Methods for obtaining scientific knowledge about society. Moscow State University of Press. Characteristics of sociological knowledge
Each person has its own image of the surrounding and society in which it exists. This image includes ideas about personality, freedom, equality and justice towards other people, about the family, organization of activity and other attributes of his life. Unlike such sciences as physics, chemistry or biology, sociology operates with concepts that are clear and clear and constantly used in everyday life. Heated erroneous opinions, prejudice, false stereotypes, people in many cases turn into interpretation of social phenomena. In this regard, it is important to separate ordinary knowledge, often erroneous and incomplete, from scientific knowledge. To do this, dadim brief characteristics various methods and sources of obtaining knowledge of the environment of physical and social reality.
Intuition. Famous ancient Roman doctor, physiologist and Anata Galen, who lived in II century. AD, developed a scheme of the structure of the human body, accurately showing the place where it can be uncovered without a fatal outcome. How could he define vulnerable places of the human body? Of course, he proceeded from the knowledge of human anatomy obtained as a result of observations. But, according to modern scientists, it was not enough. Much was based on intuition, which Galen trusted very much. It was the intuition that prompted him the zones, the interference in which from the outside could be fatal for a person.
Scientists, public and political figures, commander often base their actions on intuition, which can lead to conversations favorable for them, to justify their assumptions, but may also be erroneous, cause long-term errors and serious consequences.
Speaking about an intuitive way of obtaining knowledge, we will proceed from the fact that intuition is an outbreak of insight (true or false), the source of the appearance of which is impossible to define or explain. Intuition serves as the basis for many very important hypotheses that can be checked by other methods. The experience of developing science shows that intuition is an indispensable component of scientific knowledge and its basic value is to find and formulate the hypotheses of scientific theory, which, after checking, can become decisive moments. scientific opening.
At the same time, intuition cannot be considered a satisfactory source of knowledge of the surrounding reality, formulating deep conclusions. Indeed, the outbreaks of insight are not enough to determine the essence of the phenomena of the physical and social world around us. For the sake of fairness, it should be said that in some cases intuition, based on inadequate information and fragmentary, unfinished experiments, can lead to wonderful, ingenious conclusions, and even to the construction of scientific theories. But as such intuitive knowledge can be checked and verified? Often it is simply impossible to do. For example, ancient Greek philosopher Anaximandr came on the basis of intuition to construct the theory of evolution. This happened in the VI century. BC, but only in the XIX century. Our era appeared to check and confirm it. In most cases, intuitive knowledge cannot be verified at the time of intuitive guesses. As for the study of relations between people, the behavior of individuals and social groups, social movements, and processes, in this case, intuitive knowledge is most often not tested at all, or such an opportunity is provided only when the situation in society has already changed.
Support on scientific authorities. Two thousand years ago, Galen knew about the human anatomy more than any of the mortals, and still physiologists and anatomas honor him as authority in this area of \u200b\u200bknowledge. Euclid found that two parallel straight lines never intersect, and many generations of schoolchildren and students were undoubtedly a doubt to trust this axiom, for otherwise they were considered not those who do not know the objective truths. For many centuries, the scientific creative thought of Europe was suppressed by the authority of Aristotle, and such examples can be brought by a great set. And now there are common situations when everyone is convinced that the authority in a certain question is definitely right, and ideas that do not apply to His judgment are wrong that he is a leader in the world around us and indicates the path to researchers.
The risk of abuse of prestige in science exists, but we cannot do without an authoritative opinion. This is due to the fact that all the knowledge accumulated by us is too voltage and vague, and therefore it is difficult for assimilation and practical use. Non-cost plants and basic positions, points of reference, from which it would be possible to push off. We will take on faith what is assembled and processed in certain areas of knowledge by experts, considering their authoritations. But only information received by scientists and specialists in the areas in which they are competent are recognized as authoritative. People, as a rule, do not recognize the authorities concerned about everything and in general.
Typically distinguish 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, it means, all knowledge, all the information contained in them should be considered Absolutely true and cannot be questioned. To sacral authority also belongs to the faith in the fact that some groups or categories of people, as well as social institutions Indeed possess supernatural knowledge and means of exposure to people (church, doctors, characteristics, saints, psychics, etc.). Unlike sacred, secular authority appears as a result of faith not in supernatural illnesses and abilities, but in human opportunities, by virtue of knowledge and human experience. Secular authority is divided into secular scientific authority, which is based on an empirical study, on data obtained on the basis of experiments, and secular humanistic authority, which is based on the belief that a certain wonderful or great person really has outstanding insight in understanding the phenomena of the world around us or in the field of human behavior.
The area in which a society, social layer or social group recognizes one or another authority is usually very narrow and limited to a rigid framework. People who are incompetent in this area of \u200b\u200bknowledge should rely on other authorities. - specialists, professionals. This is the only way to not be funny in the eyes of others. EVERY, depending on the level of its development and social environment, in its own way, solves the problem of choosing the most significant authorities in various fields of human knowledge.
However, obtaining true scientific knowledge is based on an indispensable condition that there are no scientific authorities that would belong to the last word in achieving the truth on any matter. The scientist must respect scientific authorities, but at the same time he creates and put forward new scientifically based assumptions and checks authoritative conclusions. Authority should not impede future researchers, but, on the contrary, may have to become a springboard to new research. Scientific knowledge expands, ruthlessly rejecting the "final" decisions, constantly by doubting the theory and findings of recognized authorities.
Tradition. One of the most convincing sources of obtaining and transmitting knowledge is the tradition, since it is the wisdom of centuries that it is accumulated. But does it mean that those who neglect traditional ideas and conclusions can be considered either mentally defective or fools that if the tradition has proven itself in the past, then its main provisions should be taken unchanged? Responding to this question, it should be borne in mind that the tradition retains both cumulative wisdom and cumulative nonsense accumulated by the past generations. It can be imagined in the form of a attic of society in which all types of useful samples and all types of misconceptions, useless and suspended relics are signed. Great case scientific knowledge It is to help avoid repetition of ancestors errors. As for sociology, one of its tasks can be considered from these traditions of this, true and marking of the entire obsolete, which is an obstacle to the public study.
Public common sense. For millennia, people believed that the land is flat, that stone and iron - absolutely solid bodiesthat the true character of a person can be found in the expression of his face that the sun is less than earth, etc. Today we know that many of these statements based on common sense, public opinionare not true. In the case when we do not know where they are taken from and on what those or other ideas or allegations are based, we explain their common sense. By giving such an explanation to my ideas, we usually believe that they do not need to be checked, and convince themselves that the idea or approval is true, as it is for granted. This conviction can unite people in collective self-deception, which assumes that all these ideas and allegations can always be checked that their truth can be proved at any time. The term "public common sense" attaches significance and importance to various concepts (views, opinions) that have no systematic evidence of truth that could be referred to. Public common sense and tradition are most closely interconnected, since the multiple and diverse statements of public common sense stands defined last experience, some traditional ideas. The difference between traditions and social common sense can be seen primarily in the fact that traditional truths are trusted for some long period of time, while the statements made on the basis of social common sense are recognized non-critical and usually short-lived conclusions regarding various parties around us. which can believe and which can follow a very limited circle of people.
Often, the provisions and allegations put forward by public common sense arise from collective guesses, premonitions, accidents, errors. It is that the use of public common sense of past experience allows you to come to useful and faithful guessings and conclusions. For example, the statement that "in the event of a collision of people, a soft answer relieves irritation and tensions," is valuable practical supervision For events occurring in the process of everyday cooperation of people. However, observations based on the social security sense, in many cases lead to erroneous conclusions.
Common sense can be determined as folk wisdomSo and delusions, separating which is from each other - the task of science. The sociologists are more often than representatives of other sciences, it is necessary to fight with the delusions of public common sense, because with the subject of sociological research people face almost every day and have enough sustainable judgments about this. Therefore, sociologists, presenting the results of their scientific developments, should be able to associate scientific knowledge with valuable everyday experience accumulated by people during their social activities.
Scientific knowledge. Only in the last two and a half century, the scientific method becomes a generally accepted way to obtain answers to questions arising from the interaction of people with surrounding reality. As for the study of the social world, the science has become an authoritative source of knowledge relatively recently (about 100 years ago), and in such a short period of time, humanity has received more knowledge about the social world than for previous 10 thousand years. Effective receipt of new reliable knowledge is primarily associated with the use of scientific methods. What makes scientific methods so productive? What do they differ from other ways to know the surrounding world, from other ways to comprehend truth?
The main distinguishing sign of scientific knowledge is that it is based on evidence that can be checked. Under the evidence in this case, we will understand the specific results of the actual observations that other observers have the ability to see, weigh, measure, count or check for accuracy. Currently, knowledge based on evidence has become familiar to members of societies, and many to some extent are aware of the scientific methods. But a few centuries ago, medieval scholars could lead long disputes about how many teeth had a horse, without taking her work to look into her mouth and calculate his teeth.
Since the knowledge of people is associated with actually verifiable evidence, science is dealing with only questions on which these evidence can be given. Such questions as, is God, how to predict fate or what makes items are wonderful, are not included in the field of scientific knowledge, since the facts relating to them cannot weigh, evaluate and check. These issues may be unusually important for people, but the scientific method has no tools for solving them. Scientists can explore the causes of the faith of a person in God, in fate, in a beautiful or something else, or identify personal or social consequences of one or another faith, but it does not give anything to determine the truth or mistakenity of the beliefs themselves. Thus, science cannot give answers to all issues important for humanity, many of them are outside its competence. The scientific method is the most efficient source of real, actual knowledge about the behavior of people and the surrounding reality, but science cannot answer questions about superfront phenomena or fundamental principles of aesthetics. Answers to these questions are found in metaphysics or religion.
Each scientific conclusion serves the best interpretation of all available in this moment evidence, but new evidence may appear on the next day, and seemingly comprehensively and thoroughly proven scientific conclusion will be insolvent. Permanent criticism and refutation of the previously proven-sanitation in science and even mandatory: the fundamental property of scientific knowledge is that all conclusions and hypotheses obtained by scientific methodmay be criticized and be refuted. This leads to the fact that the process of scientific knowledge is infinite and cannot be absolute truth. All scientific truths are based on experienced data corresponding to a certain stage of the development of human thought. Therefore, they are constantly revised in the light of new evidence, new experienced data. Some scientific conclusions (for example, that the Earth is a spheroid that innate abilities are manifested only in a certain cultural environment) based on such a powerful provisional foundation that scientists doubt the ability to refute them with new evidence.
What we will do with the material obtained:
If this material turned out to be useful for you, you can save it to your social networking page:
| Tweet |
All the themes of this section:
The emergence of sociology as science
Since the most ancient times, man was interested not only by riddles and phenomena of his nature (spills of rivers, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, the change of seasons or day and night, etc.), but also
Object and subject of sociology
In order to determine the object and subject of sociology as science, it is advisable to first clarify general concepts object and object. Under the object of the study usually understand a certain part
Questions for self-control
1. What is the role in the development of the sociology of the socio-philosophical teachings of antiquity ( Ancient China, Ancient india)? 2. How can you determine the contribution to the development of the science of society made by thinkers
Social laws
It is difficult to imagine a person completely free in its actions, in the formation of personal goals and choosing alternatives to behavior. Living in society, each of his member is exposed to
Sociological knowledge levels
Like many other sciences, sociology developed in two main directions: fundamental and applied. The first direction includes the problems of socio-philosophical understanding most
Questions for self-control
What are the main ways to gain knowledge and their role in the development of science? What types of prestructive exist during the preparation and assimilation by people of new knowledge and what is their difference?
Culture and system of norms
Members of each society are so deeply immersed in their own beliefs and customs that they do not notice how they themselves begin to obey them, considering them the only correct and intelligent. Poetic expression
Structure of culture
It would be great simplification to consider culture only as a totality of customs and moral norms. It can also appear in front of us in the form of an organized behavior system. Consider some
Forms of manifestation of culture in human life
Culture plays a very controversial role in the life of a person on the one hand, it contributes to the consolidation of the most valuable and useful samples of behavior and transmitting them to subsequent generations as well
Origin, Development and distribution of culture
The origin of the culture. Many so-called submersic species of animals have their own system of social life. At a certain time, some species of birds are knocked down in flocks with very mention
Questions for self-control
1. What are you, in your opinion, the differences between society and culture? 2. What gives a deeper understanding of an ancient culture - the study of ruins, sculptures, dishes from excavations or intangible culture
The main factors of personality development
Personality is one of those phenomena that are rarely interpreted in the same two different authors. All identity definitions are somehow conditioned by two opposite glances on
Socialization of personality
It is known that the baby joins big world as biological organism And his main concern at this moment is its own physical comfort. After a while the child becomes human
Questions for self-control
1. What are the modern scientific concepts of the formation of a human person? What is their main meaning and distinction? 2. Which groups can be divided by factors affecting the formation of personal
The learning process of roles
Each individual during their lives is learning to perform a variety of roles: a child, a school student, a student, father or mother, engineer, organizer at the production, officer, a member of a certain
Prescribed and achieved statuses
All social statuses can be divided into two main types: those that are prescribed by the individual with a society or a group regardless of its abilities and efforts, and those that the personality is
Role voltage and role conflict
It would be ideal if every person could reach the desired status in a group or society with the same ease and ease. However, only a few individuals are capable of it. In the process
Questions for self-control
1. What is social status and social role? How are these concepts related to each other? 2. What conditions are necessary and sufficient for role learning? 3. Describe the percentage
Social control
To determine the essence of social control, it is useful to consider ways to implement it in a group or society. Social control through socialization. E. Fromm noted that general
Deviation (Deviant) Behavior
To the greatest regret, there is no such a happy society in which all its members would lead themselves in accordance with the general regulatory requirements. Term "Social Deviation"
Questions for self-control
1. What is social control and why he is prerequisite Successful society? 2. What are the main ways of exercising social control in society or
Social contacts
Social actions
Questions for self-control
1. For which in sociology it is necessary to study different kinds Social ties? 2. How do various types of contacts arise between people? What is the sequence of social development
Social contacts
Circumstances are facing every person with many individuals. In accordance with its needs and interests, a person takes into this set of those with which he then comes into complex
Social actions
The concept of "social action" is one of the central in sociology. The value of social action is due to the fact that it represents the simplest unit, the simplest element of any
Questions for self-control
17. Why should I study various types of social connections in sociology? 18. How do various types of contacts between people arise? What is the sequence of social development
Formation of social relations
Why are social relations generated by sometimes similar interactions, differ from each other in content? Why, for example, conflict interactions can generate one of each other
Formation of basic types of social relations
Needs in values \u200b\u200bpossessive values \u200b\u200bpower Respect moral affectivity
Social relationships dependence and power
Among the infinite diversity of social relations there are those that are the basis and to one degree or another and in one way or another are present in all other relations. It is before
Questions for self-control
How do social relations arise from interactions? What is the difference between social relations from social interactions? What is social values? What is their role in pro
Social institutions appear in society as major non-planned social life products. How does this happen? People in social groups are trying to realize their needs together and are looking for
Institutional signs
Each Social Institute has both specific features and general signs with other institutions. To fulfill its functions, the Social Institute should consider the abilities of
Society is a complex social formation, and the forces acting within it are so interrelated that it is impossible to anticipate the consequences of each individual action. In this regard, instit
Allocation of the Institute of Family from other institutions of society and a thorough study is not accidental. The family is recognized by all researchers the main carrier of cultural samples inherited from
Questions for self-control
1. What social relations are the basis of social institutions? What should happen to institutionalize such relations? 2. What is a social institution? Give exhaustive
What is a social group?
Quasigroup
Questions for self-control
1. What is the main difficulty in justifying the scientific concept "Social Group"? 2.. What scientific meaning have such concepts as "aggregation", "category
What is a social group?
Despite the fact that the concept of the Group is one of the most important in sociology, scientists have no complete consent regarding its definition. And this is not at all because sociologists cannot
Quasigroup
Quasigroups have the following distinctive features: 1) education spontaneity; 2). Austility of relationships; 3) no diversity in interactions (this is either only reception or transmission of info
Questions for self-control
9. What is the main difficulty in justifying the scientific concept "Social Group"? 10. . What scientific meaning have such concepts as "aggregation", "categories
Group dynamics
Consider specific factors that are inherent in the functioning of groups. Group dynamics - interaction of members of social groups among themselves. There are many types of mutual
Questions for self-control
1. How does the separation of individuals on the ingroups and the outgroups? 2. What influence on the Acts of people and events occurring in
Definition of the organization and its internal structure
In everyday practice, the concept of "organization" is often used and the most different content is invested. A.I. Prigogin gives the three most common terms of the term & quo
Management of organizations
Each organization has an artificial nature created by people. In addition, it always seeks to complicate its structure and technology. These two circumstances make it impossible to effectively
Questions for self-control
1. What makes people unite in the organization? What effect is it observed? 2. What are the generally accepted concepts of the organization exist and how are they related to each other? 3. What
Types of social change
Opening is the perception of a reality aspect, previously unknown by many people. Man opens the principle of lever, blood circulation or conditioned reflex. Opening adds new
Social processes
Social changes in society occur as a result of targeted activities of people, which consists of individual social activities and interactions. As a rule, scattered actions are edited
Questions for self-control
1. What is the nature of social change in society? What other types of social changes exist and what is their similarity in the difference? 2. What are the reasons for the resistance to social change
Nature of social movements
Outstanding sociologists of the XIX century. Considered social movements as a totality of effort, actions aimed at supporting social change. In other words, social movements should be able to
Social situations conducive to the emergence and development of social movements
Social movements do not arise immediately and suddenly. They appear and develop under certain social conditions, and these conditions are created during the activities of many people sharing the basic
Personal susceptibility to social movements
In a stable, highly infected society with minor social stresses, social movements and a few are very rare with a weak degree of alienation between social groups.
Questions for self-control
1. What is the point of investing sociologists in the concept of "social movement"? What can the social movement be sent to? 2. What is the difference between social movements from social g
Nature of social mobility
Talented personalities are undoubtedly born in all social sections and social classes. If there are no barriers to social achievement, you can expect greater social mobility, COGD
Problems of social mobility
Classes and castes. The nature of mobility processes in many societies and social groups is varied and depends on the characteristics of the structure of society or the Group. Some societies have established social
Individual and Social Mobility
The conviction is that social mobility is useful and necessary, serves as an integral part of culture in any modern democratic society. Society with closed social groups obf
Migration
Migration is a change process permanent place Accommodation of individuals or social groups, expressed in moving to another region, geographic area or other country. To MIGR
Questions for self-control
1. What is the reason for the need for social displacements in human society? 2. What do you understand under the term "social mobility"? In which directions the process can flow
Stages of conflict flowing
Analysis of conflicts is useful to start with the elementary, simplest level, from the origins of the occurrence of conflict relations. Traditionally, it begins with the structure of needs, whose set is specific
Conflict Characteristics
We have already made sure that conflicts can take the most different form - from a simple quarrel of two people to a major military or political collision with the participation of millions. Despite so many
Questions for self-control
1. What is the difference between social conflict from other social processes (competition, adaptation, cooperation, etc.)? 2. Under what circumstances can social conflict arise?
Dictionary of key sociological terms
Authority - established and legalized right to lead the actions and behavior of other people. Social aggregation - some people collected in a certain physical
Each person has its own image of the surrounding and society in which it exists. This image includes ideas about personality, freedom, equality and justice towards other people, about family, organization of activity and other attributes of life. Unlike such sciences as physics, chemistry or biology, sociology operates with clear concepts that are constantly used in everyday life. Humidated erroneous opinions, prejudices, false stereotypes, people in many cases turn into interpretation of social phenomena. In this regard, it is important to separate ordinary knowledge, often erroneous and incomplete, from scientific knowledge. To do this, we will give the brief characteristics of various methods and sources of obtaining knowledge of the environment of physical and social reality.
Intuition. Famous ancient Roman doctor, physiologist and Anata Galen, who lived in II century. AD, developed a scheme of the structure of the human body, accurately specifying the place where it can be opened without a fatal outcome. How could he define vulnerable places of the human body? Of course, he proceeded from the knowledge of human anatomy obtained as a result of observations. But, according to modern scientists, it was not enough. Much was based on intuition, which Galen trusted very much. It was the intuition that prompted him the zones, the interference in which from the outside could be fatal for a person.
Scientists, social and political figures, commander often base their actions on intuition, which can lead to a favorable situation for them, to justify their assumptions, but may also be erroneous, cause long-term delusions and serious consequences.
Speaking about an intuitive way of obtaining knowledge, we will proceed from the fact that intuition is an outbreak of insight (true or false), the source of the appearance of which is impossible to define or explain. Intuition serves as the basis for many very important hypotheses that can be checked by other methods. The experience of developing science shows that intuition is an indispensable component of scientific knowledge and its basic value is to find and formulate the hypotheses of scientific theory, which, after verification, can become the determining points of the scientific discovery.
At the same time, intuition cannot be considered a satisfactory source of knowledge of the surrounding reality for the formulation of profound conclusions. Indeed, the outbreaks of insight are not enough to determine the essence of the phenomena of the physical and social world around us. For the sake of fairness, it must be said that in some cases, intuition based on inadequate information and fragmentary, unfinished experiments can lead to wonderful, ingenious conclusions and even to the construction of scientific theories. But as such intuitive knowledge can be checked and verified? Often it is simply impossible to do. For example, an ancient Greek philosopher Anaximandr on the basis of intuition came to the construction of the theory of evolution. This happened in the VI century. BC, but only in the XIX century. Our era has the opportunity to check and confirm it. In most cases, intuitive knowledge cannot be verified at the time of intuitive guesses. As for the study of relations between people, the behavior of individuals and social groups, social movements, and processes, in this case, intuitive knowledge is most often not tested at all, or such an opportunity is provided only when the situation in society has already changed.
Support on scientific authorities. Two thousand years ago, Galen knew about the human anatomy more than any of the mortals, and still physiologists and anatomas honor him as authority in this area of \u200b\u200bknowledge. Euclid found that two parallel straight lines never intersect, and many generations of schoolchildren and students had to no doubt to trust this axiom, for otherwise they would be considered not those who do not know the obstigious truths. For centuries, the scientific creative thought of Europe was suppressed by the authority of Aristotle, and such examples can be brought by a great set. And now there are common situations when everyone is convinced that the authority in a certain question is definitely right, and ideas that do not apply to His judgment are wrong that he is a leader in the world around us and indicates the path to researchers.
The risk of abuse of prestige in science exists, but we cannot do without an authoritative opinion. This is due to the fact that all the knowledge accumulated by us is too voluminous and vague, and therefore are difficult to assimage and practical use. Names and main positions are needed, the point of reference, from which one could pursue. We will take on faith what is assembled and processed in certain areas of knowledge by experts, considering their authoritations. But only information received by scientists and specialists in the areas in which they are competent are recognized as authoritative. People, as a rule, do not recognize the authorities concerned about everything and in general.
Typically distinguish several types of authority in the field of obtaining, mastering and using knowledge. Sacral authority, or the authority of faith, resting on the unshakable conviction that certain traditions or documents (for example, the Bible, Koran, Vedas, etc.) are supernatural objects and, it means, all knowledge, all the information contained in them should be considered absolutely true and Cannot be questioned. Sacral authority also belongs to the faith that some groups or categories of people, as well as social institutions really possess supernatural knowledge and means of impact on people (church, doctors, signs, saints, psychics, etc.). Unlike sacral secular authority It appears as a result of faith not in supernatural illnesses and abilities, but by virtue of knowledge and human experience. Secular credibility shared on secular scientific authority, which is based on an empirical study, on the data obtained on the basis of experiments, and secular humanistic authority, which is based on the belief that a certain wonderful or great personality really has outstanding insight in understanding the phenomena of the world around us or in the field of human behavior.
The area in which a society, social layer or social group recognizes one or another authority is usually very narrow and limited to a rigid framework. People who are incompetent in this field of knowledge should rely on other authorities - specialists, professionals. This is the only way to not be funny in the eyes of others. EVERY, depending on the level of its development and social environment, in its own way, solves the problem of choosing the most significant authorities in various fields of human knowledge.
However, obtaining true scientific knowledge is based on an indispensable condition that there are no scientific authorities that would belong to the last word in achieving the truth on any matter. The scientist must respect scientific authorities, but at the same time he creates and put forward new scientifically based assumptions and checks authoritative conclusions. Authority should not impede future researchers, but, on the contrary, may have to become a springboard to new research. Scientific knowledge expands, ruthlessly rejecting "final" decisions, constantly questioning the theory and conclusions of recognized authorities.
Tradition. One of the most convincing sources of obtaining and transmitting knowledge is the tradition, since it is the wisdom of centuries that it is accumulated. But does it mean that those who neglect traditional ideas and conclusions can be considered either mentally defective or fools, or if the tradition has proven itself in the past, then its main provisions should be taken unchanged? Responding to these questions should be borne in mind that the tradition retains both cumulative wisdom and cumulative nonsense accumulated by past generations. It can be imagined in the form of a attic of society in which all types of useful samples and all types of misconceptions, useless and suspended relics are signed. The great case of scientific knowledge is to help avoid repetition of the errors of the ancestors. As for sociology, one of its tasks can be considered from these traditions of the present, true and marking of the entire obsolete, which is an obstacle on the way of studying the Company.
Public common sense. For thousands of years, people believed that the land is flat that stone and iron - absolutely solid bodies that the true character of a person can be found in the expression of his face that the sun is less than earth, etc. Today we know that many of such statements based on common sense, public opinion, are not true.
In the case when we do not know where they are taken from and on what those or other ideas or allegations are based, we explain their common sense. By giving such an explanation to your ideas, we usually believe that they do not need to be checked, and we convince themselves that the idea or approval is true, since they are of course forgotten. This conviction can unite people in collective self-deception, which assumes that all these ideas and allegations can always be checked that their truth can be proved at any time. The term "public common sense" attaches significance and importance of various concepts (views, opinions) that have no systematic evidence of truth that could be referred to.
Public common sense and tradition is most closely related to each other, as the multiple and diverse statements of public common sense costs a certain past experience, some traditional ideas. The difference between traditions and social common sense can be seen primarily in the fact that traditional truths are trusted for some long period of time, while the statements made on the basis of social common sense are recognized non-critical and usually short-lived conclusions regarding various parties around us. which can believe and which can follow a very limited circle of people.
Often, the provisions and allegations put forward by public common sense arise from collective guesses, premonitions, accidents, errors. It is that the use of public common sense of past experience allows you to come to useful and faithful guessings and conclusions. For example, the statement that "in the event of a collision of people, a soft answer relieves irritation and tensions," is a valuable practical observation of events occurring in the process of everyday cooperation of people. However, observations based on the social security sense, in many cases lead to erroneous conclusions.
Common sense can be determined by both folk wisdom and misconceptions, separating which is from each other - the task of science. The sociologists are more often than representatives of other sciences, it is necessary to fight with the delusions of public common sense, because with the subject of sociological research people face almost every day and have enough sustainable judgments about this. Therefore, sociologists, presenting the results of their scientific developments, should be able to associate scientific knowledge with valuable everyday experience accumulated by people during their social activities.
Scientific knowledge. Only in the last two and a half century, the scientific method becomes generally recognized to receive answers to questions arising from the interaction of people with the surrounding reality. As for the study of the social world, in this area, science has become an authoritative source of knowledge relatively recently (about 100 years ago), and in such a short period of time, humanity has received more knowledge about the social world than for previous 10 thousand years. The effective receipt of new reliable knowledge is primarily due to the use of scientific methods. What makes scientific methods so productive? What do they differ from other ways to know the surrounding world, from other ways to comprehend truth?
The main distinguishing sign of scientific knowledge is that it is based on evidence that can be checked. Under the evidence in this case, we will understand the specific results of the actual observations that other observers have the ability to see, weigh, measure, count or check for accuracy. Currently, knowledge based on evidence has become familiar to members of society, and many to some extent are aware of the scientific methods. But a few centuries ago, medieval scholars could lead long disputes about how many teeth had a horse, without taking her work to look into her mouth and calculate his teeth.
Since the knowledge of people is associated with actually verifiable evidence, science is dealing with only questions on which these evidence can be given. Such questions, how is God, how to predict fate or what makes items are wonderful, are not included in the area of \u200b\u200bscientific knowledge, since the facts relating to them cannot be placed, evaluate and check. These issues may be unusually important for people, but the scientific method has no tools for solving them. Scientists can explore the reasons for the faith of a person in God, in fate, in a beautiful or something else or identify personal or social consequences of one or another faith, but it will not give anything to establish the truth or error in the beliefs themselves. Thus, science cannot give answers to all issues important for humanity, many of them are outside its competence. The scientific method is the most efficient source of real knowledge about the behavior of people and the surrounding reality, but science cannot answer questions about superfront phenomena or fundamental principles of aesthetics. Answers to these questions are found in metaphysics or religion.
Each scientific conclusion serves as the best interpretation of all evidence available at the moment, but new evidence may appear on the next day, and it would seem that a comprehensive and thoroughly proven scientific conclusion will be insolvent. Constant criticism and refutation of the previously proven - the phenomenon in science is normal and even mandatory: the fundamental property of scientific knowledge is that all conclusions and hypotheses obtained using the scientific method may be criticized and be refuted. This leads to the fact that the process of scientific knowledge is infinite and cannot be absolute truth. All scientific truths are based on experienced data corresponding to a certain stage of the development of human thought. Therefore, they are constantly revised in the light of new evidence, new experienced data. Some scientific conclusions (for example, that the Earth is a spheroid that innate abilities are manifested only in a certain cultural environment) based on such a powerful provisional foundation that scientists doubt the ability to refute them with new evidence.
Social laws
It is difficult to imagine a person completely free in its actions, forming personal goals and choosing alternatives to behavior. Every person living in society is exposed to not only the surrounding individuals, associations, groups, but also the results of their past activities: Systems of values, norms, rules, legal laws. In addition, it is obvious that it is an important factor that limits the free human activity is the environment: climatic conditions, items material culturecreated by the hands of people, natural earth and cosmic phenomena. If adding the effect of character properties and other personal qualities, it will become obvious that the number of barriers and restrictions that change human behavior is quite large.
As a result of this action of people associated with 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 is less diverse, more standardized. This determines the repeatability of human behavior samples and to a certain extent predictability of its aspirations, installations and actions, which increases with the complications of the structure of society and the emergence of new ways to control the actions of people. Thus, the activities and behavior of people in society are subject to objective, i.e. independent of the consciousness of people, social laws.
What social law? G. V. Osipov determines the social law as "relatively sustainable and systematically reproducible relations between peoples, nations, classes, socio-demographic and professional groups, as well as between society and social organization, society and employment team, society and family, society and personality , city and village, social organization and personality, etc. " .
Social laws operate in all spheres of human activity and may vary on their distribution. So, there are laws that apply to a small group to a certain social stratum, the social layer or class and, finally, to society as a whole. In other words, in the sphere of action of the law, society may be in general or its part.
Like all scientific laws, social laws Possess the following basic signs: 1) the law may enact only if there are certain, strictly specified conditions; 2) under these conditions, the law is always valid and everywhere without any exceptions (an exception confirming the law - nonsense); 3) The conditions under which the law acts are not fully implemented, but partly and approximately.
The presence of these features of all scientific laws without exception is extremely important for researchers. When analyzing the action of the law and the formulation of its content, the researcher must, if possible, exhaustively stipulate the conditions of such actions. Therefore, the approval of the type "individuals always seek to form social groups" are not social laws, since they do not specify the conditions for their action. At the same time, the approval of the type "business, constructive social conflict in the organization is always permitted after eliminating the causes of its occurrence, if external (extra-organized) factors will not affect the redistribution of resources within the organization," describes the operation of social law, since its conditions are clearly stipulated. Obviously, it is impossible to completely avoid in organizing the influence of external factors and ensure that material resources, information, influences are not moved 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 the business conflict in the organization after the elimination of its cause is not permitted, this means that the conditions have not been specified in the wording of the law.
Another example of social law leads A. Zinoviev. Social law is contained in next statement: "If in one institution a person pays for the same work more than in another, then the person will go to work in the first of them, with the condition that, for him, work in this institution does not differ in anything except salary." It may happen that the employee will choose a facility in which they pay less, but which is close to the house or has better working conditions. This does not refute the above statement, since in this case the conditions of the law are clearly not fulfilled. There can be no institutions with absolutely identical working conditions, except for salaries, but it is quite possible to approach this.
Specific laws in all other sciences apply in the same way. For example, in the conditions of physical laws, such concepts as uniform and straight traffic, absolutely solid, absolutely black body, which in real life does not exist. It means we are talking Only about more or less close approximation of real conditions for these concepts. But perhaps the main requirement for social law should be what it is necessarily carried out under stipulated conditions. Otherwise, approval does not reflect the current law.
With social laws, people face constantly and or submit them to their actions, or try to avoid them, adapt their behavior to social laws or protest them against them. But one thing is obvious: opening any social law, the sociologist does not open the veil over still unknown, by anyone with any phenomena. On the contrary, people always see in social laws the features of their daily life, always compare their manifestations with their own experience.
Thus, the schematic diagram of the social law action is quite distinguishable and quite simple, its manifestations are always visible for members of society. At the same time, the researchers are unanimous in that social laws are extremely difficult to detect and study. This is due to the existence of a variety of conditions, their complexity, and the fact that they are superimposed on each other, intertwined, complicating the field of research. That is why the repeatability of the behavior of people in social groups, which means that the effect of social law is often just difficult to allocate due to the heated of parts, the abundance of the source data and assumptions.
However, there is a circumstance, a somewhat simplifying scientific approach to the study of social laws. It should always be remembered that social laws are existing ones regardless of the consciousness of the objective rules that regulate the behavior of people in relation to each other and the basis of which form historically established motives, interests and aspirations of people to meet their needs for improving the conditions of existence, safe and recognizing from others, in self-expression, etc. Therefore, studying social laws, it is primarily necessary to identify the needs of individuals that make up the social group, a stratum, social class or society as a whole, and, pushing away from these needs, to seek repeatability in their behavior, determine the conditions in which the recaptivity found, and formulate Social laws whose knowledge is necessary for the successful management of social processes occurring in society.
Man and social laws. When the Sociologist's scientist publishes materials about the action of social laws, then many readers can cause distrust. "How so," the reader says itself, "the law is something unshakable, it is impossible to get around, and I, if I want, I can break it." And you can not doubt that if any person comes to the goal of at any cost to violate the social law, he will definitely do it. But does this mean that this law does not exist?
To explain such apparent inconsistencies, we give the simplest example From physics. When the body moves progressively at a certain speed, then, strictly speaking, not all of its particles move at such a speed. Due to moving inside the body (for example, due to heat movement), individual particles can move even against the direction of the body movement. This is explained by the fact that they simply found themselves in different conditions. Of course, the movement of bodies in the physical world differs significantly from social movements and processes. But in this case, we are only interested in the principal moment. separate part A whole can make a move towards the direction other than the law, and even in the opposite direction. This circumstance does not affect the law describing the behavior of the whole. Separately taken individuals, a member of the social group, not subject to social law, cannot affect the action of this law in the social group. Why does he fall out of the general movement? Yes, because it turns out to be in the conditions not specified by this law. But its individual deviation and falling out of the scope of the law cannot prevent the actions of the law. Thus, some individuals can abandon pressing needs for some period, including the need for self-preservation, but the law based on these needs will continue to act on the scale of this social group.
At the same time, the deviation of any individual from the direction of the social law (by virtue of the conditions that are not relevant to the agreed) can weaken the manifestation of social law in this particular group. Despite the fact that the law should be implemented without any exceptions that the part of the group falls into the conditions not agreed by law, as a result of the activities within the framework of this law are carried out by a smaller number of people, which weakens its manifestation. Since people in society fall under the influence of a large number of different forces and possess different resources (both material and spiritual), their deviation (or care) is often observed from the action of social law. However, the law always lays his way where social conditions become close to agreed.
Social laws are not created consciously members of society or groups, such as cultural standards or legal laws. People come in accordance with social laws unconsciously and are trained in such a "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, in managing social processes. It is the presence and action of social laws that provide the possibility of applying a scientific approach in sociology. Unpredictability, rawlessness and chaotic behavior of people in society cannot be studied using scientific methods; On the contrary, the predictability, repeatability, the definition of many parties to human behavior allow scientists engaged in the study of human society, to discover social laws, determine the conditions for their action and foresee the behavior of people in social groups and society.
Each person has its own image of the surrounding and society in which it exists. This image includes ideas about personality, freedom, equality and justice towards other people, about the family, organization of activity and other attributes of his life. Unlike such sciences as physics, chemistry or biology, sociology operates with concepts that are understandable and clear and constantly used in everyday life. Heated erroneous opinions, prejudice, false stereotypes, people in many cases turn into interpretation of social phenomena. In this regard, it is important to separate ordinary knowledge, often erroneous and incomplete, from scientific knowledge. To do this, we will give the brief characteristics of various methods and sources of obtaining knowledge of the environment of physical and social reality.
Intuition. Famous ancient Roman doctor, physiologist and Anata Galen, who lived in II century. AD, developed a scheme of the structure of the human body, accurately showing the place where it can be uncovered without a fatal outcome. How could he define vulnerable places of the human body? Of course, he proceeded from the knowledge of human anatomy obtained as a result of observations. But, according to modern scientists, it was not enough. Much was based on intuition, which Galen trusted very much. It was the intuition that prompted him the zones, the interference in which from the outside could be fatal for a person.
Scientists, public and political figures, commander often base their actions on intuition, which can lead to conversations favorable for them, to justify their assumptions, but may also be erroneous, cause long-term errors and serious consequences.
Speaking about an intuitive way of obtaining knowledge, we will proceed from the fact that intuition is an outbreak of insight (true or false), the source of the appearance of which is impossible to define or explain. Intuition serves as the basis for many very important hypotheses that can be checked by other methods. The experience of developing science shows that intuition is an indispensable component of scientific knowledge and its basic value is to find and formulate the hypotheses of scientific theory, which, after verification, can become the determining points of the scientific discovery.
At the same time, intuition cannot be considered a satisfactory source of knowledge of the surrounding reality, formulating deep conclusions. Indeed, the outbreaks of insight are not enough to determine the essence of the phenomena of the physical and social world around us. Justice Dadi must say that in some cases intuition, based on inadequate information and fragmentary, unfinished experiments, can lead to wonderful, ingenious conclusions, and even to the construction of scientific theories. But as such intuitive knowledge can be checked and verified? Often it is simply impossible to do. For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Anaximandr came on the basis of intuition to construct the theory of evolution. This happened in the VI century. BC, but only in the XIX century. Our era appeared to check and confirm it. In most cases, intuitive knowledge cannot be verified at the time of intuitive guesses. As for the study of relations between people, the behavior of individuals and social groups, social movements, and processes, in this case, intuitive knowledge is most often not tested at all, or such an opportunity is provided only when the situation in society has already changed.
Support on scientific authorities. Two thousand years ago, Galen knew about the human anatomy more than any of the mortals, and still physiologists and anatomas honor him as authority in this area of \u200b\u200bknowledge. Euclid found that two parallel straight lines never intersect, and many generations of schoolchildren and students were undoubtedly a doubt to trust this axiom, for otherwise they were considered not those who do not know the objective truths. For many centuries, the scientific creative thought of Europe was suppressed by the authority of Aristotle, and such examples can be brought by a great set. And now there are common situations when everyone is convinced that the authority in a certain question is definitely right, and ideas that do not apply to His judgment are wrong that he is a leader in the world around us and indicates the path to researchers.
The risk of abuse of prestige in science exists, but we cannot do without an authoritative opinion. This is due to the fact that all the knowledge accumulated by us is too voltage and vague, and therefore it is difficult to assimilate and practical use. We need guidelines and basic positions, points of reference, from which it could be pushing. We will take on faith what is assembled and processed in certain areas of knowledge by experts, considering their authoritations. But only information obtained by scientists and specialists in those areas in which they are competent are recognized as authoritative; People, as a rule, do not recognize the authorities concerned about everything and in general.
Typically distinguish 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, it means, all knowledge, all the information contained in them should be considered Absolutely true and cannot be questioned. Sacral authority also belongs to the faith that some groups or categories of people, as well as social institutions really possess supernatural knowledge and means of impact on people (church, doctors, signs, saints, psychics, etc.). Unlike sacred, secular authority appears as a result of faith not in supernatural illnesses and abilities, but in human opportunities, by virtue of knowledge and human experience. Secular authority is divided into secular scientific authority, which is based on an empirical study, on data obtained on the basis of experiments, and secular humanistic authority, which is based on the faith in the fact that a certain wonderful or great personality really has outstanding insight in understanding the phenomena of the surrounding We are peace or in the field of human behavior.
The area in which a society, social layer or social group recognizes one or another authority is usually very narrow and limited to a rigid framework. People who are incompetent in the art should rely on other authorities: specialists, professionals. This is the only way to not be funny in the eyes of others. EVERY, depending on the level of its development and social environment, in its own way, solves the problem of choosing the most significant authorities in various fields of human knowledge.
However, obtaining true scientific knowledge is based on an indispensable condition that there are no scientific authorities that would belong to the last word in achieving the truth on any matter. The scientist must respect scientific authorities, but at the same time he creates and put forward new scientifically based assumptions and checks authoritative conclusions. Authority should not impede future researchers, but, on the contrary, may have to become a springboard to new research. Scientific knowledge expands, ruthlessly rejecting the "final" decisions, constantly by doubting the theory and findings of recognized authorities.
Tradition. One of the most convincing sources of obtaining and transmitting knowledge is the tradition, since it is the wisdom of centuries that it is accumulated. But does it mean that those who neglect traditional ideas and conclusions can be considered either mentally defective or fools that if the tradition has proven itself in the past, then its main provisions should be taken unchanged? Responding to this question, it should be borne in mind that the tradition retains both cumulative wisdom and cumulative nonsense accumulated by the past generations. It can be imagined in the form of a attic of society in which all types of useful samples and all types of misconceptions, useless and suspended relics are signed. The great case of scientific knowledge is to help avoid repetition of the errors of the ancestors. As for sociology, one of its tasks can be considered from these traditions of this, true and marking of the entire obsolete, which is an obstacle to the public study.
Public common sense. For thousands of years, people believed that the land is flat that stone and iron - absolutely solid bodies that the true character of a person can be found in the expression of his face that the sun is less than earth, etc. Today we know that many of such statements based on common sense, public opinion, are not true. In the case when we do not know where they are taken from and on what those or other ideas or allegations are based, we explain their common sense. By giving such an explanation to my ideas, we usually believe that they do not need to be checked, and convince themselves that the idea or approval is true, as it is for granted. This conviction can unite people in collective self-deception, which assumes that all these ideas and allegations can always be checked that their truth can be proved at any time. The term "public common sense" attaches significance and importance to various concepts (views, opinions) that have no systematic evidence of truth that could be referred to. Public common sense and tradition is most closely related to each other, as the multiple and diverse statements of public common sense costs a certain past experience, some traditional ideas. The difference between traditions and social common sense can be seen primarily in the fact that traditional truths are trusted for some long period of time, while allegations made on the basis of public common sense are the unlimited conclusions regarding different Parties around us, in which can believe and which can follow a very limited circle of people.
Often, the provisions and allegations put forward by public common sense arise from collective guesses, premonitions, accidents, errors. It is that the use of public common sense of past experience allows you to come to useful and faithful guessings and conclusions. For example, the statement that "in the event of a collision of people, a soft answer relieves irregularity and tension," is a valuable practical observation of events occurring in the process of everyday cooperation. However, observations based on the social security sense, in many cases lead to erroneous conclusions.
Common sense can be determined by both folk wisdom and misconceptions, separating which is from each other - the task of science. The sociologists are more often than representatives of other sciences, it is necessary to fight with the delusions of public common sense, because with the subject of sociological research people face almost every day and have enough sustainable judgments about this. Therefore, sociologists, presenting the results of their scientific developments, should be able to associate scientific knowledge with valuable everyday experience accumulated by people during their social activities.
Scientific knowledge. Only in the last two and a half century, the scientific method becomes a generally accepted way to obtain answers to questions arising from the interaction of people with surrounding reality. As for the study of the social world, in this area, science has become a reputable source of knowledge compared to recently (about 100 years ago), and in such a short period of time, humanity has received more knowledge about the social world than for previous 10 thousand years. Effective receipt of new reliable knowledge is primarily associated with the use of scientific methods. What makes scientific methods so productive? What do they differ from other ways to know the surrounding world, from other ways to comprehend truth?
The main distinguishing sign of scientific knowledge is that it is based on evidence that can be checked. Under the evidence in this case, we will understand the specific results of the actual observations that other observers have the ability to see, weigh, measure, count or check for accuracy. Currently, knowledge based on evidence has become familiar to members of societies, and many are somehow aware of scientific methods. But a few centuries ago, medieval scholars could lead long disputes about how many teeth had a horse, without taking her work to look into her mouth and calculate his teeth.
Since the knowledge of people is associated with actually verifiable evidence, science is dealing with only questions on which these evidence can be given. Such questions as, is God, how to predict fate or what makes items are wonderful, are not included in the field of scientific knowledge, since the facts relating to them cannot weigh, evaluate and check. These issues may be unusually important for people, but the scientific method has no tools for solving them. Scientists can explore the reasons for the faith of a person in God, in fate, in a beautiful or something else, or to identify personal or social consequences of one or another faith, but it does not give anything to determine the truth or error in the beliefs themselves. Thus, science cannot give answers to all issues important for humanity, many of them are outside its competence. The scientific method is the most efficient source of real, actual knowledge about the behavior of people and the surrounding reality, but science cannot answer questions about superfront phenomena or fundamental principles of aesthetics. Answers to these questions are found in metaphysics or religion.
Each scientific conclusion serves as the best interpretation of all evidence available at the moment, but new evidence may appear on the next day, and it would seem that a comprehensive and thoroughly proven scientific conclusion will be insolvent. Constant criticism and refutation of the previously proven - the phenomenon in science is normal and even mandatory: the fundamental property of scientific knowledge is that all conclusions and hypotheses obtained using the scientific method may be criticized and be refuted. This leads to the fact that the process of scientific knowledge is infinite and cannot be absolute truth. All scientific truths are based on experienced data corresponding to a certain stage of the development of human thought. Therefore, they are constantly revised in the light of new evidence, new experienced data. Some scientific conclusions (for example, that the Earth is a spheroid that innate abilities are manifested only in a certain cultural environment) based on such a powerful provisional foundation that scientists doubt the ability to refute them with new evidence.
Methods for the acquisition of scientific knowledge about society
Characteristics of sociological knowledge
Each person has its own image of the surrounding and society in which it exists. This image includes ideas about personality, freedom, equality and justice towards other people, about the family, organization of activity and other attributes of his life. Unlike such sciences, as physics, chemistry or biology, sociology operates with concepts that are clear and clear and constantly used in repulsive life. Heated erroneous opinions, prejudice, false stereotypes, people in many cases turn into interpretation of social phenomena. In this regard, it is important to separate ordinary knowledge, often erroneous and incomplete, from scientific knowledge. To do this, we will give the brief characteristics of various methods and sources of obtaining knowledge of the environment of physical and social reality.
Intuition. Famous ancient Roman doctor, physiologist and Anata Galen, who lived in II century. Our era, developed a scheme of the structure of the human body, accurately showing the place where it can be uncovered without a fatal outcome. How could he define vulnerable places of the human body? Of course, he proceeded from the knowledge of human anatomy obtained as a result of observations. But, according to modern scientists, it was not enough. Much was based on intuition, which Galen trusted very much. It was the intuition that prompted him the zones, the interference in which from the outside could be fatal for a person.
Scientists, public and political figures, commander often base their actions on intuition, which can lead to conversations favorable for them, to justify their assumptions, but may also be erroneous, cause long-term errors and serious consequences.
Speaking about an intuitive way of obtaining knowledge, we will proceed from the fact that intuition is an outbreak of insight (true or false), the source of the appearance of which is impossible to define or explain. Intuition serves as the basis for many very important hypotheses that are checked by other methods. The experience of developing science shows that intuition is an indispensable component of scientific knowledge and its basic value is to find and formulate the hypotheses of scientific theory, which, after verification, can become the determining points of the scientific discovery.
At the same time, intuition cannot be considered a satisfactory source of knowledge of the surrounding reality, formulating deep conclusions. Indeed, outbreaks of insights 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 cases intuition, based on inadequate information and fragmentary, unfinished experiments, can lead to wonderful, ingenious conclusions, and even to the construction of scientific theories. But as such intuitive knowledge can be checked and verified? Often it is simply impossible to do.
For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Anaximandr came on the basis of intuition to the construction of the theory of evolution. This happened in the VI century. BC, but only in the XIX century. Our era appeared to check and confirm it. In most cases, intuitive knowledge cannot be verified at the time of intuitive guesses. As for the study of relations between people, the behavior of individuals and social groups, social movements and processes, then in this case the intuitive knowledge is more often in general, it cannot be checked or such an opportunity only when the situation in society has already changed.
Support on scientific authorities. Two thousand years ago, Galen knew about the human anatomy more than any of the mortals, and still physiologists and anatomas honor him as authority in this area of \u200b\u200bknowledge. Euclid found that two parallel straight lines never intersect, and many generations of schoolchildren and students were undoubtedly a doubt to trust this axiom, for otherwise they were considered not those who do not know the objective truths. For many centuries, the scientific creative thought of Europe was suppressed by the authority of Aristotle, and such examples can be brought by a great set. Yes, and now there are common situations when everyone is convinced that the authority in some question is of definitely rights, and the ideas that do not correspond to its judgment are wrong that it is managed in the world around us and indicates the path to researchers.
The risk of abuse of prestige in science exists, but we cannot do without an authoritative opinion. This is due to the fact that all the knowledge accumulated by us is too voltage and vague, and therefore it is difficult for assimilation and practical use. Landmarks and basic provisions are needed, the point of reference from which one could pursue. We will take on faith what is assembled and processed in certain areas of knowledge by experts, considering their authoritations. But only information received by scientists and specialists in the areas in which they are competent are recognized as authoritative. People, as a rule, do not recognize the authorities concerned about the whole and in general.
Typically distinguish 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, the Koran, Vedas, etc.) are supernatural objects and, it means, the knowledge, all the information contained In them, should be considered absolutely true and cannot be questioned. Sacral authority also belongs to the faith that some groups or categories of people, as well as social institutions really possess supernatural knowledge and means of impact on people (church, doctors, signs, saints, psychics, etc.). Unlike sacred, secular authority appears as a result of faith not in supernatural illnesses and abilities, but in human opportunities, by virtue of knowledge and human experience. Secular authority is divided into secular scientific authority, which is based on an empirical study, on data obtained on the basis of experiments, and secular humanistic authority, which is based on the faith in the fact that the determined wonderful or great personality really has outstanding insight in the understanding of the phenomena of the surrounding We are peace or in the field of human behavior.
The area in which a society, social layer or social group recognizes one or another authority is usually very narrow and limited to a rigid framework. People who are incompetent in the art should rely on other authorities - specialists, professionals. This is the only way to not be funny in the eyes of others. EVERY, depending on the level of its development and social environment, in its own way, solves the problem of choosing the most significant authorities in various fields of human knowledge.
At the same time, obtaining true scientific knowledge is based on an indispensable condition that there are no scientific authorities that would belong to the last word in achieving the truth on any question. The scientist must respect scientific authorities, but at the same time he creates and put forward new scientifically based assumptions and checks authoritative conclusions. Authority should not impede future researchers, but, on the contrary, may have to become a springboard to new research. Scientific knowledge expands, ruthlessly rejecting the "final" decisions, constantly by doubting the theory and findings of recognized authorities.
Tradition. One of the most convincing sources of obtaining and transmitting knowledge is the tradition, since it is the wisdom of centuries that it is accumulated. But does it mean that those who neglect traditional ideas and conclusions can be considered either mentally defective or fools that if the tradition has proven itself in the past, then its main provisions should be taken unchanged? Answering this question, it should be borne in mind that the tradition retains both cumulative wisdom and cumulative nonsense accumulated by past generations. It can be imagined in the form of a attic of society, in which all types of useful samples and in all types of delusions, useless and unzipped relics are sampled. The great case of scientific knowledge is to help avoid repetition of the errors of the ancestors. As for sociology, one of its tasks can be considered separated from these traditions of the present, true and notice of all overdue, which is a barrier on the way of studying the Company.
Public common sense. During the thousands of thousands, people believed that the land is flat, that the stone and desires are absolutely solid bodies that the true character of a person can be found in the expression of his face that the sun is less than earth, etc. Today we know that many of such statements based on common sense, public opinion, are not true. In the case when we do not know where they are taken from and on what those or other ideas or allegations are based, we explain their common sense. By giving such an explanation to my ideas, we usually believe that they do not need to be checked, and convince themselves that the idea or approval is true, as it is for granted. This conviction can unite people in collective self-deception, which assumes that all these ideas and approval of the whole of all are verified that at any moment their truth can be proved. The term "public common sense" attaches significance and importance to various concepts (views, opinions) that have no systematic evidence of truth that could be referred to. Public common sense and tradition are closely related to each other, since the multiple and diverse statements of public common sense costs a certain past experience, some traditional ideas. The difference between traditions and public common sense can be seen before all that traditional truths are trusted for some long period of time, while allegations made on the basis of public common sense are recognized non-critical and usually short-lived conclusions regarding various sides of the surrounding We are reality in which you can believe and which can follow a very limited circle of people.
Often, the provisions and allegations put forward by public common sense arise from collective guesses, premonitions, accidents, errors. It is that the use of public common sense of past experience allows you to come to useful and faithful guessings and conclusions. For example, the assertion that "in the event of a collision of people, a soft answer relieves irritation and tensions," is a valuable practical observation of events occurring in the process of repulsive interaction of people. At the same time, observations based on a social security sense, in many cases lead to erroneous conclusions.
Common sense can be determined by both folk wisdom and misconceptions, separating which is from each other - the task of science. The sociologists are more often than representatives of other sciences, it is necessary to fight with the delusions of public common sense, because with the subject of sociological research people face almost every day and have enough sustainable judgments about this. For this reason, sociologists, presenting the results of their scientific developments, should be able to associate scientific knowledge with valuable republic's experience, accumulated people in their social activities.
Scientific knowledge. Only in the last two and a half century, the scientific method becomes a generally accepted way to obtain answers to questions arising from the interaction of people with surrounding reality. As for the study of the social world, the science has become an authoritative source of knowledge relatively recently (about 100 years ago), and in such a short period of time, humanity has received more knowledge about the social world than for previous 10 thousand years. Effective receipt of new reliable knowledge is associated before using scientific methods. What makes scientific methods so productive? What do they differ from other ways to know the surrounding world, from other ways to comprehend truth?
The main distinguishing feature of scientific knowledge is that it is based on evidence that are checked. Under the evidence in this case, we will understand the specific results of the actual observations that other observers have the ability to see, weigh, measure, count or check for accuracy. Today, knowledge based on evidence has become familiar to members of societies, and many to some extent are aware of the scientific methods. But a few centuries ago, medieval scholars could lead long disputes about how many teeth had a horse, without taking her work to look into her mouth and calculate his teeth.
Since the knowledge of people is associated with actually verifiable evidence, science is dealing only with questions for which these evidence is given. Such questions as, is God, how to predict fate or what makes items are wonderful, are not included in the field of scientific knowledge, since the facts relating to them cannot weigh, evaluate and check. These issues are unusually important for people, but the scientific method has no tools for solving them. Scientists can explore the reasons for the faith of a person in God, in fate, in a beautiful or something else, or identify the personal or social consequences of one or another faith, but it does not give anything to determine the truth or error in the beliefs themselves. ᴀᴋᴎᴍᴀᴋᴎᴍ ᴏϭᴩᴀᴈᴏᴍ, science cannot give answers to all questions important for humanity, many of them are outside its competence. The scientific method is the most efficient source of real, actual knowledge about the behavior of people and the surrounding reality, but science cannot answer questions about superfront phenomena or fundamental principles of aesthetics. Answers to these questions are found in metaphysics or religion.
Each scientific conclusion serves as the best interpretation of the currently available evidence at the moment, but new evidence may appear on the next day, and it would seem that allone and thoroughly proven scientific conclusion will be insolvent. Constant criticism and refutation of the previously proven-sanction in science is ordinary and even compulsory: the fundamental property of scientific knowledge is that all the conclusions and hypothesis obtained using the scientific method may be criticized and be refuted. This leads to the fact that the process of scientific knowledge is infinite and cannot be absolute truth. All scientific truths are based on experienced data corresponding to a certain stage of the development of human thought. For this reason, they are constantly revised in the light of new evidence, new experienced data. Some scientific conclusions (for example, that the Earth is a spheroid that congenital abilities are manifested only in a certain cultural environment) are based on such a powerful foundation for evidence that scientists doubt the ability to refute them with new evidence.
See also:
|
… |
The acquisition of knowledge about society, social life can traditionally occur in many ways that are peculiar to humanitarian science.
There are several points of view about the combination of these methods, their ambiguities, opportunities.
For example:
Intuition - This is an outbreak of the insight of true or false. It is often based on inadequate information, unfinished experiments and can lead to wonderful, ingenious conclusions, and even to the construction of scientific theory. Sometimes intuitive knowledge cannot be verified immediately, but only when it is possible.
— sacred authority . The authority of faith. It is based on the conviction that documents, traditions or knowledge are supernatural objects and the information in them is absolute, is correct and is not questioned, and such institutions as a church, a badger, psychic, doctor, saints, have supernatural knowledge and means of impact;
— secular authority - Scientific - based on an experienced study, on the data obtained in the experiment, often it is based on the belief that the Great Persons are insightful, the world and the region of human behavior deeply feel
Tradition - accumulates the wisdom of centuries, retains the cumulative wisdom of generations. But may also contain nonsense. The task of sociology to distinguish tradition, block the road outdated.
Public common sense - It is closely connected with traditions that society trusts is faith in the fact that the masses are always right that wisdom will free from delusions, and social experience will always tell the path of practice.
Scientific knowledge - based on evidence that are verified by observations, measurements, calculations, evidence. Scientific knowledge may be criticized, refute, which means that the process of knowledge is infinite, there is a search for absolute truth, and any new knowledge is checked and the practice is approved.
Control questions
1. What are the scientific and social prerequisites for sociology?
2. Give the definition of the object and the subject of sociology?
4. Name and decrypt the main functions and laws of sociology.
5. How sociology differs from philosophy, psychology.
6. What levels has sociological knowledge?
7. List some ways to get knowledge about society.
8. Enjoy the place and appointment of sociology methods.
9. What is sociology at the universal level, on private and unit?
