48. Basic structures of scientific knowledge. Scientific concept. Scientific law. Explanation and prediction

48. The basis of science (ideals and norms of knowledge, characteristic of a given era and a given field of knowledge, a scientific picture of the world, philosophical foundations).

Science, as a special kind of activity, is aimed at the actual verified and logically ordered knowledge of objects and processes of the surrounding reality. It is placed in the field of goal-setting and decision-making, choice and recognition of responsibility, truth, and strives to be neutral in relation to ideology and political priorities.

Having considered the main components of the structure of scientific knowledge, it can be argued that we will have a science that has taken place in the proper sense only when we can establish the principles, foundations, ideals and norms of research.

In our time, in addition to the social, natural, and technical sciences, there is also a distinction between fundamental and applied, theoretical and experimental science. They talk about great science, its solid core, about cutting edge science. Now science is developing according to the principle of deep specialization, as well as at the junctions of interdisciplinary areas, which indicates its integration. In general, differentiation and integration is one of the laws of the development of science.

Let's dwell on the foundations of science. All scientific knowledge, despite their multidisciplinary differentiation, meets certain standards and has clearly defined foundations. As such grounds, it is customary to single out: the scientific picture of the world, ideals, norms of cognition, characteristic of this era and specified in relation to the specifics of the area under study, the scientific picture of the world. This includes philosophical foundations ^^

The problem of the foundations of science contains a central point, which is that the scientific profession is carried out continuously. This is the cumulative model of the development of science. This causes the accelerated development of science, as its regularity. However, the development of science, as its history shows, involves breaking and changing the foundations of science, which finds expression in the anti-cumulative model of its development. The consequence of this is the thesis about the incommensurability of theories, when the theories replacing each other are not connected logically, but use various principles and methods of justification. In other words, speaking of the continuity of the development of science, one must also keep in mind discreteness, discontinuity in the scientific process. It is impossible to imagine the development of science as a linear quantitative expansion of the total knowledge by simply adding new truths to it. Important are the procedures for choosing the foundations of science, where there is a reliance on social and psychological preferences. This happens when the scientific community remains in the form of fragmented, professing inconsistent principles of fupping, not delving into the arguments of opponents.

In our time, philosophers of science in the West put various models at the foundation of science, among them are Poincaré's conventionalism, analysis of the protocol proposals of the Vienna Circle by L. Wittgenstein and M. Schlick, M. Polanyi's personal knowledge, E. Mach's psychophysics, evolutionary

^ "rational epistemology of St. Toulmin, T. Kuhn's paradigm, I. Lakatos' research program, J. Holton's thematic analysis, P. K. Feyerabend's anarchist pluralism.

Some of these foundations of science have already been considered. But there is reason to dwell in more detail on the most popular (and significant). Let us note the conventionalism of the French mathematician, physicist and methodologist of science A. Poincare(1854-1912). His methodological program proclaims the agreement between scientists as the basis of science. This agreement is based on considerations of simplicity, convenience, not directly related to the criteria of truth. This basis arose from a comparison of various systems of axioms of the geometries Ev/c- lid, Lobachevsky, Riemann. Each of them agreed with experience, received recognition and was placed at the basis of the physical world comprehension. An important criterion in identifying the foundation of science A. Poincaré considers language agreements and the objectivity of the achievements of scientists, their usefulness and necessity. For him, objectivity means universal validity^"". Poincaré highly valued the role of intuition in cognition. Nevertheless, Poincaré substantiated his main ideas using the evidence base of mathematics, classical mechanics, thermodynamics and electrodynamics.

For a group of philosophers of science, representatives of the Vienna Circle (L. Wittgenstein, M. Schli, R. Carnap etc.), the fixation of “immediately given” was considered the basis of scientific knowledge. They express the pure sensory experience of the subject and neutrality to all other knowledge. For them, the requirement to recognize the epistemological primacy of the results of observation is inherent. The basis of scientific knowledge was the generalization and consolidation of the sensory-given. Everything truly scientific must be reduced (reduced) to "sense-given". Hence the principle of verification is formulated - an experimental verification of all acquired knowledge. A significant place in their research is occupied by the logical analysis of the language of science. It is about banishing from the language of science all “pseudo-scientific statements, which included not only the ambiguities of ordinary language, but also philosophical judgments.

At present, the activities of K. Popper are widely covered in philosophical publications. He came up with the concept of critical rationalism, argues that the foundation of the foundations of science is a hypothetical-deductive model of the growth of knowledge.

Concepts in the broad sense and scientific concepts

There are concepts in a broad sense and scientific concepts. The former formally single out common (similar) features of objects and phenomena and fix them in words. Scientific concepts reflect essential and necessary features, and the words and signs (formulas) that express them are scientific terms. In the concept, it is distinguished content and volume. The totality of objects generalized in a concept is called the scope of the concept, and the totality of essential features by which objects in the concept are generalized and distinguished is called its content. So, for example, the content of the concept " parallelogram" is geometric figure, flat, closed, bounded by four straight lines, having mutually parallel sides, and by volume - the set of all possible parallelograms. The development of a concept involves a change in its scope and content.

scientific law- the statement of a stable relationship between certain phenomena, repeatedly experimentally confirmed and accepted as true for a given sphere of reality.

Explanation

Explanation - a stage of scientific research, consisting of: - revealing the necessary and essential interdependencies of phenomena or processes; - in building a theory and identifying a law or a set of laws that govern these phenomena or processes.

Basic structures of scientific knowledge. Scientific concept. Scientific law. Explanation and prediction.

The structure of empirical knowledge

Scientific observations and their features:

Observation in science differs from ordinary or random in that it is a purposeful, systematic and organized perception of the objects and phenomena being studied. The connection between observation and sensory cognition is obvious.

Self-observation is introspection.

The researcher not only fixes the facts, but also purposefully searches for them.

Scientific observations are systematic and orderly.

Observations in science are also characterized by their purposefulness.

Intersubjectivity - the results of observations should be reproducible by any other researcher and not depend on the personality of the subject. Otherwise, the fallacy is great because of the subjectivity of the senses.

Interpretation of observational data.

1) the data must be freed from various layers and subjective impressions, because science is only interested in objective facts.

2) as data, science includes not just sensations and perceptions, but the results of their rational processing, including the standardization of observational data using the statistical theory of errors and understanding the data within the framework of the corresponding theory. Tables, graphs and charts.

3) a true interpretation of observational data in terms of the relevant theory is carried out when they begin to be used as evidence to confirm or refute certain hypotheses. The relevance of the data to the hypothesis being tested is the ability to either confirm it or disprove it.

Experiment as the most important way of empirical knowledge.

Unlike observation, when a scientist sets up an experiment, he deliberately intervenes in the process in order to obtain accurate and reliable results.

A characteristic feature of the experiment is that it provides the possibility of active practical influence on the processes and phenomena being studied.

The researcher can isolate the studied phenomena from some external factors, or change some conditions.

The idea of ​​an experiment, the plan for conducting it, and the interpretation of the results depend much more on theory than the search for and interpretation of observational data.

An experiment is a correctly posed question to nature.

Experiment structure:

Purpose of the experiment

Control over its implementation

Interpretation of the obtained data and statistical processing.

Proper planning and interpretation of the results of the experiment is necessary.

Structure and methods of theoretical knowledge.

Abstraction and idealization are the beginning of theoretical knowledge.

Abstractions arise at the analytical stage of research, when they begin to consider individual aspects, properties and elements of a single process. As a result, separate concepts and categories are formed that serve to formulate judgments, hypotheses and laws.

Abstraction(highlighting, abstraction and separation) helps to abstract from some of the properties and features of the phenomena being studied that are insignificant and secondary in a certain respect and to highlight the essential and defining properties.

Types of abstraction:

Identification abstraction - for phenomena of the same class, common property, are abstracted from all other properties.

Isolating abstraction is the abstraction of some properties of objects and their consideration as individual independent objects. The property is treated as an object.

Abstraction of potential feasibility - they are distracted from the real possibility of constructing certain mathematical objects and allow the feasibility of constructing the next object if there is sufficient time, space, materials.

Idealization - represents the limiting transition from real-life properties of phenomena to ideal properties (ideal gas).

Data. Any scientific research is based on facts, but they are so numerous that without their analysis, classification and generalization it is impossible not only to foresee the trends in the development of phenomena and processes of real life, but simply to understand them. Allow to form an empirical model.

Hypothesis - a certain assumption (guess) formulated by the researcher on the basis of an empirical model using the intellectual potential of the researcher himself.

They are created for a trial solution of problems arising in science and are of a probable nature.

Requirements for hypotheses:

1) Relevance (relevance, relevance) of the hypothesis - characterizes the relation of the hypothesis to the facts on which it is based. If they confirm or refute the hypothesis, it is considered relevant to them.

2) Testability of the hypothesis - the possibility of comparing its consequences with the results of observations and experiments. There should be a fundamental possibility of such verification. But there are untestable hypotheses: either an extreme form of abstraction or the absence of means of observation existing in science.

3) Compatibility of hypotheses with already existing scientific knowledge. – the principle follows from the general methodological principle of continuity in the development of scientific knowledge.

4) Explanatory and predictive power of hypotheses. Of the two hypotheses, the hypothesis from which the greater number of consequences, confirmed by the facts, will have more explanatory power.

5) The criterion of simplicity of hypotheses is dominant. Of two identical hypotheses, the one that is distinguished by its greatest simplicity prevails.

Explanation essential learning process. Its main goal is to reveal the essence of the subject under study, to bring it under the law with the identification of the causes and conditions, the sources of its development and the mechanisms of their action. Explanation is usually closely related to description and forms the basis for scientific foresight. Therefore, in the most general form, an explanation can be called the summing up of a specific fact or phenomenon under some generalization (law and reason, first of all). Revealing the essence of the object, the explanation also contributes to the clarification and development of knowledge that is used as the basis for explanation. Thus, the solution of explanatory problems is the most important stimulus for the development of scientific knowledge and its conceptual apparatus.

Explanatory function - identification of causal and other dependencies, the diversity of relationships of a given phenomenon, its essential characteristics, the laws of its origin and development, etc.

predictive- function of foresight. On the basis of theoretical ideas about the "present" state of known phenomena, conclusions are drawn about the existence of previously unknown facts, objects or their properties, connections between phenomena, etc. Prediction about the future state of phenomena (as opposed to those that exist but have not yet been identified) is called scientific foresight.

Scientific laws - regular, recurring connections or relationships between phenomena or processes in the real world.

2 types of scientific laws:

1) Universal and private laws .

universal It is customary to call laws that reflect the universal, necessary, strictly repeating and stable nature of the regular connection between the phenomena and processes of the objective world. All bodies expand when heated.

Private, or existential, the laws are either laws derived from universal laws or laws reflecting the regularities of random mass events. For example, all metals expand. They also differ from universal ones in that the implication is preceded by an existential or existential quantifier.

1. The concept of scientific law: the laws of nature and the laws of science

Scientific knowledge acts as a complexly organized system that combines various forms of organization of scientific information: scientific concepts and scientific facts, laws, goals, principles, concepts, problems, hypotheses, scientific programs, etc.

Scientific knowledge is a continuous process, i.e. a single developing system of a relatively complex structure, which formulates the unity of stable relationships between the elements of this system. The structure of scientific knowledge can be depicted in various sections and, therefore, in the totality of its specific elements.

Theory is the central link of scientific knowledge. In the modern methodology of science, the following main elements of the theory are distinguished.

1. Initial principles - fundamental concepts, principles, laws, equations, axioms, etc.

2. Idealized objects - abstract models of the essential properties and relationships of the objects under study (for example, "absolute black body", "ideal gas", etc.).

3. The logic of the theory is a set of established rules and methods of proof aimed at clarifying the structure and changing knowledge.

4. Philosophical attitudes and value factors.

5. A set of laws and statements derived as consequences from the main provisions of this theory in accordance with specific principles.

A scientific law is a form of ordering scientific knowledge, which consists in formulating general statements about the properties and relationships of the subject area under study. Scientific laws are an internal, essential and stable connection of phenomena, causing their orderly change.

The concept of scientific law began to take shape in the 16th-17th centuries. during the creation of science in the modern sense of the word. For a long time it was believed that this concept is universal and applies to all areas of knowledge: each science is called upon to determine the laws and, on their basis, describe and explain the phenomena under study. The laws of history were discussed, in particular, by O. Comte, K. Marx, J.S. Mill, G. Spencer. At the end of the 90th century, W. Windelband and G. Rickert put forward the idea that, along with generalizing sciences, which have as their task the discovery of a scientific law, there are individualizing sciences that do not formulate any laws of their own, but represent the objects under study in their uniqueness and originality.

The main features of scientific laws are:

Need,

universality,

repeatability,

Invariance.

In scientific knowledge, the law is presented as an expression of the necessary and general relationship between observed phenomena, for example, between charged particles of any nature (Coulomb's law) or any bodies that have mass (the law of gravity) in physics. In various currents modern philosophy in science, the concept of law is compared with the concepts (categories) of essence, form, purpose, relationship, structure. As the discussions in the philosophy of science of the 20th century showed, the properties of necessity and generality (in the limit - universality) included in the definition of the law, as well as the correlation of the classes of "logical" and "physical" laws, the objectivity of the latter are still among the most pressing and complex problems. research

The law of nature is a certain unconditional (often mathematically expressed) law of a natural phenomenon, which is performed under familiar conditions always and everywhere with the same necessity. Such an idea of ​​the law of nature developed in the 17th-18th centuries. as a result of the progress of the exact sciences at the stage of development of classical science.

The universality of the law means that it applies to all objects in its field, acts at any time and at any point in space. Necessity as a property of a scientific law is determined not by the structure of thinking, but by the organization of the real world, although it also depends on the hierarchy of statements included in a scientific theory.

In the life of a scientific law, which captures a wide range of phenomena, three characteristic stages can be distinguished:

1) the era of formation, when the law functions as a hypothetical descriptive statement and is tested primarily empirically;

2) the era of maturity, when the law is fully confirmed empirically, has acquired its systemic support and functions not only as an empirical generalization, but also as a rule for evaluating other, less reliable statements of the theory;

3) the era of old age, when it already enters the core of the theory, is used, first of all, as a rule for evaluating its other statements and can only be left together with the theory itself; the verification of such a law concerns, first of all, its effectiveness within the framework of the theory, although it still retains the old empirical support received during its formation.

At the second and third stages of its existence, a scientific law is a descriptive-evaluative statement and is verified like all such statements. For example, Newton's second law of motion was a factual truth for a long time.

It took many centuries of persistent empirical and theoretical research to give it a rigorous formulation. Now the scientific law of nature appears within the framework of Newton's classical mechanics as an analytically true statement that cannot be refuted by any observations.

The interpretation of the phenomena of nature around us and of social life is one of the most important tasks of natural science and the social sciences. Long before the emergence of science, people tried in one way or another to explain the world around them, as well as their own mental characteristics and experiences. However, such explanations, as a rule, turned out to be unsatisfactory, since they were often based either on the animation of the forces of nature, or on belief in supernatural forces, God, fate, etc. Therefore, they, at best, could satisfy the psychological need of a person in search of some or answers to questions that tormented him, but did not at all give a true idea of ​​​​the world.

True explanations, which should be called truly scientific, arose with the advent of science itself. And this is quite understandable, since scientific explanations are based on precisely formulated laws, concepts and theories that are absent in everyday knowledge. Therefore, the adequacy and depth of explanation of the phenomena and events around us is largely determined by the degree of penetration of science into the objective laws governing these phenomena and events. In turn, the laws themselves can only be truly understood within the framework of an appropriate scientific theory, although they serve as the conceptual core around which the theory is built.

Of course, one should not deny the possibility and usefulness of explaining some everyday phenomena on the basis of an empirical generalization of observed facts.

Such explanations are also considered to be real, but they are limited only to ordinary, spontaneous-empirical knowledge, in reasoning based on the so-called common sense. In science, not only simple generalizations, but also empirical laws are tried to be explained with the help of perfect theoretical laws. Although real explanations can be very diverse in their depth or strength, nevertheless, they must all satisfy two essential requirements.

Firstly, any true interpretation must be based in such a way that its arguments, argumentation and specific characteristics have a direct relationship to those objects, phenomena and events that they explain. The fulfillment of this request is the necessary prerequisite for considering the explanation adequate, but this circumstance alone is not enough for the fidelity of the interpretation.

Secondly, any interpretation must be fundamentally verifiable. This request has an extremely important meaning in natural science and experimental sciences, since it makes it possible to sort out truly scientific explanations from all kinds of purely speculative and natural philosophical constructions that also claim to explain real phenomena. The fundamental verifiability of an explanation does not at all preclude the use as arguments of such theoretical principles, postulates, and laws that cannot be verified directly empirically.

It is only necessary that the clarification provides the potential for deriving individual results that allow experimental testing.

Based on knowledge of the law, a reliable prediction of the course of the process is likely. "To know the law" means to reveal one or another side of the essence of the object under study, the phenomenon. Knowledge of the laws of organization is the main task of the theory of organization. In relation to the organization, the law is a necessary, significant and constant connection between the elements of the internal and external environment, which determines their orderly change.

The concept of law is close to the concept of regularity, which can be considered as some kind of "extension of the law" or "a set of laws interrelated in content that provide a stable trend or aspiration for changes in the system."

Laws differ in degree of generality and scope. Universal laws reveal the relationship between the most universal properties and phenomena of nature, society and human thinking.

A scientific law is a formulation of the objective connection of phenomena and is called scientific because this objective connection is known by science and can be used in the interests of the development of society.

A scientific law formulates a constant, repetitive and necessary connection between phenomena and, therefore, we are not talking about a simple coincidence of two series of phenomena, not about randomly discovered connections, but about their causal interdependence, when one group of phenomena inevitably gives rise to another, being their cause.

Dialectics: principles, laws, categories

The most general laws of dialectics are: the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones, the unity and struggle of opposites, the negation of negation. In its origin historical development and ratio...

Dialectical analysis of the concept of "love"

1. The law of unity and struggle of opposites. There is mutual and unrequited love. They are at the same time in unity and struggle. But each of them goes through its own self-development, and yet, I think that they complement each other...

Laws of dialectics

The main three laws of dialectics are: 1. The law of unity and struggle of opposites. (Law of dialectical inconsistency)...

History of philosophy

Dialectics. The concept of dialectics. Objective and subjective dialectics. Structure, laws, functions of dialectics: Dialectics is a theory of the development of all things recognized in modern philosophy and a philosophical method based on it ...

Aristotle's logic

Judgment and negation Aristotle considers, as well as judgment separately, i.e. ontologically. Therefore, each statement corresponds to one negative and vice versa ...

Logic as a science

Keywords: form of thought, logical law, logical consequence. Basic forms of logical thinking. The logical form of thought is the structure of this thought from the point of view of the method of connecting its constituent parts ...

Logics. Judgment. inference

Logic is the science of generally valid forms and means of thought necessary for rational knowledge in any field. Consequently, the subject of logic is: 1. The laws that govern thinking in the process of cognition of the objective world. 2...

scientific knowledge

Science is a type of human cognitive activity aimed at obtaining and developing objective, substantiated and systematically organized knowledge about the world around. In the course of this activity, facts are collected, their analysis ...

Basic laws of dialectics

3.1 The law of unity and struggle of opposites (the law of contradiction) "Movement and development in nature ...

Basic laws of logic

In logic, four basic laws can be distinguished that express the properties of logical thinking - certainty, consistency, consistency, validity. These laws include: the law of identity, non-contradiction ...

Basic logical laws

Among the many logical laws, logic identifies four main ones that express the fundamental properties of logical thinking - its certainty, consistency, consistency and validity. These are the laws of identity, non-contradiction...

The laws of society, like the laws of nature, exist whether we are aware of their existence or not. They are always objective. The objective is not only that which is outside consciousness, but also that ...

Introduction

This paper presents the main features of a scientific law, as well as the main ways of its formation and development as the basis of a scientific theory.

Particular attention is paid to the study of the properties of scientific law as a philosophical concept. According to the literature, the types and types of scientific laws are studied in detail, as well as the factors that determine the formation of scientific laws.

The purpose of this work was to determine the fundamental characteristics of the scientific law as the main category in cognition, as well as to determine the degree of its participation in modern scientific research.

The objects of study are the scientific law, as well as the processes that take an active part in its formation.

The concept of scientific law: the laws of nature and the laws of science

Scientific knowledge acts as a complexly organized system that combines various forms of organization of scientific information: scientific concepts and scientific facts, laws, goals, principles, concepts, problems, hypotheses, scientific programs, etc.

Scientific knowledge is a continuous process, i.e. a single developing system of a relatively complex structure, which formulates the unity of stable relationships between the elements of this system. The structure of scientific knowledge can be depicted in various sections and, therefore, in the totality of its specific elements.

Theory is the central link of scientific knowledge. In the modern methodology of science, the following main elements of the theory are distinguished.

1. Initial principles - fundamental concepts, principles, laws, equations, axioms, etc.

2. Idealized objects - abstract models of the essential properties and relationships of the objects under study (for example, "absolute black body", "ideal gas", etc.).

3. The logic of the theory is a set of established rules and methods of proof aimed at clarifying the structure and changing knowledge.

4. Philosophical attitudes and value factors.

5. A set of laws and statements derived as consequences from the main provisions of this theory in accordance with specific principles.

A scientific law is a form of ordering scientific knowledge, which consists in formulating general statements about the properties and relationships of the subject area under study. Scientific laws are an internal, essential and stable connection of phenomena, causing their orderly change.

The concept of scientific law began to take shape in the 16th-17th centuries. during the creation of science in the modern sense of the word. For a long time it was believed that this concept is universal and applies to all areas of knowledge: each science is called upon to determine the laws and, on their basis, describe and explain the phenomena under study. The laws of history were discussed, in particular, by O. Comte, K. Marx, J.S. Mill, G. Spencer. At the end of the 90th century, W. Windelband and G. Rickert put forward the idea that, along with generalizing sciences, which have as their task the discovery of a scientific law, there are individualizing sciences that do not formulate any laws of their own, but represent the objects under study in their uniqueness and originality.

The main features of scientific laws are:

Need,

universality,

repeatability,

Invariance.

In scientific knowledge, the law is presented as an expression of the necessary and general relationship between observed phenomena, for example, between charged particles of any nature (Coulomb's law) or any bodies that have mass (the law of gravity) in physics. In various currents of modern philosophy of science, the concept of law is compared with the concepts (categories) of essence, form, purpose, relationship, structure. As the discussions in the philosophy of science of the 20th century showed, the properties of necessity and generality (in the limit - universality) included in the definition of the law, as well as the correlation of the classes of "logical" and "physical" laws, the objectivity of the latter are still among the most pressing and complex problems. research

The law of nature is a certain unconditional (often mathematically expressed) law of a natural phenomenon, which is performed under familiar conditions always and everywhere with the same necessity. Such an idea of ​​the law of nature developed in the 17th-18th centuries. as a result of the progress of the exact sciences at the stage of development of classical science.

The universality of the law means that it applies to all objects in its field, acts at any time and at any point in space. Necessity as a property of a scientific law is determined not by the structure of thinking, but by the organization of the real world, although it also depends on the hierarchy of statements included in a scientific theory.

In the life of a scientific law, which captures a wide range of phenomena, three characteristic stages can be distinguished:

1) the era of formation, when the law functions as a hypothetical descriptive statement and is tested primarily empirically;

2) the era of maturity, when the law is fully confirmed empirically, has acquired its systemic support and functions not only as an empirical generalization, but also as a rule for evaluating other, less reliable statements of the theory;

3) the era of old age, when it already enters the core of the theory, is used, first of all, as a rule for evaluating its other statements and can only be left together with the theory itself; the verification of such a law concerns, first of all, its effectiveness within the framework of the theory, although it still retains the old empirical support received during its formation.

At the second and third stages of its existence, a scientific law is a descriptive-evaluative statement and is verified like all such statements. For example, Newton's second law of motion was a factual truth for a long time.

It took many centuries of persistent empirical and theoretical research to give it a rigorous formulation. Now the scientific law of nature appears within the framework of Newton's classical mechanics as an analytically true statement that cannot be refuted by any observations.

The interpretation of the phenomena of nature around us and of social life is one of the most important tasks of natural science and the social sciences. Long before the emergence of science, people tried in one way or another to explain the world around them, as well as their own mental characteristics and experiences. However, such explanations, as a rule, turned out to be unsatisfactory, since they were often based either on the animation of the forces of nature, or on belief in supernatural forces, God, fate, etc. Therefore, they, at best, could satisfy the psychological need of a person in search of some or answers to questions that tormented him, but did not at all give a true idea of ​​​​the world.

True explanations, which should be called truly scientific, arose with the advent of science itself. And this is quite understandable, since scientific explanations are based on precisely formulated laws, concepts and theories that are absent in everyday knowledge. Therefore, the adequacy and depth of explanation of the phenomena and events around us is largely determined by the degree of penetration of science into the objective laws governing these phenomena and events. In turn, the laws themselves can only be truly understood within the framework of an appropriate scientific theory, although they serve as the conceptual core around which the theory is built.

Of course, one should not deny the possibility and usefulness of explaining some everyday phenomena on the basis of an empirical generalization of observed facts.

Such explanations are also considered to be real, but they are limited only to ordinary, spontaneous-empirical knowledge, in reasoning based on the so-called common sense. In science, not only simple generalizations, but also empirical laws are tried to be explained with the help of perfect theoretical laws. Although real explanations can be very diverse in their depth or strength, nevertheless, they must all satisfy two essential requirements.

Firstly, any true interpretation must be based in such a way that its arguments, argumentation and specific characteristics have a direct relationship to those objects, phenomena and events that they explain. The fulfillment of this request is the necessary prerequisite for considering the explanation adequate, but this circumstance alone is not enough for the fidelity of the interpretation.

Secondly, any interpretation must be fundamentally verifiable. This request has an extremely important meaning in natural science and experimental sciences, since it makes it possible to sort out truly scientific explanations from all kinds of purely speculative and natural philosophical constructions that also claim to explain real phenomena. The fundamental verifiability of an explanation does not at all preclude the use as arguments of such theoretical principles, postulates, and laws that cannot be verified directly empirically.

It is only necessary that the clarification provides the potential for deriving individual results that allow experimental testing.

Based on knowledge of the law, a reliable prediction of the course of the process is likely. "To know the law" means to reveal one or another side of the essence of the object under study, the phenomenon. Knowledge of the laws of organization is the main task of the theory of organization. In relation to the organization, the law is a necessary, significant and constant connection between the elements of the internal and external environment, which determines their orderly change.

The concept of law is close to the concept of regularity, which can be considered as some kind of "extension of the law" or "a set of laws interrelated in content that provide a stable trend or aspiration for changes in the system."

Laws differ in degree of generality and scope. Universal laws reveal the relationship between the most universal properties and phenomena of nature, society and human thinking.

A scientific law is a formulation of the objective connection of phenomena and is called scientific because this objective connection is known by science and can be used in the interests of the development of society.

A scientific law formulates a constant, repetitive and necessary connection between phenomena and, therefore, we are not talking about a simple coincidence of two series of phenomena, not about randomly discovered connections, but about their causal interdependence, when one group of phenomena inevitably gives rise to another, being their cause.

1. Scientific law.
1.1 Laws and their role in scientific research.
The discovery and formulation of laws is the most important goal of scientific research: it is with the help of laws that the essential connections and relations of objects and phenomena of the objective world are expressed.
All objects and phenomena of the real world are in the eternal process of change and movement. Where on the surface these changes seem random, unrelated to each other, science reveals deep, internal connections that reflect stable, repetitive, invariant relationships between phenomena. Based on laws, science gets the opportunity not only to explain existing facts and events, but also to predict new ones. Without this, conscious, purposeful practical activity is inconceivable.

Files: 1 file

1. Scientific law.

1.1 Laws and their role in scientific research.

The discovery and formulation of laws is the most important goal of scientific research: it is with the help of laws that the essential connections and relations of objects and phenomena of the objective world are expressed.

All objects and phenomena of the real world are in the eternal process of change and movement. Where on the surface these changes seem random, unrelated to each other, science reveals deep, internal connections that reflect stable, repetitive, invariant relationships between phenomena. Based on laws, science gets the opportunity not only to explain existing facts and events, but also to predict new ones. Without this, conscious, purposeful practical activity is inconceivable.

The way to the law lies through the hypothesis. Indeed, in order to establish significant connections between phenomena, observations and experiments alone are not enough. With their help, we can only discover relationships between empirically observed properties and characteristics of phenomena. Only comparatively simple, so-called empirical laws can be discovered in this way. Deeper scientific or theoretical laws apply to unobservable objects. Such laws contain in their composition concepts that can neither be directly obtained from experience nor verified by experience. Therefore, the discovery of theoretical laws is inevitably associated with an appeal to a hypothesis, with the help of which they try to find the desired pattern. After sorting through many different hypotheses, a scientist can find one that is well supported by all the facts known to him. Therefore, in its most preliminary form, the law can be characterized as a well-supported hypothesis.

In his search for the law, the researcher is guided by a certain strategy. He seeks to find such a theoretical scheme or an idealized situation, with the help of which he could represent the regularity he found in its purest form. In other words, in order to formulate the law of science, it is necessary to abstract from all non-essential connections and relations of the objective reality under study and single out only essential, repetitive, and necessary connections.

The process of comprehending the law, as well as the process of cognition as a whole, proceeds from incomplete, relative, limited truths to more and more complete, concrete, absolute truths. This means that in the process of scientific knowledge, scientists identify ever deeper and more significant connections of reality.

The second essential point, which is connected with the understanding of the laws of science, refers to the definition of their place in the general system of theoretical knowledge. Laws form the core of any scientific theory. It is possible to correctly understand the role and significance of a law only within the framework of a certain scientific theory or system, where the logical connection between various laws, their application in constructing further conclusions of the theory, and the nature of the connection with empirical data are clearly visible. As a rule, scientists strive to include any newly discovered law into some system of theoretical knowledge, to connect it with other already known laws. This forces the researcher to constantly analyze the laws in the context of a larger theoretical system.

The search for separate, isolated laws, at best, characterizes an undeveloped, pre-theoretical stage in the formation of science. In modern, developed science, the law acts as an integral element of scientific theory, reflecting, with the help of a system of concepts, principles, hypotheses and laws, a wider fragment of reality than a separate law. In turn, the system of scientific theories and disciplines seeks to reflect the unity and connection that exists in the real picture of the world.

Having clarified the objective content of the category of law, it is necessary to take a closer and more specific look at the content and form of the very concept of “scientific law”. We have previously defined a scientific law as a well-supported hypothesis. But not every well-proven hypothesis serves as a law. Emphasizing the close connection of the hypothesis with the law, we want first of all to point out the decisive role of the hypothesis in the search for and discovery of the laws of science.

In the experimental sciences there is no other way of discovering laws than by constantly putting forward and testing hypotheses. In the process of scientific research, hypotheses that contradict empirical data are discarded, and those that have a lower degree of confirmation are replaced by hypotheses that have a higher degree. At the same time, the increase in the degree of confirmation largely depends on whether the hypothesis can be included in the system of theoretical knowledge. Then the reliability of a hypothesis can be judged not only by those empirically verifiable consequences that directly follow from it, but also by the consequences of other hypotheses that are logically connected with it within the framework of the theory.

Let us now turn to the analysis of the logical structure of statements expressing the laws of science. The first feature of laws that most often strikes the eye is their generality, or universality, in some respect. This feature is clearly visible when laws are compared with facts. While facts are singular statements about individual things and their properties, laws characterize stable, recurring, general relationships between things and their properties. In the simplest cases, the law is a generalization of empirically observed facts and therefore can be obtained inductively. But this is the case only with empirical laws. More complex, theoretical laws arise, as a rule, from hypotheses. Therefore, the most obvious condition for a hypothesis to become a law is the requirement that this hypothesis be well supported by the facts. However, a well-supported hypothesis does not necessarily express a law. It can also represent a prediction of some particular phenomenon or event, and even some new fact. That is why it is necessary to consider more carefully the logical form of those statements which are called the laws of science.

The first criterion, which relates rather to the quantitative characterization of statements, enables us to distinguish laws from facts. Facts are always expressed with the help of single statements, while laws are formulated with the help of general statements. In what sense, then, can one speak of the generality, or universality, of statements? In science, at least three such senses are singled out when one speaks of statements expressing its laws.

First, generality, or universality, can refer to concepts or terms that occur in a statement about a law. Such a commonality is called conceptual or conceptual. If all the concepts included in the formulation of the law are general, or universal, then the law itself is considered universal. This feature is inherent in the most general, universal and fundamental laws. These laws include, first of all, the laws of materialistic dialectics. Along with them, many laws of nature are also considered fundamental, such as the law of universal gravitation, conservation of energy, charge, and others. In fundamental laws, all concepts are universal in scope, and therefore they do not contain individual terms and constants. Thus, the law of universal gravitation establishes the existence of a gravitational interaction between any two bodies in the Universe. But many laws of natural science take the form of particular or existential statements. Therefore, along with universal terms, they also contain terms that characterize individual bodies, events or processes.

1.2 Classification of laws.

1.2.1 Fundamental and derivative laws.

Fundamental laws must satisfy the requirement of conceptual universality: they must not contain any private, individual terms and constants, otherwise they cannot serve as premises for conclusions. Derived laws can be derived from the fundamental ones along with the additional information necessary for this, containing a characteristic of the parameters of the system or process. So, for example, Kepler's laws can be logically derived from the law of universal gravitation and the basic laws of classical mechanics, together with the empirical information necessary for this about masses, distances, planetary periods and other characteristics.

The second meaning of the concept of the universality of laws concerns their spatio-temporal generality. Laws are often called fundamental or universal, also because they apply to relevant entities or processes, regardless of time or place. In physics and chemistry, such laws include laws that are universal with respect to space and time. As the outstanding English scientist D.K. Maxwell, the basic laws of physics say nothing about the individual position in space and time. They are perfectly general with respect to space and time. Maxwell was firmly convinced that the laws of electromagnetism formulated by him in the form of mathematical equations are universal in the Universe and therefore are valid on Earth, on other planets, and in space. In contrast, private laws are applicable only in a certain region of space-time. The sign of space-time universality clearly does not fit, for example, the laws of geology, biology, psychology, and many others, which are not valid everywhere in space and time, but only in certain limited areas. In this regard, it seems appropriate to distinguish between laws that are universal in space and time, regional and individual.

1.2.2 Laws universal in space and time, regional and individual.

The laws of physics and chemistry, which are of a fundamental nature, will be universal. Many laws of biology, psychology, sociology and other sciences can be attributed to the regional ones. Such laws are fulfilled only in more or less limited areas (regions) of space-time. Finally, individual laws reflect the functioning and development of any object fixed in space over time. Thus, the laws of geology express the essential relations of the processes taking place on the Earth. Even many laws of physics and chemistry, not to mention biology, are, in fact, related to the study of processes occurring on Earth.

The third meaning of the concept of the universality of a law is connected with the possibility of quantifying a judgment that expresses a law. Strictly universal or fundamental laws, valid for all special cases of their manifestation, can be logically expressed using statements with a universal quantifier. All derivative and regional laws, which are valid only for a certain number of cases, are presented in the form of propositions with an existential quantifier, or the existential quantifier. At the same time, for symbolic logic it is completely indifferent whether we are talking about one or several, and even almost all cases of the law. An existential quantifier postulates the possibility that there is at least one case for which the law holds. But such an abstract approach does not adequately reflect the state of affairs in the empirical sciences, where statements that are true in most or almost all cases are often regarded as genuine laws. We are not talking about statistical laws that apply only to a certain percentage of cases. As for the very logical structure of statements expressing the laws of science, following B. Russell, many specialists in the logic and methodology of science present it in the form of a general implication.

1.2.3 Empirical and theoretical laws

The classification of scientific laws can be carried out according to a variety of criteria or, as they say in logic, the bases of division. The most natural seems to be a classification according to those areas of reality to which the relevant laws relate. In natural science, such areas are individual forms of the motion of matter or a number of interconnected forms. So, for example, mechanics explores the laws of motion of bodies under the influence of forces, physics - the laws of molecular-kinetic, electromagnetic, intra-atomic and other processes, which together constitute the physical form of the motion of matter. Biology is concerned with the study of the specific laws of organic life. Biophysics explores the patterns of physical processes in living organisms, and biochemistry - the chemical features of these processes. The social sciences or the humanities study the patterns of certain aspects or phenomena of the development of society.

The classification of laws according to the forms of motion of matter essentially coincides with the general classification of sciences. And although it is very significant as a starting point for analysis, it needs to be supplemented by classifications that single out certain epistemological, methodological and logical features and signs of scientific laws.

Of the other classifications, the classifications according to the level of abstractness of the concepts used in laws and according to the type of laws themselves seem to be the most important. The first of them is based on the division of laws into empirical and theoretical. Empirical laws are usually called laws that are confirmed by observations or specially designed experiments. Most of our daily observations lead us to inductive generalizations, which are in many ways analogous to the empirical laws of science. Like the latter, these generalizations refer to those properties that can be perceived with the help of the senses. However, the empirical laws of science are much more reliable than simple generalizations from everyday experience. This is due to the fact that laws are most often established with the help of experiments and with the use of special measuring equipment, which ensures much greater accuracy in their formulation. At the advanced stage of science, individual empirical laws are linked into a single system within the framework of a theory, and most importantly, they can be logically derived from more general theoretical laws.

From the epistemological point of view, however, there is one common feature that is inherent in both empirical laws and inductive generalizations of everyday experience: both of them deal with sensually cognizable properties of objects and phenomena. That is why in the literature empirical laws are often called laws about observable objects. At the same time, the term “observable” is considered in a fairly wide scope. Observed objects include not only those objects and their properties that are perceived directly with the help of the senses, but also indirectly - with the help of various instruments and tools. Thus, stars observed through a telescope, or cells that are studied with a microscope, are considered observable, while molecules, atoms and “elementary” particles are classified as unobservable objects: we conclude their existence from indirect evidence. Dynamic and statistical laws

If the basis of the dichotomous division of laws into theoretical and empirical is their different relationship to experience, then another important classification is based on the nature of those predictions that follow from the laws. In laws of the first type, predictions are precisely defined, unambiguous. So, if the law of motion of a body is given and its position and speed are known at some point in time, then from these data it is possible to accurately determine the position and speed of the body at any other point in time. Laws of this type are called dynamic laws in our literature. In foreign literature, they are most often called deterministic laws, although such a name, as we will see below, raises serious objections.

When classifying theoretical scientific knowledge in general and, in particular, when classifying scientific laws, it is customary to single out their separate types. At the same time, quite different signs can be used as the basis for classification. In particular, one of the ways to classify knowledge within the framework of the natural sciences is its subdivision in accordance with the main types of motion of matter, when the so-called. "physical", "chemical" and "biological" forms of movement of the latter. As for the classification of the types of scientific laws, the latter can also be divided in different ways.

One type of classification is the division of scientific laws into:

1. "Empirical";

2. "Fundamental".

Due to the fact that on the example of this classification one can clearly see how the process of transition of knowledge, which initially exists in the form of hypotheses, to laws and theories takes place, let us consider this type of classification of scientific laws in more detail.

The basis for dividing laws into empirical and fundamental ones is the level of abstractness of the concepts used in them and the degree of generality of the domain of definition that corresponds to these laws.

Empirical laws are those laws in which, on the basis of observations, experiments and measurements, which are always associated with some limited area of ​​reality, any specific functional connection is established. In different areas of scientific knowledge, there are a huge number of laws of this kind, which more or less accurately describe the relevant connections and relationships. As examples of empirical laws, one can point to the three laws of motion of the planets by I. Kepler, to the equation of elasticity of R. Hooke, according to which, with small deformations of bodies, forces arise that are approximately proportional to the magnitude of the deformation, to a particular law of heredity, according to which Siberian cats with blue eyes, are usually naturally deaf.

Fundamental laws are laws that describe functional dependencies that operate within total volume their respective realms of reality. There are relatively few fundamental laws. In particular, classical mechanics includes only three such laws. The sphere of reality that corresponds to them is the mega- and macrocosm.

As an illustrative example of the specifics of empirical and fundamental laws, we can consider the relationship between Kepler's laws and the law of universal gravitation. Johannes Kepler, as a result of the analysis of materials for observing the movement of the planets, which Tycho Brahe collected, established the following dependencies:

The planets move in elliptical orbits around the Sun (Kepler's first law);

The periods of revolution of planets around the Sun depend on their distance from it: more distant planets move more slowly than those that are closer to the Sun (Kepler's third law).

After stating these dependencies, the question is quite natural: why is this happening? Is there any reason that causes the planets to move in this way and not otherwise? Will the dependencies found be valid for other celestial systems, or does this apply only to the solar system? Moreover, even if it suddenly turned out that there is a system similar to the Sun, where the movement is subject to the same principles, it is still unclear: is it an accident or is there something in common behind all this? Maybe someone's hidden desire to make the world beautiful and harmonious? Such a conclusion, for example, can be prompted by an analysis of Kepler's third law, which really expresses a certain harmony, since here the period of revolution of the plan around the Sun depends on the size of its orbit.

It should be noted that Kepler's laws only describe the observed motion of the planets, but do not indicate the cause that leads to such motion. . In contrast, Newton's law of gravity indicates the cause and features of the movement of cosmic bodies according to Kepler's laws. I. Newton found the correct expression for the gravitational force arising from the interaction of bodies, formulating the law of universal gravitation: between any two bodies there is an attractive force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. From this law as consequences it is possible to deduce the reasons why the planets move unevenly and why the planets more distant from the Sun move more slowly than those closer to it.

The concrete-empirical nature of Kepler's laws is also manifested in the fact that these laws are fulfilled exactly only in the case of the motion of one body near another, which has a much larger mass. If the masses of the bodies are commensurate, their stable joint movement around a common center of mass will be observed. In the case of the planets moving around the Sun, this effect is hardly noticeable, however, there are systems in space that make such a movement - this is the so-called. "double stars".

The fundamental nature of the law of universal gravitation is also manifested in the fact that on its basis it is possible to explain not only quite different trajectories of the movement of cosmic bodies, but it also plays an important role in explaining the mechanisms of formation and evolution of stars and planetary systems, as well as models of the evolution of the Universe. In addition, this law explains the reasons for the features of the free fall of bodies near the surface of the Earth.

On the example of comparing the laws of Kepler and the law of universal gravitation, the features of empirical and fundamental laws, as well as their role and place in the process of cognition, are quite clearly visible. The essence of empirical laws is that they always describe relationships and dependencies that have been established as a result of the study of some limited sphere of reality. That is why there can be arbitrarily many such laws.

The latter circumstance can be a serious obstacle in the matter of knowledge. In the case when the process of cognition does not go beyond the formulation of empirical dependencies, significant efforts will be spent on a lot of monotonous empirical research, as a result of which more and more new relationships and dependencies will be discovered, however, their cognitive value will be significantly limited. Perhaps only within the framework of individual cases. In other words, the heuristic value of such studies will actually not go beyond the boundaries of the formulation of assertoric judgments of the form "It is true that ...". The level of knowledge that can be achieved in a similar way will not go beyond the statement that another unique or fair dependence for a very limited number of cases has been found, which for some reason is exactly this and not another.

In the case of the formulation of fundamental laws, the situation will be completely different. The essence of fundamental laws is that they establish dependencies that are valid for any objects and processes related to the corresponding area of ​​reality. Therefore, knowing the fundamental laws, one can analytically derive from them many specific dependencies that will be valid for certain specific cases or certain types of objects. Based on this feature of fundamental laws, the judgments formulated in them can be represented in the form of apodictic judgments "It is necessary that ...", and the relationship between this type of laws and the particular regularities (empirical laws) derived from them will correspond in their meaning to the relationship between apodictic and assertive judgments. It is in the possibility of deriving empirical laws from fundamental laws in the form of their particular consequences that the main heuristic (cognitive) value of fundamental laws is manifested. A clear example of the heuristic function of fundamental laws is, in particular, the hypothesis of Le Verrier and Adamas regarding the reasons for the deviation of Uranus from the calculated trajectory.

The heuristic value of fundamental laws is also manifested in the fact that, on the basis of their knowledge, it is possible to carry out a selection of various assumptions and hypotheses. For example, from the end of the XVIII century. in the scientific world it is not customary to consider applications for inventions perpetual motion machine, since the principle of its operation (efficiency greater than 100%) contradicts the laws of conservation, which are the fundamental principles of modern natural science.

It should be noted that the content of any scientific law can be expressed by means of a generally affirmative judgment of the form "All S is P", however, not all true universally affirmative judgments are laws . For example, back in the 18th century, a formula was proposed for the radii of the orbits of the planets (the so-called Titius-Bode rule), which can be expressed as follows: R n = (0.4 + 0.3 × 2n) × R o, where R o - radius of the earth's orbit, n- numbers of planets solar system in order. If in this formula substitute arguments sequentially n = 0, 1, 2, 3, …, then the result will be the values ​​(radii) of the orbits of all known planets of the solar system (the only exception is the value n=3, for which there is no planet in the calculated orbit, but instead there is an asteroid belt). Thus, we can say that the Titius-Bode rule quite accurately describes the coordinates of the orbits of the planets of the solar system. However, is it at least an empirical law, for example, similar to Kepler's laws? Apparently not, since, unlike Kepler's laws, the Titius-Bode rule does not follow from the law of universal gravitation in any way, and it has not yet received any theoretical explanation. The absence of a necessity component, i.e. what explains why things are so and not otherwise, does not allow us to consider both this rule and similar statements that can be represented as “All S are P” as a scientific law .

Far from all sciences have reached the level of theoretical knowledge that allows analytically deriving heuristically significant consequences for particular and unique cases from fundamental laws. Of the natural sciences, in fact, only physics and chemistry have reached this level. As for biology, although in relation to this science one can also speak about certain fundamental laws - for example, about the laws of heredity - however, in general, within the framework of this science, the heuristic function of fundamental laws is much more modest.

In addition to the division into "empirical" and "fundamental", scientific laws can also be divided into:

1. Dynamic;

2. Statistical.

The basis for the classification of the latter type is the nature of the predictions arising from these laws..

A feature of dynamic laws is that the predictions that follow from them are accurate and definitely a certain character. An example of laws of this kind are the three laws of classical mechanics. The first of these laws states that any body in the absence of forces acting on it or with the mutual balancing of the latter is in a state of rest or uniform rectilinear motion. The second law says that the acceleration of a body is proportional to the applied force. From this it follows that the rate of change of speed or acceleration depends on the magnitude of the force applied to the body and its mass. According to the third law, when two objects interact, they both experience forces, and these forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Based on these laws, we can conclude that all interactions of physical bodies are a chain of uniquely predetermined cause-and-effect relationships, which these laws describe. In particular, in accordance with these laws, knowing the initial conditions (the mass of the body, the magnitude of the force applied to it and the magnitude of the resistance forces, the angle of inclination with respect to the Earth's surface), it is possible to accurately calculate the future trajectory of any body, for example, a bullet, projectile or rocket.

Statistical laws are laws that predict the course of events only to a certain extent. probabilities . In such laws, the property or attribute under study does not apply to each object of the area under study, but to the entire class or population. For example, when they say that in a batch of 1000 products 80% meet the requirements of the standards, this means that approximately 800 products are of high quality, but which products (by numbers) are not specified.

Dynamic patterns are attractive in that they are based on the possibility of an absolutely accurate or unambiguous prediction. The world described on the basis of dynamic patterns is absolutely deterministic world . A practically dynamic approach can be used to calculate the trajectory of the movement of macroworld objects, for example, the trajectories of the planets.

However, the dynamic approach cannot be used to calculate the state of systems that include a large number of elements. For example, 1 kg of hydrogen contains molecules, that is, so many that only one problem of recording the results of calculating the coordinates of all these molecules turns out to be obviously impossible. Because of this, when creating a molecular-kinetic theory, that is, a theory describing the state of macroscopic portions of a substance, not a dynamic, but a statistical approach was chosen. According to this theory, the state of a substance can be determined using such averaged thermodynamic characteristics as "pressure" and "temperature".

Within the framework of the molecular kinetic theory, the state of each individual molecule of a substance is not considered, but the average, most probable states of groups of molecules are taken into account. Pressure, for example, arises from the fact that the molecules of a substance have a certain momentum. But in order to determine the pressure, it is not necessary (and it is impossible) to know the momentum of each individual molecule. To do this, it is sufficient to know the values ​​of temperature, mass and volume of a substance. Temperature as a measure of average kinetic energy many molecules is also an average, statistical indicator. An example of the statistical laws of physics are the laws of Boyle-Mariotte, Gay-Lussac and Charles, which establish the relationship between pressure, volume and temperature of gases; in biology, these are the laws of Mendel, which describe the principles of the transfer of inherited traits from parent organisms to their descendants.

The statistical approach is a probabilistic method for describing complex systems. The behavior of an individual particle or other object in the statistical description is considered insignificant . Therefore, the study of the properties of the system in this case is reduced to finding the average values ​​of the quantities characterizing the state of the system as a whole. Due to the fact that the statistical law is knowledge about the average, most probable values, it is able to describe and predict the state and development of any system only with a certain probability.

The main function of any scientific law is to predict its future or restore the past state from a given state of the system under consideration. Therefore, it is natural to ask what laws, dynamic or statistical, describe the world on a larger scale. deep level? Until the 20th century, it was believed that dynamic patterns were more fundamental. This was because scientists believed that nature is strictly determined and therefore any system can in principle be calculated with absolute accuracy. It was also considered that statistical method, which gives approximate results, can be used when the accuracy of calculations can be neglected . However, in connection with the creation of quantum mechanics, the situation has changed.

According to quantum mechanical concepts, the microworld can only be described probabilistically due to the "uncertainty principle". According to this principle, it is impossible to simultaneously accurately determine the location of a particle and its momentum. The more precisely the particle coordinate is determined, the more uncertain the momentum becomes and vice versa. From this, in particular, it follows that dynamic laws of classical mechanics cannot be used to describe the microworld . However, the indeterminacy of the microworld in the Laplace sense does not mean at all that it is generally impossible to predict events in relation to it, but only that the patterns of the microworld are not dynamic, but statistical. The statistical approach is used not only in physics and biology, but also in technical and social sciences (a classic example of the latter is sociological surveys).