Systematic justification. Criteria for the existence of scientific knowledge How we work

SYSTEMIC JUSTIFICATION

It is difficult to name a statement that would be justified on its own, in isolation from other statements. Justification is always systemic in nature. The inclusion of a new provision in a system of other provisions, which imparts stability to its elements, is one of the most important steps in its justification.

Thus, in our society polemicism and problematic nature are increasingly established as the norm of ideological, theoretical, spiritual life. The requirement to discuss problems in the spirit of truth, openness, in an atmosphere of truly free, creative exchange of opinions acquires a solid foundation, being included in the system of ideas about socialism as a democratic society, which presupposes diversity in the judgments, relationships and activities of people, a wide range of beliefs and assessments.

Confirmation of the consequences arising from the theory is at the same time a reinforcement of the theory itself. On the other hand, a theory imparts certain impulses and strength to the propositions put forward on its basis and thereby contributes to their justification. A statement that has become part of a theory is based not only on individual facts, but in many ways also on a wide range of phenomena explained by the theory, on its prediction of new, previously unknown effects, on its connections with other scientific theories, etc. By including the analyzed position into a theory, we thereby extend to it the empirical and theoretical support that the theory as a whole has.

This point has been noted more than once by philosophers and scientists who have thought about the justification of knowledge.

Thus, the Austrian philosopher L. Wittgenstein wrote about the integrity and systematic nature of knowledge: “It is not an isolated axiom that strikes me as obvious, but a whole system in which consequences and premises mutually support each other.” Systematicity extends not only to theoretical positions, but also to experimental data: “We can say that experience teaches us some statements. However, he teaches us not isolated statements, but a whole variety of interdependent sentences. If they were separate, I might doubt them, because I don’t have direct experience with each of them.” The foundations of a system of propositions, Wittgenstein notes, do not support this system, but are themselves supported by it. This means that the reliability of the foundations is determined not by them in themselves, but by the fact that an integral theoretical system can be built on top of them. The “foundation” of knowledge appears to be hanging in the air until a stable building is built on it. The statements of a scientific theory are mutually intertwined and support each other. They hold on like people on a crowded bus, when they are supported on all sides and they do not fall because there is nowhere to fall.

Soviet physicist I. E. Tamm spoke about the formation of the principles of the electromagnetic theory of L. Maxwell: “...The validity of these basic postulates of macroscopic electrodynamics can be most convincingly substantiated not by the inductive method (which alone can be relied upon when finding basic laws, but which , however, cannot give a completely strict proof of their validity), but by agreement with experience of the entire set of consequences arising from the theory and covering all the laws of the macroscopic electromagnetic field.”

Since the theory provides additional support to the statements included in it, improving the theory, strengthening its empirical base and clarifying its general, including philosophical premises, is at the same time a contribution to the substantiation of the statements included in it.

Among the ways to clarify a theory, a special role is played by identifying the logical connections of its statements, minimizing its initial assumptions, constructing it in the form of an axiomatic system and, finally, if possible, its formalization.

When axiomatizing a theory, some of its provisions are chosen as initial ones, and all other provisions are derived from them in a purely logical way. Initial provisions accepted without proof are called axioms (postulates), provisions proven on their basis are called theorems.

The axiomatic method of systematizing and clarifying knowledge originated in antiquity and gained great fame thanks to Euclid’s “Elements” - the first axiomatic interpretation of geometry. Now axiomatization is used in mathematics, logic, as well as in certain branches of physics, biology, etc. The axiomatic method requires high level development of an axiomatized substantive theory, clear logical connections of its statements. This is due to its rather narrow applicability and the naivety of attempts to rebuild any science on the model of Euclid’s geometry.

In addition, as the Austrian logician and mathematician K. Gödel showed, quite rich scientific theories (for example, arithmetic natural numbers) do not allow complete axiomatization. This indicates the limitations of the axiomatic method and the impossibility of complete formalization of scientific knowledge.

This text is an introductory fragment.

6. Boundaries of justification Insufficient attention to the substantiation of statements, lack of objectivity, systematicity and specificity in the consideration of objects and phenomena ultimately lead to eclecticism - an uncritical combination of heterogeneous, internally unrelated and,

Social revolutions: regularity, consistency, cardinality The concept of “social revolution” here and in all other chapters is used in a strictly defined sense as the content of the era of transition to a new, more progressive stage of development. Thus we

§ 9. The methodological techniques of the sciences are partly justifications, partly auxiliary means for justification. However, some more additions are necessary, first of all regarding the fact that we are limited to justifications, while they do not yet exhaust the concept

11.1. Systematicity of social technologies * The people are the human potential of the country, can be considered as social environment, forming a complex and large-scale complex of spiritual, moral, intellectual and physical needs for ideas, knowledge, goods and

2.1. Systematicity of human development We study the systematicity of human development on the basis of the Principle of systematicity, as well as the rules of the “triad model”, “system model”, “reasonable egoism” and other rules of the Law of Systematicity, the rule of “harmony of development” and other rules

2.2. Consistency of national development Application of the Laws and principles of consistency and development. The laws and principles of systematicity and development obtained in the previous section of the work for human activity global level, based on the same approach there can be

3. The problem of justification in scientific knowledge Justification, or proof, of the truth of a particular position or concept is the most important component of the formation and development of a theory. Protecting the researcher from misconceptions and mistakes, it allows assumptions,

LIMITS OF JUSTIFICATION “At present, science is becoming the main thing,” wrote L.N. Tolstoy. “But this contradicts the truth, we must start with morality, the rest will come later, more naturally, easily, with new forces that have increased during this time.” Science, for all its importance, is not

§ 12. The idea of ​​a transcendental justification of knowledge Our reflections now need further development, in which only what was established earlier can be correctly used. What can I do, thinking in a Cartesian way, with the help of

Procedures for constructive justification of theoretical schemes Constructive justification ensures the linking of theoretical schemes to experience, and therefore the connection with experience of the physical quantities of the mathematical apparatus of the theory. It is thanks to the procedures of constructive

1. 1. Systematicity and technological effectiveness of management (the principle of technological innovation, the principle of systematic innovation, systemic philosophy of scientific theories and practical projects, systemic ideas for development, professional systematicity public administration, meaning

2. 2. Systematicity of global and public management (global and public management, application of the rule of the triad model, the original formula of the principle of systematicity, the task of transition to a new formula of the principle of systematicity, the complex potential of humanity,

2. 3. Systematicity of national and state governance (national and state governance, application of the rule of the triad model, the original formula of the principle of consistency, the task of transition to a new formula of the principle of consistency, the complex potential of the nation,

3. 4. Systematic structure of public administration (triad of structures of the public administration system; main components of the structure of public administration; development of the structure of public administration; structure of public administration technologies

Science as a specific type of knowledge is studied by the logic and methodology of science. At the same time, the main problem here is related to the identification of features that are necessary and sufficient to distinguish between science and other forms of human spiritual life - art, religion, everyday consciousness and others.

The relative nature of scientific criteria. The boundary between scientific and non-scientific forms of knowledge is flexible and changeable, so enormous efforts to develop scientific criteria have not yielded a clear solution. Firstly, during the historical development of science (see Chapter 3), the criteria for being scientific were constantly changing. Thus, the main features of science in Ancient Greece were considered accuracy and certainty, logical evidence, openness to criticism, and democracy. In the science of the Middle Ages, theology, scholasticism and dogmatism were the essential features; the “truths of reason” were subordinated to the “truths of faith.” The main criteria for scientificity in modern times are objectivity and subjectivity, theoretical and empirical validity, consistency, and practical usefulness. Science itself has transformed from contemplative and observational into complex theoretical and experimental activity, creating its own specific language and methods.

Over the past 300 years, science has also made its own adjustments to the problem of identifying signs of scientific character. Such characteristics, initially inherent in scientific knowledge, as accuracy and certainty, began to give way to the hypothetical nature of scientific knowledge, i.e. scientific knowledge is becoming increasingly probabilistic. In modern science there is no longer such a strict distinction between the subject, the object and the means of scientific knowledge. When assessing the truth of the acquired knowledge about an object, it is necessary to take into account the correlation of the obtained results of scientific research with the characteristics of the means and operations of the activity, as well as with the value-goal attitudes of the scientist and the scientific community as a whole. All this means that the criteria for being scientific are not absolute, but change when the content and status of scientific knowledge changes.

Secondly, the relative nature of the criteria for scientificity is determined by its multifaceted nature, the variety of subjects of research, methods of constructing knowledge, methods and criteria for its truth. In modern science, it is customary to distinguish at least three classes of sciences - natural, technical and social-humanitarian. The natural sciences are dominated by methods of explanation based on various types logic, and in social and humanitarian knowledge, methods of interpretation and understanding become decisive (see Chapter 11).

However, the relative nature of the criteria for scientificity does not negate the presence of some invariants, the main features of scientific knowledge that characterize science as an integral, specific phenomenon of human culture. These include: subjectivity and objectivity, consistency, logical evidence, theoretical and empirical validity.

All other necessary features that distinguish science from other forms of cognitive activity can be presented as derivatives, depending on the indicated main characteristics and conditioned by them.

Subjectivity and objectivity of scientific knowledge represent an inextricable unity.

Objectivity is the property of an object to posit itself as the essential connections under study and

laws. The subjectivity of scientific knowledge is accordingly based on its objective nature. Science sets as its ultimate goal to foresee the process of transforming the subject of practical activity into a product. Scientific activity can be successful only when it meets these laws. Therefore, the main task of science is to identify the laws and connections according to which objects change and develop. The orientation of science towards the study of objects is one of the main features of scientific knowledge. Objectivity, like objectivity, distinguishes science from other forms of human spiritual life. Thus, if in science the means are constantly being developed that can neutralize the role of the subjective factor and its influence on the result of cognition, then in art, on the contrary, the artist’s value attitude towards the work is directly included in the artistic image. Of course, this does not mean that the personal aspects and value orientations of a scientist do not play a role in scientific creativity and have absolutely no influence on scientific results. But the main thing in science is to construct an object that would obey objective connections and laws, so that human activity based on the results of research on a given object would be successful. According to the apt remark of V.S. Stepin, where science cannot construct an object defined by its essential connections, that’s where its claims end.

The systematic nature of scientific knowledge, which characterizes all aspects of science (its content, organization, structure, expression of the results obtained in the form of principles, laws and categories), is a specific feature that distinguishes scientific knowledge from everyday knowledge. Ordinary knowledge, just like science, strives to comprehend the real objective world, but unlike scientific knowledge, it develops spontaneously in the process of human life. Everyday knowledge, as a rule, is not systematized: rather, it is some fragmentary ideas about objects obtained from various sources of information. Scientific knowledge is always systematized in everything. As is known, a system is a set of subsystems and elements that are in relationships and connections with each other, forming a certain integrity, unity. In this sense, scientific knowledge represents the unity of principles, laws

and categories consistent with the principles and laws of the world under study itself. The systematic nature of science is also manifested in its organization. It is built as a system of certain areas of knowledge, classes of sciences, etc. Systematicity is increasingly included in the theory and methodology of modern science. Thus, the subject of a relatively young science - synergetics - is complex self-organizing systems, and among the methods of science, system analysis and a systems approach that implement the principle of integrity are most widespread.

Logical evidence. Theoretical and empirical validity. It makes sense to consider these specific features of scientific knowledge together, since logical evidence can be presented as one of the types of theoretical validity of scientific knowledge. Specific ways of substantiating scientific truth also distinguish science from everyday knowledge and religion, where much is taken on faith or is based on direct everyday experience. Scientific knowledge necessarily includes theoretical and empirical validity, logic and other forms of proof of the reliability of scientific truth.

Modern logic is not a homogeneous whole; on the contrary, it can be divided into relatively independent sections or types of logics that arose and were developed in different historical periods with different goals. Thus, traditional logic with its syllogistics and schemes of proof and refutation arose in the early stages of scientific knowledge. The complication of the content and organization of science led to the development of predicate logic and non-classical logics - modal logic, logic of temporary relations, intuitionistic logic, etc. The means with which these logics operate are intended to confirm or refute any scientific truth or its basis.

Proof is the most common procedure for the theoretical validity of scientific knowledge and represents the logical derivation of a reliable judgment from its foundations. In the proof, three elements can be distinguished: the thesis - a judgment that needs justification;

O arguments, or grounds, are reliable judgments from which the thesis is logically deduced and justified;

Demonstration is a reasoning that includes one or more conclusions. During the demonstrations, inferences of propositional logic, categorical syllogisms, inductive inferences, and analogy can be used. The use of the last two types of inferences leads to the fact that the thesis will be justified as true only with a greater or lesser degree of probability.

Empirical validity includes procedures for confirmability and repeatability of an established relationship or law. The means of confirming a scientific thesis include a scientific fact, an identified empirical pattern, and an experiment. Repeatability as a criterion of scientific character is manifested in the following: the scientific community does not accept as reliable phenomena recorded by instruments, observed by experts - representatives of academic science, if there is no possibility of their repetition; therefore, such phenomena are not included in the subject of scientific research; First of all, this applies to such areas of knowledge as parapsychology, ufology, etc.

The criteria for the logical proof of a scientific theory, as well as other criteria for being scientific, are not always and not fully realizable, for example, the results of A. Church regarding the provability of second-order predicate calculus, K. Gödel’s theorem on the unprovability of the formal consistency of the arithmetic of natural numbers, etc. . In such cases, additional logical and methodological principles are introduced into the arsenal of scientific tools, such as the principle of complementarity, the principle of uncertainty, non-classical logic, etc.

The criteria for being scientific may not be feasible if it is impossible to construct the subject of scientific research itself. This applies to any integrity when behind the “brackets of evidence” there remains something fundamentally not objectivable (not fully clarified context) or, in the words of Husserl, a certain “horizon”, “background” as a preliminary understanding that cannot be expressed by logical means. Then scientific knowledge is complemented by hermeneutic procedures as a unique method of understanding and interpretation. Its essence is this: you must first understand the whole so that the parts and elements can then become clear.

The relativity of scientific criteria indicates the constant development of science, the expansion of its problem field, and the formation of new, more adequate means of scientific research. Scientific criteria are important regulatory elements in the development of science. They allow you to systematize, evaluate and adequately understand the result of scientific research.

So, science as an objective and objective knowledge of reality is based on controlled (confirmed and repeatable) facts, rationally formulated and systematized ideas and provisions; asserts the need for proof. Scientific criteria determine the specificity of science and reveal the direction of human thinking towards objective and universal knowledge. The language of science is distinguished by its consistency and consistency (precise use of concepts, certainty of their connection, justification for their application, deducibility from each other). Science is a holistic education. All elements of the scientific complex are in mutual relationships and are combined into certain subsystems and systems.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL LIST

1. Nenashev M.I. Introduction to logic. M., 2004.

2. Stepin V.S. Philosophical anthropology and philosophy of science. M., 1992.

3. Philosophy: problem course: textbook; edited by S.A. Lebedeva. M., 2002.

How we work

1 Contacting the company You can either call or order a call on the website, or come to our office. 2 Agreement approval If you have no more questions and our proposal meets your requirements, we draw up an agreement and proceed to carry out the study, or prepare an information letter to submit to the court. 3 Completion of work After receiving documents and payment, the specialist begins work, organizing a visit if necessary. 4 The result of the work! The result of our work is an expert report (expert opinion), prepared in accordance with current methods and regulations.

Do you need expertise?

To know detailed information about the examination, the timing of its implementation, necessary documents and cost, and you can also get a free consultation from our specialist:

The principle of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of research is of decisive importance, since it is it that determines the requirements set by the legislator for the quality of the main direction of forensic activity - the examination.

Objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of research are closely interrelated and interrelated requirements for expert research, but have their own content. The objectivity of the research lies in impartiality, impartiality and independence in conducting the research and assumes that when carrying out the examination, the expert must take into account all factors that are important when conducting the research, as well as use the recommended modern science and expert practice of the methodology. When researching and evaluating materials submitted for examination, preparing and formulating conclusions of an expert study, the expert must exclude dishonesty, bias, and tendentiousness. Objectivity presupposes that the conclusions drawn will follow from objectively conducted research and will reflect the circumstances of the case in accordance with how it actually happened.

The law establishes that the objectivity of an expert presupposes conducting research on a strictly scientific and practical basis. This basis should be based on provisions that make it possible to verify the validity and reliability of the conclusions made on the basis of generally accepted scientific and practical data. A scientific basis involves the use of only evidence-based methodologies that are applicable to the specific study. The practical basis for conducting expert research means:

Availability of not only scientifically based, but also practically proven methods used in conducting research;

Carrying out, during the examination, specific practical actions to study the submitted materials, based on theoretical knowledge. In this regard, it is unacceptable, instead of carrying out real research, to limit ourselves to theoretical calculations and conclusions and conclusions made on their basis.

The objectivity of expert research largely depends on the availability and objectivity of existing methods for conducting a particular examination and the quality of materials submitted for examination. Compliance with the requirements for the objectivity of expert research carried out presupposes that the expert must refuse to give an opinion in cases where the materials presented to him are insufficient to give an opinion (Clause 6, Part 3, Article 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation), are unsuitable for conducting research, and the current level of science is not allows you to answer the questions posed (Part 1, Article 16 of Federal Law-73). At the same time, the Law gives the expert the right to petition for the provision of additional materials necessary for giving an opinion (clause 2, part 3, article 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; part 3, article 85 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; part 3, article 55 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

The law calls one of the main conditions for the objectivity of the research being carried out an examination within the relevant specialty. A specialty is an area of ​​special knowledge, skills and abilities in a particular branch of science that the corresponding expert possesses. It is obvious that the expert is not able to give an objective opinion in the event that the research required to carry out the examination goes beyond the scope of the expert’s special knowledge. In this regard, the law establishes the right of an expert to refuse to give an opinion on issues that go beyond the expert’s special knowledge (clause 6, part 3, article 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; part 5 of Article 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). And part 1 of Article 16 no longer calls this a right, but a duty of an expert. It is obvious that in in this case the decision to refuse to conduct an examination and give an opinion depends on the expert himself, the level of his knowledge and inner conviction. However, in the presence of established conditions (lack of knowledge, narrow specialty of the expert for conducting a specific expert study), this right acquires the nature of an obligation, and the expert must exercise it. The exception is cases when the expert does not refuse to give an opinion, but petitions the head of the relevant forensic institution to involve other experts in the forensic examination (Part 1, Article 17 of the Federal Law-73; Clause 2, Part 3, Article 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure RF), and this petition is granted. Otherwise, the principle of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of research will be violated, the results of the examination will be called into question, and the expert’s conclusion may be considered unacceptable evidence.

The comprehensiveness of the expert research involves clarification from all sides of specific issues that are significant for resolving the case, posed to the expert on the basis of a study of the materials submitted for examination. Comprehensiveness means the study of all the most important properties, qualities and characteristics of the presented materials, their connections, relationships and dependencies. Comprehensiveness involves the study of all objectively possible options when carrying out an examination, thereby preventing the one-sidedness and subjectivity of expert research. The completeness of expert research lies in the study of all the qualities and properties of the materials submitted for examination, carried out deeply and completely. Completeness presupposes the study of such a set of properties of the presented materials, which allows not only to fully and objectively answer the questions posed, but also, possibly, to draw deeper conclusions and clarify circumstances that are important for the case, but about which questions were not asked to the expert ( part 2 of article 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; part 2 of article 86 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

The comprehensiveness and completeness of expert research applies only to those circumstances, properties and qualities of the items being examined that are important for resolving the case. In fact, comprehensiveness and completeness are limited by the scope of those circumstances that are subject to proof in a particular case (Article 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; Part 2 of Article 65 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; Article 26.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation; Part 2 of Article 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation ).

The principle of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of expert research is directly reflected in Article 16 of Federal Law No. 73, which establishes as one of the main duties of an expert the obligation to conduct a complete study of the objects and case materials presented to him, to give a substantiated and objective conclusion on the questions posed to him .

The principle of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of expert research is not absolute; although it has enormous independent significance, it is ultimately subject to the principles of legality and respect for human rights and freedoms when carrying out an examination. Thus, if the tasks of carrying out a complete and comprehensive study can only be implemented using means and methods that affect the honor and dignity of the individual, are dangerous to life and health, violate personal and family secrets and unlawfully limit other important constitutional rights, then the interests of a particular individual, the tasks of protecting human rights and freedoms will take precedence over the requirements of comprehensiveness and completeness of the study. For example, the law prohibits, when conducting forensic examinations of living persons, the use of research methods associated with severe pain or that can adversely affect the health of the person, surgical methods, etc. (Article 35 of Federal Law-73).

The principle of objectivity, completeness and comprehensiveness of expert research can be fully realized only if the requirements of the procedural law are observed when collecting and providing the expert with materials for conducting the examination. Thus, the materials provided to the expert must be of a procedural nature and must be collected by the appropriate subjects of procedural activity in compliance with the norms of the procedural law regulating the procedure for collecting such materials. The materials presented for research must be, in a certain sense, objective in nature - reflect the properties and qualities of objects and phenomena in accordance with how they actually took place, and in certain cases - have representative properties, reflect all aspects of the object or phenomenon being studied. As one of the guarantees of the expert’s objectivity when carrying out research, there is a ban on independently collecting materials for conducting a forensic examination (Part 3, Article 16 of the Federal Law-73; Clause 2, Part 4, Article 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). The expert is not the subject of evidence; the materials collected by him do not have a procedural nature and cannot become the subject of expert research.

The principle of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of research conducted by an expert is closely related to the principle of expert independence. Only procedurally independent expert, disinterested in the outcome of the case and impartial, can give a fully objective and comprehensive opinion. Indeed, in fact, what is important is not the independence of the expert in itself, but the ability of the expert to give an objective, unbiased and comprehensive opinion used as evidence in civil, arbitration, criminal and administrative cases. In this regard, all guarantees of the expert’s independence (see commentary to Article 7 of Federal Law No. 73) are ultimately aimed at achieving objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of the expert’s research.

Closely related to the principle of objectivity, completeness and comprehensiveness of research are provisions that provide an expert with the opportunity to make statements to be entered into the protocol of an investigative action or court session regarding the misinterpretation of his conclusion or testimony by participants in the process (Part 1 of Article 17 of the Federal Law No. 73), as well as allowing to interrogate an expert in order to explain the conclusion he gave (Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).

Guarantees of objectivity, comprehensiveness and completeness of expert research include a number of procedural rights granted to the expert in order to most fully familiarize himself with the materials related to the research being conducted: the right to familiarize himself with the materials of the criminal case related to the subject of the examination; request that he be provided with additional materials necessary to provide an opinion; participate, with the permission of the inquirer, investigator, prosecutor and the court, in procedural actions and ask questions related to the subject of the forensic examination (Part 3 of Article 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). Similar procedural rights are granted to the expert by arbitration procedural legislation (Part 3 of Article 55 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation) and civil procedural legislation (Article 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

Other guarantees of the principle of objectivity, completeness and comprehensiveness of research should also include the rules on the recusal of an expert who is interested in the outcome of the case or for other reasons is unable to give a complete, comprehensive and objective conclusion (see the commentary on this to Article 7 of Federal Law No. 73), norms providing for the possibility of recognizing the conclusion and testimony of an expert as evidence that does not have legal force (Article 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; Part 3 of Article 64 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; Part 2 of Article 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

Subject to the principles of objectivity, completeness and comprehensiveness of research, the expert gives full and reasoned answers to all the questions posed to him, and possibly identifies other circumstances that are important to the case, about which questions were not raised. The expert's conclusion contains a description of the content and results of the research, indicating the methods used, an assessment of the research results, justification and formulation of conclusions on the questions raised, as well as materials illustrating the expert's conclusion and being an integral part of the conclusion (Article 25 of the Federal Law No. 73).

Incompleteness, unfoundedness and bias of the expert research act as a basis for conducting an additional or repeated examination, as well as interrogating the expert. Thus, an additional examination is carried out in the case when the previously given conclusion is not clear enough or is not complete. Additional examination is carried out by the same or another expert. A repeat examination is ordered in connection with doubts that the court, judge, investigator, inquiry officer, or prosecutor have about the correctness or validity of the previously given conclusion. It is appointed on the same issues and entrusted to another expert or another commission of experts (Article 20 of the Federal Law-73; Article 87 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; Article 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation; Article 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).

The expert is interrogated to explain the conclusion he gave (Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).

Verification of an expert’s conclusion from the point of view of the validity and reliability of the conclusions made on the basis of generally accepted scientific and practical data can be carried out by a person who has special knowledge, in particular, specific generally accepted scientific and practical data necessary to verify a particular expert’s conclusion. The law does not provide for a special procedure for such verification, although it does not exclude such a possibility. It is obvious that verification of the scientific and practical side of an expert’s conclusion within the framework of legal proceedings can be carried out only indirectly, when the conclusion of the expert who carried out the re-examination does not give reason to doubt its correctness and validity. Accordingly, if the conclusions made by the expert as a result of the initial examination differ significantly from the conclusions presented by the expert as a result of the re-examination, it is quite likely that the conclusion of the first expert is unfounded and unreliable.

The provision of the Law on the basis of an expert’s opinion on the basis of generally accepted scientific and practical data is in the nature of a restriction that sets the framework for the use of means and methods in carrying out the examination. This allows you to check the validity and reliability of the conclusions made by the expert, but within the framework of procedural activities it has no real effect.

Obviously, such a check cannot be carried out by a judge, court, prosecutor, investigator, inquiry officer, person conducting administrative proceedings, since they do not have the special knowledge for this. For persons responsible for the proceedings, the expert’s conclusion has the nature of evidence, and its verification and evaluation are carried out according to general rules established by the relevant procedural act for checking and evaluating all evidence available in the case. This means that it is not the essence of the expert’s conclusion, but its legally significant properties and qualities that are subject to verification by the court, investigator, prosecutor, investigator, or person responsible for the proceedings on an administrative offense. Thus, in accordance with Articles 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the expert’s conclusion is subject to verification, which consists of comparing it with other evidence available in the criminal case, obtaining other evidence confirming or refuting the expert’s conclusion, as well as assessment in terms of its relevance , admissibility and reliability. In this case, the assessment of evidence is carried out according to internal conviction, based on the totality of all evidence available in the case, guided by the law and conscience. The rules for assessing evidence in civil and arbitration proceedings, as well as administrative proceedings are similar (Articles 59, 60, 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation; Articles 67, 68, 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; Article 26.11 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

Assessing the reliability and accuracy, as well as the validity (verification) of the forecast - clarifying hypothetical models, usually by interviewing experts. The reliability of the forecast includes: 1) the depth and objectivity of the analysis; 2) knowledge of specific conditions; 3) efficiency and speed in carrying out and processing materials.1.

Content validity. This technique is used primarily in achievement tests. Typically, achievement tests do not include all the material that students have covered, but some small part of it (3-4 questions). Can you be sure that the correct answers to these few questions indicate that you have mastered all the material? This is what a content validity test should answer. To do this, a comparison of success on the test with expert assessments of teachers (based on this material) is carried out. Content validity also applies to criterion-referenced tests. This technique is sometimes called logical validity. 2. Concurrent validity, or ongoing validity, is determined by an external criterion by which information is collected simultaneously with the experiments of the procedure being tested. In other words, data is collected relating to present performance during the test period, performance during the same period, etc. The results of success on the test are correlated with it. 3. “Predictive” validity (another name is “predictive” validity). It is also determined by a fairly reliable external criterion, but information on it is collected some time after the test. An external criterion is usually a person’s ability, expressed in some kind of assessment, for the type of activity for which he was selected based on the results of diagnostic tests. Although this technique is most consistent with the task of diagnostic techniques - predicting future success, it is very difficult to apply. The accuracy of the forecast is inversely related to the time specified for such forecasting. The more time passes after measurement, the greater the number of factors that need to be taken into account when assessing the prognostic significance of the technique. However, it is almost impossible to take into account all the factors influencing the prediction. 4. "Retrospective" validity. It is determined on the basis of a criterion reflecting events or the state of quality in the past. Can be used to quickly obtain information about the predictive capabilities of the technique. So, to check to what extent good results aptitude test meet fast learning, you can compare past performance assessments, past expert opinions, etc. in persons with high and low diagnostic indicators at the moment. The principle of alternativeness is associated with the possibility of development political life and its individual links along different trajectories, with different interconnections and structural relationships. The need to build alternatives, i.e. determining possible ways for the development of political relations always arises during the transition from imitation of existing processes and trends to foreseeing their future. The main task: to separate feasible development options from options that, under current and foreseeable conditions, cannot be implemented. Each alternative for the development of the political process has its own set of problems that must be taken into account when forecasting. What is the source of alternatives? First of all, they are served by possible qualitative shifts, for example, during the transition to a new political course. The formation of alternatives is influenced by specific policy goals. They are determined by established trends in the development of social needs and the need to solve specific political problems. The principle of systematicity means that, on the one hand, policy is considered as a single object, and on the other – as a set of relatively independent directions (blocks) of forecasting. The systematic approach involves building a forecast based on a system of methods and models, characterized by a certain hierarchy and sequence. It allows us to develop a coherent and consistent forecast of political life. The principle of continuity. The task of the subject developing the forecast is to continuously adjust forecast developments as new information becomes available. For example, any long-term forecast in its original form is inevitably large-scale. Over time, this or that trend manifests itself more clearly and reveals itself from many sides. In this regard, the information received by the forecaster and containing new data makes it possible to predict with greater accuracy the onset of a political event: the need to convene a congress of a political party, conduct various political actions, rallies, strikes, etc. The verification procedure (verifiability) is aimed at determining the reliability of the developed forecast. Verification can be direct, indirect, consequential, duplicative, inverse. All of these forecasting principles cannot be taken in isolation, in isolation from each other. Consistency principle - requires coordination of normative and search forecasts of different natures and different lead times. Pr-n variation - requires the development of forecast options based on options for the forecast background. Profitability principle - requires that the economic effect from using the forecast exceeds the costs of its development.

Every year science enters our lives more and more confidently. Films, books, and TV series are filled with specialized terms that were previously used only by scientists. More and more people are trying to understand how the world around us works, according to what laws our Universe exists.

In this regard, questions arise: what is science? What methods and means does she use? What are the criteria of scientific knowledge? What properties does it have?

Human cognitive activity

All human cognitive activity can be divided into two types:

• The everyday is carried out spontaneously by all people throughout life. Such knowledge is aimed at acquiring the skills that a person needs to adapt to real life conditions.
• Scientific – involves the study of phenomena whose mechanism of action has not yet been fully revealed. The information obtained is fundamentally new.

Scientific knowledge is a system of knowledge about the surrounding world (laws of nature, man, society, etc.), obtained and recorded using specific means and methods (observation, analysis, experiment, etc.).

It has its own characteristics and criteria.

Features of scientific knowledge:

• Universality. Science studies general laws and properties of an object, reveals patterns of development and functioning of an object in the system. Knowledge is not focused on the unique features and properties of an object.
• Necessity. The main, system-forming aspects of the phenomenon are recorded, and not random aspects.
• Systematicity. Scientific knowledge is an organized structure, the elements of which are closely interconnected. Outside a specific system, knowledge cannot exist.

Basic principles of scientific knowledge

The signs or criteria of scientific knowledge were developed by representatives of the logical positivism of the Vienna Circle under the leadership of Moritz Schlick in the 1930s. The main goal that scientists pursued when creating them was to separate scientific knowledge from various metaphysical statements, mainly due to the ability to verify scientific theories and hypotheses. According to scientists, in this way scientific knowledge was deprived emotional coloring and unfounded faith.

Presentation: "Methodology and methodology of scientific research"

As a result, representatives of the Vienna Circle developed the following criteria:

1. Objectivity: scientific knowledge must be an expression of objective truth and be independent of the subject cognizing it, his interests, thoughts and feelings.
2. Validity: knowledge must be supported by facts and logical conclusions. Statements without evidence are not considered scientific.
3. Rationality: Scientific knowledge cannot rely only on people's faith and emotions. It always provides the necessary reasons to prove the truth of a particular statement. The idea of ​​a scientific theory should be quite simple.
4. Use of special terms: scientific knowledge is expressed in concepts formed by science. Clear definitions also help to better describe and classify observed phenomena.
5. Consistency. This criterion helps to eliminate the use of mutually exclusive statements within the same concept.
6. Verifiability: facts of scientific knowledge must be based on controlled experiments that can be repeated in the future. This criterion also helps limit the use of any theory by showing in which cases it is confirmed and in which its use would be inappropriate.
7. Mobility: Science is constantly evolving, so it is important to acknowledge that some statements may be incorrect or inaccurate. It should be recognized that the conclusions obtained by scientists are not final and can be further supplemented or completely refuted.

Sociological and historical characteristics occupy an important place in the structure of scientific knowledge:

• Sometimes the historical criterion for the development of science is highlighted separately. All types of knowledge and various theories could not exist without previous hypotheses and obtained data. The solution to the problems and scientific paradoxes of the present time is carried out by relying on the results of the activities of predecessors. But modern scientists take existing theories as a basis, supplement them with new facts and show why old hypotheses do not work in the current situation and what data should be changed.
• The sociological criterion is also sometimes highlighted separately in the structure of scientific knowledge. Its main property is the formulation of new tasks and issues that should be worked on. Without this criterion, the development of not only science, but also society as a whole would not be possible. Science is the main engine of progress. Each discovery raises many new questions that scientists will need to answer.

The structure of scientific knowledge also has its own properties:

1. The highest value is objective truth. That is, the main goal of science is knowledge for the sake of knowledge itself.
2. For all areas of science there are a number of significant requirements that are universal for them
3. Knowledge is systematic and clearly organized.

These properties partly generalize the characteristics identified in scientific knowledge back in the 30s.

Science today

Scientific knowledge today is a dynamically developing area. Knowledge has long gone beyond closed laboratories and is becoming more accessible to everyone every day.

In recent years, science has acquired a special status in public life. But at the same time, the significantly increased flow of information has led to the growth of pseudoscientific theories. It can be quite difficult to distinguish one from the other, but in most cases using the above criteria will help. It is often enough to check the logical validity of the assumptions, as well as the experimental basis, in order to assess the reliability of the proposed theory.

Any science has the most important property: it has no boundaries: neither geographical nor temporal. You can study a variety of objects anywhere in the world for many years, but the number of questions that arise will only increase. And this is perhaps the most wonderful gift science has given us.