A system is ideal when it is not there, but its function is fulfilled. Religion has its own idea of ideality and systemicity, science has its own. It is difficult to understand exactly how the idea of the authors of biblical works was formed, but the logic is clearly traced.
Orientation of only ten digits and the decimal system of calculus does not give reason to science to say that it is a system of objective, interconnected, fully functional knowledge. But science is a practical system of knowledge.
Problems of cognition of reality
In the context of natural phenomena and the dynamics of the development of scientific and technological progress, it is not difficult to characterize science as a special system of knowledge.
The famous and endless Pi, the dispute between quanta and waves, an explicit understanding and a working description of the field in the complete absence of the ability to control gravity - all this is true, but there are a huge number of solved problems and great discoveries.
On the one hand, there is a foundation: a physical theory, which is a rigorous system of phenomena, research methods, and methods for solving problems. On the other hand, there are many sciences and theories that are unique in subject, methods of perceiving reality and their subject.
Physical theory from ancient times, even before it was recognized by science, was the basis and solid knowledge of continuous knowledge of reality.
Life always develops according to the objective laws of the universe. No matter what a person or creator fantasizes about himself, no one will be given to neglect objective processes in time and space and will never be given. Nature is not a city administration, police or tax. She will not even take into account the views of academics and presidents.
Science can be described as a special system of knowledge on the simple basis that it initially began with the accumulation of real facts, observation of reality and then proceeded to their generalization, reproduction and use in decision-making.
Intelligence (active knowledge) always develops through three stages:
- situational;
- reproducing;
- contextual.
But to the fourth - the transformational one, he as usual does not reach. Physics first developed as a science, although at first it did not insist on it, but it was, is and will be an ideal tool for understanding the world and a fundamental tool for making the right decisions.
The formation of sciences in all areas of knowledge always began with accumulation - various situations, phenomena, processes were observed, everything was remembered, described, discussed and carefully stored.
Each science at the right moment in time, when enough homogeneous information was accumulated, proceeded to its generalization (reproduction). The process always affected not only homogeneous phenomena, but also transferred to other areas of knowledge, to other sciences.
The contextual stage, in fact, is an action by analogy. Having a large arsenal of facts, a well-structured system of generalizations, it is easy to draw analogies and solve pressing problems.
The aforesaid can not be believed and science can be considered a system of knowledge, but in this case the adjective “objective” cannot be used. Many sciences, theories, and observation hypotheses have real problems with objectivity.
Another scientific decision, even supported by the author’s text “on the basis of practical research”, has nothing to do with truth and objectivity.
Systemic knowledge of reality
Science has always been oriented toward systemic nature. The requirement of objectivity was absolutely normally accepted by all researchers. A clear distinction between scientific knowledge and everyday life has always been present.
The world around is not so complicated, and it is easy to disassemble it on the shelves. But natural phenomena, the results of technological progress and the development of sciences as a whole are too multifaceted, overlap and intersect in the most unpredictable way.
How do you describe, explain or characterize science as a special system of knowledge? A brief definition is as follows. This is not a requirement of objectivity. This is information about the existing knowledge system. The experience accumulated by mankind is great and deserves respect.
There are disagreements among scientists, there are obvious absurdities in the results of research, but nevertheless it is impossible to refuse systematicity in science:
- use of knowledge and verification of experience;
- classification of phenomena, decision processes and results;
- objectivity to the extent possible and affordable;
- action by analogy, taking into account external influence and other provisions are axiomatic in nature and are strictly observed by all scientists and researchers.
Science as a system of knowledge has developed in all known areas of the development of intelligence and in the areas of practical use of created solutions. There are still plenty of white spots in science, but this is no reason to rest on our laurels.
It is interesting to see how the atom is structured, how the electron flies around it, and whether the DNA is actually twisted in this way, as geneticists say. But this level of development of science provides answers to those questions that need to be addressed, and the results of these decisions work.
Nuclear energy provides electricity, cars carry goods and passengers, planes fly, and space satellites help to build accurate maps of the area.
Kettle, steam locomotive and nuclear power plant
Science as a system of knowledge exists, and this is indisputable. Steam energy was not the first driving force for machines, but was quickly squeezed out by internal combustion engines.
You can use the kettle as a source of steam in nature camping and receive electricity. But it’s rather strange to use atomic energy to spin a turbine wheel. A hydroelectric power plant is one thing: a turbine is driven by water, which flows by itself. The problem is only with the environment where a person puts a dam.
A different opinion arises when the energy of an atom turns into steam. How to characterize science: as a special system of knowledge, as different aspects of a combined solution, or as a temporary phenomenon? There is a high qualification of scientists, original technical solutions. But the fact itself: the energy of the atom is transformed into steam energy and only then into electricity.
Indeed, for so long a person has gone to an understanding of atom and atomic energy, but turning it into steam is obviously not the most brilliant and scientific solution.
Flight to Mars, or how the moon flies
Whatever the modern rocket, its useful part, which is flying somewhere, is negligible compared to the part in which the fuel is located.
If we characterize science as a special system of knowledge in the context of the ratio of payload to size, cost, weight and size of a delivery vehicle, everything is in favor of many sciences, inventions, patents and discoveries. But is the price of overcoming the gravitational field too high?
A peaceful atom provides electricity, a rocket flies anywhere, but such scientific solutions are too expensive. Here the question legitimately arises: why overcome what should be used?
The physics of large bodies, the planet Earth, the Moon, Mars and the energy of the Sun are not the physics of small bodies, but a mass of gravitational fields acts on a rocket, on a person and on everything that surrounds us.
On Earth there are ebbs and flows. If science has already proved the connection of the ebbs and flows with the Moon, then water “senses” the Moon! This means that some influence goes to both man and rocket, which can be sent to the moon, Mars or to another planet. Perhaps only the useful part of the rocket should go into flight, and it does not need to take a couple of fuel tanks with it on the road.
Physics has long discovered the phenomenon of resonance. There is a resonance in ordinary mechanics, and it is usually leveled (often here it is destructive), and in electrical engineering this phenomenon is often used and is of obvious benefit.
How is the electromagnetic field different from the gravitational? It is doubtful that nature in the latter case has chosen a more extravagant path. Perhaps the field is not waves and quanta, but something third, which allows a more systematic and objective description of it, its use?
Public consciousness and physics of phenomena
Trying to characterize science as a special system of knowledge, social science should not be ignored. It is clear that religion has its own logic, science has its own. It is impossible to refuse systematic religion, and even less so for science. Science is a unique system of knowledge, great discoveries and significant decisions.
But public consciousness is a unique phenomenon in relation to science: what is a “spiritual position”, what is a “spiritual production” and the abstract concept of a “social institution”. Where is there, if not logic, then a decent justification?
To call something an “institution” has long been in the habit of public consciousness:
- institute of law;
- power institute;
- institute of marriage and family, etc.
It is believed that the concept of "institution" hides a combination of general rules, norms, principles, statuses. Such a union is permissible, but behind it, in fact, is a different circumstance.
Science is not production, much less spiritual production. Man is not a factory for the production of descriptions of physical phenomena. It is a physical phenomenon in itself, which until now cannot understand itself.
Anatomy and medicine have done a lot to preserve human health, but the functioning of the human body has not been studied. What is is only the beginning.
Philosophy from the moment of birth explores being and fantasizes on many social topics. Philosophy also made attempts to characterize science as a special system of knowledge. But she clearly understands this in her own way: I am the queen of all sciences and only I can describe myself as a science and all other sciences, as they really are.
What can I say - the school subject is social studies. Philosophy on some issues has too much self-esteem, but objectivity is underestimated. There are certain developments, there are achievements of progress, there are discoveries and practical developments.
The scientific consciousness is not upset by such an attitude of self on the part of public consciousness. Every new achievement of science and technology confidently rests with the public subconscious, but little changes in this confrontation.
It is hard to imagine how they used to live without zippers and buttons. But after the advent of the car, love for horses only intensified. It is convenient to fly away on a plane trip, but the passion for a car trip remains.
Physical phenomena are not only natural phenomena. Many events and processes are the result of human hands. Many processes are caused or initiated by some people, for the benefit or to the detriment of others.
Scientific Consciousness and Ordinary Thinking
Society quickly gets used to the good, but what it does not understand, it does not ignore in the bud, it categorically resists everything new. Religion in this “institution” of relations is a respectable girl with noble aspirations for the benefit of people. Moreover, over time, religion corrected its mistakes.
The public consciousness does not seek to correct its mistakes, and at any level. Neither at the family level, nor at the level of the work collective, much less on a global scale.
The exact context of the question of an ordinary thinker trying to characterize science as a special system of knowledge sounds like a proposal to explain what many still do not understand, but people use it, are satisfied and therefore do not notice it.
A scientist or researcher who has chosen science as his path should objectively and accurately follow his idea, sift out all that is superfluous, neglecting difficulties and obstacles. The public consciousness has not lately been guided by the ideas of the Inquisition, but can be fired or punished with the ruble under any class or political structure of the state.
It would seem that science and technology are developing for the good of society, why should the latter take an opposing position? Science is not commerce or business. There is no competition. Two scientists will find something to talk about peacefully and gain new knowledge, but the scientist and the neighbor on the landing will understand each other in one of a thousand cases.
However, when a neighbor receives a device from a scientist that he definitely needs at home or at work, and a scientist takes a new scientific idea, the neighbor will again be contemptuous of his research. In this case, the resulting device will become everyday, everyday and in demand.
Science is struggle and movement
The accumulated arsenal of knowledge is large, systematic, and works practically. There are white spots in every science, in every theoretical direction. A man works diligently.
Life is so arranged that to achieve something meaningful does not work in a simple way. Nature is not a store of ready-made solutions. Before determining what to do in a given situation, you need to correctly understand this situation. All you need to do with your own hands and head. Therefore, having accepted science as a special system of knowledge, it will not be difficult to characterize a phenomenon and describe a task. However, keep in mind: the phenomenon will develop dynamically and will require adequate behavior from the decision.
Those who stand in the way of a scientist or researcher should not resist. Often this negative effect gives a positive effect. New scientific knowledge in the process of formation gets hardened by factors of practicality, relevance and objectivity.
The best result of scientific research is when a new puzzle fits into the overall system picture of the world and from then on it has not been seen, heard, not noticeable, but its function has been fulfilled, and the picture of the world has become more perfect.