Inductive deductive. Inductive and deductive teaching methods

Reservoirs 25.09.2019

Reservoirs

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Federal Agency for Education

State educational institution

Higher professionally education

St. Petersburg state University Technology and design

Northwest Print Institute

By discipline:

Concepts of modern natural science

"Inductive and deductive methods for building theory"

Work performed: Nikolchenko Olga

Student of the first group of RKD 1.2

Introduction

Knowledge play an important role in our lives and scientific methods of acquiring knowledge are very diverse, but closely connected with each other.

Rational judgments are traditionally divided into deductive and inductive. The question of using induction and deduction as methods of knowledge was discussed throughout the history of philosophy. In contrast to the analysis and synthesis, these methods are often contraved to each other and were considered in the separation from each other and from other means of knowledge.

In modern scientific knowledge Induction and deduction always turn out to be intertwined with each other. A real scientific research is in alternating inductive and deductive methods. Contrasting induction and deduction as methods of cognition loses meaning, since they are not considered as the only methods. In the knowledge, other methods, as well as techniques, principles and forms (abstraction, idealization, problem, hypothesis, etc.) play an important role. For example, in modern inductive logic, probabilistic methods play a huge role. Assessment of the probability of generalizations, search for criteria for rationale hypotheses, the establishment of the complete accuracy of which is often impossible, requires more and more sophisticated research methods.

The relevance of this topic is due to the fact that induction-deduction plays an important role in both philosophical and in any other knowledge, and are understood as the synonym for any scientific research.

induction Deduction Theory Cognition

1. Theory as a special form of scientific knowledge

Theory (Greek θεωρία - consideration, study) - a set of conclusions, reflecting objectively existing relationships and the relationship between the phenomena of objective reality. Thus, the theory is an intellectual reflection of reality. In theory, each conclusion is displayed from other conclusions based on some logical output rules. The ability to predict is a consequence of theoretical constructions. Theories are formulated, developed and checked in accordance with the scientific method.

Theory - doctrine, system of ideas or principles. Is a combination of generalized provisions forming science or its section. The theory acts as a form of synthetic knowledge, in the boundaries of which individual concepts, hypotheses and laws lose their former autonomy and become elements of a holistic system.

Other definitions

There are other definitions of the "theory", in which any conclusion is called, regardless of the objectivity of this conclusion. As a result, theory is often called various hypothetical constructions, such as "geosynclinal theory", etc. This can be considered as an attempt to give the weight of this hypothetical construction, i.e. Attempt to mislead.

In the "clean" sciences, the theory - an arbitrary set of suggestions of some artificial language characterized by the exact rules for building expressions and their understanding.

Theory functions

Any theories have a number of functions. Denote the most significant functions of the theory:

the theory provides its conceptual structures using it;

the theory is the development of terminology;

the theory allows you to understand, explain or predict various manifestations of the object of the theory.

Verification of theory

Usually believe that standard method Theories check is direct experimental check ("Experiment - truth criterion"). However, often the theory cannot be checked by a direct experiment (for example, the theory about the occurrence of life on Earth), or such a test is too complex or cost (macroeconomic and social theories), and therefore theories are often checked by a non-direct experiment, but on the presence of predictive strength - that is, if From her there are unknown / unnoticed events earlier, and with close observation these events are found, the predictive force is present.

In fact, the relationship "Theory - Experiment" is more complex. Since the theory already reflects objective phenomena, previously proven by the experiment, then such conclusions cannot be done. At the same time, since the theory is based on the laws of logic, it is possible to conclude on the phenomena not established by early experiments, which are checked by practice. However, these conclusions must already be called a hypothesis, the objectivity of which, that is, the translation of this hypothesis into the rank of theory, and is proved by the experiment. In this case, the experiment does not check the theory, but clarifies or expands the provisions of this theory.

Summarizing, the applied goal of science is to predict the future as in the observation sense - to describe the course of events to which we cannot affect and in synthetic - the creation through the technology of the desired future. Figuratively speaking, the creature of the theory is to associate together "indirect evidence", to endure the verdict past events and indicate what will happen in the future subject to certain conditions.

2. Basic forms of conclusions

Consider the main forms of conclusions characteristic of logical thinking. There are not so many such forms: it is induction, deduction and analogy. Briefly, they can be described as follows. Induction is a conclusion about the set based on the consideration of individual elements of this set. Deduction is, on the contrary, the conclusion about the element based on the knowledge of certain qualities of that set, which it includes. Analogy is an output about the element (set) that endoys the properties of another element (set). Let us analyze each method separately.

3. Induction

Induction (Lat. Inductio - Guidance) - the process of logical output based on the transition from a private position to general. Inductive conclusion connects private prerequisites with a conclusion not so much through the laws of logic, but rather through some actual, psychological or mathematical representations.

There is a complete induction - the proof method in which the statement is proved for a finite number of special cases, exhaustive all the possibilities, and incomplete induction - observation of individual special cases leads to a hypothesis, which, of course, needs proof. Also, the method of mathematical induction is used for evidence. Contents [Remove]

The term first occurs in Socrates (dr. - Greek. Ἐπαγωγή). But the induction of Socrates has little in common with modern induction. Socrates under induction implies general definition Concepts by comparing special cases and exceptions of false, too narrow definitions.

Aristotle pointed to the characteristics of inductive conclusions (analyte. I, KN.2 § 23, anal. II, KN.1 § 23; KN.2 § 19 etc.). It defines it as climbing from private to general. He distinguished full induction from incomplete, pointed to the role of induction in the formation of the first principles, but did not find out the foundations of incomplete induction and its right. He considered it as a way of conclusion, opposite to syllogism. Sillogism, according to Aristotle, indicates the average concept for the belonging of the highest concept, and the induction of the third concept shows the highest average belonging.

In the era of the revival, the struggle against Aristotle and the syllogistic method began, and at the same time began to recommend the inductive method as the only fruitful in natural science and the opposite syllogistic. In Bacon, they can usually see the source of modern I., although justice requires to mention its predecessors, for example Leonardo da Vinci and others. Pravaya I., Bacon denies the meaning of Sillogism ("Sillogism consists of proposals, suggestions consist of words, words are the signs of concepts; If therefore, the concepts that make up the basis of the case are inappropriate and hastily distracted from things, then the built on them cannot have any strength "). This denial did not flow out from the theory of I. Bekkonovskaya I. (see his "Novum Organon") not only does not contradict the syllogism, but even demands it. The essence of Bacon's teachings is reduced to the fact that under the gradual generalization, it is necessary to adhere to known rules, that is, it is necessary to make three reviews of all known cases of the well-known properties from different items: a review of positive cases, an overview of negative (that is, an overview of objects similar to those in which However, the property under study is absent) and an overview of cases in which the test property is manifested in various degrees, and hence the generalization ("nov.org" Li, APH.13). According to the method of the Bekon, it is impossible to make a new conclusion, not submitting the subject under study under common judgments, that is, without resorting to the syllogism. So, Bekon has failed to establish I. as a special method opposite to deductive.

Further step is made by J. Art. Millem. All Sillogism, according to Mill, encompass Petitio Principii; Any syllogistic conclusion is actually from private to private, and not from common to private. This criticism of Mill is unfair, because we cannot conclude from private to privately, without introducing an additional general provision on the similarity of particular cases [Source is not specified 574 days]. Considering I., Mille, firstly, asked about the basis or right to inductive conclusion and sees this right in the idea of \u200b\u200ba monotonous order of phenomena, and, secondly, all the ways of conclusions in I. to four main: the consent method (if Two or more cases of the investigated phenomenon converge in one circumstance alone, this circumstance is the cause or part of the cause of the phenomenon under study, the difference method (if the case in which the studied phenomenon is found, and the case in which it does not occur are completely similar in all details , with the exception of the investigated, the circumstance found in the first case and the absent in the second, and there is a reason or part of the cause of the phenomenon under study); the remnant method (if in the studied phenomenon, part of the circumstances can be explained by certain reasons, the remaining part of the phenomenon is explained from the remaining preceding Facts) and the method of relevant changes (if a change is noticed after a change in one phenomenon The other, then we can conclude an causal connection between them). It is characteristic that these methods at closer examination are deductive ways; eg The remnant method does not represent anything other than the definition by exception. Aristotle, Bacon and Mill are the main moments of the development of the teachings of OB and.; Only for the sake of detailed development of some issues, you have to pay attention to Claude Bernard ("Introduction to Experimental Medicine"), on Esterlena ("Medicinische Logik"), Herschel, Libiha, Wavel, Apell, etc.

Inductive method

There are dual induction: full (induction complete) and incomplete (inductio incomplete or per enumerationem simplicem). In the first we conclude from the full transfer of species of a known kind to all of the kind; Obviously, with such a way of conclusions, we get a completely reliable conclusion, which at the same time in a certain advantage expands our knowledge; This way of conclusion cannot cause any doubt. Having identified the subject of a logical group with subjects of private judgments, we will get the right to transfer the definition to the entire group. On the contrary, incomplete I., coming from private to a common (way of conclusion, prohibited by formal logic), should cause the question of the right. Incomplete I. on the construction resembles the third figure of Silogism, differing from her, however, by the fact that I. seeks to generally conclusions, while the third figure allows only private.

For an incompleteness of incomplete I. (PER ENUMERECEM SIMPLICEM, UBI NON REPERITUR INSTANTIA CONTRADICTORIA) is based on the habit and gives the right only to a likely conclusion in the entire part of the statement, which is further the number of cases already investigated. Mill in explaining the logical right to conclude on incomplete I. pointed to the idea of \u200b\u200bmonotonous order in nature, by virtue of which our faith in inductive conclusion should increase, but the idea of \u200b\u200ba monotonous order of things itself is the result of incomplete induction and, therefore, the basis of I. serve cannot . In fact, the base is incomplete I. The same as complete, as well as the third figure of Silogism, that is, the identity of private judgments about the subject with the entire group of objects. "In incomplete I. We conclude on the basis of a real identity are not just some objects with some members of the group, but such objects, the appearance of which to our consciousness depends on the logical characteristics of the group and are in front of us with the powers of representatives of the Group." The task of logic is to indicate the boundaries outside which the inductive conclusion ceases to be legitimate, as well as auxiliary techniques that the researcher enjoys in the formation of empirical generalizations and laws. There is no doubt that the experience (in the sense of the experiment) and observation serve as powerful implements in the study of facts, delivering material, thanks to which the researcher can make a hypothetical assumption to explain the facts.

The same tool also serves any comparison and analogy indicating common features In phenomena, the generality of the same phenomena makes it suggest that we are dealing with general reasons; Thus, the coexistence of phenomena, which indicates the analogy, in itself does not make an explanation of the phenomenon, but gives an indication where the explanations should be asked. The main attitude of the phenomena, which means I., is the ratio of a causal connection, which, like the inductive conclusion, is resting on identity, for the amount of conditions called the reason if it is in completeness, and there is nothing other as caused by the cause of the consequence . The legality of inductive imprisonment is not subject to doubt; However, logic should strictly establish the conditions under which the inductive conclusion may be considered correct; The lack of negative instances does not yet prove the correctness of the conclusion. It is necessary that the inductive conclusion is based on possible larger number of cases so that these cases be as varied in order to serve as typical representatives of the entire group of phenomena that conclusion conclusion, etc.

With all the volume, inductive findings are easily leading to errors, of which the most common result from the multiplicity of the causes and from mixing the temporary order with the causal. In an inductive study, we are always dealing with the consequences to which the causes should find; The find of them is called an explanation of the phenomenon, but a well-known consequence can be caused by a number of different reasons; The talent of the inductive researcher is that it is gradually from a variety of logical capabilities choose only the one that is really possible. For human limited knowledge, of course, various reasons can make the same phenomenon; But complete adequate knowledge in this phenomenon can see signs indicating the origin of it only from one possible reason. The temporary alternation of phenomena always serves as an indication of a possible causal connection, but not any alternation of phenomena, at least correctly repeated, should certainly be understood as a causal connection. Very often we conclude Post Hoc - Ergo Propter Hoc, all superstitions arose, but here the correct indication for inductive output.

4. Deduction

Deduction (from lat. Deductio - elimination) - the removal of private from the general; The path of thinking, which leads from in common to the private, from the overall position to special; common form Deduction is Sillogism, the parcels of which form the specified general position, and the conclusions are the corresponding private judgment; It is used only in the natural sciences, especially in mathematics: for example, from the axiom of Hilbert ("two different points from each other and in always define direct a") deductive way, it can be concluded that the shortest line between two points is connecting these two points straight ; the opposite of the deduction is induction; Transcendental deduction of Kant calls an explanation of how a priori concepts can relate to subjects, i.e. How, the suppression perception may be imposed in conceptual experience; Transcendental deduction differs from empirical, which indicates only a way to form a concept due to experience and reflection.

The study of the deduction is the main task of logic; Sometimes logic - in any case, the logic is formal - even define as "the theory of deduction", although the logic is far from the only science studying the methods of deduction: Psychology studies the implementation of deduction in the process of real individual thinking and its formation, and gnoseology - as one of the main methods of scientific knowledge of the world.

Although the term "deduction" itself was used for the first time, apparently by Boeziemi, the concept of deduction - as evidence of any sentence through Slogism - appears already at Aristotle. In the philosophy and logic of the Middle Ages and the New Time there were significant differences in views on the role of deduction in a number of other methods of knowledge. So, R. Descartes contrasted the intuition deduction, through which, in his opinion, the human mind "directly sees" the truth, while the deduction delivers a reason only "mediated" knowledge. F. Bacon, and later other English logic- "Indcister", rightly noting that in the conclusion obtained by deduction, no "information would not contain in the parcels considered the" secondary "deduction on this basis, The time of genuine knowledge, in their opinion, gives only induction. Finally, representatives of the direction coming in the first place from German philosophy, also, based on the fact that the deduction does not give "new" facts, it was on this basis that it was coming to the exact opposite conclusion: the knowledge received by the deduction is "true in all Possible worlds "(or, as he said later by I. Kant," analytically true ") than and determined by their" incredit "value [in contrast to the inductive generalization of the observation and experience of the" actual "truths, faithful, so to speak," By virtue of the coincidence, "].

From a modern point of view, the question of mutual "advantages" of deduction or induction has significantly lost meaning. Already F. Engels wrote that "induction and deduction are connected with each other as necessary as synthesis and analysis. Instead of unilaterally exalt one of them to heaven due to other, we must try to apply every one of them in your place, and that You can achieve only if you do not lose sight of their connection between themselves, their mutual addition of each other. " However, independently of the dialectical relationship between deduction and induction and their applications noted here and their applications, the study of the principles of deduction has a huge independent value. It is the study of these principles as such and amounted to essentially the main content of all formal logic - from Aristotle to this day. Moreover, work is currently working to create various systems "Inductive logic", and a kind of ideal here seems to create "deductive-like" systems, i.e. The sets of such rules following which one could get conclusions that have no 100% reliability, then at least a fairly large "degree of truth", or "probability".

As for the formal logic in a narrower sense of this term, both in itself the system of logical rules and any of their applications in any region is fully true that everything is concluded in any deductive conclusion The "analytical truth" is already contained in the parcels, of which it is derived: each application of the rule is that the general situation refers to a certain situation. Some rules of logical output fall under such a characteristic and quite explicitly; For example, various modifications of the so-called substitution rules say that the test property is maintained with any replacement of elements of an arbitrary formula of this formal theory "specific" expressions of the "the same species". The same refers to a common method of setting axiomatic systems by means of so-called axiom schemes, i.e. Expressions addressed to "specific" axioms after substitution instead of the "generic" designations of specific formulas for this theory.

But no matter how concrete this rule, any of its use is always carried by the character of the "immutortion" deduction, the obligation, the "formality" of the Rules of Logic, who does not know any exceptions, is in charge of the richest possibility of automating the most of the logical output process using the computer.

Under the deduction, the process of logical follower is often understood. This determines the close relationship of the concept of deduction with the concepts of withdrawal and the consequence, which is reflected in the logical terminology; Thus, the "deduction theorem" is taken to call one of the important relationships between the logical ligament of the implication and the ratio of the logical following: if a consequence of B is derived from the parcel A, then the implication of é in the provable. A similar character is also worn by the concept of deduction logical terms; So, deductively equivalent are the proposals derived from each other; The deductive completeness of the system is that all expressions of this system, which have this property, are prozivable in it.

The properties of the deduction are essentially the property of the relationship of derivability. Therefore, they revealed mainly during the construction of specific logical formal systems and the general theory of such systems. A great contribution to this study was made by: the creator of the formal logic of Aristotle and others. Antique scientists; nominated the idea of \u200b\u200bformal logical calculus GV Leibies; The creators of the first algebarological systems of J. Bul, W. Jevons, P.S. Poretsky, Ch. Pierce; The creators of the first logical and mathematical axiomatic systems of J. Peano, Frege, B. Russell; Finally, the School of Contemporary Researchers, which comes from the Hilbert deduction, including the creators of the deduction theory in the form of the so-called calculus of the natural conclusion of the German Logic of Genzen, Polish Logic S. Yaskovsky and the Netherlands Logic E. Beta. The theory of deduction is actively developing at present, including in the USSR (P.S. Novikov, A.A. Markov, N.A. Shanin, A.S. Yesenin-Volpin, etc.).

Bibliography

1. http://www.e-college.ru/xbooks/xbook005/book/index/index.html? Go \u003d Part-007 * Page. HTM - Gusev D.A. "Logics"

2. http://www.niv.ru/doc/logic/ivin/index. HTM - IVNIN A. A. "Logic. Tutorial"

3. Balashov L.E. "Philosophy (textbook)"

4. V.N. Lavrinenko. Philosophy: textbook

5. http://prblema-talanta.ru/page/logika_cheloveka_indukciya_dedukciya - an article from the Internet.

6. Ilyenkov E.V. Dialectics of abstract and concrete in scientific and theoretical thinking. - M., 2007.

7. Ilyin V.V. Theory of knowledge. Introduction Common problems. - M., 2004.

8. Karatini R. Introduction to philosophy. - M.: Publishing House Eksmo, 2003.

9. Mamardashvili M.K., Processes of Analysis and Synthesis. // "Philosophy Questions", 1958, No. 2.

10. Pecheneckin A.A., Justification of scientific theory. Classic and modernity. - M., Science, 1991.

11. Philosophy: textbook // Ed. V.D. GYUBE, T.Y. Sidorina. - 3rd ed., Pererab. and add. - M.: Gardariki, 2003.

2. Inductive and deductive methods

In the broad sense of the word, induction is a form of thinking that generates common judgments about single objects; This is a way of movement of thought from private to the general, from knowledge less universal to knowledge more versatile (the path of knowledge "bottom up").

Observing and studying individual items, facts, events, a person comes to the knowledge of general patterns. Without them, no human knowledge can do without them. The direct basis of inductive conclusion is the repeatability of signs in a number of certain class items. Conclusion in induction is a conclusion about the general properties of all items related to this class, on the basis of observation of a sufficiently wide set of single facts. Usually inductive generalizations are considered as experienced truths, or empirical laws. Induction is a conclusion in which the conclusion does not follow logically from the parcels, and the truth of the parcel does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. From true parcels, induction gives a probabilistic conclusion. Induction is characteristic of experienced sciences, makes it possible to build hypotheses, does not give reliable knowledge, suggests.

Speaking of induction, usually distinguish induction as a method of experienced (scientific) knowledge and induction as a conclusion as a specific type of reasoning. As a method of scientific knowledge, induction is a formulation of logical conclusion by generalizing observation and experimental data. From the point of view of cognitive tasks, there is still induction as a method for opening new knowledge and induction as a method for justifying hypotheses and theories.

The induction plays a major role in the empirical (experienced) knowledge. Here she appears:

· One of the methods of formation of empirical concepts;

· The basis for the construction of natural classifications;

· One of the methods for opening causal laws and hypotheses;

· One of the methods of confirmation and justification of empirical laws.

Induction is widely used in science. With it, it is built by all the most important natural classifications in Botanic, zoology, geography, astronomy, etc. The laws of the planets opened by Johann Kepler were obtained by induction based on the analysis of astronomical observations of Quiet Brage. In turn, Keplerian laws served as an inductive basis for the creation of Newton's mechanics (which became a sample of using deduction). There are several types of induction:

1. Enumeration or general induction.

2. Eliminative induction (from Latin Eliminatio - exception, deletion), containing various schemes for establishing causal relationships.

3. Induction as inverse deduction (the movement of thought from the consequences to the grounds).

The total induction is an induction in which they are moving from knowledge of several subjects to knowledge about their aggregate. This is a typical induction. It is the general induction that gives us a general knowledge. Common induction can be represented by two types of complete and incomplete induction. Full induction is building a general conclusion based on the study of all items or phenomena of this class. As a result of complete induction, the resulting conclusion is characterized by a reliable output.

In practice, it is more often used to use incomplete induction, the essence of which is that it builds a general conclusion on the basis of observing a limited number of facts, if among the latter they did not meet such that contradict inductive conclusion. Therefore, it is natural that the truth is incomplete in such a way, here we get probabilistic knowledge that requires additional confirmation.

The inductive method was studied and used already ancient Greeks, in particular Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. But a particular interest in induction problems was manifested in the XVII-XVIII centuries. with development new Science. English philosopher Francis Bacon, criticizing scholastic logic, the main method of cognition of truth considered induction based on observation and experiment. With this induction, Bacon was going to seek the cause of the properties of things. The logic should be the logic of inventions and discoveries, considered Bacon, the Aristotelian logic set out in the "Organon" work does not cope with this task. Therefore, Bacon writes the work "New Organon", which was supposed to replace the old logic. Exalted induction and other English philosopher, economist and logic John Stewart Mill. It can be considered the founder of classical inductive logic. In its logic, Mill has been a great place for the development of research methods for causing connections.

In the course of experiments, the material is accumulated for analyzing objects, allocating some properties and characteristics; The scientist makes conclusions, preparing the basis for scientific hypotheses, axiom. That is, there is a movement of thought from the private to general, which is called induction. The line of knowledge, according to supporters of inductive logic, is lined up: experience - inductive method - generalization and conclusions (knowledge), their check in the experiment.

The principle of induction states that universal science statements are based on inductive conclusions. This principle refers to when they say that the truth of some approval is known from experience. In modern methodology, science is conscious that empirical data is generally impossible to establish the truth of the universal generalizing judgment. No matter how much the empirical data has not been experienced, there are no guarantees that new observations will not appear, which will contradict him.

Unlike inductive conclusions, which only suggest a thought, through deductive conclusions, withdraw some thoughts from other thoughts. The process of logical output, as a result of which the transition from parcels to consequences on the basis of the application of logic rules is called deduction. Deductive conclusions are: conditionally categorical, separation and categorical, dilemmas, conditional conclusions, etc.

Deduction is a method of scientific knowledge, which consists in the transition from some common parcels to private results-consequences. Deduction displays common theorems, special conclusions from experienced sciences. Gives reliable knowledge if the parcel is correct. The deductive method of the study is as follows: In order to get a new knowledge of the subject or group of homogeneous objects, it is necessary, first to find the closest genus, which includes these items, and, secondly, to apply the corresponding law to them inherent in them. all this kind of objects; transition from knowing more general provisions To know less general provisions.

In general, deduction as a method of cognition comes from already disabled laws and principles. Therefore, the deduction method does not allow to get a meaningful new knowledge. Deduction is only a way of logical deployment of a system of positions based on initial knowledge, a method for identifying a specific content of generally accepted parcels.

Aristotle under the deduction understood the evidence using syllogism. Exalted the Deduction Great French Scientist Rene Descartes. He contrasted her intuition. In his opinion, intuition directly sees the truth, and with the help of deduction, truth is increasing indirectly, i.e. By reasoning. Refineless intuition and necessary deduction Here is the path of knowledge of truth, on Descartes. He also deeply developed a deductive mathematical method in researching issues of natural science. For a rational way to research, Descartes formulated four main rules, so-called. "Rules for the leadership of the mind":

1. True, what is clear and clearer.

2. Complex must be divided into private, simple problems.

3. To unknown and unproved to go from the well-known and proven.

4. Maintain logical arguments consistently, without skipping.

The method of reasoning based on the conclusion (deduction) of consequences of the conclusions from the hypothesis is also called the hypothetical and deductive method. Since there is no logic scientific opening, no methods guaranteeing the obtaining true scientific knowledge, so far, scientific claims are hypotheses, i.e. are scientific assumptions or assumptions whose truly value is vague. This provision is the basis of a hypothetical and deductive model of scientific knowledge. In accordance with this model, the scientist puts forward a hypothetical generalization, the various kinds of consequences are deserted from it, which are then compared with empirical data. The rapid development of the hypothetical and deductive method began in the XVII-XVIII centuries. This method was successfully applied in mechanics. Research Galileo Galilee And especially Isaac Newton turned the mechanics into a slender hypothetical and deductive system, thanks to which the mechanics for long times became a model of scientific relationship, and mechanistic views were still trying to transfer to other phenomena of nature.

The deductive method plays a huge role in mathematics. It is known that all provable suggestions, that is, theorems are output with a logical way with the help of deduction from a small finite number of the initial principles, proof within the framework of this system, called axioms.

But the time has shown that the hypothetical and deductive method was not omnipotent. In scientific research, one of the most difficult tasks is the discovery of new phenomena, laws and formulating hypotheses. Here, the hypothetical and deductive method rather plays the role of the controller, checking the effects arising from the hypotheses.

In the era of the new time, the extreme point of view of the meaning of induction and deduction began to overcome. Galilee, Newton, Leibniz, recognizing the experience, which means for induction a large role in knowledge, was noted at the fact that the process of movement from facts to the laws is not a purely logical process, but includes intuition. They assigned the important role of the deduction when building and verifying scientific theories and noted that hypothesis, not conducible to induction and deduction occupies an important place in scientific knowledge. However, no longer managed to completely overcome the opposition of inductive and deductive methods of cognition.

In modern scientific knowledge, induction and deduction always turn out to be intertwined with each other. A real scientific research is in alternating inductive and deductive methods. Contrasting induction and deduction as methods of cognition loses meaning, since they are not considered as the only methods. In the knowledge, other methods are played in the knowledge, as well as techniques, principles and forms (abstraction, idealization, problem, hypothesis, etc.). For example, in modern inductive logic, probabilistic methods play a huge role. Assessment of the probability of generalizations, search for criteria for rationale hypotheses, the establishment of the complete accuracy of which is often impossible, requires more and more sophisticated research methods.

Conclusion

Special methods studied by us in the work include local knowledge, to relevant theories.

Analysis and synthesis of concepts are wider, induction and deduction - methods used specifically in knowledge. Perhaps that is why the role of analysis and synthesis in scientific knowledge and in mental activity at all did not cause such disputes among scientists and philosophers and contradictions as discussions about the role of an inductive and deductive method.

Analysis and synthesis are not just complemented by each other, there is a deeper internal communication between them, which is based on the connection of abstractions, which forms, actually thinking.

Analysis and synthesis as techniques scientific thinkingThe applicable always gives any special methods in each area, and inductive and deductive methods are already selectively used. Analysis correlates with deduction, and synthesis with induction.

The development of induction exercises led to the creation of inductive logic, which stars that the truth of knowledge comes from experience. The development of teachings on deduction led to the creation of a sufficiently progressive hypothetical and deductive method - the creation of a system of deductive interconnected hypotheses, of which statements about empirical facts are derived. In consequently, the opposition of the inductive method of deductive, and modern scientific knowledge was inconspicuously without the use of all special methods.

The dialectical method of thinking as a whole is the rules for analyzing and synthesizing complex systems Relations that are a means of disclosing the necessary internal ties of organic whole with the entire set of its parties through inductive and deductive methods.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Alekseev P.V., Panin AV Philosophy: Tutorial. - 3rd ed., Pererab. and add. - M.: TK Velby, Publishing House Prospekt, 2003.

Dominant in the framework of a scientific picture of the world, a paradigm of this or that paradigm. The study of this level of methodology and its connections with two other levels will be the subject of our further research. Scientific methods of knowledge Scientific method Cognition is a method based on the reproducible experiment or observation. It differs from other methods of knowledge (speculative reasoning, "...

Discounts that reach 10%, which helps to increase the competitive advantages of the enterprise and the products being implemented. Thanks to this, the ICUUP "Siberian Beach-Belarus" manages to maintain sufficiently competitive prices for realized products. 3. Ways to achieve competitiveness 3.1 Characteristics of product demand The structure of the products sold in the context of the regions ...

Inductive and deductive methods of knowledge

The inductive method (induction) characterizes the path of knowledge from fixing experienced (empirical) data and their analysis to their systematization, generalizations and made on this basis with general conclusions. This method also lies in the transition from some submissions about certain phenomena and processes to others - more generally and most often deeper. The basis of the functioning of the inductive method of knowledge is the experienced data. So, the fundamental ideas about modern capitalism, which make up the content of the relevant theories, were obtained as a result of scientific generalization of historical development experience capitalist society In the last 100 years.

However, inductive generalizations will be completely impeccable only if all scientifically established facts are thoroughly studied, on the basis of which these generalizations are made. This is called complete induction. Most often it is very difficult to do, and sometimes it is impossible.

Therefore B. cognitive activityIncluding the study of various phenomena and public life processes, the method of incomplete induction is more often used - the study of some part of the phenomena and the spread of the output to all phenomena of this class. Generalizations obtained on the basis of incomplete induction, in some cases can be fully defined and reliable, in others - more probability.

The accuracy of inductive generalizations can be checked by applying a deductive method of research, the essence of which is to eliminate some common provisions that are considered reliable, certain consequences, some of which can be checked by experimental means.

If the consequences arising from inductive generalizations are confirmed by the practical experience of people (experiment or real processes of public life), it means that these generalizations can be considered reliable, i.e. appropriate reality.

Consequently, induction and deduction are two opposite and at the same time complementary scientific research methods.

An analogy is a certain type of comparison of phenomena and processes, including those taking place in society: Having established the similarity of some properties in certain phenomena (processes), it is concluded that they are similar to them and other properties.

An important role in the study of social phenomena is played by the so-called historical analogy. So, knowing the history of the development of capitalism in the UK (one of the first capitalist countries of Europe), many scientists compared the history of capitalism in France, Germany, the United States and other countries with it. It was recorded that in these countries, as in the UK, the economy developed from the free competition of small and medium industrial, trading and financial enterprises To the domination of the industrial, commercial and financial monopolies formed. On this basis, conclusions were made that the other properties of the economy of France, Germany and the United States are similar to the Great Britain economy. Many Western economists indicate that at present, in the United States and England have been formed, in fact, similar models of the development of the capitalist economy.

It is clear that it is necessary to take into account the specific features of the development of socio-economic and political processes in different countries. It is not necessary to reduce the study of these processes only to the search for historical analogies. In addition, the method of an analogy is used most often along with other general scientific methods of research of social phenomena and processes. At the same time, the scientific efficiency of the use of the analogy method is sufficiently high.

Modeling is playback in a specially created object (model) of the properties of the studied phenomenon or process. As a model (from lat. Modulus - measure, sample, norm) can act as variable system (model of aircraft, power station, etc.) or a mental design (graph, drawing, mathematical formula), which reproduces the properties of the phenomenon or process, in including economic, political, etc.

And material and perfect model are built according to the principle of an analogy, i.e. The similarities of the properties recorded in them with the properties of the phenomenon or process being studied with their help. The data obtained are used in the further study of this phenomenon or process.

Their study using modeling is usually heuristic character, opening something new. In particular, when analyzing the model itself, properties are detected that are missing from its individual parts and their simple amount. This manifests the action of the principle: "The whole amount of the components of its parts." It turns out that "the model encodes the information that people did not know before", because of this, the model "contains the potential knowledge that a person who exploring it can acquire, make a visual and use in his practical needs. It is precisely the predictive The ability of the model description. "

In the study of phenomena of public life, the so-called causal models use. They help to identify objective causal relationships and interdependencies between social phenomena, a generation of one of them by others, as well as the emergence of new properties. However, such models do not always allow to draw conclusions about the phenomenon as a whole, since, revealing its objective sides, they do not fix subjective factorsconcerning the consciousness of people whose actions determine the content and focus of any social phenomena and processes.

This difficulty is allowed by sociologists and political scientists sometimes as follows: when analyzing the processes occurring in the whole society (on the macro level), causal models are used, revealing objective factors of activity and behavior of people, and when analyzing the processes occurring in separate groups (at the micro-level), along "Cognitive models of interactions between individuals" are used with causation, with the help of which the motives, beliefs and objectives of the subjects of economic, political and other activities are revealed.

In the study of socio-economic and political processes, the "life cycle models" are also used, with the help of which the peculiarities of the functioning of social phenomena on different stages their development (for example, models of the life cycle of organizations operating in the field economic business; life cycle of ethnic groups, civilizations, etc.). The main phases (stages) of the development of a phenomenon are simulated. These models themselves are based on the data on the basic parameters of the development of some social phenomenon. The new data obtained on the basis of modeling is used for a more specific analysis of this phenomenon.

In research economic processes The so-called models of wave speakers are used, which reproduce the wave-like nature of the economy depending on economic, political and other conditions. The idea of \u200b\u200bsuch a nature of the development of the economy has substantiated the famous Russian scientist N. D. Kondratyev, who has revealed, in particular, the presence of "long waves" in its development ("Condratyeva waves") depending on the mass introduction into the production of new equipment and technology, structural changes In connection with the emergence of new sectors of the economy, as well as from various kinds of political factors and social upheavals.

The method of climbing from the abstract to a specific way to combines in a certain ratio of previous general scientific research methods.

Socio-economic and political processes are initially perceived by a subject as a certain set of phenomena with which he is constantly facing everyday life. Arising its empirical, sensual-specific reports on these phenomena reflect the vehicle or other parties and contain certain knowledge of the developing phenomena of socio-economic and political processes, but are quite superficial.

The process of knowledge does not stop and moves on - from sensitly specific ideas about one or another phenomenon or process to mentally abstract knowledge about its individuals, properties, etc. Any scientific abstraction, expressed in the form of a particular concept, more deeply reflects the properties of the studied phenomenon or process than the empirical ideas about them, because it expresses the necessary and essential properties, separating them from everything random and insignificant.

Therefore, there is a deeper cognition of the content and essence of a phenomenon and the process. Operations such as analysis and synthesis are performed, corresponding inductive and deductive conclusions, analogy, building mental models. As a result, abstract concepts, standing in a certain system, contribute to the appearance of a competitive knowledge of the phenomenon or process reflecting the internal relations and the interaction of the components of their elements. This cognitive process is characterized by explaining from the abstract to mentally concrete knowledge about the subject matter.

The form of manifestation of mentally concrete is theoretically-specific knowledge - holistic reproduction in the theory of the investigated phenomenon (process) with knowledge of the interaction of its parties, the essence and laws of its development.

Exploring socio-economic and political processes should strive to obtain precisely theoretically-specific knowledge about them.

History

The term first occurs in Socrates (Dr. Greek. Έπαγωγή ). But the induction of Socrates has little in common with modern induction. Socrates under induction involves finding a general definition of the concept by comparing special cases and exceptions of false, too narrow definitions.

Inductive method

For an incompleteness of incomplete I. (PER ENUMERECEM SIMPLICEM, UBI NON REPERITUR INSTANTIA CONTRADICTORIA) is based on the habit and gives the right only to a likely conclusion in the entire part of the statement, which is further the number of cases already investigated. Mill in explaining the logical right to conclude on incomplete I. pointed to the idea of \u200b\u200bmonotonous order in nature, by virtue of which our faith in inductive conclusion should increase, but the idea of \u200b\u200ba monotonous order of things itself is the result of incomplete induction and, therefore, the basis of I. serve cannot . In fact, the base is incomplete I. The same as complete, as well as the third figure of Silogism, that is, the identity of private judgments about the subject with the entire group of objects. "In incomplete I. We conclude on the basis of a real identity are not just some objects with some members of the group, but such subjects, the appearance of which to our consciousness depends on the logical characteristics of the group and which are before us with the powers of representatives of the Group." The task of logic is to indicate the boundaries outside which the inductive conclusion ceases to be legitimate, as well as auxiliary techniques that the researcher enjoys in the formation of empirical generalizations and laws. There is no doubt that the experience (in the sense of the experiment) and observation serve as powerful implements in the study of facts, delivering material, thanks to which the researcher can make a hypothetical assumption to explain the facts.

The same to the gun also serves any comparison and analogy indicating general features in phenomena, the generality of the same phenomena makes it suggest that we are dealing with general reasons; Thus, the coexistence of phenomena, which indicates the analogy, in itself does not make an explanation of the phenomenon, but gives an indication where the explanations should be asked. The main attitude of the phenomena, which means I., is the ratio of a causal connection, which, like the inductive conclusion, is resting on identity, for the amount of conditions called the reason if it is in completeness, and there is nothing other as caused by the cause of the consequence . The legality of inductive imprisonment is not subject to doubt; However, logic should strictly establish the conditions under which the inductive conclusion may be considered correct; The lack of negative instances does not yet prove the correctness of the conclusion. It is necessary that the inductive conclusion is based on possible more cases so that these cases be as diverse in order to serve as typical representatives of the entire phenomena group, which concerns conclusion, etc.

Notes

Literature

Vladislavlev M.I. English inductive logic // Journal of the Ministry of Folk Education. 1879. Part 12.Namer. With.110-154.
Svetlov V.A. Finnish School of Induction // Questions of Philosophy. 1977. № 12.
Inductive logic and formation of scientific knowledge. M., 1987.
Mikhalenko Yu.P. Antique induction teachings and their modern interpretations // Foreign Philosophical Antique. Critical analysis. M., 1990. S.58-75.

Inductive deductive. Inductive and deductive teaching methods

Introduction

1. Theory as a special form of scientific knowledge

2. Basic forms of conclusions

3. Induction

4. Deduction

Bibliography

Inductive and deductive methods of knowledge

History

Inductive method

Notes

Literature

see also

Watch what is the "inductive method" in other dictionaries:

We recommend to read

Inductive deductive. Inductive and deductive teaching methods

Introduction

1. Theory as a special form of scientific knowledge

2. Basic forms of conclusions

3. Induction

4. Deduction

Bibliography

Inductive and deductive methods of knowledge

History

Inductive method

Notes

Literature

see also

Watch what is the "inductive method" in other dictionaries:

We recommend to read

Site search