Formation and development of scientific institutions. Historical variants of attempts to classify science

Science as a social institute- sphere of people activity, the purpose of which is the study of objects and processes of nature, society and thinking, their properties of relationships and patterns, as well as one of the forms of general. consciousness.

The very concept of "social institution" began to come into use thanks to the research of Western sociologists. R. Merton is considered to be the founder of the institutional approach in science. In the domestic philosophy of science, the institutional approach for a long time was not developed. Institutionality involves the formalization of all types of relations, the transition from unorganized activities and informal relations by the type of agreements and negotiations to the creation of organized structures that involve hierarchy, power regulation and regulations.

In Western Europe, science as a social institution arose in the 17th century in connection with the need to serve the emerging capitalist production and began to claim a certain autonomy. In the system of social division of labor, science as a social institution has assigned specific functions to itself: to be responsible for the production, examination and implementation of scientific and theoretical knowledge. As a social institution, science included not only a system of knowledge and scientific activity, but also a system of relations in science, scientific institutions and organizations.

Science as a social institution at all its levels (both collective and scientific community on a global scale) presupposes the existence of norms and values that are obligatory for people of science (plagiarists are expelled).

Speaking about modern science in its interactions with various areas life of a person and society, three groups of social functions performed by it can be distinguished: 1) cultural and ideological functions, 2) the functions of science as a direct productive force, and 3) its functions as a social force associated with the fact that scientific knowledge and methods are increasingly used in solving various problems arising in the course of social development.

Science as a social institution has its own branched structure and uses both cognitive and organizational and moral resources. The development of institutional forms of scientific activity involved the clarification of the prerequisites for the process of institutionalization, the disclosure of its content, and the analysis of the results of institutionalization. As a social institution, science includes the following components:

The totality of knowledge and its carriers;

The presence of specific cognitive goals and objectives;

Performing certain functions;

Availability of specific means of knowledge and institutions;

Development of forms of control, examination and evaluation of scientific achievements;

The existence of certain sanctions.

E. Durkheim emphasized the coercive nature of the institutional in relation to an individual subject, its external force, T. Parsons pointed to another important feature of the institution - a stable set of roles distributed in it. Institutions are designed to rationally streamline the life of the individuals that make up society and ensure the sustainable flow of communication processes between different social structures. M. Weber emphasized that an institution is a form of association of individuals, a way of inclusion in collective activity, participation in social action.

Features of the development of science at the present stage:

1) Wide dissemination of ideas and methods of synergetics - the theory of self-organization and development of systems of any nature;

2) Strengthening the paradigm of integrity, i.e. awareness of the need for a global comprehensive view of the world;

3) Strengthening and ever wider application of the idea (principle) of co-evolution, i.e. conjugated, interdependent;

4) The introduction of time into all sciences, the ever wider dissemination of the idea of development;

5) Changing the nature of the object of study and strengthening the role of interdisciplinary integrated approaches in its study;

6) Connection of the objective world and the human world, overcoming the gap between the object and the subject;

7) An even wider application of philosophy and its methods in all sciences;

8) Increasing mathematization of scientific theories, increasing level of their abstractness and complexity;

9) Methodological pluralism, awareness of the limitations, one-sidedness of any methodology - including rationalistic (including dialectical-materialistic).

The functioning of the scientific community, the effective regulation of relations between its members, as well as between science, society and the state, is carried out with the help of a specific system of internal values inherent in this social structure of the scientific and technical policy of society and the state, as well as the corresponding system of legislative norms (patent law, economic law, civil law, etc.). The set of internal values of the scientific community, which have the status of moral norms, is called "scientific ethos". One of the explanations for the norms of scientific ethos was proposed in the 1930s. 20th century founder of the sociological study of science Robert Merton. He believed that science, as a special social structure, relies in its functioning on four value imperatives: universalism, collectivism, disinterestedness and organized skepticism. Later B. Barber added two more imperatives: rationalism and emotional neutrality.

Imperative of universalism affirms the impersonal, objective nature of scientific knowledge. The reliability of new scientific knowledge is determined only by its correspondence to observations and previously certified scientific knowledge. Universalism determines the international and democratic nature of science. Collectivism imperative says that the fruits of scientific knowledge belong to the entire scientific community and society as a whole. They are always the result of collective scientific co-creation, since any scientist always relies on some ideas (knowledge) of his predecessors and contemporaries. The right of private ownership of knowledge in science should not exist, although scientists who make the most significant personal contribution have the right to demand from colleagues and society fair material and moral encouragement, adequate professional recognition. Such recognition is the most important stimulus for scientific activity.

The Imperative of Selflessness means that the main goal of the activities of scientists should be the service of Truth. The latter should never in science be a means to achieve personal benefits, but only a socially significant goal.

The imperative of organized skepticism implies not only a ban on the dogmatic assertion of truth in science, but, on the contrary, makes it a professional obligation for a scientist to criticize the views of his colleagues, if there is the slightest reason for this. Accordingly, it is necessary to treat criticism addressed to oneself, namely, as a necessary condition for the development of science. A true scientist is a skeptic by nature and vocation. Skepticism and doubt are just as necessary, important and subtle tools of a scientist's activity as a scalpel and a needle in the hands of a surgeon. The value of rationalism asserts that science strives not just for objective truth, but for a proven, logically organized discourse, the supreme arbiter of the truth of which is the scientific mind.

The imperative of emotional neutrality forbids people of science to use emotions, personal sympathies, antipathies, etc., resources of the sensual sphere of consciousness when solving scientific problems.

It must immediately be emphasized that the approach to scientific ethos outlined is purely theoretical, and not empirical, because here science is described as a certain theoretical object, constructed from the point of view of its proper (“ideal”) existence, and not from the standpoint of being. Merton himself understood this very well, as well as the fact that it is impossible to distinguish science as a social structure from other social phenomena (politics, economics, religion, etc.) in a different way (outside the value dimension). Already the closest students and followers of Merton, having carried out extensive sociological studies of the behavior of members of the scientific community, were convinced that it is essentially ambivalent, that in their daily professional activities scientists are constantly in a state of choice between polar behavioral imperatives. So, the scientist must:

Communicate your results to the scientific community as soon as possible, but not obliged to rush publications, beingware of their "immaturity" or unscrupulous use;

Be receptive to new ideas, but not succumb to intellectual "fashion";

Strive to acquire such knowledge that will be highly appreciated by colleagues, but at the same time work without paying attention to the assessments of others;

Defend new ideas, but do not support rash conclusions;

Make every effort to know the work related to his field, but at the same time understand that erudition sometimes inhibits creativity;

Be extremely careful in wording and details, but not be a pedant, for this is at the expense of content;

Always remember that knowledge is international, but do not forget that everything scientific discovery does honor to that national science which representative it is made;

To educate a new generation of scientists, but not to give too much attention and time to teaching; learn from a great master and imitate him, but not be like him.

It is clear that the choice in favor of one or another imperative is always situational, contextual and determined by a significant number of cognitive, social and even psychological factors that are “integrated” by specific individuals.

One of the most important discoveries in the study of science as a social institution was the realization that science is not a single, monolithic system, but rather a granular competitive environment, consisting of many small and medium-sized scientific communities, whose interests are often not only do not coincide, but sometimes contradict each other. Modern science is a complex network of collectives, organizations and institutions interacting with each other - from laboratories and departments to state institutes and academies, from "invisible colleges" to large organizations with all the attributes of a legal entity, from scientific incubators and science parks to research and investment corporations, from disciplinary communities to national scientific communities and international associations. All of them are connected by a myriad of communication links both among themselves and with other powerful subsystems of society and the state (economy, education, politics, culture, etc.)

scientific revolution- a radical change in the process and content of scientific knowledge, associated with the transition to new theoretical and methodological premises, to a new system of fundamental concepts and methods, to a new scientific picture of the world, as well as with qualitative transformations of the material means of observation and experimentation, with new methods of evaluation and interpretation empirical data, with new ideals of explanation, validity and organization of knowledge.

Historical examples of the scientific revolution are the transition from medieval ideas about the Cosmos to a mechanistic picture of the world based on mathematical physics of the 16th-18th centuries, the transition to an evolutionary theory of the origin and development of biological species, the emergence of an electrodynamic picture of the world (19th century), the creation of quantum relativistic physics in early 20th century and etc.

Scientific revolutions differ in depth and breadth of coverage of the structural elements of science, in the type of changes in its conceptual, methodological and cultural foundations. The structure of the foundations of science includes: ideals and norms of research (proof and validity of knowledge, norms of explanation and description, construction and organization of knowledge), the scientific picture of the world and the philosophical foundations of science. According to this structuring, the main types of scientific revolutions are distinguished: 1) the restructuring of the picture of the world without a radical change in the ideals and norms of research and the philosophical foundations of science (for example, the introduction of atomism into ideas about chemical processes in the early 19th century, the transition of modern elementary particle physics to synthetic quark models, etc.

Topic 10.

P.); 2) a change in the scientific picture of the world, accompanied by a partial or radical replacement of the ideals and norms of scientific research, as well as its philosophical foundations (for example, the emergence of quantum relativistic physics or a synergetic model of cosmic evolution). The scientific revolution is a complex step-by-step process that has a wide range of internal and external, i.e., socio-cultural, historical, determinations that interact with each other. The “internal” factors of the scientific revolution include: the accumulation of anomalies, facts that cannot be explained within the conceptual and methodological framework of a particular scientific discipline; antinomies that arise when solving problems that require a restructuring of the conceptual foundations of the theory (for example, the paradox of infinite values that arises when explaining the model of an absolutely “black body” within the framework of the classical theory of radiation); improvement of means and methods of research (new instrumentation, new mathematical models, etc.), expanding the range of objects under study; the emergence of alternative theoretical systems that compete with each other in their ability to increase the “empirical content” of science, that is, the area of facts explained and predicted by it.

The “external” determination of the scientific revolution includes a philosophical rethinking of the scientific picture of the world, a reassessment of the leading cognitive values and ideals of cognition and their place in culture, as well as the processes of changing scientific leaders, the interaction of science with other social institutions, a change in relations in the structures of social production, leading to fusion of scientific and technical processes, bringing to the fore fundamentally new needs of people (economic, political, spiritual). Thus, the revolutionary nature of the ongoing changes in science can be judged on the basis of a complex “multidimensional” analysis, the object of which is science in the unity of its various dimensions: subject-logical, sociological, personal-psychological, institutional, etc. The principles of such an analysis are determined by the conceptual the apparatus of epistemological theory, within the framework of which the main ideas about scientific rationality and its historical development are formulated. Ideas about the scientific revolution vary depending on the choice of such an apparatus.

For example, within the framework of the neo-positivist philosophy of science, the concept of scientific revolution appears only as a methodological metaphor expressing the conditional division of the basically cumulative growth of scientific knowledge into periods of domination of certain inductive generalizations that act as “laws of nature”. Transition to "laws" more high level and the change of former generalizations is carried out according to the same methodological canons; knowledge certified by Experience retains its significance in any subsequent systematization, perhaps as a limiting case (for example, the laws of classical mechanics are considered as limiting cases of relativistic, etc.). The concept of scientific revolution plays the same “metaphorical role” in “critical rationalism” (K. Popper and others): revolutions in science occur constantly, each refutation of an accepted one and the promotion of a new “bold” (i.e., even more subject to refutation) hypotheses can in principle be considered a scientific revolution. Therefore, the scientific revolution in the critical-rationalist interpretation is a fact of changing scientific (primarily fundamental) theories, viewed through the prism of its logical-methodological (rational) reconstruction, but not an event in the real history of science and culture. This is also the basis for understanding the scientific revolution by I. Lakatos. The historian can only “retroactively” apply the scheme of rational reconstruction to past events and decide whether this change was a transition to a more progressive program (increasing its empirical content due to the heuristic potential inherent in it) or a consequence of “irrational” decisions (for example, erroneous assessment of the program by the scientific community). In science, various programs, methods, etc., constantly compete, which for a time come to the fore, but then are pushed aside by more successful competitors or are substantially reconstructed. The concept of scientific revolution is also metaphorical in historically oriented concepts of science (T. Kuhn, S. Tulmin, etc.), but the meaning of the metaphor here is different: it means a leap across the abyss between “incommensurable” paradigms

mi, performed as a “gestalt switch” in the minds of members of the Scientific Communities. In these concepts, the main attention is paid to the psychological and sociological aspects of conceptual changes, the possibility of a “rational reconstruction” of the scientific revolution is either denied or allowed due to such an interpretation of scientific rationality, in which the latter is identified with the totality of successful decisions of the scientific elite.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the Google search on the site:

Lecture Search

Science as a social institution

Introduction

Science is a complex, multifaceted socio-historical phenomenon. Representing a specific system (rather than a simple sum) of knowledge, it is at the same time a peculiar form of spiritual production and a specific social institution that has its own organizational forms.

Science as a social institution is a special, relatively independent form of social consciousness and a sphere of human activity, acting as a historical product of the long development of human civilization, spiritual culture, which has developed its own types of communication, human interaction, forms of division of research labor and norms of consciousness of scientists.

Social philosophy and social science

To date, a significant complex of sciences, which are commonly called social sciences, has developed. In the modern world, the role and importance of the social sciences is universally recognized. Moreover, the development of social-scientific knowledge is a characteristic feature of our day. Its validity is not disputed. However, at one time a real revolution in scientific thinking was required in order for knowledge about society to take place, moreover, as knowledge that meets the requirements of scientific character. This revolution took place from the thirteenth century. and ended only in the twentieth century, when knowledge about society was finally established as scientifically legitimate.

Obviously, objectivity is just as necessary in the social sciences as in the natural sciences. However, it is also clear that in reality it is much more difficult to achieve. Just as important is the attitude towards intellectual honesty, which, over time, by R. Descartes determines any research that claims to be scientific. Finally, in the social sciences, it is extremely important to choose the right method to avoid arbitrary or deliberately desired conclusions. A lot of such methods have been accumulated in the arsenal of scientific social science today.

At the same time, out of all the diversity of social life, science can purposefully single out a certain aspect—economic, political, social, cultural, and so on. In this case, a certain system of society and the subsystems that make it up are singled out. In turn, the systematic approach, as a rule, is supplemented by structural and functional ones. The scientific approach to social reality is also served by the methods of social statistics, which make it possible to identify and fix a certain regularity in the manifestations of social life in various spheres.

The question arises: what is the relation of social philosophy to the social sciences? The answer is not based on several factors. First, social philosophy seeks not only to survey social life as a whole, but also to discover the meaning of the existence of social institutions and society as such. Secondly, within the framework of social philosophy, one of the most important is the problem of the relationship between the individual and society, posed primarily in general terms, i.e. in a certain independence from specific types public organization. Thirdly, social philosophy thinks about the ontological foundations of social life, i.e. explores the conditions under which society retains its integrity, does not crumble into isolated parts or into a set of individuals not connected by any commonality. Fourthly, within the framework of social philosophy, the methodology of scientific knowledge of social life is comprehended, and the experience of social sciences is generalized. According to these parameters, philosophical knowledge about society differs from scientific knowledge proper.

Science as a social institution

Social institution - historical form organization and regulation of public life. With the help of social institutions, relations between people, their activities, their behavior in society are streamlined, the stability of social life is ensured, the integration of actions and relations of individuals is carried out, social cohesion is achieved. groups and layers. Social cultural institutions include science, art, etc.

Science as a social institute - the sphere of people. activity, the purpose of which is the study of objects and processes of nature, society and thinking, their properties of relationships and patterns; one of the common forms. consciousness.

Ordinary everyday experience does not belong to science - knowledge obtained on the basis of simple observation and practical activity, which does not go beyond a simple description of facts and processes, revealing their purely external aspects.

Science as a social institution at all its levels (both collective and the scientific community on a global scale) presupposes the existence of norms and values that are obligatory for people of science (plagiarists are expelled).

Speaking about modern science in its interactions with various spheres of human life and society, we can distinguish three groups of social functions performed by it: 1) cultural and ideological functions, 2) the functions of science as a direct productive force, and 3) its functions as a social force associated with topics. that scientific knowledge and methods are now increasingly used in solving the most diverse problems that arise in the course of social development.

An important aspect of the transformation of science into a productive force was the creation and streamlining 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. Moreover, following industry, such channels also appear in other sectors of the material production and beyond. All this entails significant consequences for both science and practice. The functions of science as a social force in solving the global problems of our time are important.

The growing role of science in public life gave rise to its special status in contemporary culture and new features of its interaction with various layers of social consciousness. in this regard, the problem of the peculiarities of scientific knowledge and its relationship with other forms of cognitive activity becomes acute. This problem is at the same time 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 the development of scientific and technological revolution, since the elucidation of the laws of scientific knowledge requires an analysis of its social conditioning and its interaction with various phenomena of spiritual and material culture.

The relationship between science as a social institution and society has a two-way character: science receives support from society and, in turn, gives society what is necessary for the progressive development of the latter.

Being a form of people's spiritual activity, science is aimed at producing knowledge about nature, society and knowledge itself; its immediate goal is to comprehend the truth and discover the objective laws of human and natural world based on a generalization of real facts. Sociocultural features of scientific activity are:

- universality (general significance and "general cultural"),

- uniqueness (innovative structures created by scientific activity are unique, exclusive, irreproducible),

- non-cost productivity (it is impossible to attribute cost equivalents to the creative actions of the scientific community),

- personification (like any free spiritual production, scientific activity is always personal, and its methods are individual),

— discipline (scientific activity is regulated and disciplined like scientific research),

— democratism (scientific activity is unthinkable without criticism and freethinking),

- communality (scientific creativity is co-creation, scientific knowledge crystallizes in a variety of communication contexts - partnership, dialogue, discussion, etc.).

42. Science as a social institution

Depending on the specifics of the object under study, it is customary to subdivide the sciences into natural, social, humanitarian and technical. The natural sciences reflect nature, the social and humanitarian sciences reflect human life, and the technical sciences reflect the "artificial world" as a specific result of human impact on nature. It is possible to use other criteria for classifying science (for example, according to their “remoteness” from practical activities, sciences are divided into fundamental, where there is no direct orientation to practice, and applied, directly applying the results of scientific knowledge to solve production and socio-practical problems.) Together at the same time, the boundaries between individual sciences and scientific disciplines are conditional and mobile.

2.1 Social institution of science as scientific production

Such an idea of the social institution of science is especially characteristic for Rostov philosophers. So, M.M. Karpov, M.K. Petrov, A.V. Potemkin proceed from the fact that "the elucidation of the internal structure of science as a social institution, the isolation of those bricks that make up the ²temple of science², the study of the laws of connection and the existence of its structural elements are now becoming the topic of the day." The most important aspects of scientific production are considered as "bricks", starting from the discussion of the problem of the origin of science and ending with the peculiarities of modern requirements for the system of training scientific personnel.

THEM. Oreshnikov is inclined to identify the concept of "social institution" with the concept of "scientific production". In his opinion, “social sciences are a social institution, the purpose of which is the knowledge of the laws and phenomena of social reality (the production of socio-economic and political knowledge), the dissemination of this knowledge among members of society, the struggle against bourgeois ideology and any of its manifestations, the reproduction of scientific and scientific and pedagogical personnel necessary for the development of science itself and for the needs of social life. However, here we are talking, in fact, about the institutional study of scientific production, and not about the social institution of science. A very close position is taken by A.V. Uzhogov, for whom a social institution is scientific production (“production of ideas”).

For all these researchers, the term "social institution" is not of a specialized nature, but, on the contrary, simultaneously replaces several categories of historical materialism and abstractions. system method. This is the main drawback of using the term "social institution" as a synonym for scientific production.

2.2 The social institution of science as a system of institutions

This understanding of the social institution seems to be the most productive. In this sense, this term is used by V.A. Konev. Thus, the concept of a social institution (through the concept of social control) is included in the system of categories of historical materialism. Apparently, V.Zh. also comes to a similar conclusion. Kelle. Speaking of "social institution", "system of organization of science", he calls them institutions.

A social institution is a functionally unified system of institutions that organizes one or another system of relations of social management, control and supervision. The social institute of science is a system of institutions that organizes and maintains the production and transmission of scientific knowledge, as well as the reproduction of scientific personnel and the exchange of activities between science and other branches of social production. The social institution of science in this case is a social form of existence of management relations in scientific production.

In the process of production of scientific knowledge, its translation and diverse practical use, the participants in scientific production enter into relations of joint activity that require an organizing principle.

A scientific institution, like any other institution, is characterized primarily by the presence of a permanent and paid staff (not to be confused with an association, group, collective) with its characteristic division of functions and service hierarchy, as well as a certain legal status. (A great connoisseur of this business, Ostap Bender, when creating his office "Horns and Hooves", took into account, by the way, in the first place precisely these circumstances - by creating a staff and hanging a sign, he thereby organized the institution.)

With the professionalization of scientific activity, the organizational forms of science acquire economic and ideological content, turn into an extensive system of institutions, which we call the social institution of science.

©2015-2018 poisk-ru.ru
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Copyright Violation and Personal Data Violation

Education is a social subsystem that has its own structure. As its main elements, educational institutions can be distinguished as social organizations, social communities (teachers and students), studying proccess as a type of sociocultural activity.

The science(like the education system) is a central social institution in all modern societies. To an increasing extent, the very existence of modern society depends on advanced scientific knowledge. Not only the material conditions for the existence of society, but also the very idea of the world depends on the development of science.

Prerequisites for the development of science:

Formation of speech;
Account development;
The emergence of art;
Formation of writing;
Formation of worldview (myth);
The emergence of philosophy.

Usually, the following periods of the emergence and development of science are distinguished:

Prescience- the origin of science in the civilizations of the Ancient East: astrology, letters, numerology.
ancient science- the formation of the first scientific theories (atomism) and the compilation of the first scientific treatises in the era of Antiquity: the astronomy of Ptolemy, the botany of Theophrastus, the geometry of Euclid, the physics of Aristotle, as well as the emergence of the first protoscientific communities represented by the Academy.
Medieval magical science- the formation of experimental science on the example of alchemy Jabir (famous Arab alchemist, doctor, pharmacist, mathematician and astronomer.)
Scientific revolution and classical science- the formation of science in the modern sense in the works of Galileo, Newton, Linnaeus.
Non-classical (post-classical) science- science of the era of the crisis of classical rationality: Darwin's theory of evolution, Einstein's theory of relativity, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Big Bang theory, René Thom's catastrophe theory, Mandelbrot's fractal geometry.

The history of the emergence of education can be divided into stages.

The stage of the primitive-communal stage of development. General organization hunting and distribution of prey, management of household needs and common system transfer of knowledge from generation to generation. Stage of the slaveholding stage. With the emergence of the slave system, according to scientists, there is a gap between physical labor and intellectual activity. The result of this is the emergence of nodes and centers of storage, processing and transfer of knowledge isolated from society - schools and philosophical communities. Here, secular science does not include religious centers, although it is well known that it was religion from the very beginning that figured in every known source of writing as the main theme of their content. stage of the feudal system. The monopoly of intellectual education went to the clergy, and education itself thus assumed a predominantly theological character. Renaissance. The education system finally “moved away from the Church”, which led to the gradual loss of the ontological (Ontology is the doctrine of being, of being, a section of philosophy) meaning of education.

Age of Enlightenment. Here education continued its transformation, moving further and further away from religion and philosophy. It becomes more and more practically oriented, more and more changes its tasks from heavenly to earthly, teaches a person to live more with the “head” - the mind, than with the “heart” - the conscience. The main task of education is "education of a free personality. In the same era, a man appeared in Russia who finally developed an integral didactic system - Konstantin Dmitrievich Ushinsky, who managed to bring together the demands of society and the deep need of the human soul in God.

Social functions of science:

Worldview (this includes knowledge of the world).

Management (knowing the laws of the development of the world, we can manage our own activities to obtain certain results)

Culturological (science is able to form not only the attitude of a person to nature, but, based on new knowledge about the person himself, the relationship between people in society)

· The functions of science as a social force, due to the fact that scientific knowledge and methods are now increasingly used in solving a variety of problems that arise in the course of social development.

Social functions of education:

Education (development of cultural and moral values).

2. Learning as a process of transferring knowledge, skills and abilities.

Are you sure you're human?

Training of qualified specialists.

4. Introduction to cultural products and technologies.

5. Socialization (inculcation of patterns of behavior, social norms and values).

Features of the functioning of science at the present stage of development. One of the most important components of the culture of society is science. Science is the highest form of knowledge, obtaining objective and systematically organized and substantiated knowledge about nature, society and thinking. It brings to perfection such functions of culture as cognitive, practical and methodological.

Features of the functioning of education at the present stage of development. New approaches to reforming education that meet the promising trends in world development are determined by the shift of sources and driving forces of socio-economic progress from the material to the intellectual sphere. Under the influence of this fundamental shift, the role and structure of education are changing: it becomes not a derivative, but a determining factor in economic growth; it no longer satisfies societal needs so much as shapes future social opportunities.

The social institution of science began to take shape in Western Europe in the 16th-17th centuries. However, this phenomenon dates back to ancient cultures. The first scientific schools arose in the Ancient East, in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. In the Middle Ages, the process of institutionalization of science was expressed in the creation of universities as centers of scientific thought.

The recognition of scientific activity as socially significant laid the foundation for the formation of science as a social institution. This process dragged on for centuries. But the process of institutionalization of science is an objective phenomenon associated with the growing influence of science in society and culture.

Second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries - the next key stage in the institutionalization of science. During this period, there is an awareness by the scientific community and society as a whole of the economic efficiency of scientific research and, accordingly, the professionalization of scientific activity. If earlier the evaluation of the effectiveness of scientific research was carried out on the basis of a finished theoretical product, then in the new conditions the question was about the application of scientific achievements to create new material values. In the second half of the XIX century. large-scale production of organic chemistry products, fertilizers, explosives, drugs, and electrical products began. Science itself has also undergone major changes: along with fundamental research, the field of applied research is emerging, which has been intensively expanding under the influence of economic factors.

Societal life is made up of relatively stable relations, and the spheres that streamline the actions, behavior of people and perform certain functions in society are called social institutions. The structure of science includes: scientific research laboratories, libraries, research shops.

F-tsii sots inst n-ki within the scientific community-va.

1) Save the accumulation of knowledge and carry out the transfer of knowledge from generation to generation. Each social inst has carriers of this knowledge - experts. The image system is of great importance here ..

2) Post-ka specific cognizant's goals and objectives. Goals, tasks, you must answer the requirements of the teaching staff, otherwise the scientific communication will not respond to them.

3) Sots inst science has mechanisms for controlling the behavior and actions of people. Recognition or ignorance by colleagues.

4) Social institutions filter (select) significant values. Any result of research, any knowledge that claims to be a significant one, is checked by colleagues. The teacher is responsible for the authenticity of the knowledge. The researcher himself, who provides his results, will calculate that they will be appreciated. =>, the message is responsible to the one who represents the result.

5) Sots inst n-ki defines a system of norms and values, which is under the control of the activities of the account. norms of scientific ethics.

Modern science is a complex network of collectives, organizations and institutions interacting with each other - from laboratories and departments to state institutes and academies, from small non-formalized scientific communities to large scientific organizations with all the attributes of a legal entity, from science parks to scientific investment corporations, from disciplinary communities to national scientific communities and international associations. All of them are connected both with each other and with powerful subsystems of society and the state: economy, education, politics, culture. The state must support this most powerful self-organizing system with its material and financial resources, without restraining the freedom of scientific research.

The functioning of science as a social institution is connected with the solution of issues of both the internal nature of its organization and the external nature that arise when it interacts with other spheres of society - economics, politics, ideology. Issues of an internal nature determine the activities of scientific schools, the training of scientific personnel, and the transmission of scientific knowledge. The formation of scientific schools expresses the democratism of scientific research, its competitiveness, criticality in relation to achievements.

Introduction

Social philosophy and social science

To date, a significant complex of sciences, which are commonly called social sciences, has developed. In the modern world, the role and importance of the social sciences is universally recognized. Moreover, the development of socio-scientific knowledge is a characteristic sign of our days. Its validity is not disputed. However, at one time a real revolution in scientific thinking was required in order for knowledge about society to take place, moreover, as knowledge that meets the requirements of scientific character. This revolution took place from the thirteenth century. and ended only in the twentieth century, when knowledge about society was finally established as scientifically legitimate.

At the same time, out of all the diversity of social life, science can purposefully single out a certain aspect - economic, political, social, cultural, etc. In this case, a certain system of society and the subsystems that make it up are singled out. In turn, the systematic approach, as a rule, is supplemented by structural and functional ones. The scientific approach to social reality is also served by the methods of social statistics, which make it possible to identify and fix a certain regularity in the manifestations of social life in various spheres.

In view of the foregoing, we can conclude that the social sciences in the modern world are a huge variety of scientific disciplines that have accumulated a wealth of experience in studying social processes. The question arises: what is the relation of social philosophy to the social sciences? The answer is not based on several factors. First, social philosophy seeks not only to survey social life as a whole, but also to discover the meaning of the existence of social institutions and society as such. Secondly, within the framework of social philosophy, one of the most important is the problem of the relationship between the individual and society, posed primarily in general terms, i.e. in a certain independence from specific types of social organization. Thirdly, social philosophy thinks about the ontological foundations of social life, i.e. explores the conditions under which society retains its integrity, does not crumble into isolated parts or into a set of individuals not connected by any commonality. Fourthly, within the framework of social philosophy, the methodology of scientific knowledge of social life is comprehended, and the experience of social sciences is generalized. According to these parameters, philosophical knowledge about society differs from scientific knowledge proper.

Science as a social institution

A social institution is a historical form of organization and regulation of public life. With the help of social institutions, relations between people, their activities, their behavior in society are streamlined, the stability of social life is ensured, the integration of actions and relations of individuals is carried out, social cohesion is achieved. groups and layers. Social cultural institutions include science, art, etc.

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 social consciousness. in this regard, the problem of the peculiarities of scientific knowledge and its relationship with other forms of cognitive activity becomes acute. This problem is also of great practical importance. 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 the development of scientific and technological revolution, since the elucidation of the laws of scientific knowledge requires an analysis of its social conditioning and its interaction with various phenomena of spiritual and material culture.

Being a form of people's spiritual activity, science is aimed at producing knowledge about nature, society and knowledge itself; its immediate goal is to comprehend the truth and discover the objective laws of the human and natural world based on a generalization of real facts. Sociocultural features of scientific activity are:

Universality (general significance and "general cultural"),

Uniqueness (innovative structures created by scientific activity are unique, exclusive, irreproducible),

Non-value productivity (it is impossible to attribute cost equivalents to the creative actions of the scientific community),

Personification (like any free spiritual production, scientific activity is always personal, and its methods are individual),

Discipline (scientific activity is regulated and disciplined like scientific research),

Democracy (scientific activity is unthinkable outside of criticism and freethinking),

Communality (scientific creativity is co-creation, scientific knowledge crystallizes in a variety of communication contexts - partnership, dialogue, discussion, etc.).

Reflecting the world in its materiality and development, science forms a single, interconnected, developing system of knowledge about its laws. At the same time, science is divided into many branches of knowledge (private sciences), which differ from each other in what side of reality they study. According to the subject and methods of cognition, one can single out the sciences of nature (natural science - chemistry, physics, biology, etc.), the sciences of society (history, sociology, political science, etc.), a separate group is made up of technical sciences. Depending on the specifics of the object under study, it is customary to subdivide the sciences into natural, social, humanitarian and technical. Natural sciences reflect nature, social and humanitarian sciences reflect human life, and technical sciences reflect the "artificial world" as a specific result of human impact on nature. It is possible to use other criteria for classifying science (for example, according to their “remoteness” from practical activities, sciences are divided into fundamental, where there is no direct orientation to practice, and applied, directly applying the results of scientific knowledge to solve production and socio-practical problems.) Together at the same time, the boundaries between individual sciences and scientific disciplines are conditional and mobile.

2.1 Social institution of science as scientific production

For all these researchers, the term "social institution" is not of a specialized nature, but, on the contrary, simultaneously replaces several categories of historical materialism and abstractions of the systemic method. This is the main drawback of using the term "social institution" as a synonym for scientific production.

2.2 The social institution of science as a system of institutions

A scientific institution, like any other institution, is characterized primarily by the presence of a permanent and paid staff (not to be confused with an association, group, collective) with its characteristic division of functions and service hierarchy, as well as a certain legal status. (A great connoisseur of this business, Ostap Bender, creating his office "Horns and Hooves", took into account, by the way, in the first place precisely these circumstances - by creating a staff and hanging a sign, he thereby organized the institution.)

©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2018-01-08

Introduction

Social philosophy and social science

1 Social Institute of Science as Scientific Production

2 The social institution of science as a system of institutions

Science as a social institution

Social functions of science

1 The functions of science as a direct productive and social force

2 Cultural and ideological functions of science

Social responsibility of a scientist

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The question of the relationship between philosophy and science is important for a deeper understanding of the meaning and purpose of philosophy.

Today, science permeates all spheres of human activity. It has become a powerful factor in the achievements of mankind in various fields. However, it is clear that this was not always the case. Mankind needed to go a long way to move from pre-scientific forms of cognition to scientific ones.

Philosophy summarizes the achievements of science, relies on them. Ignoring scientific achievements would lead to its empty content. Philosophy inscribes the facts of the development of science in a broad context of cultural and social development.

Not only does philosophy need science, but science also needs philosophy to solve the problems it faces. One of the greatest scientists of the twentieth century. A. Einstein wrote: “In our time, a physicist is forced to deal with philosophical problems to a much greater extent than physicists had to do previous generations. Physicists are forced to do this by the difficulties of their own science.

Social philosophy is the philosophical concepts of society. Social philosophy takes its place among the sciences that study society in various aspects and manifestations. Its subject matter is the most general relating to public life. Chief among them is the question of the meaning of public institutions and society as a whole.

The main form of human knowledge - science in our days is becoming more and more significant and essential. integral part the reality that surrounds us and in which we somehow have to navigate, live and act.

The complex nature of the development of modern science, the identification of contradictions in the development of science enhance the role of institutional forms of scientific production. In this regard, it becomes important to consider science as a specific social institution.

In the process of knowledge production, its translation, etc., people enter into certain relations of joint activity, the need arises for organization, management, and, consequently, the very activity of management in science.

Consideration of science as a social institution is necessary to understand the social system of science in the unity of its objective and subjective sides. This is important for explaining the patterns of development of science.

Considering that the formation of science as a social institution is closely connected with the emergence of the profession of a scientist, I would like to consider such an issue as the social responsibility of a scientist. It lies not only in the responsibility for the scientific nature of the results of research, but also for the nature of their use in society.

1. Social philosophy and social science

To date, a significant complex of sciences, which are commonly called social sciences, has developed. In the modern world, the role and importance of the social sciences is universally recognized. Moreover, the development of socio-scientific knowledge is a characteristic sign of our days. Its validity is not disputed. However, at one time a real revolution in scientific thinking was required in order for knowledge about society to take place, moreover, as knowledge that meets the requirements of scientific character. This revolution took place from the thirteenth century. and ended only in the twentieth century, when knowledge about society was finally established as scientifically legitimate.

2. Science as a social institution

Consider one of the most important aspects of the subjective side of science - its social institution. This is necessary for understanding the entire social system of science as a unity of its objective and subjective sides. Let us turn, first of all, to the consideration of the main definitions of the social institution of science that take place in the literature.

For American sociological literature, despite the diversity of shades, the idea of a social institution as a system of social roles or stereotypes of behavior is characteristic. So, P. Hortov and C. Hunt define an institution as "an organized system of behavior", "an organized system of social relations, which includes certain common values and procedures that are in accordance with the basic needs of society." T. Parsons also writes about this.

From such positions the social institution of science is interpreted. Prominent American sociologist of science N. Storer believes that “the sociology of science is the study of patterns of behavior inherent in scientists, factors influencing their behavior, and the consequences of their behavior for the wider groups and societies to which they belong. Thus, science is conceived as a social institution, as a complex of patterns of behavior and relationships, with sufficient internal coherence to allow us to delimit it from other spheres. social behavior". A social institution is thus "a complex of patterns of behavior and relationships." It is, therefore, about the functioning of a specific system of roles in the social institution of science, "whose members are collectively engaged in the expansion of knowledge and are guided in their activities by a system of norms and values that both provide value to their scientific contribution and reinforce their motivation." A similar point of view is supported by R. Koenig, who understands a social institution as a system of norms that regulate human behavior.

For J. Shchepansky, a social institution is a system of institutions with formalized roles. Social institutions, in his opinion, "are systems of institutions in which certain people, elected by members of groups, are empowered to perform certain social and impersonal functions in order to satisfy the existing individual and group needs of individuals and to regulate the behavior of other members of groups."

In Soviet scientific literature, the term "social institution" is often used loosely and ambiguously, which hinders differentiation various ways the use of this concept. There are two approaches to understanding the social institution. In the first approach, a social institution is understood as all scientific production with all its moments, in the other - one or another moment of scientific production (different authors call different moments of scientific production with this term). Let's consider some of the most typical and essential points of view.

2.1 Social institution of science as scientific production

Such an idea of the social institution of science is especially characteristic for Rostov philosophers. So, M.M. Karpov, M.K. Petrov, A.V. Potemkin proceed from the fact that “the elucidation of the internal structure of science as a social institution, the isolation of those bricks from which ² temple of science ² , the study of the laws of communication and the existence of its structural elements is now becoming the topic of the day. The most important aspects of scientific production are considered as "bricks", starting from the discussion of the problem of the origin of science and ending with the peculiarities of modern requirements for the system of training scientific personnel.

For all these researchers, the term "social institution" is not of a specialized nature, but, on the contrary, simultaneously replaces several categories of historical materialism and abstractions of the systemic method. This is the main drawback of using the term "social institution" as a synonym for scientific production.

2.2 The social institution of science as a system of institutions

A scientific institution, like any other institution, is characterized primarily by the presence of a permanent and paid staff (not to be confused with an association, group, collective) with its characteristic division of functions and service hierarchy, as well as a certain legal status. (A great connoisseur of this business, Ostap Bender, creating his office "Horns and Hooves", took into account, by the way, in the first place precisely these circumstances - by creating a staff and hanging a sign, he thereby organized the institution.)

3. Science as a social institution

philosophy science social scientist

The formation of science as a social institution took place in the 17th - early 18th centuries, when the first scientific societies and academies were formed in Europe and the publication of scientific journals. Prior to this, the preservation and reproduction of science as an independent social entity was carried out mainly in an informal way - through traditions transmitted through books, teaching, correspondence and personal communication of scientists.

Until the end of the 19th century. science remained "small", occupying a relatively small number of people in its field. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. a new way of organizing science is emerging - large scientific institutes and laboratories, with a powerful technical base, which brings scientific activity closer to the forms of modern industrial labor. Thus, the transformation of "small" science into "big" takes place. Science includes 15 thousand disciplines and several hundred thousand scientific journals. 20th century called the century of modern science. New energy sources and Information Technology- perspective directions of modern science. Trends in the internationalization of science are growing, and science itself is becoming the subject of an interdisciplinary complex analysis. Not only the science of science and the philosophy of science, but also sociology, psychology, and history begin to study it. Modern science is increasingly connected with all social institutions without exception, penetrating not only industrial and agricultural production, but also politics, administrative and military spheres. In turn, science as a social institution becomes the most important factor socio-economic potential, requires growing costs, due to which science policy is becoming one of the leading areas of social management.

With the split of the world into two camps after the Great October socialist revolution science as a social institution began to develop in fundamentally different social conditions. Under capitalism, under the conditions of antagonistic social relations, the achievements of science are used to a large extent by the monopolies to obtain superprofits, intensify the exploitation of the working people, and militarize the economy. Under socialism, the development of science is planned on a national scale in the interests of the entire people. On the scientific basis the planned development of the economy and the transformation of social relations are being carried out, thanks to which science plays a decisive role both in creating the material and technical base of communism and in shaping the new man. A developed socialist society opens the widest scope for new advances in science in the name of the interests of the working people.

The emergence of "big" science was primarily due to a change in the nature of its connection with technology and production. Until the end of the 19th century. science played an auxiliary role in relation to production. Then the development of science begins to outstrip the development of technology and production, a single system "science - technology - production" is formed, in which science plays a leading role. In the era of the scientific and technological revolution, science is constantly transforming the structure and content of material activity. The process of production more and more "... appears not as subordinate to the direct skill of the worker, but as a technological application of science."

The role of science in the era of the scientific and technological revolution has grown so exorbitantly that a new scale of its internal differentiation was required. And it was no longer just about theorists and experimenters. It became obvious that in "big" science, some scientists are more inclined towards heuristic search activity - putting forward new ideas, others - to analytical and operational - substantiating existing ones, still others - to their verification, fourth - to the application of acquired scientific knowledge.

Along with the natural and technical sciences, the increasing importance in modern society acquire social sciences that set certain guidelines for its development and study a person in all the diversity of his manifestations. On this basis, there is an ever-increasing convergence of the natural, technical and social sciences.

In the conditions of modern science, the problems of organizing and managing the development of science are of paramount importance. The concentration and centralization of science brought to life the emergence of national and international scientific organizations and centers, the systematic implementation of major international projects. In system government controlled special bodies for the management of science were formed. On their basis, a scientific policy mechanism is being formed that actively and purposefully influences the development of science. Initially, the organization of science was almost exclusively tied to the system of universities and other higher educational institutions and was built on a branch basis. In the 20th century specialized research institutions are widely developed. The emerging trend towards a decrease in the specific efficiency of expenditures on scientific activity, especially in the field of fundamental research, has given rise to a desire for new forms of organization of science. Such a form of organization of science as scientific centers of a sectoral nature (for example, the Pushchino Center for Biological Research of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in the Moscow Region) and a complex nature (for example, the Novosibirsk Scientific Center) is being developed. There are research units built on the problem principle. To solve specific scientific problems, often of an interdisciplinary nature, special creative teams are created, consisting of problem groups and combined into projects and programs (for example, the space exploration program). Centralization in the system of science management is increasingly combined with decentralization and autonomy in conducting research. Informal problematic associations of scientists, the so-called invisible collectives, are becoming widespread. Along with them, within the framework of "big" science, such informal formations continue to exist and develop as scientific directions and scientific schools that arose in the conditions of "small" science. In turn, scientific methods are increasingly used as one of the means of organization and management in other areas of activity. The scientific organization of labor (SOT) has gained mass character and is becoming one of the main levers for increasing the efficiency of social production. Automatic production control systems (ACS) created with the help of computers and cybernetics are being introduced. The object of scientific management is increasingly becoming the human factor, primarily in human-machine systems. The results of scientific research are used to improve the principles of managing teams, enterprises, the state, and society as a whole. Like any social application of science, such use serves opposite purposes under capitalism and socialism.

Important to science are national characteristics its development, expressed in the distribution of the available composition of scientists in different countries, national and cultural traditions of the development of certain branches of science within the framework of scientific schools and directions, in the ratio between fundamental and applied research on a national scale, in public policy in relation to the development of science (for example, in the size and direction of appropriations for science). However, the results of science - scientific knowledge are international in nature.

The reproduction of science as a social institution is closely connected with the system of education and training of scientific personnel. In the conditions of the modern scientific and technological revolution, there is a certain gap between the historically established tradition of teaching in secondary and high school and the needs of society (including science). In order to eliminate this gap, new teaching methods are being intensively introduced into the education system, using the latest achievements of science - psychology, pedagogy, cybernetics. Education in higher education reveals a tendency to approach the research practice of science and production. In the field of education, the cognitive function of science is closely connected with the task of educating students as full-fledged members of society, forming in them a certain value orientation and moral qualities. The practice of social life and Marxist-Leninist theory have convincingly proved that the ideal of the Enlightenment, according to which the universal dissemination of scientific knowledge will automatically lead to the education of highly moral personalities and a just organization of society, is utopian and erroneous. This can only be achieved by radically changing the social system, replacing capitalism with socialism.

For science as a system of knowledge, the highest value is the truth, which in itself is neutral in moral and ethical terms. Moral assessments can refer either to the activity of obtaining knowledge (the professional ethics of a scientist requires him to be intellectually honest and courageous in the process of never stopping the search for truth), or to the activity of applying the results of science, where the problem of the relationship between science and morality is particularly acute. , specifically speaking in the form of a problem of the moral responsibility of scientists for the social consequences caused by the application of their discoveries. The barbaric use of science by the militarists (the experiments of the Nazis on people, Hiroshima and Nagasaki) caused a number of active social actions of progressive scientists aimed at preventing the anti-humanistic application of science.

The study of various aspects of science is carried out by a number of its specialized branches, which include the history of science, the logic of science, the sociology of science, the psychology of scientific creativity, etc. From the middle of the 20th century A new, integrated approach to the study of science is intensively developing, striving for a synthetic knowledge of all its many aspects - science of science.

4. Social functions of science

Prerequisite social science is the recognition of the fact that society is a special formation, different from nature. Consequently, social life is subject to its own laws, which differ from the laws of nature. Society is the joint existence of people.

Social science must be distinguished from the concrete sciences of society. For a long time in our country, the functions of social science and sociology, as well as the philosophy of history, were performed by so-called "historical materialism".

The problem associated with the classification of the functions of science is still controversial, partly because science has developed, assuming new and new functions, partly due to the fact that, acting as a sociocultural phenomenon, it begins to care more than about the objective and impersonal regularities, but about the co-evolutionary fitting into the world of all the achievements of scientific and technological progress. The question of the social functions of science is singled out as a special and priority problem.

The social functions of science are not something given once and for all. On the contrary, they historically change and develop, like science itself; moreover, the development of social functions is an important aspect of the development of science itself.

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

Speaking about modern science in its interaction with various spheres of human life and society, we can distinguish three groups of social functions it performs. These are, firstly, cultural and ideological functions, secondly, the functions of science as a direct production force, and, thirdly, its functions as a social force, due to the fact that scientific knowledge and methods are now increasingly used in solving a variety of problems. problems arising in the course of social development.

The order in which these groups of functions are listed essentially reflects the historical process of the formation and expansion of the social functions of science, that is, the emergence and strengthening of ever new channels of its interaction with society.

4.1 The functions of science as a direct productive and social force

As for the functions of science as a direct productive force, these functions seem to us today, perhaps, not only the most obvious, but also the first, primordial. And this is understandable, given the unprecedented scale and pace of modern scientific and technological progress, the results of which are tangibly manifested in all sectors of life and in all spheres of human activity. However, historically, the picture appears in a different light. The process of turning science into a direct productive force was first recorded and analyzed by K. Marx in the middle of the last century, when the synthesis of science, technology and production was not so much a reality as a prospect.

During the formation of science as a social institution, the material prerequisites for the implementation of such a synthesis matured, the intellectual climate necessary for this was created, and an appropriate way of thinking was developed. Of course, even then scientific knowledge was not isolated from rapidly developing technology, but the connection between them was one-sided. Some of the problems that arose during the development of technology became the subject of scientific research and even gave rise to new scientific disciplines. So it was, for example, with hydraulics, with thermodynamics. Science itself gave little practical activity - industry, agriculture, medicine. And the matter was not only in the insufficient level of development of science, but above all in the fact that practice itself, as a rule, did not know how, and did not feel the need to rely on the achievements of science, or even simply take them into account systematically. Until the middle of the 19th century, the cases when the results of science found practical application were episodic and did not lead to a general awareness and rational use of the richest possibilities that the practical use of the results of scientific research promised.

Over time, however, it became obvious that the purely empirical basis was too narrow and limited to ensure the continuous development of the productive forces and the progress of technology. Both industrialists and scientists began to see in science a powerful catalyst for the process of continuous improvement of the means of production. The realization of this drastically changed the attitude towards science and was an essential prerequisite for its decisive turn towards practice, material production. And here, as in the cultural and ideological sphere, science was not limited to a subordinate role for long and rather quickly revealed its potential as a revolutionary force that radically changes the appearance and nature of production.

If we talk about science, then it first of all receives a new powerful impetus for its development, since "the application of science to direct production itself becomes for it one of the defining and motivating moments." For its part, practice is more and more clearly oriented towards a stable and continuously expanding relationship with science. For modern production, and not only for him, the ever wider application of scientific knowledge acts as an indispensable condition for the very existence and reproduction of many types of activity that arose in their time without any connection with science, not to mention those that were generated by it.

Today, in the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution, one more group of functions is more and more clearly revealed in science - it begins to act as a social force, directly involved in the processes of social development. This is most clearly manifested in those rather numerous situations today, when the data and methods of science are used to develop large-scale plans and programs for social and economic development. economic development. When compiling each such program, which, as a rule, determines the goals of the activities of many enterprises, institutions and organizations, it is fundamentally necessary for the direct participation of scientists as carriers of special knowledge and methods from different fields. It is also significant that, in view of the complex nature of such plans and programs, their development and implementation presuppose the interaction of social, natural and technical sciences.

A curious example confirming that science has always tried to present itself as an additional social force is associated with the first demonstration of such a purely "contemplative" instrument as the telescope, which Galileo, introducing to the senators of the Venetian Republic, promoted as a means of distinguishing enemy ships by "two or more hours" earlier.

The functions of science as a social force in solving the global problems of our time are very important. An example of this is environmental issues. As you know, rapid scientific and technological progress is one of the main reasons for such phenomena dangerous to society and man as the depletion of the planet's natural resources, the growing pollution of air, water, and soil. Consequently, science is one of the factors of those radical and far from harmless changes that are taking place today in the human environment. Scientists themselves do not hide this. On the contrary, they were among those who were the first to sound alarms, they were the first to see the symptoms of an impending crisis and drew the attention of the public, political and government figures, and economic managers to this topic. Scientific data play a leading role in determining the scale and parameters of environmental hazards.

Science in this case is by no means limited to the creation of means for solving the goals set before it from the outside. And the explanation of the causes of the emergence of environmental danger, and the search for ways to prevent it, the first formulation of the environmental problem and its subsequent clarifications, the promotion of goals to society and the creation of means to achieve them - all this in this case is closely connected with science, acting as a function of social force. In this capacity, science has a complex impact on social life, especially intensively affecting the technical and economic development, social management and those social institutions that are involved in shaping the worldview.

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 social consciousness. In this connection, the problem of the peculiarities of scientific knowledge and its correlation with other forms of cognitive activity (art, everyday consciousness, etc.) is sharply posed. 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 context of the development of scientific and technological revolution, since the elucidation of the patterns of scientific knowledge requires an analysis of its social conditioning and its interaction with various phenomena of spiritual and material culture.

4.2 Cultural and ideological functions of science

Culture as a holistic phenomenon presupposes the existence of certain procedures. They capture patterns of behavior that are recognized by this association of people as positive. However, neither in science nor in culture as a whole does the cult, of course, play such a significant role as it plays in religion.

It is necessary first of all to compare the two doctrines, i.e. philosophy and theology. There are several options for resolving the issue of theology and philosophy.

First optioncan be characterized by a short formula: "philosophy is theology itself." It is most clearly represented by ancient philosophy. Ancient philosophers in most cases build an independent religious and philosophical system, different from contemporary folk religions. These are rational systems that seek to substantiate the abstract concept of God.

Second optionrelations between philosophy and theology develops in the Middle Ages. It can be described as "philosophizing in faith". Philosophy here exists "under the sign" of faith. It proceeds directly from the tenets of theology. The truths of revelation are regarded as immutable.

Third optionassociated with the focus of philosophical knowledge on the discovery of such universal characteristics of being that do not depend on the religious worldview.

Fourth optionthere is an open recognition of the irreconcilability of philosophy and religion. This is an atheistic or god-fighting philosophy. It fundamentally rejects religion, considering it as a delusion of humanity.

During the period of the formation of science as a special social institution (and this is the period of the crisis of feudalism, the emergence of bourgeois social relations and the formation of capitalism, that is, the Renaissance and modern times), its influence was found primarily in the sphere of worldview, where during all this time there was a sharp and stubborn struggle between theology and science.

In the Middle Ages, theology gradually won the position of the supreme authority, called upon to discuss and solve fundamental worldview problems, such as the question of the structure of the universe and the place of man in it, the meaning and higher values of life, etc. private and "earthly" order.

In the Copernican revolution that began four and a half centuries ago, science for the first time challenged theology's right to monopoly determine the formation of a worldview. This was the first act in the process of penetration of scientific knowledge and scientific thinking into the structure of human activity and society; it was here that the first real signs of the emergence of science into worldview problems, into the world of human reflections and aspirations, were discovered. Indeed, in order to accept the heliocentric system of Copernicus, it was necessary not only to abandon some of the dogmas that were affirmed by theology, but also to agree with ideas that sharply contradicted the ordinary worldview.

A lot of time had to pass, which absorbed such dramatic episodes as the burning of J. Bruno, the abdication of G. Galileo, ideological conflicts in connection with the teachings of Charles Darwin on the origin of species, before science could become the decisive authority in matters of paramount ideological significance, concerning the structure of matter and the structure of the Universe, the origin and essence of life, the origin of man, etc. It took even more time for the answers offered by science to these and other questions to become elements of general education. Without this, scientific ideas could not become an integral part of the culture of society. Simultaneously with this process of the emergence and strengthening of the cultural and ideological functions of science, the pursuit of science gradually became in the eyes of society an independent and quite worthy, respectable sphere of human activity. In other words, the formation of science as a social institution took place. in the structure of society.

5. Social responsibility of a scientist

Having considered the social essence of scientific knowledge, I would like to turn to the clarification of such an acute issue at the present time - the question of the social responsibility of scientists.

For all its modernity and relevance, the problem of social responsibility of a scientist has deep historical roots. For centuries, since the birth of scientific knowledge, faith in the power of reason was accompanied by doubt: how will its creations be used? Is knowledge a power that serves man, and will it not turn against him? The words of the biblical preacher Ecclesiastes are widely known: “... in much wisdom there is much sorrow; and whoever increases knowledge, increases sorrow.”

The question of the relationship between truth and good was also asked by ancient philosophy. Already Socrates explored the connection between knowledge and virtue, and since then this question has become one of the eternal questions of philosophy, appearing in a variety of guises. Socrates taught that by nature a person strives for the best, and if he does evil, then only out of ignorance, when he does not know what true virtue is. Thus, knowledge turned out to be, on the one hand, a necessary condition for a good, good life, and on the other, one of its main components. Until our time, such a high assessment of knowledge, first substantiated by Socrates, remained and remains among the fundamental principles on which the European culture. No matter how influential the forces of ignorance and superstition were at different times in history, the tradition going back to Socrates, which affirmed the dignity and superstition of reason and ethically justified knowledge, was continued.

This does not mean, however, that the Socratic solution to the problem was not questioned. So, already in the 18th century, J.J. Rousseau argues that the development of science in no way contributes to the moral progress of mankind. With particular tragedy, the theme of the relationship between truth and goodness was voiced by A.S. Pushkin, who made us think about whether genius and villainy are compatible...

These are just some of the grains historical experience human thought, which is so necessary today, when the problems of ambiguity, and sometimes the danger of the social consequences of scientific and technological progress, are so acute.

Among the areas of scientific knowledge in which the issues of the social responsibility of a scientist and the moral and ethical assessment of his activity are especially sharply and intensely discussed, a special place is occupied by genetic engineering, biotechnology, biomedical and genetic research of a person; they are all pretty close to each other. It was the development of genetic engineering that led to a unique event in the history of science, when in 1975 the world's leading scientists voluntarily entered into a moratorium, temporarily suspending a number of studies that were potentially dangerous not only for humans, but also for other life forms on our planet.

Along with this, the rapid development of biotechnology began based on the application of genetic engineering methods in food and chemical industry, as well as to eliminate and prevent certain types of environmental pollution. In an unprecedentedly short time, literally in a few years, genetic engineering has gone from fundamental research to industrial and, in general, practical application of their results.

However, the other side of this breakthrough in the field of genetics was the potential threats lurking in it for man and mankind. Even the simple negligence of the experimenter or the incompetence of the laboratory personnel in safety measures can lead to irreparable consequences. Genetic engineering methods can bring even more harm when they are used by all kinds of malefactors or for military purposes. The danger is primarily due to the fact that the organisms with which experiments are most often carried out are widely distributed in natural conditions and can exchange genetic information with their "wild" relatives. As a result of such experiments, it is possible to create organisms with completely new hereditary properties that have not previously been found on Earth and are not evolutionarily determined.

It was this kind of fear that forced scientists to take such an unprecedented step as the establishment of a voluntary moratorium. Later, after extremely strict safety measures were developed for conducting experiments (including biological protection, that is, the design of weakened microorganisms that can only live in artificial laboratory conditions) and sufficiently reliable estimates of the risk associated with conducting experiments were obtained, studies gradually renewed and expanded. However, some of the more risky types of experiments are still banned.

Nevertheless, discussions around the ethical problems of genetic engineering have by no means subsided. A person, as some of their participants note, can construct a new form of life that is sharply different from everything known to us, but he will not be able to return it back to oblivion ... “Do we have the right,” one of the creators of new genetics, an American biologist, asked, laureate Nobel Prize E. Chargaff, - to irreversibly oppose the evolutionary wisdom of millions of years in order to satisfy the ambitions and curiosity of a few scientists? This world is given to us on loan. We come and go; and in the course of time we leave earth, air and water to those who come after us.”

These discussions discuss the possibilities of artificially constructing human individuals. And the heat of the discussions is not so much because of the extent to which these possibilities are real, but because they force people to perceive such eternal problems as the problems of man, his freedom and destiny. The prospects opened up by genetics are already beginning to have an impact today, making us wonder, for example, whether we want and should want clonal reproduction in humans. And modern people have to look more closely at themselves in order to understand what they want, what they strive for and what they consider unacceptable.

The development of genetic engineering and fields of knowledge close to it (and not only them) forces us to comprehend in a slightly new way the dialectical connection between freedom and responsibility in the activities of scientists. For centuries, many of them, not only in word but also in deed, had to affirm and defend the principle of freedom of scientific research in the face of dogmatic ignorance, fanaticism of superstitions, and simply awakenings. The responsibility of the scientist at the same time acted primarily as a responsibility for obtaining and disseminating proven, substantiated and rigorous knowledge, which makes it possible to dispel the darkness of ignorance.

Today, however, the principle of freedom of scientific inquiry must be comprehended in the context of those far from unambiguous consequences of the development of science that people have to deal with. In the current discussions on the socio-ethnic problems of science, along with the defense of the unrestricted freedom of research, a diametrically opposite point of view is also presented, proposing to regulate science in the same way as railway traffic is regulated. Between these extreme positions there is a wide range of opinions about the possibility and desirability of regulation of research and how this should combine the interests of the researcher, the scientific community and society as a whole.

There is still a lot of controversy and unresolved in this area. But. Be that as it may, the idea of unrestricted freedom of inquiry, which has been undeniably progressive for many centuries, can no longer be accepted unconditionally. Without taking into account social responsibility, with which scientific activity should be inextricably linked. After all, there is responsible freedom - and there is free irresponsibility fundamentally different from it, fraught - with the current and future possibilities of science - with very serious consequences for man and mankind.

The fact is that rapid scientific and technological progress, unprecedented in its pace and scope, is one of the most obvious realities of our time. Science colossally raises the productivity of social labor and expands the scale of production. She achieved incomparable results in mastering the forces of nature. It is on science that the complex mechanism of modern development relies, so that a country that is not able to ensure sufficiently high rates of scientific and technological progress and the use of its results in various spheres of public life dooms itself to a state of backwardness and a dependent, subordinate position in the world.

At the same time, science puts forward many new alternatives to mankind. Even in the recent past, it was customary to unrestrainedly praise scientific and technological progress as almost the only pillar of the overall progress of mankind.

Today, many just as recklessly deny the humanistic essence of the development of science. The belief has spread that the goals and aspirations of science and society today are divided and have come into irreparable contradictions, that the ethical norms of modern science are almost opposite to universal social, ethical and humanistic norms and principles, and the scientific search has long gone out of the moral control and Socratic postulates "knowledge and virtue are inseparable" has already been written off into the archive.

Scientific and technological progress not only exacerbates many of the existing contradictions of the existing social development, but also gives rise to new ones. Moreover, its negative manifestations can lead to catastrophic consequences for the destinies of all mankind. However, scientific and technological progress, as such, like any historical development, is irreversible. But one should not think that people are left meekly submitting to the development of science and technology, adapting as much as possible to its negative consequences. Specific areas of scientific and technological progress, scientific and technical projects and decisions affecting the interests of both living and future generations - this is what requires a broad, open, democratic and at the same time competent discussion, this is what people can accept or reject by their will.

This determines today the social responsibility of a scientist. The experience of history has convinced us that knowledge is power, that science reveals to man the sources of unprecedented power and power over nature. The consequences of scientific and technological progress are very serious and far from always favorable for people. Therefore, acting with the consciousness of his social responsibility, the scientist must strive to anticipate possible undesirable effects that are potentially inherent in the results of his research. After all, thanks to his professional knowledge, he is better prepared for such a foresight and is able to do it earlier than anyone else. Along with this, the socially responsible position of the scientist assumes that he informed the public as widely and in accessible forms about possible undesirable effects, about how they can be avoided, eliminated or minimized. Only those scientific and technical decisions that are made on the basis of sufficiently complete information can be considered socially and morally justified in our time. All this shows how great is the role of scientists in the modern world. For it is they who have the knowledge and qualifications that are now needed not only to accelerate scientific and technological progress, but also to direct this progress for the benefit of man and society.

Conclusion

Scientific and technological achievements play a special role in shaping global trends. The achievements of science and technology, spreading throughout the world, bring to life certain social consequences that are approximately the same in all countries and regions. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the universal typology of a public organization in most cases is built taking into account the stage at which a particular country or group of countries is mastering advanced scientific and technological achievements. This approach is clearly presented in the well-known theories of post-industrial society,the author of which was the American sociologist D. Bell.

An attempt to consider such a complex social formation as science is inevitably connected with the fact that many of its important aspects remain in the shadows.

The increased role of science in society, the growth of its social prestige and the increase in hopes that cardinal issues of human existence will be solved with its help, place increased demands on knowledge about science. In the context of scientific and technological progress, these requirements will continue to grow rapidly. At present, "science acts as a social organism, which includes labor activity people, aimed at obtaining scientific knowledge, the means of this activity and the direct product - scientific knowledge. The core of this organism is scientific activity, without which there are no other components of science.

The most popular tips, secrets and recipes from Dimetry in all spheres of society are presented. You can learn the simplest, and most importantly, effective secrets on how to make dried gingerbread soft, increase the shelf life of dairy products; how to whiten teeth, stop scabies with one touch, or how to treat allergies; how to fix zippers on clothes, dye shoes without cracking the skin, and much, much more. Dimetri Bogdanov

All tips are cataloged by sections, which makes it possible to quickly search. Tips, secrets have been tested by many people, which receive a huge amount of positive feedback.

In addition to tips, secrets and recipes for sections, there is also an open blog. You can leave your recipe or write a review in the guestbook without registration.

Impulsarism invites you to the site http://impulsarizm.narod2.ru - new materials will delight everyone. We wish you to be flexible and nimble, pass all exams, defend yourself and be at your best.

The Learning website also works with mobile phones. "Mobile offset" - the best wap-site for mobile – http://zachet.kmx.ru/ Pulsar Mega Dictionary – http://pulsar.wen.ru and a million words at your fingertips . Log in from your mobile phone at exams, lessons, tests, and just for any question.

Contemporary Art Forum

Science as a social institution

The concept of science as a social institution

Science is not only a form of social consciousness aimed at an objective reflection of the world and providing humanity with an understanding of patterns, but also a social institution. In Western Europe, science as a social institution arose in the 17th century in connection with the need to serve the emerging capitalist production and began to claim a certain autonomy. In the system of social division of labor, science as a social institution has assigned specific functions to itself: to be responsible for the production, examination and implementation of scientific and theoretical knowledge. As a social institution, science included not only a system of knowledge and scientific activity, but also a system of relations in science, scientific institutions and organizations.

The Institute presupposes a set of norms, principles, rules, models of behavior that regulate human activity and are woven into the functioning of society; this is a phenomenon of a supra-individual level, its norms and values prevail over individuals acting within its framework. The very concept of "social institution" began to come into use thanks to the research of Western sociologists. R. Merton is considered to be the founder of the institutional approach in science. In the domestic philosophy of science, the institutional approach has not been developed for a long time. Institutionality involves the formalization of all types of relations, the transition from unorganized activities and informal relations by the type of agreements and negotiations to the creation of organized structures that involve hierarchy, power regulation and regulations. The concept of "social institution" reflects the degree of fixation of a particular type of human activity - there are political, social, religious institutions, as well as institutions of the family, school, marriage, and so on.

The process of institutionalization of science testifies to its independence, to the official recognition of the role of science in the system of social division of labor, to the claim of science to participate in the distribution of material and human resources. Science as a social institution has its own branched structure and uses both cognitive and organizational and moral resources. The development of institutional forms of scientific activity involved the clarification of the prerequisites for the process of institutionalization, the disclosure of its content, and the analysis of the results of institutionalization. As a social institution, science includes the following components:

The totality of knowledge and its carriers;

The presence of specific cognitive goals and objectives;

Performing certain functions;

Availability of specific means of knowledge and institutions;

Development of forms of control, examination and evaluation of scientific achievements;

The existence of certain sanctions.

E. Durkheim emphasized the coercive nature of the institutional in relation to an individual subject, its external force, T. Parsons pointed out another important feature of the institution - a stable set of roles distributed in it. Institutions are designed to rationally streamline the life of the individuals that make up society and ensure the sustainable flow of communication processes between various social structures. M. Weber emphasized that an institution is a form of association of individuals, a way of inclusion in collective activity, participation in social action.

The modern institutional approach is characterized by taking into account the applied aspects of science. The normative moment loses its dominant place, and the image of "pure science" gives way to the image of "science put at the service of production." The competence of institutionalization includes the problems of the emergence of new areas of scientific research and scientific specialties, the formation of scientific communities corresponding to them, and the identification of various degrees of institutionalization. There is a desire to distinguish between cognitive and professional institutionalization. Science as a social institution depends on social institutions that provide the necessary material and social conditions for its development. Merton's research revealed the dependence of modern science on the needs of the development of technology, socio-political structures and internal values of the scientific community. It was shown that modern scientific practice is carried out only within the framework of science, understood as a social institution. In this regard, there may be restrictions on research activities and freedom of scientific research. Institutionality provides support for those activities and those projects that contribute to the strengthening of a particular value system. The set of basic values varies, but at present, none of the scientific institutions will preserve and embody in their structure the principles of dialectical materialism or biblical revelation, as well as the connection of science with parascientific types of knowledge.

Evolution of ways of translation of scientific knowledge

Human society throughout its development, it needed ways to transfer experience and knowledge from generation to generation. The synchronous method (communication) indicates operational targeted communication, the possibility of coordinating the activities of individuals in the process of their joint existence and interaction. The diachronic method (broadcasting) refers to the transmission of available information, “a sum of knowledge and circumstances” extended in time from generation to generation. The difference between communication and translation is quite significant: the main mode of communication is negative feedback, i.e. correction of programs known to two parties of communication; the main mode of translation is positive feedback, i.e. transmission of programs known to one side of the communication and unknown to the other. Knowledge in the traditional sense is associated with transmission. Both types of communication use language as the main, always accompanying sociality, sign reality.

Language as a sign reality or a system of signs serves as a specific means of storing, transmitting information, as well as a means of managing human behavior. The sign nature of language can be understood from the fact of the insufficiency of biological coding. Sociality, manifested as the attitude of people about things and the attitude of people about people, is not assimilated by genes. People are forced to use non-biological means of reproducing their social nature in the change of generations. The sign is a kind of "hereditary essence" of non-biological social coding, which ensures the transmission of everything that is necessary for society, but cannot be transmitted by biocode. Language acts as a "social" gene.

Language as a social phenomenon is not invented or invented by anyone, it sets and reflects the requirements of sociality. As a product of the creativity of an individual, language is nonsense that does not have universality and is therefore perceived as gibberish. “Language is as ancient as consciousness,” “language is the immediate reality of thought”—such are the classical propositions. Differences in the conditions of human life are inevitably reflected in the language. So, the peoples of the Far North have a specification for the names of snow and there is no such specification for the names of flowers that do not have important meaning for them. Mankind accumulates knowledge and then passes it on to subsequent generations.

Before the advent of writing, the transmission of knowledge was carried out with the help of oral speech. Verbal language is the language of the word. Writing was defined as a secondary phenomenon replacing oral speech. At the same time, the methods of non-verbal transmission of information were known to the more ancient Egyptian civilization.

Writing is an extremely significant way of transmitting knowledge, a form of fixing the content expressed in the language, which made it possible to connect the past, present and future development of mankind, to make it transtemporal. Writing is an important characteristic of the state and development of society. It is believed that the "savage" society, represented by the social type of "hunter", invented the pictogram; the "barbarian society" represented by the "shepherd" used the ideo-phonogram; the society of "cultivators" created the alphabet. In the early types of societies, the function of writing was assigned to special social categories of people - these were priests and scribes. The appearance of writing testified to the transition from barbarism to civilization.

Two types of writing - phonologism and hieroglyphics - accompany cultures of different types. The flip side of writing is reading, a special type of translational practice. A revolutionary role was played by the formation of mass education, as well as the development of technical possibilities for replicating books (the printing press, invented by I. Gutenberg in the 15th century).

Exist different points view of the relationship between writing and phonetic language. In antiquity, Plato interpreted writing as an auxiliary component, an auxiliary memorization technique. The famous dialogues of Socrates are transmitted by Plato, since Socrates developed his teaching orally.

Starting with Stoicism, notes M. Foucault, the system of signs was ternary, it distinguished the signifier, the signified and the "case". Since the 17th century, the disposition of signs has become binary, since it is determined by the connection between the signifier and the signified. The language that exists in a free, original being as a letter, as a brand on things, as a sign of the world, gives rise to two other forms: above the original layer are comments using existing signs, but in a new use, and below is a text, the primacy of which is assumed by the commentary. Since the 17th century, the problem of the connection between the sign and what it means has arisen. The classical era tries to solve this problem by analyzing representations, while the modern era tries to solve this problem by analyzing meaning and meaning. Thus language is nothing but special occasion representations (for people of the classical era) and meanings (for modern humanity).

Natural, oral language is conceived as closest to the signified. At the same time, the words, the voice are closer to the mind than the written sign. The Christian truth “In the beginning was the word” connects the power of creation with the word. Writing was conceived as a way of depicting speech and as a way to replace personal participation: at the same time, it limited free reflection, suspended the flow of thoughts. Borrowed from Byzantine culture, Church Slavonic was the first written language in Russia. Church Slavonic writing began to perform educational and preaching functions, expressing the spiritual truths of the Orthodox dogma. The Church Slavonic language was supplemented by non-verbal linguistic forms: the language of icon painting, temple architecture. Secular Russian culture gravitated not to the symbolic, but to the logical-conceptual, rational way of transferring knowledge.

The science of writing is formed in the XVIII century. Writing is recognized as a necessary condition for scientific objectivity, it is the arena of metaphysical, technical, economic achievements. An important problem is the unambiguous connection between meaning and meaning. Therefore, the positivists substantiated the need to create a single unified language using the language of physics.

In the doctrine of writing, expression (as a means of expression) and indication (as a means of designation) were distinguished. The Swiss linguist Saussure, characterizing the two-layer structure of the language, points to its objectivity and operationality. Verbal signs fix the subject and “dress” thoughts. The fixer and operator function is common to all types of languages, both natural and artificial.

To translate knowledge, formalization methods and interpretation methods are important. The former are called upon to control every possible language, to curb it by means of linguistic laws that determine what and how can be said; the second is to force the language to expand its semantic field, to approach what is said in it, but without taking into account the actual field of linguistics.

The translation of scientific knowledge imposes on the language the requirements of neutrality, lack of individuality and an accurate reflection of being. The ideal of such a system is enshrined in the positivist dream of language as a copy of the world (such an attitude became the main programmatic requirement for the analysis of the language of science by the Vienna Circle). However, the truths of discourse (reme-thoughts) always find themselves in the "captivity" of the mentality. Language forms a receptacle for traditions, habits, superstitions, the "dark spirit" of the people, absorbs tribal memory.

The "linguistic picture" is a reflection of the natural world and the artificial world. This is understandable when a particular language, due to certain historical reasons, becomes widespread in other areas. the globe and enriched with new concepts and terms.

For example, the linguistic picture that has developed in the Spanish language in the homeland of its speakers, i.e. on the Iberian Peninsula, after the conquest of America by the Spaniards, it began to undergo significant changes. Spanish speakers found themselves in the new natural and socio-economic conditions of South America, and the meanings previously recorded in the vocabulary began to be given and matched with them. As a result, significant differences arose between the lexical systems of Spanish in the Iberian Peninsula and in South America.

Verbalists - supporters of the existence of thinking only on the basis of language - associate thought with its sound complex. However, even L. Vygodsky noticed that verbal thinking does not exhaust all forms of thought, nor all forms of speech. Most of thinking will not be directly related to verbal thinking (instrumental and technical thinking, and in general the whole area of the so-called practical intellect). Researchers distinguish non-verbalized, visual thinking and show that thinking without words is just as possible as thinking based on words. Verbal thinking is only one type of thinking.

The most ancient way of transmitting knowledge is fixed by the theory of the nominal origin of the language, which showed that the successful outcome of any difficult situation in life, for example, hunting for a wild animal, required a certain division of individuals into groups and assigning private operations to them with the help of a name. In the psyche of a primitive man, a strong reflex connection was established between the labor situation and a certain sound-name. Where there was no name-address, joint activity was impossible; name-address was a means of distribution and fixation of social roles. The name looked like a carrier of sociality, and the person defined in the name became a temporary performer of this social role.

The modern process of translation of scientific knowledge and the development of cultural achievements by a person falls into three types: personal-nominal, professional-nominal and universal-conceptual. According to personal-nominal rules, a person joins social activity through an eternal name - a distinguisher.

For example, mother, father, son, daughter, elder of the clan, the Pope - these names make the individual strictly follow the programs of these social roles. A person identifies himself with the previous bearers of the given name and performs those functions and duties that are transferred to him with the name.

Professional nominal rules include a person in social activity according to the professional component, which he masters, imitating the activities of his elders: teacher, student, military leader, servant, etc.

The universal-conceptual type provides entry into life and social activity according to the universal "civil" component. Relying on the universal-conceptual type, a person “de-objectifies” himself, realizes, gives vent to his personal qualities. Here he can speak on behalf of any profession or any personal name.

From the point of view of historical age, the most ancient is the personal-nominal type of translation: the professional-nominal type of thinking is a traditional type of culture, more common in the East and supported by such a structure as caste; the universal-conceptual way of mastering culture is the youngest, typical mainly for the European type of thinking.

The process of translation of scientific knowledge uses communication technologies - monologue, dialogue, polylogue. Communication involves the circulation of semantic, emotional, verbal and other types of information. There are two types of communication process: directed, when information is addressed to individual individuals, and retinal, when information is sent to a set of probabilistic addressees. G.P. Shchedrovitsky singled out three types of communication strategies: presentation, manipulation, convention. The presentation contains a message about the significance of a particular subject, process, event; manipulation involves the transfer of an external goal to the chosen subject and uses hidden mechanisms of influence, while in the mental agent there is a gap in understanding and goal, a space of incompetence arises; the convention is characterized by agreements in social relations, when the subjects are partners, assistants, being called communication moderators. From the point of view of interpenetration of interests, communication can manifest itself as confrontation, compromise, cooperation, withdrawal, neutrality. Depending on organizational forms, communication can be business, deliberative, presentational.

There is no initial tendency towards consensus in communication, it is filled with energy emissions of varying degrees of intensity and modality and, at the same time, is open to the emergence of new meanings and new content. In general, communication relies on rationality and understanding, but exceeds their allowable scope. It contains moments of intuitive, improvisational, emotional-spontaneous response, as well as volitional, managerial, role-playing and institutional influences. In modern communication, imitation mechanisms are quite strong, when a person tends to imitate all vital states, great place belongs to paralinguistic (intonation, facial expressions, gestures), as well as extralinguistic forms (pauses, laughter, crying). Communication is important not only from the point of view of the main evolutionary goal - adaptation and transfer of knowledge, but also for the implementation of significant for the individual life values.

Science as a social institution

Being a form of people's spiritual activity, science is aimed at producing knowledge about nature, society and knowledge itself; its immediate goal is to comprehend the truth and discover the objective laws of the human and natural world based on a generalization of real facts. Sociocultural features of scientific activity are:

Universality (general significance and "general cultural"),

Uniqueness (innovative structures created by scientific activity are unique, exclusive, irreproducible),

Non-value productivity (it is impossible to attribute cost equivalents to the creative actions of the scientific community),

Personification (like any free spiritual production, scientific activity is always personal, and its methods are individual),

Discipline (scientific activity is regulated and disciplined like scientific research),

Democracy (scientific activity is unthinkable outside of criticism and freethinking),

Communality (scientific creativity is co-creation, scientific knowledge crystallizes in a variety of communication contexts - partnership, dialogue, discussion, etc.).

Science as a social institution. Organization and management in science

Science took shape as a social institution in the 17th and early 18th centuries, when the first scientific societies and academies were formed in Europe and the publication of scientific journals began. Prior to this, the preservation and reproduction of science as an independent social entity was carried out mainly in an informal way, through traditions transmitted through books, teaching, correspondence, and personal communication between scientists.

With the split of the world into two camps after the Great October Socialist Revolution, science as a social institution began to develop in fundamentally different social conditions. Under capitalism, under the conditions of antagonistic social relations, the achievements of science are used to a large extent by the monopolies to obtain superprofits, intensify the exploitation of the working people, and militarize the economy. Under socialism, the development of science is planned on a national scale in the interests of the entire people. On a scientific basis, the planned development of the economy and the transformation of social relations are carried out, thanks to which science plays a decisive role both in creating the material and technical base of communism and in shaping the new man. A developed socialist society opens the widest scope for new advances in science in the name of the interests of the working people.

The emergence of "big" N. was primarily due to a change in the nature of its connection with technology and production. Until the end of the 19th century. N. played an auxiliary role in relation to production. Then the development of science begins to outpace the development of technology and production, and a unified system of "science-technology-production" is formed, in which science plays the leading role. In the era of the scientific and technological revolution, science is constantly transforming the structure and content of material activity. The process of production more and more "... appears not as subordinate to the direct skill of the worker, but as a technological application of science" (K. Marx, see K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 46, part 2). 2, p. 206).

Along with the natural and technical sciences, social sciences are becoming increasingly important in modern society, setting certain guidelines for its development and studying man in all the diversity of his manifestations. On this basis, there is an ever-increasing convergence of the natural, technical and social sciences.