Science and technology in modern society. III

I graduated from university, then studied in graduate school, and even lectured to students. I guess I can say that I have some relation to science in the broad sense of the word. And our whole life is connected with scientific and technological development. But I believe that science is a double-edged sword in human history. And here's why I think so.

The saving power of science

All the conveniences and benefits of civilization appeared thanks to science and progress. Some especially appreciate the transparent and vast media space that is available to everyone today, while others admire the achievements of mechanical engineering.
These are everyday manifestations of powerful scientific thought.

Scientists have also learned to look into deep space, and new theories about the development of matter are appearing. The most daring researchers talk seriously about teleportation. But this is far from the main problem of humanity.

Thanks to the same scientific thought, people are mercilessly and recklessly exploiting the planet, and they began to do this especially zealously in the 20th century. These days it is impossible to hide problems.
I believe that it is science, led by man, that will save the Earth from destruction. Perhaps new types of energy will be discovered, the extraction of which will not deplete the planet.

Major recent scientific achievements:

• scientists have learned how gold is formed in the Universe;
• a secret hall was discovered in the pyramid of Giza (Egypt);
• The first quantum teleportation was accomplished.

Science in Arms

Human society is structured in such a way that wars and similar conflicts are inevitable. It is possible that many scientific discoveries were made under pressure from the state machine. At the origins of weapons creation mass destruction scientists are standing. An absurd situation has arisen: by strengthening security locally, people have created a threat to everything.

And this is not the fault of scientists, but the “merits” of society.
The role of science is to change society. I think that such discoveries are not far off that will erase the words “war” or “hate” from memory; there will be no barbed wire and machine gunners on the borders, and War Department will be renamed the Department of Peace.

The 20th century became the century of the victorious scientific revolution. Scientific and technological progress has accelerated in all developed countries. Gradually, there was an increasing increase in the knowledge intensity of products. Technology was changing production methods. By the mid-20th century, the factory method of production became dominant. In the second half of the 20th century widespread received automation. By the end of the 20th century, high technologies developed and the transition to an information economy continued. All this happened thanks to the development of science and technology. This had several consequences. Firstly, demands on employees have increased. They began to be required to have greater knowledge, as well as an understanding of new technological processes. Secondly, the share of mental workers and scientists has increased, that is, people whose work requires deep scientific knowledge. Thirdly, the growth in well-being caused by scientific and technical progress and the solution of many pressing problems of society gave rise to the belief of the broad masses in the ability of science to solve the problems of mankind and improve the quality of life. This new faith was reflected in many areas of culture and social thought. Such achievements as space exploration, the creation of nuclear energy, and the first successes in the field of robotics gave rise to the belief in the inevitability of scientific, technological and social progress, and raised the hope of a quick solution to such problems as hunger, disease, etc.

And today we can say that science is modern society plays an important role in many industries and areas of people's lives. Undoubtedly, the level of development of science can serve as one of the main indicators of the development of society, and it is also, undoubtedly, an indicator of the economic, cultural, civilized, educated, modern development of the state.

The functions of science as a social force in solving global problems of our time are very important. An example here is environmental issues. As you know, rapid scientific and technological progress is one of the main reasons for such dangerous phenomena for society and people as exhaustion natural resources planet, air, water, soil pollution. Consequently, science is one of the factors in those radical and far from harmless changes that are taking place today in the human environment. The scientists themselves do not hide this. Scientific data also plays a leading role in determining the scale and parameters of environmental hazards.

The growing role of science in public life gave rise to its special status in modern culture and new features of its interaction with various layers of public consciousness. In this regard, the problem of features is acutely raised scientific knowledge and its relationship with other forms of cognitive activity (art, ordinary consciousness etc.).

This problem, being philosophical in nature, at the same time has a large practical significance. Understanding the specifics of science is a necessary prerequisite for the introduction of scientific methods in the management of cultural processes. It is also necessary for constructing a theory of management of science itself in the conditions of scientific and technological revolution, since elucidation of the laws of scientific knowledge requires an analysis of its social conditionality and its interaction with various phenomena of spiritual and material culture.

As the main criteria for identifying the functions of science, it is necessary to take the main types of activities of scientists, their range of responsibilities and tasks, as well as areas of application and consumption scientific knowledge. Some of the main functions are listed below:

• 1) cognitive function is given by the very essence of science, the main purpose of which is precisely the knowledge of nature, society and man, the rational-theoretical comprehension of the world, the discovery of its laws and patterns, the explanation of the most various phenomena and processes, the implementation of predictive activities, that is, the production of new scientific knowledge;
• 2) ideological function, of course, is closely related to the first, its main goal is to develop scientific worldview and the scientific picture of the world, the study of the rationalistic aspects of man’s relationship to the world, the substantiation of the scientific worldview: scientists are called upon to develop worldview universals and value orientations, although, of course, philosophy plays a leading role in this matter;
• 3) production, the technical and technological function is designed to introduce innovations, innovations, new technologies, forms of organization, etc. into production. Researchers talk and write about the transformation of science into the direct productive force of society, about science as a special “shop” of production, classifying scientists as productive workers, and all this precisely characterizes this function of science;
• 4) cultural, the educational function lies mainly in the fact that science is a cultural phenomenon, a noticeable factor in the cultural development of people and education. Her achievements, ideas and recommendations have a noticeable impact on the entire educational process, on the content of curriculum plans, textbooks, on technology, forms and methods of teaching. Of course, the leading role here belongs pedagogical science. This function of science is carried out through cultural activities and politics, the education system and the media, the educational activities of scientists, etc. Let us not forget that science is a cultural phenomenon, has a corresponding orientation, and occupies an extremely important place in the sphere of spiritual production.

Throughout the history of human civilization, people have developed several ways of understanding and mastering the world around them. One of these important ways is science.

Science is a field of research activity aimed at producing new knowledge about nature, society and thinking and includes all the conditions and aspects of this production. It reflects the world in the form of concepts, hypotheses, theories, and various kinds of teachings. At the same time, it resorts to such methods of cognition as experience, modeling, thought experiments, etc. Science also includes scientists with their knowledge and abilities, qualifications and experience, with the division and cooperation of scientific labor; scientific institutions, experimental and laboratory equipment; methods of scientific research work, conceptual and categorical apparatus, a system of scientific information, as well as the entire amount of available knowledge that acts as either a prerequisite, or a means, or a result of scientific production. These results can also act as a form of social consciousness.

Science is creative activity to obtain new knowledge and the result of such activities.

The differences between science and other branches of culture were well demonstrated by A. A. Gorelov: “Science differs from mythology in that it strives not to explain the world as a whole, but to formulate laws of natural development that allow empirical verification.

Science differs from mysticism in that it strives not for merging with the object of research, but for ego-theoretical understanding and reproduction.

Science differs from religion in that reason and reliance on sensory reality have in it higher value than faith.

Science differs from philosophy in that its conclusions can be empirically verified and answer not the question “why?”, but the question “how?”, “in what way?”

Science differs from art in its rationality, which does not stop at the level of images, but is brought to the level of theories.

Science differs from ideology in that its truths are universally valid and do not depend on the interests of certain sections of society.

Science differs from technology in that it is aimed not at using acquired knowledge about the world to transform it, but at understanding the world.

Science differs from everyday consciousness in that it is a theoretical exploration of reality.”

Art, as a manifestation of aesthetic consciousness, reflects the world in the form of artistic images. Various genres of art - painting, theater, etc. - use their specific means and methods of aesthetic exploration of the world. Moral consciousness reflects the moral relations existing in society in the form of moral experiences and views, which are expressed in moral norms and principles of behavior, as well as in customs, traditions, etc. Social life is reflected in its own way in political and religious views. Science reflects the world in the form of concepts, hypotheses, theories, and various kinds of teachings. At the same time, she resorts to such methods of cognition as experience, modeling, thought experiment, etc.

Photo: Research Development and Engineering Command

So, science is “a form of spiritual activity of people aimed at producing knowledge about nature, society and knowledge itself, with the immediate goal of comprehending the truth and discovering objective laws based on a generalization of real facts in their interrelation.”

Today it is quite obvious that science is an integral part of the spiritual culture of society. With its emergence, unique spiritual products accumulate in the treasury of knowledge passed on from generation to generation, which play an increasingly important role in awareness, understanding and transformation of reality. At a certain stage human history science, like other previously emerged elements of culture, develops into a relatively independent form of social consciousness. This is due to the fact that a number of problems facing society can only be solved with the help of science.

Over the 300 years of its existence in countries affected by the scientific and technological revolution, experimental science has made it possible to raise the standard of living by 15-20 times. An unprecedented acceleration of scientific and technological progress, which led to the scientific and technological revolution, began in the world in the 50s. XX century Scientific and technological revolution brought to life qualitative transformations of the productive forces and sharply increased the internationalization of economic life. Fundamental changes in production were accompanied by shifts in world population. The main features of these shifts are: accelerated population growth, called the demographic “explosion,” widespread urbanization, changes in the structure of employment, and the development of ethnic processes.

Understanding the place and role of science as a sociocultural phenomenon is a complex process that is not completed today. It has been developed and is being developed long and hard, in the struggle of approaches, ideas, in the course of overcoming difficulties, contradictions, doubts and the emergence of new and new questions.

Modern science has become an industry of discovery, a powerful stimulator of technology development. Currently, the development of science and technology is increasingly characterized by a tendency towards their systemic unity: if the production process becomes the application of science, then science, on the contrary, becomes a factor, a function of the production process. As a result, a new quality of science began to take shape as one of the social forces of labor, namely, the direct productive force of society. Under these conditions, the development of industry increasingly shows a tendency towards a revolutionary disruption of the previous production process, towards a critical revision of the previous form of production development, associated with the desire to be based on existing “traditional” experience. Accelerated development of science, more deep knowledge laws and natural processes of nature, their use in the production process transforms the very foundation on which the production process was built until then, contributes to the emergence of qualitatively new forms of continuity in its development, and makes the transition to an intensive form of production development possible and necessary.

All devices of this kind have a single denominator - their operation is based on the laws of mechanics. These devices are considered from the standpoint of “linear” cause-and-effect goals and relationships, as well as strict determinism. Science is perceived through its ability to accurate, complete knowledge, to an unambiguous, non-variant type of thinking. Here, the transformative powers of man are limited primarily by the level of development of science and have their own determined scale.

The most important reason that has determined such a rapid development of mankind over the past 100-150 years is the combination of scientific and technical achievements in the production process. This served as the basis for a truly revolutionary breakdown of old, traditional forms industrial production and fundamental changes in the role and place of man, technology and science in the production process, a sharp increase in the scale of influence of intensive factors on the development of social production.

In modern science, the problem of growth and development of knowledge is central. Thus, K. Popper, in his concept of the growth of knowledge, proceeded from the fact that the latter is a developing integrity. The growth of knowledge, in his opinion, is not a cumulative process and not a simple collection of observations. This is the overthrow of theories, their replacement with better ones, the process of eliminating errors. This is Darwinian selection as a special case of global evolutionary processes. T. Kuhn sought to identify the general mechanism for the development of science as an integral unity of “normal science” and “non-cumulative leaps” (scientific revolutions). Art. Toulmin, in his evolutionary epistemology, considered the content of theories as a kind of “population of concepts,” and presented the general mechanism of their development as the interaction of intrascientific and extrascientific (social) factors, emphasizing, however, the decisive importance of rational components. According to I. Lakatos, the growth and development of science is a change in a number of continuously related research programs.

Modern society is permeated by the race for novelty. This has a significant effect. However, the development of civilization is a contradictory process. Here, progressive and regressive are two sides of the same coin. Thus, the type of scientific and technical culture that initially developed in Europe and then spread throughout the world greatly contributed to the development of human freedom. But at the same time it has flaws. Technological civilization is based on such a relationship between man and nature, in which nature is the object human activity, the object of exploitation, and unlimited. It is characterized by a type of development that can be expressed in one word - “more”.

The goal is to accumulate more and more material goods, wealth and, on this basis, solve all human problems, including social, cultural, etc. Technological civilization is characterized by the idea that nature is inexhaustible precisely as an object of its exploitation by man. Understanding Depth economic crisis put an end to this idea. Hence the ideological scientific and theoretical movement of recent decades, started by the Club of Rome and posing the problem of creating a new ecological culture.

The origins of the modern global crisis, primarily environmental, are found in the logic of the development of the fundamental foundations of civilization - its technical and technological basis. Consequently, the search for ways and means out of this crisis should be oriented accordingly. On the one hand, unprecedented technical opportunities opening up today can be used to optimize the natural environment. After all, this is precisely the contradictory nature of modern science: while it gives rise to environmental problems unprecedented in the past, it at the same time contains the potential for overcoming them.

Modern science covers a huge branch of knowledge - about 15 thousand disciplines, which are distant from each other to varying degrees. Modern science has a very complex organization. It is divided into many branches of knowledge.

Based on their distance from practice, sciences can be divided into two large types: fundamental, where there is no direct orientation to practice, and applied - the direct application of the results of scientific knowledge to solve production and socio-practical problems.

In order to more clearly imagine all the changes that science has undergone throughout its existence, let us imagine it in the form of a kind of “ray of light”. Let us imagine that science is a “ray of light” entering through the “window of knowledge.” Initially, it was a continuous “diffuse” stream of “light”, in which it was impossible to distinguish any of its constituent components. One could only guess and natural-philosophize about them. It was an undifferentiated science that was natural-philosophical in nature. Over time, future separate sciences began to emerge within this single, undivided science: mathematics, mechanics, astronomy, etc.

During the Renaissance, this “ray” seemed to be refracted through the “prism of analysis”, or the “prism of differentiation”, and seemed to split into separate fundamental sciences that emerged from the initially unified science.

The individual branches of scientific knowledge that emerged initially included their technical application. However, at the end of the 18th century. in the process of ongoing differentiation of sciences, applied knowledge began to branch off from theoretical knowledge. As a result, special technical sciences began to emerge as branches of scientific and technical knowledge.

By the middle of the 19th century. the process of one-sided differentiation of sciences has largely exhausted itself. Until this moment, in the scientific movement, the differentiation of sciences was undoubtedly dominant, and the linking of sciences (their integration) was carried out only through their external juxtaposition. By the end of the first half of the 19th century V. the situation began to change radically. The tendency towards integration of sciences becomes dominant, and this integration itself begins to be carried out through their ongoing differentiation. In other words, the linking of sciences occurs due to the emergence of new sciences of a transitional, or intermediate, nature. These new sciences build bridges, as it were, between previously established fundamental sciences.

Research ability long time work within certain predetermined frameworks outlined by fundamental scientific discoveries, has become an important element of the logic of the development of science in the concept of T. Kuhn. He introduced a fundamentally new concept into the methodology - “paradigm”. The literal meaning of this word is pattern. It records the existence of a special way of organizing knowledge, implying a certain set of prescriptions that determine the nature of the vision of the world, and therefore influence the choice of directions for research. The paradigm also contains generally accepted models for solving specific problems. Paradigmatic knowledge is not actually a “pure” theory (although, as a rule, one or another fundamental theory serves as its core), since it does not directly perform an explanatory function. It provides a certain frame of reference, i.e. is a precondition and prerequisite for the construction and substantiation of various theories.

Being essentially a metatheoretical formation, a paradigm determines the spirit and style of scientific research. According to T. Kuhn, a paradigm consists of universally recognized scientific achievements, which over a certain period of time provide a model for posing problems and their solutions to the scientific community.” Its content is reflected in textbooks, in the fundamental works of major scientists, and the main ideas penetrate into the mass consciousness. Recognized by the scientific community, the paradigm for many years determines the range of problems that attract the attention of scientists, and is, as it were, an official confirmation of the true “scientific nature” of their work. T. Kuhn considered, for example, Aristotelian dynamics, Ptolemaic astronomy, Newtonian mechanics, etc. to be paradigms in the history of science. The development and increment of scientific knowledge within, within the framework of such a paradigm, is called “normal science.” A paradigm shift is nothing more than a scientific revolution. A clear example is the change from classical physics (Newtonian) to relativistic (Einsteinian).

The decisive novelty of T. Kuhn's concept was the idea that the change of paradigms in the development of science is not uniquely determined, or, as they say now, is not linear. The development of science, the growth of scientific knowledge cannot, for example, be imagined in the form of a tree (the knowledge of good and evil) stretching straight upward, towards the sun. It is rather similar to the development of a cactus, the growth of which can begin from any point on its surface and continue in any direction. And where, on which side of our scientific “cactus” the “growth point” of a new paradigm will suddenly appear is fundamentally unpredictable! And not because this process is arbitrary or accidental, but because at each critical moment of transition from one state to another there are several possible continuations. Which point out of many possible ones will “grow” depends on the combination of circumstances. Thus, the logic of the development of science contains a pattern, but this pattern is “chosen” by chance from a number of other, no less regular possibilities. It follows from this that the quantum relativistic picture of the world that we are now familiar with could be different, but probably no less logical and consistent.



1.1.The concept of science.

1.2.Science and philosophy.

1.3.Modern science. Basic concepts.

1.4.The role of science in modern society.

1.1. Science concept

The main form of human knowledge is science. Science these days is becoming an increasingly significant and essential component of the reality that surrounds us and in which we, one way or another, must navigate, live and act. A philosophical vision of the world presupposes fairly definite ideas about what science is, how it works and how it develops, what it can do and what it allows us to hope for, and what is inaccessible to it. From the philosophers of the past we can find many valuable insights and tips useful for orientation in a world where the role of science is so important. They, however, were unaware of the real, practical experience of the massive and even dramatic impact of scientific and technological achievements on the daily existence of a person, which we have to comprehend today.

Today there is no unambiguous definition of science. There are more than 150 of them in various literary sources. One of these definitions is interpreted as follows: “Science is a form of spiritual activity of people aimed at producing knowledge about nature, society and knowledge itself, with the immediate goal of comprehending the truth and discovering objective laws based on the generalization of real facts in their interrelation."

Another definition is also widespread: “Science is both a creative activity to obtain new knowledge, and the result of such activity, knowledge brought into an integral system based on certain principles and the process of their production.”

V.A. Kanke in his book “Philosophy. Historical and Systematic Course” gave the following definition: “Science is the human activity of developing, systematizing and testing knowledge. Not all knowledge is scientific, but only well-tested and substantiated.”

But, in addition to many definitions of science, there are also many perceptions of it. Many people understood science in their own way, believing that their perception was the only and correct definition. Consequently, the pursuit of science has become relevant not only in our time - its origins begin in quite ancient times. Considering science in its historical development, one can find that as the type of culture changes and during the transition from one socio-economic formation to another, the standards for presenting scientific knowledge, the ways of seeing reality, the style of thinking, which are formed in the context of culture and are influenced by the most various sociocultural factors.

The prerequisites for the emergence of science appeared in countries Ancient East: in Egypt, Babylon, India, China. The achievements of Eastern civilization were adopted and processed into a coherent theoretical system of Ancient Greece, where thinkers specially involved in science appeared. Among them, one can single out such an outstanding scientist as Aristotle. From the point of view of great scientists, science was viewed as a system of knowledge, a special form of social consciousness.

Aristotle(384-322 BC) - ancient Greek scientist, founder of the science of logic and a number of branches of special knowledge, born in Stagira ( east coast Holkidiki Peninsula); He received his education in Athens, at the school of Plato. He criticized Plato's concept of being. Aristotle saw Plato's mistake in that he attributed independent existence to ideas, isolating and separating them from the sensory world, which is characterized by movement and change.

The assimilation by the Greeks of scientific and philosophical concepts developed in the countries of the East - in Babylon, Iran, Egypt, Phenicia - had a great influence on the development of science. The influence of Babylonian science was especially great - mathematics, astronomy, geography, and systems of measures. Cosmology, the calendar, elements of geometry and algebra were borrowed by the Greeks from their predecessors and neighbors in the East.

In Ancient Greece, a lot of time and effort was devoted to science and scientific research, and it is not surprising that it was here that more and more new scientific achievements appeared. Astronomical, mathematical, physical and biological concepts and guesses made it possible to construct the first simple scientific instruments (gnomon, sundial, model of the celestial sphere and much more), to predict astronomical and meteorological phenomena. Collected and independently acquired knowledge became not only the basis practical action and application, but also elements of a holistic worldview.

In the Middle Ages, the main scholars of science were considered to be the scholastics. They were interested not so much in the objects themselves as in the comparison of opinions and reasoning about these objects. Nevertheless, the achievements of scholastic scholarship should not be diminished - in such debates the theoretical foundation of science, the ability to transform facts into concepts, and logically and strictly reason based on a few general provisions were honed.

However, logical arguments alone were not enough, and experience was proclaimed as the basis for preference. “The Middle Ages,” wrote F. Engels, “were looked at as a simple break in the course of history caused by thousands of years of general barbarism. No one paid attention to the great successes made during the Middle Ages: the expansion of the cultural area of ​​Europe, the formation of great viable nations, enormous technical successes of the 14th and 15th centuries.

Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, William Ockham declared things, objects, objects as a source of knowledge. Despite the significant differences in the philosophical concepts of these thinkers, they all outline a similar scheme for obtaining true knowledge.

The line of knowledge, which Roger Bacon called experimental, comes from things that affect the senses.

1.2. Science and philosophy

Science has always been connected with philosophy, although this connection was not always realized, and sometimes took ugly forms - as, for example, in our country during the 1920-1950s. The interaction of philosophy and science is clearly visible in the works of many outstanding naturalists. It is especially characteristic of turning points, when a fundamentally new scientific vision was created. One can recall, say, the “Rules of Inference in Physics”, developed by the great I. Newton, which laid the methodological foundation of classical science and became the standard of the scientific method in physical and mathematical science for a century to come. The creators of non-classical science - A. Einstein and N. Bohr, and in Russia - V.I. also paid significant attention to philosophical problems. Vernadsky, who in his philosophical reflections anticipated a number of features of the scientific method and the scientific picture of the world of our days.

Highly appreciating the role of philosophical thought in science, V.I. Vernadsky, however, drew a line between them, well understanding that each of these spheres of human culture has its own specifics. Ignoring this autonomy of scientific activity, gross interference in scientific research by non-scientific factors, and even in a dogmatized form, led to serious consequences. Examples are well known. The fate of many outstanding scientists turned out to be tragic; everyone remembers the names of N.I. Vavilova, N.K. Koltsova and others. Entire directions were repressed scientific research(genetics, cybernetics, cosmology, etc.). Incompetent interference in science has repeatedly created obstacles to free scientific research. We must not forget the attempts of certain natural scientists to defend their untenable concepts with the help of pseudo-philosophical rhetoric. But they do not cast a shadow on the very idea of ​​the connection between science and natural science, the collaboration of specialists in various fields of science with philosophers. Dogmatic distortions of the role of philosophy in knowledge, committed in the era of so-called ideologized science, were decisively condemned at the First Meeting on Philosophical Issues modern natural science, held in 1958. The meeting dealt a tangible blow to ignorant interpretations of the achievements of modern science, which were constructed only on quotations from authoritative philosophical texts at the time, and seriously undermined the inflated reputations of the authors of such interpretations. But it took many more years of intensive and difficult work, which had to be carried out under conditions of very severe ideological pressure, for the so-called “cold war” between philosophers and specialists in the field of natural, social, and technical sciences to end and cooperation between them to begin to develop.

Modern science, which has a number of features that qualitatively distinguish it from the science of even the recent past, also needs philosophical understanding. Speaking about these features, one should bear in mind not only research activity in itself, but also its role as the intellectual foundation of technological progress, which is rapidly changing the modern world, as well as the social consequences of modern science.

Let us note, firstly, the following points in the changing image of science today:

a) of course, putting forward fundamentally new ideas in science remains the task of relatively few of the most prominent scientists who manage to look beyond the “horizons” of knowledge, and often significantly expand them. But nevertheless, for scientific knowledge as a whole, collective forms of activity, carried out, as philosophers put it, by “scientific communities,” are becoming more and more characteristic. Science is increasingly becoming not just a system of abstract knowledge about the world, but also one of the manifestations of human activity, which has taken the form of a special social institution. Studying social aspects natural, social, technical sciences in connection with the problem of scientific creativity is an interesting, still largely open problem;

b) methods based on new technologies, as well as new mathematical methods, which seriously change the previous methodology of scientific knowledge, are increasingly penetrating into modern science; therefore, philosophical adjustments are required in this regard. A fundamentally new method of research has become, for example, a computational experiment, which is now widely used. What is its cognitive role in science? What are the specific features of this method? How does it influence the organization of science? All this is of great interest;

c) the sphere of scientific knowledge is rapidly expanding, including previously inaccessible objects both in the microworld, including the finest mechanisms of living things, and on a macroscopic scale. But no less important is that modern science has moved on to the study of objects of a fundamentally new type - highly complex, self-organizing systems. One of these objects is the biosphere. But the Universe can also be considered, in a certain sense, as such a system;

d) one more characteristic feature modern science is that it has moved to comprehensive research man using the methods of various sciences. The unification of the foundations of these methods is unthinkable without philosophy;

e) significant changes occur in the system of scientific knowledge. It is becoming more and more complex, the knowledge of different sciences intersects, mutually complementing each other in solving key problems of modern science. It is of interest to build models of the dynamics of scientific knowledge, identify the main factors influencing its growth, clarify the role of philosophy in the progress of knowledge in various fields studying the world and man. All this is also serious problems, the solution of which is unthinkable without philosophy.

Secondly, the analysis of the phenomenon of science should be carried out taking into account the enormous role it plays in modern world. Science influences all aspects of life, both of society as a whole and of individuals. The achievements of modern science are refracted in one way or another in all spheres of culture. Science provides unprecedented technological progress, creating conditions for improving the level and quality of life. It also acts as a socio-political factor: a state that has developed science and, on the basis of this, creates advanced technologies, provides itself and more weight in the international community.

Thirdly, some dangers associated with the possible use of the achievements of modern science were quickly discovered. For example, modern biology studies the subtle mechanisms of heredity, and physiology has penetrated so deeply into the structure of the brain that it turns out to be possible to effectively influence human consciousness and behavior. Today, quite significant negative consequences of the uncontrolled spread of advanced technologies have become obvious, which indirectly even creates a threat to the very survival of humanity. Similar threats manifest themselves, for example, in some global problems - resource depletion, environmental pollution, the threat of genetic degeneration of humanity, etc.

The named moments, which characterize a sharp increase in the impact of science on technology, society and nature, force us to analyze not only the cognitive side of scientific research, as was the case before, but also the “human” dimension of science.

From our point of view, it now seems very important to conduct a detailed analysis of all the noted aspects of the phenomenon of science as a whole, i.e. in the unity of its cognitive and human aspects. The fact is that the changes currently taking place in the image and status of science are causing its growing separation from everyday consciousness. As compensation, we have a “lush” flourishing of all kinds of pseudosciences, more understandable to ordinary consciousness, but having absolutely nothing to do with science. In modern conditions, pseudoscience is acquiring such power in the minds of certain layers of people (including sometimes scientists) that it begins to pose a danger to the healthy development of science itself. That is why a deep analysis of the foundations of the scientific method, its differences from the methods of reasoning used by pseudoscience, is necessary.

Further, there is an urgent need to continue the study of science in its connection with the progress of modern technology and the change in its social role. Many of those who do not at all refuse to use the achievements of science in their daily lives portray scientific and technological progress as a kind of “monster” that suppresses and enslaves people, i.e. as an unconditional "evil". Now, as if from a cornucopia, accusations are pouring in against not only scientific and technological progress, but also science itself. And although criticism largely misses the mark, science is accused of “sins” of which it is not so much itself that is guilty as the system of institutions within which it operates and develops - critics of science are right about one thing: in an era when all It was clearly revealed that the development of science can lead to socially negative consequences; the scientist’s orientation should be not only to obtain objectively true, but also knowledge useful to people. And therefore, the question of the social responsibility of a scientist for the possible use of his discoveries becomes of great relevance.

Modern scientific and technological development thus raises questions about the ethics of science in new ways. Until recently, many were convinced that the ethics of science consists in the implementation of basic norms - the conditions for achieving the objectivity of knowledge: impartiality and integrity in theoretical research, high professionalism, cleanliness of the experiment. It was believed that scientific results obtained under these conditions would certainly benefit people. It has now become obvious that following only traditional ethical standards of scientific activity does not always lead to the desired goal. This does not mean, however, that traditional ethical regulations fade into the background. They still dominate research activity. And the point is not only that their observance is a necessary condition for the preservation of science as a special type of culture, which plays no less important role in human society than humanitarian culture. The fact is that only the strictest adherence to ethical standards such as impartiality and impartiality in conducting scientific research can ensure the best fulfillment of ethical criteria. Continuing the thought of Socrates, we can say that only objective knowledge of the laws of nature can make it possible to use the achievements of science for the benefit of man.

1.3. Modern science. Basic Concepts

The beginnings of modern science were laid in Europe in the period of the 15th-17th centuries. Being a special form of knowledge of the world and its transformation, science has formed an understanding of what the world, nature is, and how a person can and should relate to them. It is quite obvious that the scientific view of the world could establish itself in society only because it was already ready to accept this view as something self-evident. Consequently, during the period of destruction of the system of feudal production in society, a new, compared to the medieval, view of the world and nature, which in its essence coincides with the scientific one, is formed.

Modern science in many respects is significantly, radically different from the science that existed a century or half a century ago. Its entire appearance and the nature of its relationships with society have changed.

It should be noted that there are still three main concepts of science: science as knowledge, science as activity, science as a social institution. Modern science is an organic unity of these three points. Here, activity is its basis, a kind of “substance”, knowledge is a system-forming factor, and a social institution is a way of uniting scientists and organizing their joint activities. These three points constitute the complete definition of modern science.

The first concept is science as knowledge- with a centuries-old tradition, it is considered as a special form of social consciousness and represents a certain system of knowledge. This is how Aristotle and Kant understood science. For a long time, such an understanding was almost the only one.

The logical-gnoseological interpretation of science is determined both by socio-historical conditions and by the level of development of science itself. In fact, those aspects of science that emerged in the past, in the early stages of its existence, when scientific knowledge was presented as the fruit of purely spiritual efforts of a thinking individual, and the social determination of scientific activity could not yet be discovered with sufficient completeness, were absolutized here.

This concept alone cannot reveal the full definition of modern science. If science is considered only as a system of knowledge, then some shortcomings arise. But the thing is that this direction in science (reliance only on reliable verified facts and knowledge) is rather monotonous and limited. Its social nature, creators, and material and technical base elude researchers; opportunities for a deeper and more comprehensive study of the specifics, structure, place, social role and functions of science are limited. All this led to the need to develop a different concept of science, to intensify the study of the activity and social aspects of this social phenomenon.

If we consider science as an activity, then today its functions seem to us not only the most obvious, but also the most primary and original. And this is understandable, given the unprecedented scale and pace of modern scientific and technological progress, the results of which are noticeably manifested in all sectors of life and in all spheres of human activity. For example, recently foreign scientists put forward one rather strong and sharp hypothesis about the reason for people’s belief in God. After many studies, they came to the conclusion that in the structure of human DNA there is a gene that gives various commands to the brain about the existence of God.

An important aspect of transforming science into a direct productive force is the creation and strengthening of permanent channels for the practical use of scientific knowledge, the emergence of such branches of activity as applied research and development, the creation of networks of scientific and technical information, etc. All this entails significant consequences for science , and for practice.

However, when viewed historically, the picture appears in a different light. The process of transforming science into a direct productive force was first recorded and analyzed by K. Marx in the middle of the 19th century, when the synthesis of science and production technology was not so much a reality as a prospect.

In the 50-60s. XX century works began to appear in which an activity-based approach to science was developed, as a result of which it began to be interpreted not only and not so much as knowledge in itself, but primarily as a special sphere of professionally specialized activity, peculiar appearance spiritual production. Somewhat later, science began to be understood as a social institution.

Science as a social institution is a social way of organizing the joint activities of scientists, who are a special socio-professional group, a defined community.

The institutionalization of science is achieved through known forms of organization, specific institutions, traditions, norms, values, ideals, etc.

The purpose and purpose of science as a social institution is the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge, the development of research tools and methods, the reproduction of scientists and ensuring that they fulfill their social functions

During the period of the formation of science as a social institution, the material prerequisites matured, the necessary intellectual climate for this was created, and an appropriate system of thinking was developed. Of course, scientific knowledge was not isolated from rapidly developing technology even then, but the connection between them was one-sided. Some problems that arose during the development of technology became the subject of scientific research and even gave rise to new scientific disciplines. This was the case, for example, with hydraulics and thermodynamics. Science itself gave little to practical activities - industry, agriculture, medicine. And the point was not only that practice itself, as a rule, was not able, but felt the need to rely on the achievements of science or at least simply systematically take them into account.

Today, in the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution, science is increasingly revealing another concept: it acts as a social force. This is most clearly manifested in those numerous situations today when data and scientific methods are used to develop large-scale plans and programs for social and economic development. When drawing up each such program, which, as a rule, determines the goals of the activities of many enterprises, institutions and organizations, the direct participation of scientists as carriers of special knowledge and methods from different fields. It is also important that, due to the complex nature of such plans and programs, their development and implementation involve the interaction of social, natural and technical sciences.

1.4. The role of science in modern society

The 20th century became the century of a victorious scientific revolution. Scientific and technological progress has accelerated in all developed countries. Gradually, there was an increasing increase in the knowledge intensity of products. Technology was changing production methods. By the middle of the 20th century. The factory method of production became dominant. In the second half of the 20th century. Automation has become widespread. By the end of the 20th century. High technologies developed and the transition to an information economy continued. All this happened thanks to the development of science and technology. This had several consequences. Firstly, demands on employees have increased. They began to be required to have greater knowledge, as well as an understanding of new technological processes. Secondly, the share of mental workers and scientists has increased, i.e. people whose work requires deep scientific knowledge. Thirdly, the growth in well-being caused by scientific and technical progress and the solution of many pressing problems of society gave rise to the belief of the broad masses in the ability of science to solve the problems of mankind and improve the quality of life. This new faith was reflected in many areas of culture and social thought. Achievements such as space exploration, the creation of nuclear energy, and the first successes in the field of robotics gave rise to a belief in the inevitability of scientific, technological and social progress, and raised the hope of a quick solution to problems such as hunger, disease, etc.

And today we can say that science in modern society plays an important role in many sectors and spheres of people’s lives. And, undoubtedly, the level of development of science can serve as one of the main indicators of the economic, cultural, civilized, educated, modern development of society.

The functions of science as a social force in solving global problems of our time are very important. An example here is environmental issues. As is known, rapid scientific and technological progress is one of the main causes of such dangerous phenomena for society and people as the depletion of the planet’s natural resources, air, water, and soil pollution. Consequently, science is one of the factors in those radical and far from harmless changes that are taking place today in the human environment. The scientists themselves do not hide this. Scientific data also plays a leading role in determining the scale and parameters of environmental hazards.

The growing role of science in public life has given rise to its special status in modern culture and new features of its interaction with various layers of public consciousness. In this regard, the problem of the characteristics of scientific knowledge and its relationship with other forms of cognitive activity (art, everyday consciousness, etc.) is acutely raised.

This problem, being philosophical in nature, at the same time has great practical significance. Understanding the specifics of science is a necessary prerequisite for the introduction of scientific methods in the management of cultural processes. It is also necessary for constructing a theory of management of science itself in the conditions of scientific and technical progress, since elucidation of the laws of scientific knowledge requires an analysis of its social conditionality and its interaction with various phenomena of spiritual and material culture.

As the main criteria for identifying the functions of science, it is necessary to take into account the main types of activities of scientists, their range of responsibilities and tasks, as well as the areas of application and consumption of scientific knowledge. Some main features are listed below:

1) the cognitive function is given by the very essence of science, the main purpose of which is precisely the knowledge of nature, society and man, the rational and theoretical comprehension of the world, the discovery of its laws and patterns, the explanation of a wide variety of phenomena and processes, the implementation of predictive activities, i.e. production new scientific knowledge;

2) the worldview function is, of course, closely related to the first, its main goal is to develop a scientific worldview and a scientific picture of the world, study the rationalistic aspects of man’s relationship to the world, substantiate the scientific worldview: scientists are called upon to develop worldview universals and value orientations, although, of course, the leading Philosophy plays a role in this;

3) the production, technical and technological function is designed to introduce innovations, innovations, new technologies, forms of organization, etc. into production. Researchers talk and write about the transformation of science into a direct productive force of society, about science as a special “shop” of production, classifying scientists as productive workers, and all this precisely characterizes this function of science;

4) the cultural, educational function lies mainly in the fact that science is a cultural phenomenon, a noticeable factor in the cultural development of people and education. Its achievements, ideas and recommendations have a noticeable impact on the entire educational process, on the content of programs, plans, textbooks, on technology, forms and methods of teaching. Of course, the leading role here belongs to pedagogical science. This function of science is carried out through cultural activities, politics, the education system and the media, the educational activities of scientists, etc. Let us not forget that science is a cultural phenomenon, has an appropriate orientation, and occupies an extremely important place in the sphere of spiritual production.

So, we have considered such an important topic as “Science and its role in modern society.” Expanding on the topic, we showed that science was relevant in ancient times, and it is still relevant today. And, undoubtedly, science will be relevant in the future.

They say that if there were no I.S. Bach, the world would never have heard the music. But if A. Einstein had not been born, then the theory of relativity would sooner or later be discovered by some scientist. F. Bacon's famous aphorism: “Knowledge is power” is more relevant today than ever. It will be relevant in the foreseeable future, when humanity lives in conditions of the so-called information society, where the main factor of social development will be the production and use of knowledge, scientific, technical and other information. The increasing role of knowledge (and, to an even greater extent, methods of obtaining it) in the life of society must inevitably be accompanied by the strengthening of sciences that specifically analyze knowledge, cognition and research methods.

Test questions and assignments

1. What is science?

2. What is the role of science in shaping the picture of the world?

3. What is the role of science in modern society?

4. What basic concepts of modern science do you know?

5. What is the main social role of science in modern society?

6. What main functions of science do you know? What is their purpose?

What is science? What is it for humanity? Everyone asks themselves such questions at least once in their life. Alexander Herzen said: “Science is power, it reveals the relationships of things, their laws and interactions.” But how strong is modern science? What are its capabilities?

Today we can say that science in modern society plays an important role in many industries and spheres of people’s lives. The level of development of science is one of the main indicators of the development of society, and it is also an indicator of the modern development of the state. Everything around a person is an achievement of science.

Modern science has amazing capabilities. Back in 1904, Nikola Tesla claimed that one day a person would be able to send his thoughts to the farthest distances. A century later this became possible. The informatization of society has reached such a high level that now a person can find almost any information on the Internet. Every home and office now has both a computer and the Internet. They have become so commonplace that people forget about the dangers associated with their use. A computer is a source of several types of radiation and fields. Cathode ray tube monitors desktop computers and laptops are created ionizing radiation. Like any other electrical device, a computer produces electromagnetic radiation. All devices and auxiliary electrical equipment included in the computer form a complex electromagnetic field. Majority modern research by influence electromagnetic radiation they say it is harmful to health.

However, science at the present stage is trying to solve such problems by creating new branches within the structure of the scientific community. These problems are explored by the science of ergonomics - a science that studies humans in interaction with computers and other machines. Ergonomics deals with the comprehensive study labor activity human and therefore unites many scientific disciplines: physiology, occupational hygiene, psychology, etc. Scientists strive to find ways to reduce the load on the human body associated with working on a computer, and take part in the creation of perfect and safe technology.

Thanks to the development of medicine, biology, genetics, embryology, humanity was able to find an “antidote” to many ailments. Our ancestors could not imagine that in the 21st century it would become possible to grow new human organs to replace them with those that do not function in the body of patients.

Chemistry and physics do not stand still. These sciences are developing in two directions - as fundamental sciences (creation and study theoretical foundations physical and chemical knowledge) and as applied sciences (solving practical problems of application in various spheres of people’s lives).

In the 21st century, humanity has occupied almost all space globe. We live in different countries, at different latitudes, in different locations, and therefore, each country has its own characteristics natural conditions, climate. Many countries are constantly under threat from natural disasters. Unfortunately, the limited nature of natural resources is making itself felt more and more strongly.

That's why special meaning acquire such sciences as geography, geology, energy and soil science. These sciences from different branches of knowledge are trying to warn society against natural disasters, find alternative sources of energy and minerals that humanity needs daily.

In modern times, the well-being of countries directly depends on the state of their sphere of science. In my opinion, only those countries that pay serious attention to scientific research, successfully master the latest high-tech technologies, and provide sufficiently powerful financial, information, production, and intellectual means for this, lead in the modern political-economic race and occupy leading positions on the world stage.

Managing modern society without science is impossible. At the present stage of development, science is changing social structure society. Throughout the world, there is a tendency for the number of people employed in mental labor to increase and the number of people employed in unskilled physical labor to decrease.

Science influences people directly through education. The study of scientific works and achievements contributes to the development of children, their formation as an educated person. The modern educational process is based on a scientific picture of the world, and the education sector in the Russian Federation is based on scientifically recommended methods.

Science, exerting a directed influence on educational process and to change the structure of education, applies to all its components: goals, objectives, principles, forms and methods, means, results.

The formation of a scientific worldview also occurs thanks to the education system, which plays a significant role in the formation of personality. Modern politics in the field of education and science is aimed at preparing and using the huge potential of specialists and bachelors with higher education. This is evidenced by the fact that the volume of scientific activity, the growth of scientific information, discoveries, the number of researchers, graduate students, and associate professors doubles on average approximately every 5-10 years.

Today, teachers are trying to convey the basics of science to children through the global network - the Internet. Preference is beginning to be given to “invisible colleges” distance learning, virtual institutions. Live direct communication between teacher and student is lost. The role of the teacher is diminishing, there is no upbringing of children by living example, and in this I only see negative consequences for future generations.

The 20th century was remarkable in terms of technological development. Without any exaggeration, we can say that in 100 years no less discoveries have been made than in the entire previous history of mankind. The contribution that science made in the twentieth century to the development of mankind is enormous. But if you add up the funds that humanity has spent on fundamental scientific research throughout its history, the amount will be incomparable with any budget developed country. States are losing a huge amount of funds that could be used to fight hunger and disease, and other problems facing heads of state.

The latest scientific developments, in addition to undoubted benefits, also carry potential dangers. Producing huge amounts of energy, thermal power plants emit millions of tons of ash and gases into the atmosphere, polluting environment and destructive ozone layer planets. Accidents at nuclear power plants and enterprises using radioactive materials lead to catastrophic consequences. One such example is the disaster at Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Genetically modified products, which are increasingly being sold on store shelves, can, in principle, prove dangerous to humans. Harmoniously integrating technology and scientific achievements into natural processes is one of the urgent tasks of scientists of the coming century. Only by solving this difficult problem can we ensure not just survival, but a decent life for future generations.

Science is usually viewed as a highly specialized activity for the production of objective knowledge about the world, including man himself. But is it ethical to conduct scientific research, even extremely interesting research, the fruits of which may become dangerous to people?

Of course, science is one of the most important forms of culture in society, and its development is the most important factor in the renewal of all spheres of human life. Modern science shapes a person’s worldview, is closely connected with technological progress, helps create forecasts for the development of society and develop programs, and solve problems facing humanity. But is science always safe for humanity? I believe that this issue will forever remain unresolved.

student of group 251, specialty "Customs".