Science as a specific type of knowledge. Natural science and humanitarian culture Scientific ethics of experts

SYSTEMIC JUSTIFICATION

It is difficult to name a statement that would justify itself, in isolation from other statements. Justification is always systemic. The inclusion of a new provision in a system of other provisions that gives stability to its elements is one of the most important steps in its justification.

So, in our society, polemicism, problematicness as a norm of ideological-theoretical, spiritual life is becoming more and more established. The demand to discuss problems in the spirit of truth, openness, in an atmosphere of a really free, creative exchange of opinions acquires a solid foundation, being included in the system of ideas about socialism as a democratic society, which implies diversity in people's judgments, relationships and activities, a wide range of beliefs and assessments.

Confirmation of the consequences arising from a theory is at the same time a reinforcement of the theory itself. On the other hand, the theory imparts certain impulses and strength to the propositions put forward on its basis, and thereby contributes to their justification. The statement, which has become part of the theory, is no longer based only on individual facts, but also in many respects also on a wide range of phenomena explained by the theory, on its prediction of new, previously unknown effects, on its connection with other scientific theories, etc. theory, we thus extend to it the empirical and theoretical support that the theory as a whole has.

This moment has been noted more than once by philosophers and scientists who have been thinking about the justification of knowledge.

Thus, the Austrian philosopher L. Wittgenstein wrote about the integrity and systemic nature of knowledge: “It is not an isolated axiom that strikes me as obvious, but a whole system in which consequences and premises mutually support each other.” Consistency extends not only to theoretical positions, but also to the data of experience: “It can be said that experience teaches us some statements. However, he does not teach us isolated statements, but a whole set of interdependent propositions. If they were scattered, I might doubt them, because I have no experience directly related to each of them. The foundations of a system of assertions, Wittgenstein notes, do not support this system, but are themselves supported by it. This means that the reliability of the foundations is determined not by them in themselves, but by the fact that an integral theoretical system can be built on top of them. The "foundation" of knowledge appears to be hanging in the air until a stable building is built on it. The claims of scientific theory are mutually intertwined and support each other. They hold on like people on a crowded bus when they are propped up on all sides and they don't fall because there is nowhere to fall.

The Soviet physicist I. E. Tamm spoke about the formation of the principles of L. Maxwell's electromagnetic theory: , however, cannot give a completely rigorous proof of their validity), but by agreement with experience of the totality of the consequences arising from the theory and covering all the laws of the macroscopic electromagnetic field.

Since the theory gives additional support to the statements included in it, the improvement of the theory, the strengthening of its empirical base and the clarification of its general, including philosophical premises, is at the same time a contribution to the substantiation of the statements included in it.

Among the methods of clarifying a theory, a special role is played by revealing the logical connections of its statements, minimizing its initial assumptions, constructing it in the form of an axiomatic system, and, finally, if possible, formalizing it.

When a theory is axiomatized, some of its provisions are chosen as initial ones, and all other provisions are derived from them in a purely logical way. The initial provisions accepted without proof are called axioms (postulates), the provisions proved on their basis are called theorems.

The axiomatic method of systematization and clarification of knowledge originated in antiquity and gained great fame thanks to Euclid's "Principles" - the first axiomatic interpretation of geometry. Now axiomatization is used in mathematics, logic, as well as in certain sections of physics, biology, etc. The axiomatic method requires a high level of development of an axiomatizable content theory, clear logical connections of its statements. Associated with this is its rather narrow applicability and the naivety of attempts to rebuild any science along the lines of Euclid's geometry.

In addition, as the Austrian logician and mathematician K. Gödel showed, sufficiently rich scientific theories (for example, the arithmetic of natural numbers) do not allow complete axiomatization. This indicates the limitations of the axiomatic method and the impossibility of complete formalization scientific knowledge.

This text is an introductory piece.

6. Limits of justification Insufficient attention to the justification of statements, the lack of objectivity, consistency and specificity in the consideration of objects and phenomena lead ultimately to eclecticism - an uncritical combination of heterogeneous, internally unrelated and,

Social revolutions: regularity, consistency, cardinality The concept of "social revolution" here and in all other chapters is used in a strictly defined sense as the content of the era of transition to a new, more progressive stage of development. Thus we

§ 9. Methodological techniques Sciences are partly justifications, partly auxiliary means for justification. However, some more additions are necessary, primarily regarding the fact that we are limited to justifications, while they still do not exhaust the concept

11.1. Consistency of social technologies * The people - the human potential of the country, can be considered as a social environment that forms a complex and large-scale complex of spiritual, moral, intellectual and bodily needs for ideas, knowledge, goods and

2.1. Consistency human development We study the consistency of human development on the basis of the Principle of consistency, as well as the rules of the “triad model”, “model of the system”, “reasonable egoism” and other rules of the Law of consistency, the rule of “harmony of development” and other rules

2.2. Consistency of national development Application of Laws and principles of consistency and development. The laws and principles of consistency and development obtained in the previous section of the work for human activity at the global level, based on the same approach, can be

3. The problem of substantiation in scientific knowledge Substantiation, or proof, of the truth of one or another position, concept is the most important component of the formation and development of a theory. Protecting the researcher from delusions and mistakes, it allows assumptions,

LIMITS OF JUSTIFICATION “At present, science is becoming the main one,” wrote Leo Tolstoy. “But this is contrary to the truth, we must begin with morality, the rest will come later, more naturally, easily, with new forces that have grown during this time.” Science, for all its importance, is not

§ 12. The idea of ​​a transcendental justification of knowledge Our reflections now need further development, in which what was established earlier can only be correctly used. What can I do, thinking Cartesian, with the help of

Procedures for constructive substantiation of theoretical schemes Constructive substantiation ensures the binding of theoretical schemes to experience, and hence the connection with experience of the physical quantities of the mathematical apparatus of the theory. It is thanks to the procedures of constructive

1. 1. Consistency and manufacturability of management (the principle of manufacturability of innovations, the principle of systematic innovation, systemic philosophy of scientific theories and practical projects, systemic ideas of development, professional systemicity government controlled, meaning

2. 2. Consistency of global and public administration (global and public administration, application of the rule of the triad model, the initial formula of the system principle, the task of transition to a new formula of the system principle, the complex potential of mankind,

2. 3. Consistency of national and public administration (national and public administration, application of the rule of the triad model, the initial formula of the principle of consistency, the task of moving to a new formula of the principle of consistency, the integrated potential of the nation,

3. 4. Consistency of the structure of public administration (a triad of structures of the public administration system; the main components of the structure of public administration; the development of the structure of public administration; the structure of technologies of public

Code

Scientific ethics experts

General provisions

1. The Code of Scientific Ethics for Experts (hereinafter referred to as the Code) is developed on the basis of principles, norms of conduct and morality established and recognized by the international scientific community scientists employed in the field of scientific and scientific-technical activities.

2. The Code establishes moral and ethical values, principles, norms and rules of moral and professional behavior that are mandatory for compliance by experts involved by JSC "National Center for State Scientific and Technical Expertise" (hereinafter referred to as the Company) to conduct state scientific and technical expertise of scientific, scientific and technical projects and programs.

3. This Code is intended to help strengthen the authority of the state scientific and technical expertise, increase the confidence of citizens in the results of the state scientific and technical expertise through compliance with the following principles by experts:

public interest;

Objectivity and independence;

Inadmissibility of mercenary actions;

professional competence;

Confidentiality;

Responsibility.

public interest

4. The interests of society and the state are the main criterion and the ultimate goal of the expert's professional activity. Society and the state guarantee legal protection results of scientific and scientific-technical activity and observance of intellectual property rights. The expert is obliged to act in the interests of all users of the results of scientific and technical expertise.

5. The expert has no right to subordinate the public interest to the private interests of individuals or groups, to act in favor of private interests to the detriment of society, and to make the performance of his contractual duties dependent on personal interest.

6. An expert should strive to form a positive public opinion about experts and their activities.

Objectivity and independence

8. In their professional activities, experts must objectively consider all emerging situations and real facts, not allow personal bias or outside pressure to affect the objectivity of their judgments.

9. When making a decision, an expert must be free from the commitment of one of the parties, from the influence of public opinion, from fears of criticism of his activities.

10. The expert should strive to ensure that each participant in the examination treats him as an independent person, striving only to form a qualified and unbiased opinion.

11. The expert should avoid relationships with persons that could affect the objectivity of his judgments and conclusions, or immediately terminate them, pointing out the inadmissibility of pressure on the expert in any form.

12. The expert must refuse to provide professional services if it has reasonable doubts about its independence from the customer and the object of examination. Departure from an objective judgment under the pressure of any circumstances that have become known leads to the termination of relations with an expert.

13. An expert in any situation must maintain personal dignity, take care of his honor, avoid everything that could damage his reputation and call into question his objectivity and independence during the examination.

Inadmissibility of mercenary actions

14. An expert is obliged to adhere to universal human moral rules and moral norms in his actions and decisions.

15. Honesty and disinterestedness are obligatory rules of conduct for an expert.

16. An indispensable condition for the professional activity of an expert is his incorruptibility.

17. An expert should not pursue personal, let alone selfish interests in his professional activities.

18. An expert must be impartial, not allowing anyone to influence his activities, including his relatives, friends or acquaintances.

Professional Competence

20. An expert is obliged to refuse professional services that go beyond his professional competence, as well as those that do not correspond to his area of ​​competence.

21. The expert is obliged to conduct business with professional competence, efficiency and effectiveness, to strive for top level professionalism.

22. The expert may and is obliged to require the provision of complete and truthful information to him, not allowing the concealment and falsification of data related to the resolution of issues within his competence.

Confidentiality

23. The expert is obliged not to distribute any information and information received by him in the course of his duties, including commercial and official secrets.

24. The expert is not entitled to make statements, incl. public, comments and speeches in the press on the expert examination materials in his possession.

25. An expert should not use confidential information that has become known to him in his own interests, in the interests of third parties, and also to the detriment of the interests of the customer.

26. Expert opinions provided by an expert under an agreement with a customer are the property of the customer and do not contain information about intellectual property.

Responsibility for accuracy, completeness and validity

29. The expert assumes responsibility for ensuring the reliability, completeness and validity of expert opinions.

30. The expert must conscientiously fulfill his professional duties and take all necessary measures for the timely and high-quality consideration of the materials of the examination.

31. An expert is obliged to provide complete and truthful information in expert opinions, avoiding concealment and falsification of data.

How we are working

1 Contacting the company You can either call or order a call on the site, as well as come to our office. 2 Negotiation of the contract If you have no more questions and our offer satisfies your requirements, we draw up a contract and proceed to the study, or we prepare an information letter for submission to the court. 3 Performance of work After receiving the documents and payment, the specialist starts work, organizes a trip if necessary. 4 The result of the work! The result of our work is an act of expert opinion (opinion of a specialist), prepared in accordance with the current methods and regulations.

Do you need expertise?

To know detailed information about the examination, the timing of its implementation, required documents and cost, as well as get a free consultation from our specialist:

The principle of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of research is of decisive importance, since it is it that determines the requirements imposed by the legislator on the quality of the main direction of forensic activity - the production of an examination.

Objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of research are closely interrelated and mutually compatible requirements for expert research, but they have their own content. The objectivity of the study lies in the impartiality, impartiality and independence in the conduct of the study and suggests that in the course of the examination, the expert must take into account all the factors that are important in the conduct of the study, as well as use the recommended modern science and expert practice of the methodology. When examining and evaluating the materials submitted for examination, preparing and formulating the conclusions of an expert study, the expert must exclude dishonesty, bias, bias. Objectivity implies that the conclusions drawn will follow from objectively conducted research and will reflect the circumstances of the case in accordance with the way it happened in reality.

The law establishes that the objectivity of an expert presupposes the conduct of research on a strictly scientific and practical basis. This basis should be based on provisions that make it possible to verify the validity and reliability of the conclusions drawn on the basis of generally accepted scientific and practical data. The scientific basis involves the use of only evidence-based methods applicable to this particular study. The practical basis for conducting peer review means:

Availability of not only evidence-based, but also practically tested methodology used in the study;

Carrying out in the course of the examination of specific practical actions to study the submitted materials based on theoretical knowledge. In this regard, instead of real research, it is unacceptable to confine ourselves to theoretical calculations and conclusions and conclusions drawn on their basis.

The objectivity of an expert study largely depends on the availability and objectivity of the available methods for conducting a particular examination and the quality of the materials submitted for examination. Compliance with the requirements for the objectivity of the conducted expert studies implies that the expert must refuse to give an opinion in cases where the materials presented to him are insufficient for giving an opinion (clause 6, part 3, article 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), unsuitable for conducting research, the current level of science is not allows you to answer the questions posed (part 1 of article 16 of FZ-73). At the same time, the Law gives the expert the right to petition for the provision of additional materials necessary for him to give an opinion (clause 2, part 3, article 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; part 3, article 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation; part 3, article 55 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

One of the main conditions for the objectivity of the research being conducted, the law calls the implementation of expertise within the relevant specialty. A specialty is a field of special knowledge, skills and abilities in a certain branch of science, which is owned by the corresponding expert. It is obvious that the expert is not able to give an objective conclusion in the event that the research necessary for the performance of the examination goes beyond the expert's special knowledge. In this regard, the law establishes the right of an expert to refuse to give an opinion on issues that go beyond the expert's special knowledge (clause 6, part 3, article 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; part 5, article 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). And part 1 of article 16 calls it no longer a right, but an expert's duty. Obviously, in this case, the decision to refuse to conduct an examination and give an opinion depends on the expert himself, his level of knowledge and inner conviction. However, if there are established conditions (lack of knowledge, narrowness of the expert's specialty for conducting a specific expert study) given right acquires the character of an obligation, and the expert must implement it. The exception is cases where the expert does not refuse to give an opinion, but petitions the head of the relevant forensic institution to involve other experts in the forensic examination (part 1 of article 17 of the Federal Law-73; paragraph 2 of part 3 of article 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure RF), and this request is granted. Otherwise, the principle of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of the research will be violated, the results of the examination will be called into question, and the expert's conclusion may be recognized as inadmissible evidence.

The comprehensiveness of the expert study involves the clarification from all sides of the specific issues that are significant for resolving the case, posed to the expert on the basis of the study of the materials submitted for examination. Comprehensiveness means the study of all the most important properties, qualities and features of the presented materials, their connections, relationships and dependencies. Comprehensiveness involves the study of all objectively options during the examination, thereby preventing the one-sidedness and subjectivity of the expert study. The completeness of the expert study lies in the study of all the qualities and properties of the materials submitted for examination, carried out deeply and completely. Completeness involves the study of such a set of properties of the submitted materials, which allows not only to fully and objectively answer the questions posed, but also, possibly, to draw deeper conclusions and find out the circumstances that are relevant to the case, but about which the expert was not asked questions ( part 2 of article 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; part 2 of article 86 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

Comprehensiveness and completeness of the expert study apply only to those circumstances, properties and qualities of the objects under study that are important for resolving the case. In fact, comprehensiveness and completeness are limited by the framework of those circumstances that are subject to proof in a particular case (Article 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; Part 2 of Article 65 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; Article 26.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation; Part 2 of Article 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation ).

The principle of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of an expert study is directly reflected in Article 16 of the Federal Law-73, where one of the main duties of an expert is the obligation to conduct full study the objects and materials of the case presented to him, to give a reasonable and objective conclusion on the questions put before him.

The principle of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of the expert study is not absolute, it, having great independent significance, is ultimately still subject to the principles of legality and observance of human rights and freedoms during the examination. So, if the tasks of carrying out a complete and comprehensive study can be implemented only using means and methods that affect the honor and dignity of the individual, dangerous to life and health, violate personal and family secrets and unlawfully restrict other important constitutional rights, then the interests of a particular individual, tasks protection of human rights and freedoms will take precedence over the requirements of comprehensiveness and completeness of the study. For example, the law prohibits the use of research methods associated with strong painful sensations or capable of adversely affecting the health of a person, methods of surgical intervention, etc. (Art. 35 FZ-73).

The principle of objectivity, completeness and comprehensiveness of an expert study can be fully implemented only if the requirements of the procedural law are observed when collecting and providing the expert with materials for examination. Thus, the materials provided to the expert must be of a procedural nature, be collected by the appropriate subjects of the procedural activity in compliance with the norms of the procedural law governing the collection of such materials. The materials submitted for research should be objective in a certain sense - reflect the properties and qualities of objects and phenomena in accordance with the way it actually took place, and in certain cases - have the properties of representativeness, reflect all aspects of the object or phenomenon under study. As one of the guarantees of the objectivity of the expert in the implementation of the study, there is a ban on independently collecting materials for the production of a forensic examination (part 3 of article 16 of the Federal Law-73; paragraph 2 of part 4 of article 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). The expert is not a subject of proof, the materials collected by him are not of a procedural nature and cannot become the subject of an expert study.

The principle of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of research conducted by an expert is closely related to the principle of expert independence. Only a procedurally independent expert, disinterested in the outcome of the case and impartial, can give a fully objective and comprehensive opinion. Indeed, in fact, what is important is not the independence of an expert in itself, but the ability of an expert to give an objective, unbiased and comprehensive opinion used as evidence in civil, arbitration, criminal and administrative cases. In this regard, all guarantees of the independence of the expert (see the commentary to Article 7 of the Federal Law-73) are ultimately aimed at achieving objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of the research conducted by the expert.

The principle of objectivity, completeness and comprehensiveness of research is closely related to the provisions that provide the expert with the opportunity to make statements to be entered in the protocol of the investigative action or court session about the misinterpretation of the participants in the process of his conclusion or testimony (part 1 of article 17 of FZ-73), as well as allowing to interrogate an expert in order to clarify the conclusion given by him (Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).

Among the guarantees of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of expert research should include a number of procedural rights granted to the expert in order to fully familiarize themselves with the materials related to the ongoing research: the right to get acquainted with the materials of the criminal case related to the subject of the examination; apply for the provision of additional materials necessary for giving an opinion; participate with the permission of the interrogating officer, investigator, prosecutor and court in the proceedings and ask questions related to the subject of forensic examination (part 3 of article 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). Similar procedural rights are granted to the expert by the arbitration procedural legislation (Part 3, Art. 55 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation) and civil procedural legislation (Art. 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

Other guarantees of the principle of objectivity, completeness and comprehensiveness of research should also include the rules on the challenge of an expert who is interested in the outcome of the case or for other reasons unable to give a complete, comprehensive and objective opinion (see the commentary on this to Article 7 of the Federal Law-73), norms providing for the possibility of recognizing the conclusion and testimony of an expert as evidence that has no legal force (Article 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; Part 3 of Article 64 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; Part 2 of Article 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

Subject to the principle of objectivity, completeness and comprehensiveness of research, the expert fully and reasonably gives answers to all questions put to him, and possibly reveals other circumstances that are relevant to the case, about which no questions were raised. The expert opinion contains a description of the content and results of the research, indicating the methods used, an assessment of the research results, justification and formulation of conclusions on the issues raised, as well as materials illustrating the expert opinion and being an integral part of the opinion (Article 25 of the Federal Law-73).

Incompleteness, unreasonableness and bias of the expert examination act as grounds for the production of additional or repeated examinations, as well as for questioning the expert. Thus, the production of additional expertise is carried out in the case when the previously given conclusion is not clear enough or not complete. Additional expertise is carried out by the same or another expert. A repeated examination is appointed in connection with the doubts that have arisen in the court, judge, investigator, interrogating officer, prosecutor about the correctness or validity of the earlier conclusion. She is appointed on the same issues and entrusted to another expert or another commission of experts (Article 20 of the Federal Law-73; Article 87 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; Article 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation; Article 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).

The interrogation of the expert is carried out to clarify the conclusion given by him (Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).

Verification of the expert opinion in terms of the validity and reliability of the conclusions drawn on the basis of generally accepted scientific and practical data can be carried out by a person who owns special knowledge, in particular, specific generally accepted scientific and practical data necessary to verify one or another expert opinion. The law does not provide for a special procedure for such verification, although it does not exclude such a possibility. It is obvious that verification of the scientific and practical side of the expert's opinion in the framework of legal proceedings can only be carried out indirectly, when the conclusion of the expert who carried out the re-examination does not give reason to doubt its correctness and validity. Accordingly, if the conclusions made by the expert as a result of the initial examination differ significantly from the conclusions presented by the expert as a result of the re-examination, it is possible with sufficient probability to speak of the groundlessness and unreliability of the conclusion of the first expert.

The provision of the Law on the basis of an expert opinion on the basis of generally accepted scientific and practical data has the character of a limitation that establishes the framework for the use of means and methods in the implementation of an examination. This allows you to check the validity and reliability of the conclusions made by the expert, but within the framework of the procedural activity, it has no real effect.

It is obvious that such a check cannot be carried out by a judge, court, prosecutor, investigator, interrogating officer, the person conducting the proceedings on an administrative offense, since they do not have special knowledge for this. For the persons responsible for the proceedings, the expert opinion has the nature of evidence, and its verification and evaluation are carried out according to the general rules established by the relevant procedural act for verification and evaluation of all evidence available in the case. This means that it is not the essence of the expert's opinion that is subject to verification by the court, the investigator, the prosecutor, the interrogator, the person responsible for the proceedings on the case of an administrative offense, but its legally significant properties and qualities. So, in accordance with Articles 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the expert’s opinion is subject to verification, which consists in comparing it with other evidence available in the criminal case, obtaining other evidence confirming or refuting the expert’s opinion, as well as assessing from the point of view of its relevance , admissibility and reliability. At the same time, the assessment of evidence is carried out according to internal conviction, based on the totality of all evidence available in the case, guided by the law and conscience. The rules for assessing evidence in civil and arbitration proceedings, as well as administrative proceedings are similar (Articles 59, 60, 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation; Articles 67, 68, 71 of the APC of the Russian Federation; Article 26.11 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

Every year science enters our lives more and more confidently. Films, books, series are filled with specialized terms that were previously used only by scientists. More and more people are trying to understand how the world What are the laws of our universe.

In this regard, the questions arise: what is science? What methods and means does she use? What are the criteria for scientific knowledge? What properties does it have?

Human cognitive activity

All human cognitive activity can be divided into two types:

• Ordinary - carried out spontaneously by all people throughout life. Such knowledge is aimed at acquiring the skills that a person needs to adapt to the conditions of real life.
• Scientific - involves the study of phenomena, the mechanism of action of which has not yet been fully disclosed. The information obtained is fundamentally new.

Scientific knowledge is a system of knowledge about the surrounding world (the laws of nature, man, society, etc.), obtained and recorded using specific means and methods (observation, analysis, experiment, and others).

It has its own characteristics and criteria.

Features of scientific knowledge:

• Universality. Science studies the general laws and properties of an object, reveals the patterns of development and functioning of an object in a system. Knowledge does not focus on the unique features and properties of the subject.
• Necessity. The main, system-forming aspects of the phenomenon are fixed, and not random aspects.
• Consistency. Scientific knowledge is an organized structure, the elements of which are closely interconnected. Outside a particular system, knowledge cannot exist.

Basic principles of scientific knowledge

Signs or criteria for scientific knowledge were developed by representatives of the logical positivism of the Vienna Circle under the leadership of Moritz Schlick in the 1930s. The main goal pursued by scientists in their creation was the separation of scientific knowledge from various metaphysical statements, mainly due to the ability to verify scientific theories and hypotheses. According to scientists, in this way scientific knowledge was deprived of emotional coloring and groundless faith.

Presentation: "Methodology and methodology of scientific research"

As a result, the representatives of the Vienna Circle developed the following criteria:

1. Objectivity: scientific knowledge should be an expression of objective truth and be independent of the subject who knows it, his interests, thoughts and feelings.
2. Validity: knowledge must be supported by facts and logical conclusions. Statements without evidence are not considered scientific.
3. Rationality: scientific knowledge cannot be based only on the faith and emotions of people. It always gives the necessary grounds to prove the truth of a statement. The idea of ​​a scientific theory should be quite simple.
4. Use of special terms: scientific knowledge is expressed in concepts formed by science. Clear definitions also help to better describe and classify observed phenomena.
5. Consistency. This criterion helps to exclude the use of mutually exclusive statements within the same concept.
6. Verifiable: The facts of scientific knowledge must be based on controlled experiments that can be repeated in the future. This criterion also helps to limit the use of any theory, showing in which cases it is confirmed, and in which cases its use would be inappropriate.
7. Mobility: Science is constantly evolving, so it's important to recognize that some statements may be wrong or inaccurate. It should be recognized that the conclusions obtained by scientists are not final and can be further supplemented or completely refuted.

Sociological and historical features occupy an important place in the structure of scientific knowledge:

• Sometimes a historical criterion for the development of science is singled out separately. All kinds of knowledge and various theories could not exist without previous hypotheses and received data. The solution of problems and scientific paradoxes of the present time is carried out thanks to the reliance on the results of the activities of predecessors. But modern scientists take existing theories as a basis, supplement them with new facts and show why the old hypotheses do not work in the current situation and what data should be changed.
• The sociological criterion is also sometimes singled out separately in the structure of scientific knowledge. Its main property is the setting of new tasks and issues that should be worked on. Without this criterion, there would be no possible development not only science, but society as a whole. Science is the main engine of progress. Each discovery raises many new questions that scientists will need to answer.

The structure of scientific knowledge also has its own properties:

1. The highest value is objective truth. That is, the main goal of science is knowledge for the sake of knowledge itself.
2. For all fields of science, there are a number of significant requirements that are universal for them.
3. Knowledge is systemic and clearly ordered.

These properties partly generalize the features identified in scientific knowledge back in the 1930s.

Science today

Scientific knowledge today is a dynamically developing area. Cognition has long gone beyond closed laboratories and is becoming more accessible to everyone every day.

Behind last years science has acquired a special status in public life. But at the same time, the vastly increased flow of information has led to the growth of pseudoscientific theories. Distinguishing one from the other can be quite difficult, but in most cases, using the above criteria will help. It is often enough to check the logical validity of the assumptions, as well as the experimental basis, in order to assess the validity of the proposed theory.

Any science has the most important property: it has no boundaries: neither geographical nor temporal. You can study a variety of objects at any point the globe over the years, but the number of questions that arise will only increase. And this is perhaps the most beautiful gift science has given us.

​​​​​​​“... Criteria for the scientific nature of knowledge are its validity, reliability, consistency, empirical confirmation and fundamentally possible falsifiability, conceptual coherence, predictive power and practical effectiveness ... ”

The main ones among the criteria are truth, objectivity and consistency: “... the specificity of scientific knowledge is reflected in the criteria of scientific character, which distinguish scientific knowledge from non-scientific: 1. The truth of scientific knowledge ... . … science seeks to obtain true knowledge by exploring various ways establishing the reliability of scientific knowledge. 2. Intersubjectivity of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is ... knowledge of objective relationships and laws of reality. 3. Consistency and validity of scientific knowledge. The most important ways to substantiate the knowledge gained are: A). at the empirical level: - Multiple verifications by observation and experiments. B). not at the theoretical level: - Determination of logical coherence, deducibility of knowledge; - Identification of their consistency, compliance with empirical data; - Establishing the ability to describe known phenomena and predict new ones ... "

Scientists doubt the usefulness of the discoveries of psychologists

The researchers concluded that most of the discoveries from the world of psychology are doubtful, since the results of the research cannot be replicated.

300 psychologists from different parts of the Earth were involved in the study of this issue. They were faced with the task of analyzing in detail the results of about a hundred psychological research that have been featured in prestigious peer-reviewed journals. The conclusions turned out to be disappointing: it was possible to achieve such results again only in 39% of cases. Project leader Brian Nosek said this is the first time such a study has been conducted.

For four years, scientists have analyzed the previously published work of their colleagues and accurately reproduced the described methods. Only in a third of cases they managed to achieve similar results. In other words, the conclusions of most psychologists are incorrect: they may contain errors, or they are the product of the desire to get a "beautiful" result.

Some experts have already said that this casts a shadow on psychology as a science. Brian Nosek himself is in no hurry to bury her and believes that psychology and the discoveries made within it are very important. Meanwhile, he emphasizes the need to improve research methods. A number of journals have already changed the rules for publishing materials, listening to new findings.