The desire to study objects of the real world and, on this basis, to foresee the results of its practical transformation is characteristic not only of science, but also of everyday knowledge, which is woven into practice and develops on its basis.

The embryonic forms of scientific knowledge arose on the basis of everyday knowledge and then separated from it. With the development of science and its transformation into one of the most important values ​​of civilization, its way of thinking begins to have an increasingly active impact on everyday consciousness.

The features that distinguish science from everyday knowledge can be conveniently classified according to the categorical scheme in which the structure of activity is characterized (tracing the difference between science and ordinary knowledge by subject, means, product, methods and subject of activity).

Science provides “ultra-long-range” forecasting of practice, going beyond the existing stereotypes of production and everyday experience. If everyday knowledge reflects only those objects that, in principle, can be transformed in existing historically established methods and types of practical action, then science is capable of studying such fragments of reality that can become the subject of mastery only in the practice of the distant future.

These features of scientific objects make the means that are used in everyday cognition insufficient for their mastery.

The development by science of a special language suitable for its description of objects that are unusual from the point of view of common sense is a necessary condition for scientific research.

Special scientific equipment is needed that allows science to experimentally study new types of objects.

Scientific equipment and the language of science act as an expression of already acquired knowledge. But just as in practice its products are transformed into means of new types of practical activity, so in scientific research its products - scientific knowledge expressed in language or embodied in instruments - become a means of further research. Thus, from the peculiarities of the subject of science, we received, as a kind of consequence, differences in the means of scientific and everyday knowledge.

The specificity of the objects of scientific research can also explain the main differences between scientific knowledge as a product of scientific activity and knowledge obtained in the sphere of everyday, spontaneous-empirical knowledge. The latter are most often not systematized; it is, rather, a conglomerate of information, instructions, recipes for activity and behavior accumulated during the historical development of everyday experience. Their reliability is established through direct application in actual situations of production and everyday practice. As for scientific knowledge, its reliability can no longer be justified only in this way, since science primarily studies objects that have not yet been mastered in production. Therefore, specific ways to substantiate the truth of knowledge are needed. They are experimental control over the acquired knowledge and the deducibility of some knowledge from others, the truth of which has already been proven. In turn, derivability procedures ensure the transfer of truth from one fragment of knowledge to another, due to which they become interconnected and organized into a system. Thus, we obtain characteristics of systematicity and validity of scientific knowledge, distinguishing it from the products of ordinary cognitive activity of people.

Finally, the desire of science to study objects relatively independently of their development in existing forms of production and everyday experience presupposes specific characteristics of the subject of scientific activity. Doing science requires special training of the cognitive subject, during which he masters the historically established means of scientific research and learns the techniques and methods of operating with these means. For everyday cognition such preparation is not necessary.

Two basic principles of science provide the desire for search: the intrinsic value of truth and the value of novelty.

Any scientist accepts the search for truth as one of the main principles of scientific activity, perceiving truth as the highest value of science.

An equally important role in scientific research is played by the focus on the constant growth of knowledge and the special value of novelty in science.

The value orientations of science form the foundation of its ethos, which a scientist must master in order to successfully engage in research.

It is significant that for ordinary consciousness, adherence to the basic principles of the scientific ethos is not at all necessary, and sometimes even undesirable.

So, when clarifying the nature of scientific knowledge, we can identify a system of distinctive features of science, among which the main ones are: a) an orientation toward the study of the laws of transformation of objects and the objectivity and objectivity of scientific knowledge that realizes this orientation; b) science going beyond the framework of the subject structures of production and everyday experience and its study of objects relatively independently of today’s possibilities for their production development (scientific knowledge always refers to a wide class of practical situations of the present and future, which is never predetermined).

Scientific knowledge is a defining element of science as a social category. It is this that turns it into an instrument for objectively reflecting the world, explaining and predicting the mechanisms of the surrounding nature. When talking about scientific knowledge, it is often compared with everyday knowledge. The most fundamental difference between scientific and non-scientific knowledge is the desire of the former for objectivity of views, critical understanding of the proposed theories.

Levels of Cognition

Ordinary cognition is the primary, basic form of human cognitive activity. It

is inherent not only to children during the active stages of socialization, but also to people in general throughout their lives. Thanks to everyday cognition, a person acquires the knowledge and skills necessary in daily life and activities. Often this knowledge is determined by empirical experience, but has absolutely no systematization, much less theoretical justification. We all know not to touch exposed live wires. However, this does not mean that each of us is oriented in the laws of electrodynamics. Such knowledge is expressed in the form of everyday experience and common sense. Often it remains superficial, but sufficient for normal functioning in society. Scientific knowledge and scientific knowledge are completely different. Here, understatement and misunderstanding of processes (social, economic, physical) are unacceptable. In this area, theoretical validity, derivation of patterns and prediction of subsequent events are necessary. The fact is that scientific knowledge has its own

the goal is comprehensive social development. A deep understanding, systematization of processes in all areas affecting us and the identification of patterns help not only to tame them, but also to develop them and avoid mistakes in the future. Thus, economic theory provides the opportunity to anticipate and mitigate inflation processes and avoid economic and social depressions. Systematization of historical experience gives us an understanding of social evolution, the origin of the state and law. And scientific knowledge in the field of physics has already led humanity to taming the energy of the atom and flying into space.

Popper criterion

The most important element of this system is the so-called falsifiability of the theory. Scientific knowledge presupposes that any assumption made must also allow for practical ways of its refutation or confirmation. For example, the author of the concept, Karl Popper

offered the example of psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud. The problem is that absolutely any personality behavior can be explained from these positions. As, however, it is also successful from the standpoint of a number of other psychological approaches. This means it is impossible to answer who is right. In this case, the theory is unfalsifiable and cannot be strictly scientific. At the same time, the theory that the sky is firmament may well be tested. And no matter how absurd it may sound in our age, it can be called a scientific theory.

The historical fate of knowledge

At the same time, scientific knowledge, as modern research demonstrates, cannot arise in a strict traditional society. In many civilizations in human history, a critical view of the world was simply suppressed by a rigid system of authoritarian power and religious dogma. There are numerous examples of this: the states of the ancient and medieval east (India, China, the Muslim world), and medieval Europe - for whose worldview it was completely unacceptable to challenge the divine essence of the origin of the world, human society, state power, established hierarchical relations, and so on.

Table 1. Proverbs with mutually exclusive conclusions (after: Myers, 1996)

Love is not afraid of separation	Out of sight, out of mind
If there are many cooks, it spoils the soup	A mind is good, but two are better
What is written with a pen is not	Actions speak louder than words
you'll cut me out with an ax
It's impossible to train an old dog	It's never too late to learn
new tricks
The mind gives birth to wealth	Loss is a gain
Delay is like death	If you don't know the ford, don't go into the water
Who is forewarned is forearmed	Don't say "hop" until you jump
Fear is stronger than love	Love is stronger than fear
Tears of sorrow will not help	You will cry out your grief in tears

			4.5. ORDINARY AND SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
			allows	cognize	everyday			thanks to
navigate it. This is ordinary knowledge. For a number of parameters it is significant
but different		from scientific knowledge. Some of them are pointed out by Schaughnessy and
Zechmeister (1994).
	ordinary		cognition is dominated by the intuitive component; scientific					cognition
rests		empirical experience. Everyday observation wears				random		character and

occurs under uncontrolled conditions; scientific observation is systematic and controlled. Ordinary evidence is subjective and biased; bias and subjectivity in scientific evidence are minimized through special procedures. Ordinary concepts can be vague and carry redundant meanings; scientific concepts are characterized by clarity, certainty, they highlight the specificity of the phenomenon and its composition. Ordinary cognition operates with instruments (for example, watches) inaccurately; scientific instruments have high precision and certainty. In some cases, ordinary cognition uses measurements (for example, time), but they are not valid and reliable; scientific measurements are valid and reliable. Both ordinary and scientific knowledge contain hypotheses. However, in ordinary cognition, hypotheses are not tested; Scientific knowledge requires mandatory testing of hypotheses. Everyday attitudes can be called uncritical and conciliatory; scientific attitudes are based on criticism and skepticism.

The differences between ordinary and scientific knowledge are summarized in table. 2.

It is possible to identify other parameters in which ordinary knowledge differs from scientific knowledge. Thus, the object of observation of ordinary cognition is, as a rule, individual phenomena (events) as a whole; scientific knowledge identifies individual signs and properties in a phenomenon (event). Ordinary cognition is focused on assessing specific people based on the characteristics of their behavior, personality, and views; scientific knowledge studies phenomena

	Table 2. Differences between ordinary and scientific
	cognition (after: Schaughnessy, Zechmeister, 1994)
Options		Cognition
	Ordinary
	Intuitive		Empirical
Observations	Random, uncontrollable		Systematic, controlled
Evidence	Subjective, biased		Objective, impartial,
	Vague, with redundant meanings		Clear, their specificity and composition are highlighted
Tools	Imprecise, uncertain		Precise, specific
Measurements	Invalid, unreliable		Valid, reliable
Hypotheses	Untested		Test takers
Settings	Uncritical, conciliatory		Critical, skeptical

(events) by how they are expressed in different people. Inherent in everyday knowledge

are discarded. Generalizations in everyday knowledge are limitless; they tend to

implicit and excessively abstract; they cannot be falsified; the specific scope of their action is not indicated; their explanations are of a general nature. Scientific theories are explicit; They

are based on empirical data, are falsifiable, have a certain (and not any) scope; their explanations extend to this area and are limited to this area.

	ordinary		knowledge	based
individual		and/or from the experience of reference					Ordinarygroups
practically no		any		clear (reasonable) restrictions.				Predictions
are general and non-specific. In contrast to the ordinary, scientific conclusions
are probabilistic in nature. The basis for scientific conclusions is empirical data,
obtained from a sample and extended to the general population. Conclusions are limited
certain	conditions.		Predictions are specific and		spread				certain

area of ​​phenomena. These characteristics of everyday and scientific knowledge are summarized in Table. 3.

Table 3. Differences between ordinary and scientific knowledge

	Options	Cognition
		Ordinary
	Subject of observation	Individual phenomena (events) as a whole	Certain features inherent
			several phenomena (events)
	People are phenomena	Evaluating people based on their characteristics	The study of phenomena (events) according to
		behavior, personality, views	how they are expressed in different people
	Selection of facts	Subjectivity: facts,	Facts are also taken into account in favor of theory,
		confirming the "theory"	and against her
		are selected artificially
		conflicting evidence
		are discarded

Generalizations	Have no restrictions, redundant	Limited to general
	abstract	totality, law, causal
		relationship defined
		phenomena defined
		variables, etc.
	Implicit, abstract,	Explicit, based on
	global, unfalsifiable, not	empirical data are amenable to
	limited to a specific area	falsifications have a certain
	actions, explanations have universal	scope of action; explanations
	character	apply only to this area
	Based on individual cases and	Have a probabilistic nature
	are random
Basis for conclusions	Selected cases and situations from	Empirical data obtained from
	individual experience and/or from experience	sample and distributed on
	reference individuals and groups	general population
Scope of conclusions	Virtually no distinct	Limited to certain areas and
	(reasonable) boundaries	conditions
Predictions	General and non-specific	Specific and apply to
		a certain area of ​​phenomena

KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS

Cheap idea	(1) Idea claiming				cognition		called
	reality.		Global		idea that		use
	speculative explanation of heterogeneous phenomena, but which does not have
	strictly defined scope. (3) An idea that is impossible
	subject to empirical testing.
Law of Large Numbers	Equiprobability		several		independent	random events if
	they are repeated many (1000 or more) times.
Law of Averages	Approximate		equiprobability			several
	random	events if			are repeated	many (1000 or more) times.

For example, with 1000 tosses, a coin can land heads up 475 times, and tails up 525 times.

Common sense People's views on the world and themselves, spontaneously developing under the influence of everyday experience, principles of understanding and evaluating phenomena, rules of action in certain situations. Common sense is based on experience (sensory-empirically acquired knowledge and skills), characterized by rationality (it is reasonable and stems from reason) and pragmatism (oriented towards action and

practical usefulness).

Idealism

A person trusts not only his feelings and perceptions, but also

feelings, ideas, thinking. If

the person is unconditional

trusts

ideas

thinking means

guided by

reality

reality

ideas and thinking. This leads to the fact that

is perceived as it is, and the subjective idea of

It takes on a basic frame of reference about events in the world. Robust

meaning does not make fundamental differences between consciousness

reality of the world. The reality of the world is thought of as it is thought of

thinking. Belief in one's own consciousness, which “adequately reflects”

peace is idealism.

Illusory

Perception of several events as interconnected, while in

correlation

in reality there are no connections between them.

Cognitive

Biases, biases in assessments, misconceptions in the course of

prejudices

reasoning and/or decision making.

Naive realism

People's belief that the world is represented in their minds as it is in

reality.

Hindsight error

an event that occurred after

interpreted

knowledge that arose before it

offensive People

believe that they can explain events “in advance”, in fact

they interpret them by looking back.

Knowledge of the ordinary

Intuitive; observations - random, uncontrolled;

signs

evidence - subjective, biased; concepts are vague, with

redundant

values;

tools

knowledge -

uncertain; measurements are invalid and unreliable; hypotheses -

untested;

installations

non-critical,

conciliatory;

observations -

separate

phenomena(events) in

subjectivity in the selection of facts; excessive degree of generalization.

Scientific knowledge

Empirical; observations

systematic,

controlled;

signs

evidence - objective, impartial; concepts are clear,

their specificity and composition are highlighted; instruments of cognition - precise,

certain; measurements - valid

reliable; hypotheses

test takers;

installations -

critical,

skeptical;

observations

signs,

inherent

several

objective selection of facts; generalizations are necessarily limited -

general population, law, causal relationship.

INTERNET RESOURCES

Anurin V.F. Fundamentals of sociological knowledge: A course of lectures on general sociology. - N. Novgorod:

NKI, 1998. - 358 p. Dzuki E. Psychology and Science

Palya, W.L. (2000). Research methods lecture notes. Edition 2.0. Jacksonville: Jacksonville State University

Science as a phenomenon of modern culture did not appear out of nowhere - it was preceded by pre-scientific forms of knowledge, which to this day exist and function in society. We will talk about the diversity of their forms later; in this section we will talk about such a way of knowing the world as ordinary, everyday everyday knowledge based on common sense.

Ordinary cognition represents a way of obtaining knowledge, which is based on the work activities of people and the relationships that develop in everyday life. Everyday knowledge arises spontaneously, reflects the external aspects of objects and phenomena, and has an undifferentiated, amorphous character. They are focused on information support for the most direct, non-specialized and non-professional forms of activity and are applicable in similar, relatively uncomplicated situations. Even this incomplete description of everyday knowledge reveals significant differences from scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is aimed at understanding the essence of phenomena, at achieving ever more complete and objective truth. If the question of the truth of everyday knowledge remains problematic in many respects, then scientific knowledge can and does provide true knowledge about certain events and phenomena in the life of nature and society. This is explained by the fact that the direct production of scientific knowledge as the main goal of scientific knowledge is carried out with the help of specialized means and methods not found in everyday practice, which serve as a kind of “filter” that makes it possible to increase the degree of reliability, objectivity, and minimize possible errors and misconceptions . The language of everyday knowledge and scientific knowledge are different - the first is distinguished by polysemy, fuzzy logical structure, and psychological associativity. Developed theoretical knowledge is fixed in concepts of a high degree of abstraction, in judgments constructed according to the rules of an artificial language, which often makes it inaccessible to ordinary consciousness. Scientific concepts are precise, concrete, and often far from everyday language both terminologically and in essence.

The indicated characteristics and differences between ordinary and theoretical knowledge allow, firstly, to consider ordinary knowledge as a kind of atavism, as a primitive form of knowledge that has nothing in common with science, and, secondly, not to attach importance to ordinary knowledge and knowledge. The tendency to sharply contrast science with everyday knowledge manifested itself in the neopositivist concept of demarcation of scientific knowledge from non-scientific knowledge. The purpose of the demarcation program was to try to find definitive criteria by which scientific knowledge could be distinguished from unscientific, metaphysical and pseudoscientific knowledge. However, all these concepts could not destroy the obvious position that science itself could not arise. There was a period in the history of mankind when it did not exist, but knowledge about the world existed and functioned, ensuring the practical activities of people. And now we are largely guided by everyday knowledge. However, the common sense of modern man differs in many ways from that of man of the ancient world, which is largely due to the functioning of science in society.

There is interaction between ordinary and scientific knowledge, and the law of continuity “works.” To understand this, let's look at how they are similar.

Firstly, both ordinary and scientific knowledge have one common goal - to give or have knowledge about reality. Scientific-theoretical knowledge deals with the analytically dissected, idealized world, the world of theoretical models and abstractions; the everyday - with the polymorphic, empirical world, but both are directed towards the same real, objectively existing world, only in different ways, with different means reflecting different aspects of existence.

Secondly, everyday knowledge precedes scientific knowledge; in it, the patterns and connections of various phenomena are spontaneously, unreflectively recorded. The influence of the everyday on the scientific can be traced in all sciences without exception; Scientific thinking, arising on the basis of common sense assumptions, further refines them, corrects them, or replaces them with others. The assumption based on the observation and conclusion that the Sun revolves around the Earth, which was included in the Ptolemaic system, was subsequently supplemented and replaced by scientific provisions, which was facilitated by the use of not only specifically empirical, but also theoretical methods of studying reality.

The educational process is based on a scientific picture of the world, which forms scientific, reliable knowledge about the universe, about a variety of areas and spheres of reality.

Education is the starting point from which every person begins to meet science, prepare for life, and form a worldview.

Scientific approaches and methods permeate the entire content of the educational process. Educational models are based on purely scientific justifications and achievements of various sciences - pedagogy, psychology, physiology, didactics, etc. Today's education and training are experiencing great changes: new educational information technologies are rapidly being introduced into the educational process, which, in turn, requires a rethinking of the goals and objectives of education. An education system that includes science replenishes science itself with intellectual personnel of the most gifted, talented, extraordinary individuals from among students, thereby contributing to the rise of society to a new intellectual level. The increasing role of science requires understanding the question of what its functions are. This is important because they are changing, as is its entire appearance and the nature of its relationships with society. It is traditional to distinguish three groups of functions of science: cultural and ideological, the function of the productive force of society and social force, since its methods and scientific knowledge in general have a significant impact on solving various problems that arise in modern society.

The cultural and ideological function of science was asserted in harsh polemics with religion and theology. Until the 17th century, theology had a monopoly on the formation of ideas about the universe, man’s place in it, values ​​and the meaning of life. Scientific knowledge was not taken into account and functioned on an equal basis and together with ordinary, private knowledge.

The discovery of N. Copernicus served as the impetus thanks to which science entered into worldview issues, since his system refuted the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic picture of the world, on which theology was based; Moreover, Copernicus’s heliocentric system contradicted everyday ideas about the structure of the universe. Subsequent discoveries in science, accompanied by acute ideological conflicts and tragic situations in the fate of scientists, increasingly strengthened the position of science in the most important questions about the structure of the world, matter, the origin of life and the origin of man himself. A lot of time passed before science entered education, and the pursuit of science became prestigious in the eyes of the public, before the achievements of science began to be used in production. Applied science was directly put at the service of production, but only in the 20th century did people start talking about science as a direct productive force of society. In order to bring science closer to production, design bureaus and associations of scientists engaged in scientific research in the field of production are being created. The unprecedented scale and pace of modern scientific and technological progress demonstrate its results in all spheres of life, in all sectors of human labor activity. On the other hand, science itself, with the expansion of its scope of application, receives a powerful impetus for its development.

Science, like many other spiritual forms, is intended primarily to regulate our relationships with our environment, our activities, and also to contribute to the establishment, maintenance and development of control over the environmental situation in our interests.

Any of our activities is structured as the realization of goals for our desired change in the forms of surrounding objects so that they better satisfy some of our needs. This is our practical life, what ensures our survival and development. Science in this regard will be nothing more than a specific orientation-prognostic system. Its ultimate goal is to organize and predict the results of the processes of transforming initial objects into those that we need. However, in order for this transformation to be successful, we must know how the objects we change are structured and what their basic properties are, or have an idea about the laws of their existence.

So, the first fundamental feature of science should be recognized as its orientation towards the study of things and processes that are actually or potentially included in human activity.

The second feature of scientific knowledge is its substantive and objective nature. Everything that science deals with, even the phenomena of mental life or history, it examines from only one angle - for it these are “objects” that have their own internal laws, independent of the researcher. The scientific point of view is the natural world according to natural essential laws without any intervention of any arbitrary and external forces in relation to this world. Of course, as the philosophy of science has found out, in the real process of scientific knowledge it is still impossible to do without the intervention of the sociocultural and psychological characteristics of the researcher’s personality in knowledge: the standards for presenting scientific knowledge, ways of seeing reality, and styles of thinking that are formed in culture change. All this is true, but science, its ethos, at least insists and strives to consistently implement, with varying degrees of success, this special approach with its demands of objectivism and objectivity - the “naturalness” of what is being studied, taken “in itself.” Such specificity determines both the strength of science (impartiality and neutralism of knowledge) and its weakness when applied to human-sized objects and the person himself, who is not only an object, but also a subject, i.e., a conscious being with free will and morality. But no one says that science can alone replace all existing and existing forms of knowledge of the world and culture as a whole. Everything that escapes her field of vision is compensated by other forms of spiritual exploration of the world: art, religion, philosophy.

The third feature of science that distinguishes it from other possible forms of understanding the world is its futuristic orientation: it is aimed not only at those objects that make up our current reality, but also at future objects that can become the subject of mass practical development.

In addition to scientific knowledge, which, as we have seen, exists relatively recently in history, there is the initial attitude of the mass person to the reality around him. In addition to “cognitive specialists,” any person with a more or less lively and inquisitive mind is characterized by a desire for something new, for recognition. “People are naturally inquisitive,” said Aristotle. There is so-called everyday knowledge, in which there are some types of knowledge about reality, similar to scientific knowledge. In this regard, the question is raised about the difference between scientific knowledge and ordinary knowledge.

> Firstly, science, in contrast to everyday knowledge, which always exists within the present, provides ultra-long-range forecasting of practice. This means that the area of ​​its influence has a different composition of objects than that of ordinary knowledge: fragments of reality that are not currently in demand and may not become so soon, but science is studying them in the present.

> Secondly, their means are different. In science, this is a special specialized language, characterized by an increased degree of clarity and unambiguity in contrast to natural language, as well as scientific equipment.

> Thirdly, there is a difference between scientific knowledge and knowledge acquired in everyday life. Everyday knowledge is most often not systematized, representing a conglomerate of information, instructions, recipes for activity and behavior accumulated over centuries of human history. Their reliability is confirmed through direct application. Scientific knowledge is systematic and substantiated, subject to experimental control.

> Fourthly, a distinction can be made based on the methods of acquiring knowledge. Techniques of everyday cognition are woven into everyday experience and in most cases are not recognized precisely as methods. For science, a method is a way of reproducing in thought the main features of the object being studied, therefore the methods will directly depend on the nature and field of knowledge. Science creates its own special department - methodology.

> Finally, fifthly, these are different characteristics of those who know. Studying science requires special preparation, during which one masters historically established means, techniques and methods of cognition. For everyday cognition, such preparation is carried out automatically, in the process of socialization. In addition, and this is the main thing, studying science presupposes the development of a certain system of value orientations and goals, the main of which are the recognition of the intrinsic value of truth and the value of novelty. These are also the values ​​of scientific integrity and equality of scientists, regardless of past merits and titles.

On this day:

Birthdays 1853 Wilhelm Dörpfeld is born. 1902 Born - Soviet archaeologist and historian, Doctor of Historical Sciences, corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, founder and leader of the Novgorod Archaeological Expedition, known as the discoverer, first publisher and commentator of birch bark documents. Days of Death 1890 Died Heinrich Schliemann- German entrepreneur and self-taught archaeologist, one of the founders of field archaeology. He became famous for his pioneering finds in Asia Minor, on the site of ancient (Homeric) Troy, as well as in the Peloponnese - in Mycenae, Tiryns and Boeotian Orkhomenes, the discoverer of Mycenaean culture. 1941 Died during the siege of Leningrad - Soviet archaeologist, specialist in the Bronze Age of the steppe and forest-steppe zone of Eastern Europe. 2011 Died: Soviet and Russian historian, archaeologist and ethnographer. Doctor of Historical Sciences, specialist in ancient cultures of the Pacific North.