human anatomy obtained through observation. But, according to modern scientists, this was not enough. Much was based on intuition, which Galen trusted very much. It was his intuition that suggested to him the zones in which interference from the outside could be fatal for a person.
Scientists, public and political figures, and generals often base their actions on intuition, which can lead to favorable consequences for them, justify their assumptions, but can also turn out to be erroneous, causing long-term delusions and serious consequences.
Speaking about the intuitive way of obtaining knowledge, we will proceed from the fact that intuition is a flash of insight (true or false), the source of which cannot be accurately identified or explained. Intuition serves as the basis for many very important hypotheses that can be tested by other methods. The experience of the development of science shows that intuition is an indispensable component of scientific knowledge and its main value lies in finding and formulating hypotheses of a scientific theory, which, after testing, can become the defining moments of a scientific discovery.
At the same time, intuition cannot be considered a satisfactory source of knowledge about the surrounding reality or the formulation of deep conclusions. Indeed, flashes of insight are not enough to determine the essence of the phenomena of the physical and social world around us. To be fair, it must be said that in some cases, intuition, based on vague information and fragmentary, unfinished experiments, can lead to remarkable, ingenious conclusions and even to the construction of scientific theories. But how can such intuitive knowledge be tested and verified? Often this is simply impossible to do.
For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Anaximander came, on the basis of intuition, to construct a theory of evolution. This happened in the 6th century. BC, but only in the 19th century. AD there were opportunities to test and confirm it. In most cases, intuitive knowledge cannot be verified at the moment the intuitive hunch occurs. As for the study of relationships between people, the behavior of individuals and social groups, social movements and processes, in this case intuitive knowledge most often cannot be verified at all, or such an opportunity is provided only when the situation in society has already changed.
Reliance on scientific authorities. Two thousand years ago, Galen knew more about human anatomy than any mortal, and is still revered by physiologists and anatomists as an authority in this field of knowledge. Euclid established that two parallel lines never intersect, and many generations of schoolchildren and students had to trust this axiom without a doubt, because otherwise they were considered ignorant of elementary truths. For many centuries, the scientific creative thought of Europe was suppressed by the authority of Aristotle, and a great many such examples can be cited. Even now, situations are common when everyone is convinced that an authority on some issue is certainly right, and ideas that do not correspond to his judgment are wrong, that he is a leader in the world around us and shows the way to researchers.
There is a danger of abuse of authority in science, but we cannot do without an authoritative opinion. This is due to the fact that all the knowledge we have accumulated is too voluminous and vague, and therefore difficult to assimilate and practically use. We need guidelines and basic provisions, points of reference from which we could start. We will take on faith what has been collected and processed in certain areas of knowledge by specialists, considering them authorities. But only information obtained by scientists and specialists in those fields in which they are competent is recognized as authoritative; people, as a rule, do not recognize authorities who judge everything in general.
There are usually several types of authority in the field of obtaining, mastering and using knowledge. Sacred authority, or the authority of faith, rests on the unshakable conviction that certain traditions or documents (for example, the Bible, Koran, Vedas, etc.) are supernatural objects and, therefore, all knowledge, all information contained in them must be considered absolutely true and cannot be questioned. Sacral authority also includes the belief that certain groups or categories of people, as well as social institutions, actually possess supernatural knowledge and means of influencing people (church, doctors, healers, saints, psychics, etc.). Unlike the sacred, secular authority appears as a result of faith not in supernatural insights and abilities, but in human capabilities, in the power of knowledge and human experience. Secular authority is divided into secular scientific authority, which is based on empirical research, on data obtained from experiments, and secular humanistic authority, which is based on the belief that a certain remarkable or great person actually has outstanding insight into understanding phenomena around him. us world or in the field of human behavior.
The area in which a particular authority is recognized by society, a social stratum or a social group is usually very narrow and limited by rigid boundaries. People who are incompetent in this field of knowledge must rely on other authorities - specialists, professionals. This is the only way not to be funny in the eyes of others. Each person, depending on their level of development and social environment, solves the problem of choosing the most significant authorities in various fields of human knowledge in their own way.
At the same time, obtaining true scientific knowledge is based on the indispensable condition that there are no scientific authorities who would have the last word in achieving the truth on any issue. A scientist must respect scientific authorities, but at the same time he creates and puts forward new scientifically based assumptions and tests authoritative conclusions. Authority should not hinder future researchers, but, on the contrary, can and should become a springboard to new research. Scientific knowledge expands, ruthlessly rejecting "final" solutions, constantly questioning the theories and conclusions of recognized authorities.
Tradition. One of the most convincing sources of obtaining and transmitting knowledge is tradition, since it is in it that the wisdom of centuries is accumulated. But does this mean that those who disdain traditional ideas and conclusions can be considered either mentally defective or fools, that if a tradition has proven itself well in the past, then its main provisions should be accepted unchanged? In answering this question, it should be taken into account that tradition preserves both the cumulative wisdom and the cumulative stupidity accumulated by past generations. It can be imagined as the attic of society, into which are squeezed all kinds of useful models and all kinds of errors, useless and outdated relics. The great task of scientific knowledge is to help avoid repeating the mistakes of our ancestors. As for sociology, one of its tasks can be considered to be the selection of the present, the true from these traditions and the sweeping away of everything outdated, which is an obstacle to the study of society.
Public common sense. For thousands of years, people have believed that the earth is flat, that stone and iron are absolutely solid bodies, that the true character of a person can be recognized by the expression of his face, that the Sun is smaller than the Earth, etc. Today we know that many of these statements, based on common sense, on public opinion, are not true. In the case when we do not know where certain ideas or statements come from and on what they are based, we explain them with common sense. Having given such an explanation to our ideas, we usually believe that they do not need to be tested, and we convince ourselves that the idea or statement is true because it is self-evident. This belief can unite people in a collective self-deception, suggesting that all these ideas and statements can always be verified, that their truth can be proven at any moment. The term "public common sense" gives significance and importance to various concepts (views, opinions) that have no systematic evidence of truth to which to refer. Public common sense and tradition are closely related to each other, since behind the multiple and varied statements of public common sense there is a certain past experience, some traditional ideas. The difference between tradition and public common sense can be seen primarily in the fact that traditional truths are trusted over some long period of time, while statements made on the basis of public common sense are accepted, uncritical and usually short-lived conclusions about various aspects of the environment. us reality, which can be believed and followed by a very limited circle of people.
Often positions and statements put forward by public common sense arise from collective guesses, premonitions, accidents, and mistakes. It is the use of past experience by public common sense that allows, in some cases, to come to useful and correct guesses and conclusions. For example, the statement that “when people clash, a gentle response relieves irritation and tension” is a valuable practical observation of events that occur in the process of everyday human interaction. However, observations based on public common sense in many cases lead to erroneous conclusions.
Common sense can be determined both by folk wisdom and by misconceptions, the task of science is to separate them from each other. Sociologists, more often than representatives of other sciences, have to fight the misconceptions of public common sense, since people encounter the subject of sociological research almost every day and have fairly stable judgments about it. For this reason, sociologists, when presenting the results of their scientific research, must be able to connect scientific knowledge with the valuable everyday experience accumulated by people in the course of their social activities.
Scientific knowledge. Only in the last two and a half centuries has the scientific method become a generally accepted way of obtaining answers to questions that arise when people interact with the surrounding reality. As for the study of the social world, in this area science became an authoritative source of knowledge relatively recently (about 100 years ago), and in such a short period of time humanity has gained more knowledge about the social world than in the previous 10 thousand years. Effective acquisition of new reliable knowledge is primarily associated with the use of scientific methods. What makes scientific methods so productive? How do they differ from other ways of understanding the world around us, from other ways of comprehending the truth?
The main distinguishing feature of scientific knowledge is that it is based on evidence that can be verified. By evidence in this case we will mean the specific results of actual observations that other observers have the opportunity to see, weigh, measure, count or check for accuracy. Today, evidence-based knowledge has become commonplace among members of societies, and many are somewhat knowledgeable about scientific methods. But just a few centuries ago, medieval scholastics could carry on lengthy debates about how many teeth a horse has, without taking the trouble to look into its mouth and count the teeth.
Since human knowledge is associated with factually verifiable evidence, science deals only with issues on which this evidence is given. Questions such as whether there is a God, how to predict fate, or what makes objects beautiful are not within the scope of scientific knowledge, since the facts relating to them cannot be weighed, evaluated and verified. These questions can be incredibly important to people, but the scientific method does not have the tools to solve them. Scientists can study the reasons for a person's belief in God, in fate, in beauty, or in anything else, or determine the personal or social consequences of a particular belief, but this does nothing to determine the truth or fallacy of the beliefs themselves. However, science cannot provide answers to all questions important to humanity, many of them are beyond its competence. The scientific method is the most effective source of real, valid knowledge about human behavior and the reality around them, but science cannot answer questions about supernatural phenomena or fundamental principles of aesthetics. The answers to these questions are found in metaphysics or religion.
Each scientific conclusion serves as the best interpretation of all the evidence available at the moment, but new evidence may appear the very next day, and it would seem that a thoroughly and carefully proven scientific conclusion will instantly turn out to be untenable. Constant criticism and refutation of what has been previously proven is a common and even obligatory phenomenon in science: the fundamental property of scientific knowledge is that all conclusions and hypotheses obtained using the scientific method can be criticized and refuted. This leads to the fact that the process of scientific knowledge is endless and there cannot be absolute truth. All scientific truths are based on experimental data corresponding to a certain stage in the development of human thought. For this reason, they are constantly revised in the light of new evidence, new experimental data. Some scientific conclusions (for example, that the Earth is a spheroid, that innate abilities manifest themselves only in a certain cultural environment) are based on such a strong foundation of evidence that scientists doubt that they can be refuted by new evidence.
Loading...
