SHARE WITH FRIENDS:
Rationale of argumentation. Problem, hypothesis, theory
1. Structure and types of proof.
2. Rebuttal and criticism.
3. Dispute Terms.
4. Errors in proof and refutation.
5. Problem, hypothesis, theory.
There are specific legal rules for arguing, debating, being able to prove true opinions, and rejecting erroneous opinions. Knowing these rules allows everyone, including students, to be able to distinguish true thoughts from false thoughts, to form a culture of correct thinking.
Argumentation (argument) and the formation of confidence
In the science of logic, the concepts of proof and proof are mutually different. Argument means justifying an idea, opinion or system of opinions by direct reference to reality (on the basis of observation, experience-experiment, etc.) or with the help of other opinions that have already been proven to be true. Evidence can be direct or indirect. Direct evidence is based on sensory knowledge, that is, seeing, experience-experiment. Indirect evidence, on the other hand, is based on other considerations that have already been proven true and appears in the form of inference. The first method of proof is empirical, and the second method is based on theoretical knowledge. Just as the limit of theoretical and empirical knowledge is relative, the division of proof into the above two methods is also relative.
A special form of proof is logical proof. Logical proof refers to justifying the truth of an idea or reasoning through other previously proven truths. The purpose of proof is to determine the truth of an idea, and the purpose of argumentation is to determine the truth of an idea, to justify its importance and applicability for a specific activity. If the arguments (reasons) used in the process of proof serve to confirm the truth of the given opinion, the proof also serves to justify that the reason being argued is preferable to other similar opinions. Arguments (grounds) presented for proof are diverse compared to arguments presented for proof. Forms of evidence and forms of proof do not exactly correspond to each other.
The proof is done in the form of deduction. Argument is more in the form of a conversation (dialogue), where each of its participants tries to prove the truth of his opinion, reject the opinion of his opponent, and convince the listeners to think and believe in their own opinion.
In the process of proof, the correctness or error of an opinion is given to the recipients (Lat. - receiver) - listeners, and a sense of confidence is formed in them. The extent to which the speaker has mastered the art of speech, that is, speaking skills, plays an important role in the formation of trust in the audience.
An opinion based on facts and other evidence has a high persuasive power and builds trust in people. The purpose of knowledge is to create a belief that has a scientific basis. Argument and proof is a means of building trust.
Beliefs are views and perceptions that determine people's behavior and actions.
Proof and its structure, types of proof
People's success in practical activities depends on the extent to which the knowledge they use is true, that is, how accurately this knowledge reflects reality. Erroneous thoughts distort the real connections and relationships of objects, causing a lot of confusion in cognition. Therefore, in the process of knowledge, it is important to achieve the correct construction of each idea, to be able to demonstrate its truth with evidence, and to be able to reject erroneous ideas.
To confirm the truth of the idea, it can be compared with the event (fact) itself. But in most cases, the truth of the results in the process of cognition is determined by connecting them with previously acquired knowledge. A logical way to do this is through proof.
Proof is a logical operation that consists in justifying the truth of a sentence by means of other true sentences connected with it. Its structure consists of three elements: thesis, arguments (grounds), method of proof-demonstration.
The judgment on which the truth of the thesis must be based is the central figure of proof; the whole focus is on showing its authenticity. A thesis consists of an argument itself, or a system of arguments, or theorems, or the results of a generalization of concrete facts, or arguments indicating the cause of events, and so on.
Arguments are judgments presented to justify the truth of the thesis. Judgments, definitions, axioms, theorems, laws and other empirical and theoretical generalizations serve as arguments. The facts presented as an argument must be interconnected and related to the essence of the thesis.
Definitions are also true judgments that can be used as arguments. For example, "Motion is any kind of change" is a definition-true sentence.
Axioms are self-evident truths that do not require proof. It is not necessary to prove them because they have been repeated many times in human experience.
The truth of theorems and laws is proved, they can be used as arguments without hesitation.
The method of proof-demonstration consists of a logical connection between the thesis and the arguments. It is in the form of inference, that is, the thesis is logically derived as a conclusion from the arguments.
There are two types of proof: direct proof and indirect proof. In direct proof, the truth of the thesis is supported by direct arguments, in which judgments that contradict the thesis are not used. In most cases, a thesis represents a single event and uses some common knowledge, such as a law, as an argument to support its truth. For example, the truth of the sentence (thesis) that "Uzbekistan is an independent state" is proved by means of such grounds as "declaration of Uzbekistan as an independent state, its recognition at the international level."
In indirect proof, the truth of the thesis is justified by showing the falsity of the judgment (antithesis) that contradicts it. Apagogic proof and subtractive proof are distinguished depending on how the antithesis is expressed. Apogogical proof is based on the relationship between thesis (a) and antithesis ( ). For example, in order to justify the truth of the sentence "Matter does not exist without motion", the opposite sentence "Matter exists without motion" is taken.
In apogogic proof, an antithesis is found (step 1), temporarily accepted as true, and certain results are drawn from it (step 2), then these results are shown to be false (step 3), and thus the thesis is proved to be true. For example, if the sentence "Matter exists without motion" is true, then the thought "Material objects exist without structure" (result from antithesis) is also true. We know that material objects do not exist without structure (elements that make it up and their interaction). therefore, the opinion "Matter exists without motion" is a mistake, thus the truth of the opinion "Matter does not exist without motion" is established.
In a deductive argument, the thesis is one member of a purely deductive sentence (strong disjunction), the truth of which is established by demonstrating the falsity of its other members (the antithesis). For example, the opinion that "the crime was committed by either A, V, or C" is checked, and it is determined that "the crime was not committed by either V or C, and thus the truth of the judgment that "Crime was committed by A" is established. In this example, the deductive argument is constructed according to the negative-affirmative mode of the deductive-assertive syllogism:
The conclusion is true only when all the alternatives are completely taken, that is, the thesis is proved.
2. Refusal, methods of refusal
Refutation is a logical action aimed at breaking the proof.
Refutation can be considered a special form of proof, since the refutation of the truth of an opinion consists in showing the falsity of the opinion that contradicts it. A refutation, like a proof, consists of a thesis (a judgment to be rejected), arguments (judgments refuting the thesis), and a demonstration (method of refutation). Refusal occurs in the process of discussing an issue, i.e. debate. If one of the participants in the debate puts forward a certain thesis and defends it (proponent), the other opposes it (opponent). Arguments on unresolved, controversial issues are considered polemics, in which opposing theses are not only based, but also critically analyzed.
Refusal is done in three different ways:
1) rejection of the thesis;
2) rejection of arguments;
3) refusal of demonstration.
I. Rejection of the thesis
There are the following ways to reject a thesis:
1. Refusal by facts. This is the most reliable and effective method. In this case, the thesis is rejected based on the events and statistical data. For example: to reject the thesis that "Uzbekistan was an independent republic during the Soviet period", that is, to prove that it is wrong, we rely on historical facts. We reject the thesis, citing evidence that the leadership of the Republic could not solve any important issue without Moscow's permission during that period.
2. Refuting the results from the thesis by showing that they are wrong (or contradictory). In this case, the falsity of the results from the thesis is justified. This method is called "making sense". The rejected thesis is temporarily recognized as true, the results arising from it are determined, and these results are proven to be contrary to the truth and incorrect. ×in premise does not produce a false result, otherwise it would be nonsense. The formula for the "Bring to Absurdity" method is as follows:
3. Refuting the thesis by proving the antithesis. A new thesis (antithesis) contradicting the rejected thesis is obtained and proved. Third, according to the law of exclusion, from the truth of the antithesis, the falsity of the thesis is derived. For example, President IA Karimov in his article "There is no future without historical memory" rejects the thesis that "Amir Temur was a great leader and made records" as follows: "A person cannot be both creative and evil at the same time. . A person who has built madrasas and mosques, high palaces, patted the heads of scholars, and memorized the Holy Qur'an will not be evil. Can a bloodthirsty man say, ``Strength is justice''?
Indeed, under the auspices of Sohibkiran Amir Temur, the gardens and buildings built under his instructions clearly prove that he is a creative person.
I. Refusal of arguments.
Arguments presented by the opponent to prove the thesis are criticized, and it is determined that they are wrong or insufficient to prove the thesis.
The fallacy of the arguments does not prove that the thesis is also fallacious, in which case the thesis may be true:
By rejecting the arguments, it is justified that the thesis is not proven.
I. Refutation by criticism of the method of proof.
In this method of refutation, mistakes made in the proof are identified. In this case, it is justified that the truth of the rejected thesis does not directly follow from the arguments presented for its justification. If an error in the proof method is detected, the thesis is not rejected, it is required to be re-proved.
The above methods of rejection are often used together, complementing each other.
3. Rules of proof and rebuttal, when they are violated
resulting logical errors.
Rules related to the thesis;
1. The thesis should be clear and logical. If this rule is violated, the proof or disproof will no longer have a clear object, and it will be futile to attempt it.
2. The thesis must not be changed from the beginning to the end of proof or disproof. If this rule is violated, the error "substitution of thesis" will appear.
Rules for Arguments;
1. Arguments presented to justify the thesis must be true judgments and not contradict each other.
2. Arguments should be sufficient to justify the thesis.
3. Arguments should be judgments that have been proved to be true independently of the thesis.
The rule of the method of proof:
1. The thesis should be a logical conclusion from the arguments. For this, it is necessary to follow the rules of inference when proving or disproving.
Violations of the rules of proof and refutation lead to logical fallacies. These errors are divided into three types:
I. Errors related to the thesis being proved
1. Substitution of thesis. Violation of the rule that the thesis must not change during proof or refutation will cause the thesis to be replaced. A thesis is intentionally or unintentionally replaced by another thesis, and this new thesis is either proved or disproved. Narrowing or expanding the content of the thesis also leads to changes in the thesis during the debate. For example, while proving the thesis about the importance of national ideology and national idea for the development of our republic, if an attempt is made to prove the issue of whether the society as a whole needs ideology or not, then the content of the thesis will be expanded and the thesis will be replaced.
2. To replace the thesis under the pretext of a person's personal quality. In the course of the debate, deviating from the topic, thinking about the opponent's personal, social life, good qualities or shortcomings, and asserting the thesis as proven or rejected on this basis, causes the exchange of the thesis. This mistake is made on purpose. Attempting to get an unproven thesis to be accepted as true by influencing the emotions of the audience is also thesis substitution.
3. Changing the thesis as a result of trying to prove more or less. When an idea is over-proved, an attempt is made to prove a stronger thesis instead of the given thesis. If event A leads to V, but event V does not lead to A, then the thesis representing event A is stronger than the thesis representing event V. For example, instead of the thesis (V) "Person A did not start the fight first", one tries to prove the thesis (A) that "Person A was not at the scene of the fight at all." The second thesis cannot be proven because there are witnesses who saw that person A was involved in the fight.
II. Argument errors.
1. Error of foundations. When proving or disproving a thesis, a logical fallacy is committed intentionally or unintentionally as a result of assuming the wrong arguments to be true. For example, the Ancient Greek philosopher Thales based his theory on the idea that everything came from water.
2. An error in the form of providing the basics in advance. If the thesis is based on unproven arguments, such arguments do not prove the truth of the thesis, but only assume the truth of the thesis.
3. Error known as "circular proof". If the truth of the thesis is proved by arguments, and the truth of the arguments is proved by the thesis, then a logical fallacy is committed. For example, if we prove the thesis that "The power of the word is measured by the thought" as "The power of the thought is measured by the word", the above-mentioned error will be made.
III. Errors related to the method of proof (demonstration).
1. "False (fake) proof." A logical fallacy is committed if the thesis does not follow directly from the arguments presented to prove it. It is based on arguments that are not related to the thesis. For example, if the thesis that "person A is a bad person" is supported by arguments such as "only bad people walk on the street at night", "person A is walking on the street at night", then the opinion is superficially (falsely) proven.
2. Transition from conditioned thought to unconditioned thought. A logical fallacy is committed as a result of accepting a (conditional) thought that is true within a certain time, relationship, as a constant, unchanging true thought.
3. Errors associated with violation of the rules of inference:
a) logical errors that can be encountered in making deductive conclusions. This is explained in detail in the topic of deductive reasoning.
b) Logical errors that can be encountered in making inductive conclusions. These are the so-called "hasty generalization" and "after that, therefore therefore" errors. For example, it is a mistake to generalize that one or two students are irresponsible to the lesson and to say that "all students are irresponsible".
c) Logical errors that can be encountered in analogy. These are "false analogy" errors. In it, confusion arises as a result of taking a random sign as necessary, basing it on only one similar sign, or comparing completely incomparable phenomena.
Logical errors occur as a result of violating the laws of thinking, not following the rules of inference. In the history of logic, those who deliberately make mistakes in the process of proof are called sophists, and their teaching is called sophism (Greek-deceit). When a logical error is made without knowing it in the process of thinking, it is called a paralogism. Ideas that can be proven both true and false at the same time are called paradoxes.
The art of arguing (eristics) requires following specific rules.
These mainly include:
- not to argue unnecessarily;
- not to debate without a topic and not to deviate from the topic or change the topic during the debate;
- stop the debate if there are no conflicting or conflicting opinions on the topic of the debate;
- arguing only with intelligent people who know the subject well;
- to follow logical rules in arguing, to be able to draw conclusions from one's own and one's opponent's opinions, to identify and eliminate logical contradictions, if the grounds are correct, to recognize the correctness of the proof, etc.
- not to mix the methods of arguing within the same argument.
Knowing the logical foundations of argumentation and following the rules of argumentation allows you to raise the culture of thinking to a higher level.
4. The purpose of knowledge is to explain the nature of the recorded events. This cannot always be done with the help of existing ideas and principles. In the process of knowledge, certain conflicts arise, first of all, between the achieved level of our existing knowledge and the need to solve new cognitive tasks, a problematic situation arises. Such conflicts are especially evident in solving complex tasks in our daily life, and in science during periods of radical changes. This is the situation, for example, in natural science, at the end of the XNUMXth century and the beginning of the XNUMXth century, it arose as a result of the recording of the radioactivity phenomenon, the discovery of the electron, the substantiation of the quantum nature of radiation, and similar discoveries. It is necessary to understand that its essence is that the existing laws and principles of natural science, first of all, physics, are insufficient to explain the newly recorded phenomena.
It should also be said that a problematic situation in scientific knowledge can also be caused by the internal needs of the development of science. For example, the need to solve tasks related to explaining the ideas and methods of synergetics in science, defining the possibilities and fields of application of axiomatics in mathematics creates a new situation.
So, the problematic situation is the result of the conflict between the existing scientific concepts and the new facts recorded, or the fact that these scientific concepts are not sufficiently systematized and not justified as a whole doctrine.
Based on this, it can be said that the problematic situation consists of the objective necessity of changing the existing ideas about the world and its knowledge, methods and means of knowledge at different stages and stages of the development of knowledge.
Set and solve a scientific problem.
Analyzing a problematic situation leads to posing a new problem.
A problem is a question for which the answer is not directly available and the method of solution is unknown.
That's why setting and solving a problem requires going beyond existing knowledge, searching for new solutions and methods. The needs of our practical activity and knowledge determine what problems to put forward and the nature of its discussion.
One of the necessary conditions for the successful solution of the problem is to put it correctly and clearly state it. The right question, as W. Heisenberg said, is more than half of solving the problem.
It is not enough to have a clear picture of the problem situation to formulate the problem correctly. For this, it is necessary to foresee various methods and means of solving the problem.
People's life experience, knowledge and talent are important in setting problems. That is why, in most cases, new problems are put forward by major specialists in one or another field of scientific knowledge, scientists with rich experience and deep knowledge, and they are sometimes researched for many years. This can be seen, for example, in the setting and research of the problem of creating a national idea and a national ideology. If we refer to the world experience, "we can witness that the ideology of the nation is developed and improved during the lifetime of not one, but several generations."
Great people like Confucius, Mahatma Gandhi, Farobi, Bahauddin Naqshband, who had strong talent and "bright thinking" worked hard to create it.
Currently, as stated by President IA Karimov, "The most advanced representatives, if necessary, thinkers and intellectuals of any nation should work for the development and formation of the national idea, national ideology."
Because the analysis of the problematic situation can be approached in different ways, the task to be solved can be expressed in the form of different problems. In this case, some problems represent the main task, while some reflect some aspects of this task and therefore have a partial character. In many cases, it is possible to clarify and solve the main problem only after such partial problems, which are connected with each other, are solved.
Defining and articulating problems is no less important than solving them. In order to solve the problem correctly, it is necessary to correctly assess its role and importance in the development of scientific knowledge, and to find methods of solving it. It means choosing the most important and correct one from among the various problems that can be put into practice. The choice of the problem to a certain extent determines the general direction and characteristics of the research.
Ultimately, which problem to set depends on the needs of our practical work. × because only in practical activity the conflict between people's needs and goals and the means of solving them is clearly manifested, the subject of scientific research is determined and concrete tasks are set before knowledge on this basis.
A scientific problem usually arises within the framework of a certain theory (more information about the theory is given at the end of the lecture).
The theory helps to define the problem in general and choose the right one that can be put forward later. Also, each problem is solved using a specific theory. In some cases, the problem requires modification of the existing theory, adapting it to solve the problem.
Preliminary preparations are made to solve the problem. They consist of:
a) identifying facts and events that cannot be explained within existing theories;
b) analyze and evaluate ideas and methods of problem solving;
c) determining the type of problem solving, its purpose, ways of checking the obtained result;
g) show the characteristics of the relationship between the basis of the problem and the ideas put forward to solve it.
After this preliminary work is done, the solution of the problem is directly started.
It should be noted that the solution of the problem is relative in nature. In other words, it is difficult to find an absolute complete solution to the problem. Because it is not possible to cover all aspects of the studied phenomenon. Therefore, new problems may arise during scientific research, which require a different interpretation of the existing problem. An example of this can be shown by I. Newton's problem of mutual attraction of bodies. The whole world had discovered the law of gravitation, and it had passed that it found only quantitative relations between gravitating bodies.
A. Einstein's theory of relativity interprets the problem of mutual attraction of bodies in a different way and expands our ideas about this problem to a certain extent.
The nature of mutual attraction of bodies, the mechanism of implementation has not yet been fully revealed. In other words, the problem is not completely solved.
In some cases, solutions to problems cannot be found for a long time. For example, the problem of studying the cause of cancer has not yet been fully resolved.
Of course, this does not mean that some problems cannot be completely solved, but it shows that they cannot be solved using the existing methods and tools, and thus encourages to look for new ways of solving them. Hence, scientific research will continue until the problem is solved.
5. In the process of solving the problem, certain hypotheses are put forward and justified.
A hypothesis is a form of knowledge in the form of a reasonable assumption that explains the causes and characteristics of the phenomenon being studied.
It is necessary to consider the hypothesis, first of all, as a form of existing department of knowledge. Until the formation of reliable knowledge, opinions about problems and issues are based on observation, analysis and generalization of experimental results, they are built and exist in the form of various assumptions and hypotheses.
For example, the opinions expressed by Leucippus and Democritus about bodies being composed of atoms were initially in a hypothetical form, and were based on the analysis of the simplest, thousands of times observed in everyday experience: the transformation of a solid body into a liquid, the spread of an odor, and so on, and were aimed at explaining their cause. The idea that "such phenomena would not occur if bodies were not composed of small, indivisible particles" has a certain logical force.
The idea about the cause of the phenomenon first usually arises in the form of a hypothesis, and in this sense it is one of the general logical forms of the existence of knowledge.
Building a hypothesis consists in putting forward tentative ideas that explain the phenomenon being studied. It is in the form of judgments (judgments) or a system of judgments about the recorded facts, the laws characteristic of them. The main sentence that expresses it is considered to be an element that forms a system of reasoning. This sentence (reasoning) usually reflects the main idea of the hypothesis. The discussion process is built on its basis, and certain working hypotheses are built from time to time, leading to the promotion of assumptions that help to get the goal right, with the help of which the phenomenon is further explored.
The main logical tool for advancing hypotheses is probabilistic inference: analogy, incomplete induction, probabilistic syllogisms of various forms - syllogisms with at least one rule violated, one of the bases of which is a probabilistic sentence (conditional, deductive-strict, conditional deductive syllogisms forms).
Also, in some cases, the hypothesis can be formulated in the form of strict inferences and in the form of a multi-layered logical device of various inference methods.
The reasoning put forward in the hypothesis arises as a result of analyzing, processing, organizing, summarizing, and interpreting empirical materials. That is why a hypothesis is not any assumption, but a reasoning, a hypothesis based on a certain level, with its own logical force.
The following example confirms that the construction of a hypothesis is a complex logical process. French engineer Sadi Carnot, one of the founders of the theory of heat engines, was the first to put forward the idea that useful work is created only when heat is transferred from a hotter body to a colder body, and, on the contrary, work is necessary to transfer heat from a cold body to a heated body. At the same time, Carnot believed that the concept of heat rod, based on the idea that the reason for the manifestation of heat is the presence of a separate weightless liquid-thermorod, was correct. Comparing the heat source to water, and the difference between temperatures (temperatures) to the water level, Carnot, just as the work in the lowering of the water level is measured by the weight of the water divided by the difference between its levels, the work in the steam engine, the worker it is concluded that regardless of the nature of the substance (water, alcohol, etc.), it is measured by dividing the amount of heat transfer by the temperature difference. This meant that the working volume (amount) of the heat engine depends on the values of the heater and cooler temperatures. "Carnot's principle" later became the basis for the creation of the second law of thermodynamics.
In the given example, it is not difficult to notice that Sadi Carnot is based on analogy in advancing the hypothesis.
The previous hypothesis must be justified. At this stage, certain results are drawn from the hypothesis and they are verified, that is, their conformity with existing facts (or other reliable knowledge) is determined.
It should not be forgotten here that in order to turn the hypothesis into a reliable, true knowledge, the total number of results (derived from the main idea of the hypothesis) should be verified.
There are other ways to justify the truth of the hypothesis: 1) to logically derive the hypothesis from the knowledge that has been proved to be true in a deductive way; 2) confirming it if the basis is not reliable knowledge (this applies more to hypotheses built by means of syllogisms, the basis of which is a probabilistic judgment); 3) bringing the foundations of the hypothesis to the level sufficient to obtain reliable knowledge (this hypothesis applies to cases built by means of incomplete induction).
Let's look at the following example to visualize how the hypothesis is confirmed.
German physicist R. Clausius, one of the founders of thermodynamics, defended the "Carnot's principle" mentioned above against many attacks. In order to confirm this principle, he derives it deductively from a postulate whose truth is intuitively inevitable. According to this postulate, heat cannot transfer from a colder body to a hotter body. Here the emphasis is on this "inability to pass as it is", because in practice there is also a "forced" pass (in cooling devices, mixtures, etc.) compensatory) occurs together with the occurrence of the condition.
The hypothesis can also be rejected. It is determined by falsification of the results arising from the hypothesis, that is, by showing their inconsistency with the existing state of events in existence, information about the facts. This logical process takes place in the mode of denial of a conditional-strict syllogism, that is, from determining the error of the result to showing the error of the premise. Its symbolic expression is as follows
((NP) P) N
Failure to find the results of the hypothesis, although it greatly reduces the position of the hypothesis, but cannot reject it. The truth of the hypothesis is rejected outright only when the circumstances contradicting the results derived from it are found. For example, Ptolemy's hypothesis that the Earth is a stationary center was rejected after it contradicted the facts on which Copernicus' heliocentric theory was based.
It should be emphasized that several hypotheses can be put forward about the studied phenomenon at the same time. For example, until now, none of the existing hypotheses could fully explain how birds can find the right path while flying. Different opinions were expressed in them: some believed that birds are directed to the magnetic field, others to the Sun and stars. And in the second half of the 1980s, Ukrainian scientists expressed the opinion that birds determine their movement routes based on the Earth's gravitational field and "calculate" the change in gravity during this route. But so far, none of them has been conclusively confirmed or denied.
A hypothesis does not lose its cognitive significance until it is confirmed. If it is rejected, another hypothesis is constructed in its place, and this continues until one of the hypotheses is confirmed.
The hypotheses put forward can be generalized to different degrees. Accordingly, general and partial hypotheses can be distinguished.
A general hypothesis is a well-founded assumption about the laws of nature, society, cognitive phenomena. Examples of this are hypotheses about the organic and inorganic nature of the origin of oil, the emergence of life on Earth, the origin of consciousness, and social progress. Since general hypotheses allow us to reveal important laws of existence, scientific theory is considered the "building material". Once proven, such hypotheses become theories and determine the strategic direction of scientific research.
A partial (private) hypothesis consists of a reasonable guess about the origin and characteristics of certain facts, concrete objects and events. The court's version of the motive of a specific crime, the nature of the objects found in archaeological excavations, the assumptions about which periods they belong to are examples of partial hypothesis.
In logic, as mentioned above, working hypotheses are also distinguished.
A working hypothesis is an assumption put forward at the initial stage of research, which does not aim to determine the cause of the phenomenon being studied; it only helps to describe and organize the results of observation and experiment.
Thus, the hypothesis is the construction of our thoughts, the form of existence and development of our knowledge.
6. The term "theory" in a broad sense refers to intellectual knowledge, thinking, expressing it as a type of activity that differs from practice. In a narrow sense, theory means a form of knowledge that systematizes perceptions, concepts, ideas, hypotheses related to a certain field, and allows to understand the subject in a rational way.
This interpretation of the theory is related to the distinction between empirical and theoretical stages in scientific knowledge.
At the empirical stage, scientific facts are collected, studied, systematized, various tables, schemes, graphs are created; certain generalizations, in particular, empirical concepts, hypotheses, empirical laws are formed.
The further development of scientific knowledge is inextricably linked with the establishment of relationships between the knowledge generated at the stage of empirical knowledge, but the relationship between which has not yet been determined, their generalization, the creation of new fundamental concepts, general laws, and making scientific predictions on this basis. liq.
There is a necessary connection between these two stages of knowledge. In particular, the creation of a theory is determined by the need to establish logical connections between concepts, laws, and hypotheses reflecting certain aspects and features of the subject created in the process of empirical knowledge, to create a holistic view of the subject, and to explain its essence.
Theory is reliable knowledge that systematizes concepts, laws, hypotheses, and ideas related to a certain subject field, creates a holistic picture of it, leads to the creation of new fundamental generalizations, and allows to explain and foresee events in this field.
Scientific theory consists of the following components: 1) empirical basis: facts related to the theory, the results of their logical processing; 2) initial theoretical basis: basic concepts, postulates (axioms), fundamental laws (principles) of the theory; 3) logical apparatus of the theory: rules for creating and defining concepts, rules for drawing conclusions (proof); 4) obtained results (conclusions).
A scientific theory ultimately reflects a real system, an object, explains its nature, and thus has its own empirical basis. However, the existence of an empirical basis does not mean that all concepts of the theory express the emotional perception of objects and symbols, or that the theory reflects the existing phenomena, their real characteristics and relationships in all cases.
In theory, existence is perceived in an idealized way, mainly with the help of models. In the process of idealization, based on empirical knowledge of existing objects, concepts are formed about objects that do not exist in reality, and sometimes may not even exist, but are similar in a certain relation to real objects. For example, in many problems that require a solution of mechanics, the shape and dimensions of the body (width, height, volume, etc.) are not very important. At the same time, the mass is important, and therefore an imaginary physical-material point is created, the mass of which is concentrated in one point.
All real existing bodies have shape and dimensions, and the material point is an ideal object that replaces real bodies in solving some problems, serves as their equivalent in theoretical knowledge. An absolute solid body in physics, a point in geometry, a plane, a straight line, and many similar concepts in other sciences represent ideal objects.
With the help of ideal objects, the important features of the subject that cannot be perceived by the senses, relationships are studied. Without them, theoretical knowledge could not achieve its goal. Because they are a necessary means of theoretical knowledge, they are sometimes called theoretical objects.
The theory consists of a system of ideas and opinions of an ideal nature - a conceptual system, which represents a theoretical model of a real object. For example, the concept of a mechanical system, separated from the influence of other systems in mechanics and thought as a closed system, is a theoretical model of a real object. With its help, the laws of motion of a real existing mechanical system are studied.
The relationship between the ideal objects of the theoretical model and the concepts that reflect them is expressed in the fundamental laws and principles of the theory.
These laws, principles together with initial concepts and considerations form the conceptual core of the theory. For example, classical mechanics is based on the three laws of motion and related concepts of space, mass, time, force, speed, and acceleration. The basis of classical thermodynamics is its three important laws. The conceptual core of mathematical theories is expressed in their main concepts and axioms.
Each theory has its own rules for creating and defining concepts. An example of this is the rules for creating a formalized language (see topic 3), the rules for constructing reasoning logic as a system of natural inference (see topic 7). Also, any theory has its own results in the form of conclusions.
So, in the structure of the scientific theory, each of its elements has its place.
A scientific theory performs several important functions in cognition.
First, in theory, all knowledge related to a field is combined into a single system. In such a system, one usually tries to derive a large part of the knowledge from the relatively few initial concepts of the theory. They are called axioms in mathematics and hypotheses in natural science. The main goal of this is to interpret the mentioned facts as a result of some initial principles and hypotheses. In the theoretical system, each fact, each concept, each law or hypothesis should have its place in relation to others, and based on this, it should be interpreted, that is, interpreted (or reinterpreted). In the process of interpretation, existing theories and elements of the newly constructed theory are referred to. This, on the one hand, helps to correctly understand the nature of existing facts, and on the other hand, it allows to find new facts that cannot be recorded using the direct empirical method.
Second, theory building helps clarify, expand, and deepen knowledge about a given field. The reason for this is that the basic foundations of the theory - axioms, postulates, laws, principles, hypotheses - are logically stronger than other scientific knowledge in the theory. That is why building a theory does not consist only of arranging existing knowledge, that is, coordinating it. In this case, logically weak knowledge is derived from logically strong knowledge, that is, it is subordinated. And it leads to refer to concepts, laws, principles that are deeper than the content, to interpret the existing concepts with their help, to create new fundamental generalizations. For example, classical mechanics based on Newton's three laws of motion and the universal law of gravitation made it possible to explain and refine Galileo's law of free fall of bodies and Kepp's law of planetary motion. In particular, it became known that Galileo's law expresses the partial state of motion of a body under the influence of gravitational force. Outside the influence of gravity, that is, at a distance greater than the length of the Earth's radius, the law discovered by Galileo does not apply. It also turned out that Kepler's law of the elliptical orbit of a planet moving around the Sun does not take into account the influence of other planets and is therefore not very accurate.
Thirdly, the theory can explain the studied phenomenon on a scientific basis. True, to explain a phenomenon, they usually refer to the law that characterizes it. But it is important not to forget that laws in science do not exist in their own form, but in the structure of a certain theory. In this case, empirical laws are derived from certain theoretical laws. Even a theoretical law taken in isolation may not be sufficient to explain the phenomenon. Scientific experience shows that to explain the essence of the phenomenon, a set of all the ideas of the theory, including laws, are involved.
The special importance of the theory in scientific knowledge is that it allows to foresee the existence of new, previously unobserved phenomena. For example, Maxwell's electromagnetic theory predicted the existence of radio waves. These waves were recorded experimentally by G. Gers after a long time. Similarly, Einstein's theory of general relativity predicted the deflection of light in a gravitational field.
Fourthly, since the scientific theory establishes logical connections between all knowledge related to the field of study, embodies and summarizes it in a single system, its level of objective reality and, therefore, the level of reliability increases.
Fifthly, since the theory is the result of a long and arduous way of knowing, which consists of posing a problem, creating hypotheses, forming laws, promoting and justifying ideas, it allows to determine the laws specific to knowledge, to study them. will give.
Theory building is a complex process that often requires the collaboration of several scientists.
At the initial stage, the subject area of the theory and the direction of research are determined. The needs of our practical life, the goals and tasks of research, which are integrally connected with it, are of great importance. Also, the scope and depth of knowledge in the given field plays a big role in determining the subject area and research aspect.
The next necessary step in theory building is to define a starting point. It consists of a collection of the most basic concepts, axioms, and hypotheses related to the studied field. All other concepts, hypotheses and laws of the theory are deductively derived from this starting point. In this case, of course, all the basic concepts of the theory and those that are generated and created anew should be united on the basis of an important idea (or system of ideas).
Naturally, the theory is built using a certain method, that is, based on the application of methodological principles and methods.
The constructed theory is clarified in the next stages of knowledge, enriched with content and reinterpreted on the basis of new factual materials.
There are many types of scientific theory. They can be classified (categorized) on different grounds. In particular, according to the method of construction, theories can be divided into four types: 1) meaningful theories of sciences dealing with experience; 2) hypothetical-deductive (or semi-axiomatic) theories; 3) axiomatic theories; 4) formalized theories.
"Substantive" theories systematize, generalize and explain the facts of a certain field. They mainly rely on the results of experience, empirical materials, analyze, organize and summarize them. That is why they are called "theories based on experience". The reason they are called "substantive" is to distinguish them from formalized theories in mathematics and logic. Content theories are not purely empirical theories. They rely not only on empirical materials, but also on theoretical laws. For example, ×, which is considered meaningful. Darwin's theory of evolution, IP Pavlov's conditioned reflex theory of higher nervous activity, and so on, are based on deep theoretical ideas, with the help of which they understand, process and explain the collected materials in a rational way.
Hypothetical-deductive theories are found in natural science. It consists of a system of hypotheses of different logical strength, in which logically weak ones are deduced from logically strong ones. Hypothetico-deductive system can be considered as a chain (hierarchy) of hypotheses. In this case, the strength of the hypothesis increases as it moves away from the empirical basis.
One of the unique aspects of hypothetico-deductive theories is the strictly consistent placement of hypotheses in it by levels. The higher the level of the hypothesis, the greater its involvement in logically generating conclusions.
The hypothetico-deductive model of the theory has many conveniences in working with empirical materials, but it is also not free from some shortcomings. In particular, there is still no clear, definitive answer to the question of how the initial hypotheses should be chosen.
In axiomatic systems, most of the elements of the theory are deductively derived from a small starting point - the basic axioms. Axiomatic theories are constructed in mathematics.
The axiomatic method was first successfully used by Euclid in the construction of elementary geometry. The main axiomatic concepts of this geometry are "point", "straight line", "plane", which are considered as ideal spatial objects; geometry itself is interpreted as a science that studies the properties of physical space. All other concepts of Euclidean geometry were formed with them. Let's look at the following example: "A circle is a set of points that are equidistant from one point on a plane", where the concept of "circle" is created using the concepts of "point and plane", that is, it is deduced from them.
During the development of mathematics, the axiomatic method has been improved, and the scope of its application has expanded. In particular, it gradually became clear that Euclid's axioms are suitable for describing not only geometric objects, but also other mathematical and even physical objects. For example, when a point is accepted as a set of three real numbers, a straight line and a plane represent linear equations, it is found that the properties of these non-geometric objects meet the requirements of the axioms of Euclidean geometry.
It should be said that the creation of non-Euclidean geometries by NI Lobachevsky, B. Riemann and others provided a good opportunity to approach axiomatics in such an abstract way.
Abstract axiomatic systems are widely used in modern mathematics. Important features of such systems are that they consist of a closed system, that is, they consist of quantitatively limited axioms, concepts, and principles, and it is impossible to add new axioms and concepts to them arbitrarily and without basis; that the systems are logically non-contradictory and complete to a certain extent, and so on. That is why they keep their stability for a long time, remain a reliable means of acquiring new knowledge.
Axiomatics is also used in natural science. Only concepts that form the core of natural science can be axiomized because they are related to experience and therefore necessarily need empirical interpretation.
Abstract mathematical structures can be described and explained not only in axiomatic systems, but also in formalized theoretical systems.
Formalized theories are widely used in logic. An example of this is the logic of reasoning, the logic of predicates. It is also found in mathematics.
The types of theory we discussed above and others are highly valued in science as important tools for theoretical knowledge. They allow you to get to know the structure and laws of thinking well.
Basic concepts
1. A thesis is a judgment whose truth must be substantiated, it is the central figure of its proof.
2. Arguments - judgments presented to justify the truth of the thesis.
3. Method of proof — demonstration consists of logical connection between thesis and arguments.
4. Refutation is a logical action aimed at destroying the proof.
5. A problem is a question, the answer of which is not directly in the available knowledge and the method of solution is unknown.
6. A hypothesis is a form of knowledge in the form of a reasonable assumption that explains the causes and characteristics of the phenomenon being studied.
7. Theory is reliable knowledge that systematizes concepts, laws, hypotheses, and ideas related to a certain subject area, creates a holistic view of it, leads to the creation of new fundamental generalizations, and provides the ability to explain and foresee events in this area. consists of
Review questions
1. What is the structure of the proof?
2. What are the methods of proof?
3. How does refutation relate to proof?
4. What methods of rejection do you know?
5. What logical fallacies occur when the rules of proof and refutation are violated?
6. What is the problem situation?
7. What are the conditions for correctly setting and solving the problem?
8. What is the essence of the hypothesis and what are its types?
9. What tasks does the theory perform in the process of knowledge?
Tasks and recommendations on the topic
1. Find out what knowledge can serve as arguments.
2. Give examples of types of proof independently, be able to explain their essence.
3. Deeply study the nature of the problematic situation, find its occurrences in our scientific knowledge and practical life, and try to analyze it independently.
4. Pay attention to President IAKarimov's way of setting and solving problems related to the construction of a legal democratic state and civil society in Uzbekistan and try to make a logical analysis.
5. Achieve a concrete description of the purpose, structure and tasks of the theory.
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan. - T.: Uzbekistan, 2009.
2. Our main task is to further improve the development of our country and the well-being of our people. President Islam Karimov's speech at the meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers on the results of socio-economic development of our country in 2009 and the most important priorities of the economic program for 2010. People's Word, January 2010, 30.
3. Our priority is to modernize our country and build a strong civil society. Information on the joint session of the Legislative Chamber and the Senate of the Oliy Majlis of the Republic of Uzbekistan. January 2010, 28.
4. The Constitution of Uzbekistan is a solid foundation for us on the way to democratic development and building a civil society. President Islam Karimov's speech at the ceremony dedicated to the 17th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan. "People's Word", December 2009, 6.
5. Karimov IA World financial and economic crisis, ways and measures to eliminate it in the conditions of Uzbekistan. - T.: Uzbekistan, 2009.
6. Karimov IA High spirituality is an invincible power. -T., "Spirituality", 2008.
7. Karimov IA Uzbekistan's 16-year path of independent development. T., "Uzbekistan", 2007.
8. Karimov IA The Uzbek people will never be dependent on anyone. - T.: Uzbekistan, 2005.
9. Karimov IA Our main goal is democratization and renewal of society, modernization and reform of the country. T., "Uzbekistan", 2005.
10. Karimov IA During the empire, we were considered second-class people. T., "Uzbekistan", 2005.
11. Plato. Laws. -T.: New age generation, 2002.
12. Bor MZ Osnovi ekonomicheskikh issledovaniy. Logic, methodology, organizational methodology. M., "DIS", 1998. 144 p.
13. Bocharov VA, Markil VI Basic Logic: Uchebnik. -M.: FORUM: INFRA. 2005. -336 p.
14. Voyshvilo Ye.K., Degtyarev MG Logic. - M.: Vlados, 1998.
15. Gorsky DP, Ivin AA, Nikiforov AA Kratkiy slovar po logike. - M.: Vlados, 2000.
16. Getmanova AD Logic (slovar i zadachnik) — M.: Vlados, 1998.
17. Degtyarov MG, Khmelevskaya SA Logic. - M.: "PERSE", 2003.
18. Jack Trout. "Novoye pozitsitonirovaniye." Series "Theory and practice of management". Spb. "Peter", 2000. 192 p.
19. Yerina Ye.B. "Logic: Uchebnoye posobiye. -M.: Izd-va, RIOR, 2006. -112 p.
20. Ivin AA, Nikifirov AL Slovar po logike. - M.: Vlados, 1998.
21. Ivlev Yu.V. Logic: Textbook. 3rd izd. Pererab. i dop. M.: TK Welby, Izd-vo. Prospectus. 2006. -288 p.
22. Kurbatov VI Logic. - Rostov-on-Don. Phoenix, 1997, Chapter II "Theory and practical argumentation".
23. Nikifirov AL Logic. - M.: Ves mir, 2001.
24. Mahkamov J., Gudratova U., Bahadirov O. Logic. - T., 2005.
25. Minto V. "Deductive and inductive logic". SPb. TIT "Comet", 1995. 464 p.
26. Svetlov VA Practical logic. SPb. "MIM", 1997. 576 p.
27. Skorik UD Logic and scheme. - M.: Prometheus, 2004.
28. Skirbeck G., Giles N. History of philosophy. -T.: Sharq, 2002.
29. Troyanovsky VM Logic and management. - M.: Izd. RDL, 2001, 240 p.
30. Sharipov M., Faizikhojhayeva D. Logic. Text of lectures. - T., 2000.
31. Sharifkho'jayev M., Abdullayev Yo. Management: 100 questions and answers. - T.: Labor, 2000.
32. Philosophy encyclopedic dictionary. - T.: Sharq, 2004.
33. Qudratova U. A set of tests and exercises for independent work on the subject of "Logic". T., TDIU, 2009.
34. "Landscapes of Truth" 96 classical philosophers. -T.: New age generation, 2002.
35. www.gov.uz.
36. www.press-service.uz.
37. www.bilim.uz.
38. www.philosophy.ru.
39. www.filosofiya.ru.
40. www.philosophy.nsc.ru.
41. http//philosophy.albertina.ru.
42. www.history.ru.
43. www.philosophy.com.
