Each person has his own image of the surrounding reality and the society in which he exists. This image includes ideas about personality, freedom, equality and justice in relation to other people, about the family, organization of activities and other attributes of his life. Unlike such sciences as physics, chemistry or biology, sociology operates with concepts that are understandable and clear and are constantly used in everyday life. Burdened with erroneous opinions, prejudices, false stereotypes, people in many cases misinterpret the content of social phenomena. In this regard, it is important to separate ordinary knowledge, often erroneous and incomplete, from scientific knowledge. To do this, we will give a brief description of the various methods and sources of obtaining knowledge about the physical and social reality that surrounds us.

Intuition. The famous ancient Roman physician, physiologist and anatomist Galen, who lived in the II century. AD, developed a diagram of the structure of the human body, showing exactly the places where it can be opened without a lethal outcome. How could he determine the vulnerabilities of the human body? Of course, he proceeded from the knowledge of human anatomy, obtained as a result of observations. But, according to modern scientists, this was not enough. Much was based on intuition, which Galen trusted greatly. It was intuition that prompted him to zones, interference in which from the outside could be fatal for a person.

Scientists, public and political figures, military leaders often base their actions on intuition, which can lead to favorable consequences for them, justify their assumptions, but can also turn out to be erroneous, cause long-term delusions and serious consequences.

Speaking about the intuitive way of obtaining knowledge, we will proceed from the fact that intuition is a flash of insight (true or false), the source of which cannot be accurately identified or explained. Intuition serves as the basis for many very important hypotheses that can be tested by other methods. The experience of the development of science shows that intuition is an indispensable component of scientific knowledge and its main value lies in finding and formulating hypotheses of a scientific theory, which, after verification, can become the defining moments of a scientific discovery.

At the same time, intuition cannot be considered a satisfactory source of knowledge about the surrounding reality, the formulation of deep conclusions. Indeed, flashes of insight are not enough to determine the essence of the phenomena of the physical and social world around us. In fairness, it must be said that in some cases, intuition, based on vague information and fragmentary, unfinished experiments, can lead to wonderful, brilliant conclusions and even to the construction of scientific theories. But how can such intuitive knowledge be tested and verified? Often this is simply not possible.

For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Anaximander came on the basis of intuition to construct a theory of evolution. This happened in the VI century. BC, but only in the XIX century. AD, there were opportunities to verify and confirm it. In most cases, intuition cannot be verified at the moment an intuition occurs. As for the study of relations between people, the behavior of individuals and social groups, social movements and processes, in this case, intuitive knowledge most often cannot be verified at all, or such an opportunity is provided only when the situation in society has already changed.

Reliance on scientific authorities. Two thousand years ago, Galen knew more about human anatomy than any mortal, and until now, physiologists and anatomists revere him as an authority in this field of knowledge. Euclid established that two parallel lines never intersect, and many generations of schoolchildren and students had no doubt to trust this axiom, because otherwise they were considered ignorant of elementary truths. For many centuries, the scientific creative thought of Europe was suppressed by the authority of Aristotle, and such examples can be cited in great numbers. Even now, situations are common when everyone is convinced that the authority on some issue is certainly right, and ideas that do not correspond to his judgment are wrong, that he is the leader in the world around us and shows the way to researchers.

There is a danger of abuse of authority in science, but we cannot do without an authoritative opinion. This is due to the fact that all the knowledge we have accumulated is too voluminous and vague, and therefore difficult for assimilation and practical use. Landmarks and basic provisions are needed, points of reference from which one could start. We will take on faith what is collected and processed in certain areas of knowledge by specialists, considering them to be authorities. But only information obtained by scientists and specialists in those fields in which they are competent is recognized as authoritative; people, as a rule, do not recognize authorities who judge everything and in general.

Usually, there are several types of authority in the field of obtaining, mastering and using knowledge. sacred authority , or the authority of faith, rests on the unshakable conviction that certain traditions or documents (for example, the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, etc.) are supernatural objects and, therefore, all knowledge, all information contained in them, must be considered absolutely true and cannot be doubted. Sacred authority also includes the belief that some groups or categories of people, as well as social institutions, really have supernatural knowledge and means of influencing people (church, doctors, healers, saints, psychics, etc.). Unlike sacred secular authority appears as a result of faith not in supernatural insights and abilities, but in human capabilities, in the power of knowledge and human experience. Secular authority is divided into secular scientific authority , which is based on empirical research, on data obtained from experiments, and secular humanist authority , which is based on the belief that a certain remarkable or great person really has an outstanding insight in understanding the phenomena of the world around us or in the field of human behavior.

The area in which this or that authority is recognized by a society, social stratum or social group is usually very narrow and limited by rigid limits. People who are incompetent in this area of ​​knowledge should rely on other authorities - specialists, professionals. This is the only way not to be ridiculous in the eyes of others. Everyone, depending on the level of his development and social environment, solves the problem of choosing the most significant authorities in various fields of human knowledge in his own way.

However, the acquisition of true scientific knowledge is based on the indispensable condition that there are no scientific authorities who would have the last word in achieving the truth on any issue. The scientist must respect scientific authorities, but at the same time he creates and advances new scientifically based assumptions and tests authoritative conclusions. Authority should not hinder future researchers, but, on the contrary, can and should become a springboard for new research. Scientific knowledge is expanding, ruthlessly rejecting "final" solutions, constantly questioning the theories and conclusions of recognized authorities.

Tradition. One of the most convincing sources of obtaining and transmitting knowledge is tradition, since it is in it that the wisdom of centuries is accumulated. But does this mean that those who neglect traditional ideas and conclusions can be considered either mentally handicapped or stupid, that if the tradition has worked well in the past, then its main provisions should be accepted unchanged? In answering this question, it should be taken into account that the tradition preserves both the total wisdom and the total stupidity accumulated by past generations. It can be thought of as the attic of society, in which are squeezed all kinds of useful specimens and all kinds of delusions, useless and obsolete relics. The great work of scientific knowledge is to help avoid repeating the mistakes of ancestors. As for sociology, one of its tasks can be considered to isolate the present, the true from these traditions and sweep aside everything obsolete, which is an obstacle to the study of society.

public common sense. For thousands of years, people have believed that the earth is flat, that stone and iron are absolutely solid bodies, that a person's true character can be recognized by the expression of his face, that the Sun is smaller than the Earth, and so on. Today we know that many of these statements, based on common sense, on public opinion, are not true. In the case when we do not know where these or those ideas or statements come from and on what they are based, we explain them with common sense. Having given such an explanation to our ideas, we usually believe that they do not need to be tested, and convince ourselves that the idea or statement is true, because it is self-evident. This belief can unite people in a collective self-deception, suggesting that all these ideas and statements can always be tested, that their truth can be proved at any moment. The term "public common sense" gives significance and importance to various concepts (views, opinions) that do not have systematic evidence of truth to which one could refer. Public common sense and tradition are most closely related, since behind the multiple and varied statements of public common sense there is a certain past experience, some traditional ideas. The difference between tradition and common sense can be seen primarily in the fact that traditional truths are trusted for some long period of time, while statements made on the basis of public common sense are accepted uncritical and usually short-lived conclusions about various aspects of reality around us. in which a very limited circle of people can believe and follow.

Often the propositions and statements put forward by public common sense arise from collective conjectures, forebodings, accidents, and mistakes. It is the use of past experience by public common sense that in some cases allows us to come to useful and correct guesses and conclusions. For example, the statement that "in the event of a collision of people, a gentle response relieves irritation and tension" is a valuable practical observation of the events that occur in the process of everyday human interaction. However, observations based on public common sense often lead to erroneous conclusions.

Common sense can be determined by both folk wisdom and delusions, which are separated from each other - the task of science. Sociologists more often than representatives of other sciences have to deal with the fallacies of public common sense, since people encounter the subject of sociological research almost daily and have fairly stable judgments about it. Therefore, sociologists, presenting the results of their scientific developments, must be able to connect scientific knowledge with the valuable everyday experience accumulated by people in the course of their social activities.

scientific knowledge. Only in the last two and a half centuries has the scientific method become a generally accepted way of obtaining answers to questions that arise when people interact with the surrounding reality. As for the study of the social world, in this area science has become an authoritative source of knowledge relatively recently (about 100 years ago), and in such a short period of time mankind has received more knowledge about the social world than in the previous 10 thousand years. Effective acquisition of new reliable knowledge is associated primarily with the use of scientific methods. What makes scientific methods so productive? How do they differ from other ways of knowing the world around us, from other ways of comprehending the truth?

The main distinguishing feature of scientific knowledge is that it is based on evidence that can be verified. By evidence, in this case, we will understand the concrete results of actual observations that other observers have the opportunity to see, weigh, measure, count or check for accuracy. Evidence-based knowledge is now commonplace among members of societies, and many are somewhat aware of scientific methods. But even a few centuries ago, medieval scholastics could have lengthy disputes about how many teeth a horse has without taking the trouble to look into its mouth and count the teeth.

Since the knowledge of people is associated with actually verifiable proofs, science deals only with questions on which these proofs can be given. Questions such as whether there is a God, how to predict fate, or what makes things beautiful, do not fall within the realm of scientific knowledge, since the facts relating to them cannot be weighed, evaluated and verified. These questions may be of extraordinary importance to people, but the scientific method has no tools to deal with them. Scientists can study the reasons for a person's belief in God, in fate, in beauty, or in something else, or to determine the personal or social consequences of a particular belief, but this does nothing to determine the truth or fallacy of the beliefs themselves. Thus, science cannot provide answers to all important questions for mankind, many of them are beyond its competence. The scientific method is the most effective source of real, actual knowledge about human behavior and the reality around them, but science cannot answer questions about supernatural phenomena or the fundamental principles of aesthetics. The answers to these questions are found in metaphysics or religion.

Each scientific conclusion serves as the best interpretation of all the evidence currently available, but new evidence can appear the very next day, and a seemingly comprehensively and carefully proven scientific conclusion will instantly be untenable. Constant criticism and refutation of what has been previously proven is a common and even obligatory phenomenon in science: the fundamental property of scientific knowledge is that all conclusions and hypotheses obtained using the scientific method can be criticized and refuted. This leads to the fact that the process of scientific knowledge is endless and there can be no absolute truth. All scientific truths are based on experimental data corresponding to a certain stage in the development of human thought. Therefore, they are constantly revised in the light of new evidence, new experimental data. Some scientific conclusions (for example, that the Earth is a spheroid, that innate abilities only manifest themselves in certain cultural settings) are based on such a strong foundation of evidence that scientists doubt that they can be refuted by new evidence.

It is worth saying that each person has his own image of the surrounding reality and society, in which he exists. This image contains ideas about personality, ϲʙᴏbode, equality and justice in relation to other people, about the family, organization of activities and other attributes of his life. Unlike such sciences as physics, chemistry or biology, sociology operates with concepts that are understandable and clear and are constantly used in everyday life. Burdened with erroneous opinions, prejudices, false stereotypes, people in many cases misinterpret the content of social phenomena. In connection with this, it is important to separate ordinary knowledge, often erroneous and incomplete, from scientific knowledge. It is worth saying that for this purpose we will give brief characteristics of various methods and sources of obtaining knowledge about the physical and social reality that surrounds us.

Intuition. The famous ancient Roman physician, physiologist and anatomist Galen, who lived in the II century. AD, developed a diagram of the structure of the human body, showing exactly the places where it can be opened without a lethal outcome. How could he determine the vulnerabilities of the human body? Of course, he proceeded from the knowledge of human anatomy, obtained as a result of observations. But, according to modern scientists, ϶ᴛᴏ was not enough. Much was based on intuition, which Galen trusted greatly. It was intuition that prompted him to zones, interference in them from the outside could be fatal for a person.

Scientists, public and political figures, generals often base ϲʙᴏand actions on intuition, which can lead to favorable consequences for them, justify their assumptions, but it can also turn out to be erroneous, cause long-term delusions and serious consequences.

Speaking about the intuitive way of obtaining knowledge, we will proceed from the fact that intuition is a flash of insight (true or false), the source of which cannot be accurately identified or explained. Intuition serves as the basis for many very important hypotheses, which can be tested by other methods. It is appropriate to note that the experience of the development of science shows that intuition will be an indispensable component of scientific knowledge and its main value lies in finding and formulating hypotheses of a scientific theory, which, after verification, can become the defining moments of a scientific discovery.

At the same time, intuition cannot be considered a satisfactory source of knowledge about the surrounding reality, the formulation of deep conclusions. Indeed, flashes of insight are not enough to determine the essence of the phenomena of the physical and social world around us. In fairness, it must be said that in some cases, intuition, based on vague information and fragmentary, unfinished experiments, can lead to wonderful, brilliant conclusions and even to the construction of scientific theories. But how can such intuitive knowledge be tested and verified? Often ϶ᴛᴏ is simply impossible to do. For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Anaximander came on the basis of intuition to build a theory of evolution. This happened in the VI century. BC, but only in the XIX century. AD, there were opportunities to verify and confirm it. In most cases, intuition cannot be verified at the moment an intuition occurs. As for the study of relations between people, the behavior of individuals and social groups, social movements and processes, then in this case, intuitive knowledge most often cannot be verified at all, or such an opportunity is provided only when the situation in society has already changed.

Reliance on scientific authorities. Two thousand years ago, Galen knew more about human anatomy than any mortal, and until now, physiologists and anatomists revere him as an authority in the ϶ᴛᴏth field of knowledge. Euclid found out the fact that two parallel lines never intersect, and many generations of schoolchildren and students had to trust the ϶ᴛᴏth axiom without a doubt, since otherwise they were considered ignorant of elementary truths. For many centuries, the scientific creative thought of Europe was suppressed by the authority of Aristotle, and such examples can be cited in great numbers. Even now, situations are common when everyone is convinced that the authority on some issue is unconditionally right, and the ideas that do not fit his judgment are wrong, that he will be the leader in the world around us and shows the way to researchers.

There is a danger of abuse of authority in science, but we cannot do without an authoritative opinion. This is due to the fact that all the knowledge we have accumulated is too voluminous and vague, and therefore difficult for understanding and practical use. Landmarks and basic provisions, starting points, from which it would be possible to push off, are necessary. We will take on faith what is collected and processed in certain areas of knowledge by specialists, considering them to be authorities. But only information obtained by scientists and specialists in those fields in which they are competent is recognized as authoritative; People traditionally do not recognize authorities who judge everything and in general.

Usually, there are several types of authority in the field of obtaining, appraising and using knowledge. Sacred authority, or the authority of faith, rests on the unshakable conviction that certain traditions or documents (for example, the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, etc.) will be supernatural objects and, therefore, all knowledge, all information contained in them, must be considered absolutely true and cannot be questioned. To sacred authority, there is also no belief that certain groups or categories of people, as well as social institutions, really have supernatural knowledge and means of influencing people (church, doctors, healers, saints, psychics, etc.). Unlike the sacred, secular authority will as a result of faith not in supernatural insights and abilities, but in human capabilities, in the power of knowledge and human experience. Secular authority is divided into secular scientific authority, which is based on empirical research, on data obtained from experience, and secular humanistic authority, which is based on the belief that a certain remarkable or great person really has outstanding insight in understanding the phenomena of the world around us or in the field of human behavior.

The area in which a particular authority is recognized by a society, social stratum or social group is usually very narrow and limited by rigid boundaries. People who are incompetent in a given field of knowledge must rely on other authorities. - specialists, professionals. This is the only way not to be ridiculous in the eyes of others. Let's note that everyone, depending on the level of his development and social environment, in his own way solves the problem of choosing the most significant authorities in various fields of human knowledge.

At the same time, obtaining true scientific knowledge is based on the indispensable condition that there are no scientific authorities who would have the last word in reaching the truth on any issue. The scientist must respect scientific authorities, but at the same time he creates and advances new scientifically based assumptions and tests authoritative conclusions. Authority should not hinder future researchers, but, on the contrary, can and should become a springboard for new research. Scientific knowledge is expanding, ruthlessly rejecting "final" solutions, constantly questioning the theories and conclusions of recognized authorities.

Tradition. It is important to note that one of the most convincing sources of obtaining and transmitting knowledge will be tradition, since it is in it that the wisdom of centuries is accumulated. But does ϶ᴛᴏ mean that those who neglect traditional ideas and conclusions can be considered either mentally handicapped or stupid, that if the tradition has worked well in the past, then its main provisions should be accepted unchanged? In answering this question, it should be borne in mind that the tradition preserves both the total wisdom and the total stupidity accumulated by past generations. It can be imagined as the attic of society, in which all kinds of useful patterns and all kinds of delusions, useless and obsolete relics are squeezed in. The great work of scientific knowledge is to help avoid repeating the mistakes of the ancestors. As for sociology, one of its tasks can be considered to isolate the present, true from these traditions and sweep aside everything obsolete, which is an obstacle to the study of society.

public common sense. For thousands of years, people have believed that the earth is flat, that stone and iron are absolutely solid bodies, that a person's true character can be recognized by the expression of his face, that the Sun is smaller than the Earth, and so on. Today we know that many of these statements, based on common sense, on public opinion, will not be true. In the case when we do not know where these or those ideas or statements come from and on what they are based, we explain them with common sense. Having given such an explanation to their ideas, we usually assume that they do not need to be tested, and convince ourselves that the idea or statement is true, as it will be taken for granted. This belief can unite people in a collective self-deception, which assumes that all given ideas and statements can always be verified, that their truth can be proven at any time. Note that the term "public common sense" gives significance and importance to various concepts (views, opinions) that do not have systematic evidence of truth, which could be referred to. Public common sense and tradition are most closely related, since behind the multiple and varied statements of public common sense there is a certain past experience, some traditional ideas. The difference between tradition and public common sense can be seen primarily in the fact that traditional truths are trusted for some long period of time, while statements made on the basis of public common sense are accepted uncritical and usually short-lived conclusions about various aspects of our environment. reality, in which a very limited circle of people can believe and follow.

Often the propositions and statements put forward by public common sense arise from collective conjectures, forebodings, accidents, and mistakes. It is the use of past experience by public common sense that allows in some cases to come to useful and correct guesses and conclusions. For example, the statement that "in the event of a collision of people, a gentle response relieves irritation and tension" will be a valuable practical observation of the events that occur in the process of everyday human interaction. At the same time, observations based on public common sense in many cases lead to erroneous conclusions.

Common sense can be determined by both folk wisdom and delusions; to separate the two from each other is the task of science. Sociologists more often than representatives of other sciences have to deal with the fallacies of public common sense, since people encounter the subject of sociological research almost daily and have fairly stable judgments about it. Therefore, sociologists, presenting the results of their scientific developments, must be able to connect scientific knowledge with valuable everyday experience accumulated by people in the course of their social activities. Material published on http: // site

scientific knowledge. Only in the last two and a half centuries has the scientific method become a generally accepted way of obtaining answers to questions that arise when people interact with the surrounding reality. As for the study of the social world, in this area, science has become an authoritative source of knowledge relatively recently (about 100 years ago), and in such a short period of time humanity has received more knowledge about the social world than in the previous 10 thousand years. Effective acquisition of new reliable knowledge is associated primarily with the use of scientific methods. What makes scientific methods so productive? How do they differ from other ways of knowing the world around us, from other ways of comprehending the truth?

The main distinguishing feature of scientific knowledge is, in fact, that it is based on evidence that can be verified. By evidence in this case, we will understand the concrete results of actual observations, which other observers have the ability to see, weigh, measure, count or check for accuracy. Today, knowledge based on evidence has become commonplace among members of societies, and many are somewhat aware of scientific methods. But even a few centuries ago, medieval scholastics could have lengthy disputes about how many teeth a horse has without taking the trouble to look into its mouth and count the teeth.

Since the knowledge of people is associated with actually verifiable evidence, science deals exclusively with questions on which evidence can be given. It must be remembered that questions such as whether there is a God, how to predict fate, or what makes objects beautiful, do not enter the field of scientific knowledge, since the facts related to them cannot be weighed, evaluated and verified. These questions may be of extraordinary importance to people, but the scientific method has no tools to deal with them. Scientists can study the reasons for a person's belief in God, in fate, in beauty, or in something else, or to determine the personal or social consequences of a particular belief, but ϶ᴛᴏ does nothing to determine the truth or fallacy of the beliefs themselves. Based on all of the above, we come to the conclusion that science cannot provide answers to all questions important to mankind, many of them are beyond its competence. The scientific method will be the most effective source of real, actual knowledge about the behavior of people and the reality around them, but science cannot answer questions about supernatural phenomena or the fundamental principles of aesthetics. The answers to these questions are found in metaphysics or religion.

It is worth saying that each scientific conclusion serves as the best interpretation of all the evidence currently available, but new evidence can appear the very next day, and a seemingly comprehensively and thoroughly proven scientific conclusion will instantly be untenable. Constant criticism and refutation of what has been previously proven is a common and even obligatory phenomenon in science: the fundamental feature of scientific knowledge is, in fact, that all conclusions and hypotheses obtained using the scientific method can be criticized and refuted. This leads to the fact that the process of scientific knowledge is endless and there can be no absolute truth. All scientific truths are based on experimental data that correspond to a certain stage in the development of human thought. Therefore, they are constantly being revised in the light of new evidence, new experimental data. Some scientific conclusions (for example, that the Earth will be a spheroid, that innate abilities will only be in a certain cultural environment) are based on such a powerful foundation of evidence that scientists doubt the ability to refute them with new evidence.

Each person has his own image of the surrounding reality and the society in which he exists. This image includes ideas about personality, freedom, equality and justice in relation to other people, about the family, organization of activities and other attributes of life. Unlike such sciences as physics, chemistry or biology, sociology operates with clear concepts that are constantly used in everyday life. Burdened with erroneous opinions, prejudices, false stereotypes, people in many cases misinterpret the content of social phenomena. In this regard, it is important to separate ordinary knowledge, often erroneous and incomplete, from scientific knowledge. To do this, we will give a brief description of the various methods and sources of obtaining knowledge about the physical and social reality that surrounds us.

Intuition. The famous ancient Roman physician, physiologist and anatomist Galen, who lived in the II century. AD, developed a diagram of the structure of the human body, indicating exactly the places where it can be opened without a lethal outcome. How could he determine the vulnerabilities of the human body? Of course, he proceeded from the knowledge of human anatomy, obtained as a result of observations. But, according to modern scientists, this was not enough. Much was based on intuition, which Galen trusted greatly. It was intuition that prompted him to zones, interference in which from the outside could be fatal for a person.

Scientists, public and political figures, military leaders often base their actions on intuition, which can lead to favorable situations for them, justify their assumptions, but can also turn out to be erroneous, cause long-term delusions and serious consequences.

Speaking about the intuitive way of obtaining knowledge, we will proceed from the fact that intuition is a flash of insight (true or false), the source of which cannot be accurately identified or explained. Intuition serves as the basis for many very important hypotheses that can be tested by other methods. The experience of the development of science shows that intuition is an indispensable component of scientific knowledge and its main value lies in finding and formulating hypotheses of a scientific theory, which, after verification, can become the defining moments of a scientific discovery.

At the same time, intuition cannot be considered a satisfactory source of knowledge about the surrounding reality for formulating deep conclusions. Indeed, flashes of insight are not enough to determine the essence of the phenomena of the physical and social world around us. In fairness, it must be said that in some cases, intuition, based on vague information and fragmentary, unfinished experiments, can lead to wonderful, brilliant conclusions and even to the construction of scientific theories. But how can such intuitive knowledge be tested and verified? Often this is simply not possible. For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Anaximander based on intuition came to the construction of the theory of evolution. This happened in the VI century. BC, but only in the XIX century. AD, it became possible to check and confirm it. In most cases, intuition cannot be verified at the moment an intuition occurs. As for the study of relations between people, the behavior of individuals and social groups, social movements and processes, in this case, intuitive knowledge most often cannot be verified at all, or such an opportunity is provided only when the situation in society has already changed.

Reliance on scientific authorities. Two thousand years ago, Galen knew more about human anatomy than any mortal, and until now, physiologists and anatomists revere him as an authority in this field of knowledge. Euclid established that two parallel lines never intersect, and many generations of schoolchildren and students had to trust this axiom without a doubt, otherwise they would be considered ignorant of elementary truths. For centuries, the scientific creative thought of Europe was suppressed by the authority of Aristotle, and such examples can be given a great many. Even now, situations are common when everyone is convinced that the authority on some issue is certainly right, and ideas that do not correspond to his judgment are wrong, that he is the leader in the world around us and shows the way to researchers.

There is a danger of abuse of authority in science, but we cannot do without an authoritative opinion. This is due to the fact that all the knowledge we have accumulated is too voluminous and vague, and therefore difficult to assimilate and use in practice. Landmarks and basic provisions are needed, points of reference from which one could start. We will take on faith what is collected and processed in certain areas of knowledge by specialists, considering them to be authorities. But only information obtained by scientists and specialists in those fields in which they are competent is recognized as authoritative; people, as a rule, do not recognize authorities who judge everything and in general.

Usually, there are several types of authority in the field of obtaining, mastering and using knowledge. sacred authority, or the authority of faith, rests on the unshakable conviction that certain traditions or documents (for example, the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, etc.) are supernatural objects and, therefore, all knowledge, all information contained in them, must be considered absolutely true and cannot be doubted. Sacred authority also includes the belief that some groups or categories of people, as well as social institutions, really have supernatural knowledge and means of influencing people (church, doctors, healers, saints, psychics, etc.). Unlike sacred secular authority appears as a result of belief not in supernatural insights and abilities, but in the power of knowledge and human experience. Secular authority is divided into secular scientific authority, which is based on empirical research, on data obtained from experiments, and secular humanist authority, which is based on the belief that a certain remarkable or great person really has an outstanding insight in understanding the phenomena of the world around us or in the field of human behavior.

The area in which this or that authority is recognized by a society, social stratum or social group is usually very narrow and limited by rigid limits. People who are incompetent in this area of ​​knowledge should rely on other authorities- specialists, professionals. This is the only way not to be ridiculous in the eyes of others. Everyone, depending on the level of his development and social environment, solves the problem of choosing the most significant authorities in various fields of human knowledge in his own way.

However, the acquisition of true scientific knowledge is based on the indispensable condition that there are no scientific authorities who would have the last word in achieving the truth on any issue. The scientist must respect scientific authorities, but at the same time he creates and advances new scientifically based assumptions and tests authoritative conclusions. Authority should not hinder future researchers, but, on the contrary, can and should become a springboard for new research. Scientific knowledge is expanding, ruthlessly rejecting "final" solutions, constantly questioning the theories and conclusions of established authorities.

Tradition. One of the most convincing sources of obtaining and transmitting knowledge is tradition, since it is in it that the wisdom of centuries is accumulated. But does this mean that those who neglect traditional ideas and conclusions can be considered either mentally handicapped or stupid, or if the tradition has worked well in the past, then its main provisions should be accepted unchanged? In answering these questions, it should be taken into account that the tradition preserves both the total wisdom and the total stupidity accumulated by past generations. It can be thought of as the attic of society, in which are squeezed all kinds of useful specimens and all kinds of delusions, useless and obsolete relics. The great work of scientific knowledge is to help avoid repeating the mistakes of ancestors. As for sociology, one of its tasks can be considered to isolate the present, the true from these traditions and sweep aside everything obsolete, which is an obstacle to the study of society.

public common sense. For thousands of years, people have believed that the earth is flat, that stone and iron are absolutely solid bodies, that a person's true character can be recognized by the expression of his face, that the Sun is smaller than the Earth, and so on. Today we know that many of these statements, based on common sense, on public opinion, are not true.

In the case when we do not know where these or those ideas or statements come from and on what they are based, we explain them with common sense. Having given such an explanation to our ideas, we usually believe that they do not need to be tested, and convince ourselves that the idea or statement is true, as it is taken for granted. This belief can unite people in a collective self-deception, suggesting that all these ideas and statements can always be tested, that their truth can be proved at any moment. The term "public common sense" gives significance and importance to various concepts (views, opinions) that do not have systematic evidence of truth that could be referred to.

Public common sense and tradition are most closely related, since behind the multiple and varied statements of public common sense there is a certain past experience, some traditional ideas. The difference between tradition and common sense can be seen primarily in the fact that traditional truths are trusted for some long period of time, while statements made on the basis of public common sense are accepted uncritical and usually short-lived conclusions about various aspects of reality around us. in which a very limited circle of people can believe and follow.

Often the propositions and statements put forward by public common sense arise from collective conjectures, forebodings, accidents, and mistakes. It is the use of past experience by public common sense that in some cases allows us to come to useful and correct guesses and conclusions. For example, the statement that “in the event of a collision of people, a gentle response relieves irritation and tension” is a valuable practical observation of the events that occur in the process of everyday human interaction. However, observations based on public common sense often lead to erroneous conclusions.

Common sense can be determined by both folk wisdom and delusions, which are separated from each other - the task of science. Sociologists more often than representatives of other sciences have to deal with the fallacies of public common sense, since people encounter the subject of sociological research almost daily and have fairly stable judgments about it. Therefore, sociologists, presenting the results of their scientific developments, must be able to connect scientific knowledge with the foamy everyday experience accumulated by people in the course of their social activities.

scientific knowledge. Only in the last two and a half centuries has the scientific method become generally recognized for obtaining answers to questions that arise when people interact with the surrounding reality. As for the study of the social world, in this area science has become an authoritative source of knowledge relatively recently (about 100 years ago), and in such a short period of time humanity has received more knowledge about the social world than in the previous 10 thousand years. Effective acquisition of new reliable knowledge is associated primarily with the use of scientific methods. What makes scientific methods so productive? How do they differ from other ways of knowing the world around us, from other ways of comprehending the truth?

The main distinguishing feature of scientific knowledge is that it is based on evidence that can be verified. By evidence, in this case, we will understand the concrete results of actual observations that other observers have the opportunity to see, weigh, measure, count or check for accuracy. Evidence-based knowledge has now become common among members of society, and many are somewhat aware of scientific methods. But even a few centuries ago, medieval scholastics could have lengthy disputes about how many teeth a horse has without taking the trouble to look into its mouth and count the teeth.

Since the knowledge of people is associated with actually verifiable proofs, science deals only with questions on which these proofs can be given. Questions such as whether there is a God, how to predict fate, or what makes things beautiful, do not enter the realm of scientific knowledge, since the facts relating to them cannot be weighed, evaluated and verified. These questions may be of extraordinary importance to people, but the scientific method has no tools to deal with them. Scientists can study the reasons for a person's belief in God, fate, beauty, or something else, or determine the personal or social consequences of a particular belief, but this will do nothing to establish the truth or fallacy of the beliefs themselves. Thus, science cannot provide answers to all questions important for mankind, many of them are beyond its competence. The scientific method is the most effective source of real knowledge about the behavior of people and the reality around them, but science cannot answer questions about supernatural phenomena or the fundamental principles of aesthetics. The answers to these questions are found in metaphysics or religion.

Each scientific conclusion serves as the best interpretation of all the evidence currently available, but new evidence can appear the very next day, and a seemingly comprehensively and carefully proven scientific conclusion will instantly be untenable. Constant criticism and refutation of what has been previously proven is a common and even obligatory phenomenon in science: the fundamental property of scientific knowledge is that all conclusions and hypotheses obtained using the scientific method can be criticized and refuted. This leads to the fact that the process of scientific knowledge is endless and there can be no absolute truth. All scientific truths are based on experimental data corresponding to a certain stage in the development of human thought. Therefore, they are constantly revised in the light of new evidence, new experimental data. Some scientific conclusions (for example, that the Earth is a spheroid, that innate abilities only manifest themselves in certain cultural settings) are based on such a strong foundation of evidence that scientists doubt that they can be refuted by new evidence.

It is difficult to imagine a person who is completely free in his actions, the formation of personal goals and the choice of behavioral alternatives. Every person living in society is influenced not only by the individuals, associations, groups surrounding him, but also by the results of their past activities: a system of values, norms, rules, legal laws. In addition, it is obvious that an important factor limiting the free activity of a person is his environment: climatic conditions, objects of material culture created by human hands, natural terrestrial and cosmic phenomena. If we add to this the influence of character traits and other personality traits, it becomes obvious that the number of barriers and restrictions that change human behavior is quite large.

As a result of this, the actions of people associated with social groups and the activities of social institutions become largely unidirectional, and people's behavior, controlled by the influence of the group and institutions, becomes less diverse, more standardized. This causes the repetition of patterns of human behavior and, to a certain extent, the predictability of his aspirations, attitudes and actions, which grows as the structure of society becomes more complex and new ways of controlling people's actions appear. Thus, the activities and behavior of people in society are subject to the action of objective, i.e. not dependent on the consciousness of people, social laws.

What's happened social law? G. V. Osipov defines social law as “relatively stable and systematically reproducible relations between peoples, nations, classes, socio-demographic and professional groups, as well as between society and social organization, society and labor collective, society and family, society and personality , city and countryside, social organization and personality, etc.”

Social laws operate in all spheres of human activity and may differ in the scope of their distribution. Thus, there are laws that apply to a small group, to a specific social stratum, social stratum or class, and, finally, to society as a whole. In other words, the scope of the law may be society as a whole or part of it.

Like all scientific laws, social laws have the following main features: 1) a law can come into effect only under certain, strictly stipulated conditions; 2) under these conditions, the law operates always and everywhere without any exceptions (an exception that confirms the law is nonsense); 3) the conditions under which the law operates are not fully implemented, but partially and approximately.

The presence of these features in all scientific laws without exception is extremely important for researchers. When analyzing the operation of a law and formulating its content, the researcher should, as exhaustively as possible, stipulate the conditions for such an operation. Therefore, statements like "individuals always strive to form social groups" are not social laws, since they do not stipulate the conditions for their operation. At the same time, a statement like “a business-like, constructive social conflict in an organization is always resolved after the causes of its occurrence are eliminated, unless external (non-organizational) factors influence and there is no redistribution of resources within the organization” describes the operation of the social law, since its conditions are clearly specified. It is obvious that it is impossible to completely avoid the influence of external factors in the organization and to ensure that material resources, information, influences do not move within the organization. But you can find a situation that is as close as possible to the conditions for the operation of the law in a particular organization. If the business conflict in the organization is not resolved after the elimination of its cause, this only means that the conditions specified in the wording of the law are not met.

Another example of a social law is given by A. Zinoviev. The social law is contained in the following statement: “If in one institution a person is paid more for the same work than in another, then the person will go to work in the first of them, provided that for him work in this institution does not differ in anything except wages” . It may happen that a worker chooses an establishment that pays less but is closer to home or has better working conditions. This does not refute the above statement, since in this case the conditions for the operation of the law are clearly not met. There can be no institutions with exactly the same working conditions, except for the salary, but it is quite possible to get closer to this.

In the same way, scientific laws operate in all other sciences. For example, such concepts as uniform and rectilinear motion, an absolutely rigid body, an absolutely black body, which do not exist in real life, are very often introduced into the conditions of physical laws. This means that we are only talking about a more or less close approximation of real conditions to these concepts. But, perhaps, the main requirement for a social law should be that it must be carried out under stipulated conditions. Otherwise, the statement does not reflect the current law.

People constantly encounter social laws and either obey them or try to avoid them, adapt their behavior to social laws or protest against them. But one thing is clear: by discovering any social law, the sociologist does not lift the veil over still unknown, unknown phenomena. On the contrary, people always see social laws as features of their everyday life, always compare their manifestations with their own experience.

Thus, the principle scheme of the operation of social law is quite distinguishable and quite simple, its manifestations are always visible to members of society. At the same time, researchers are unanimous that social laws are extremely difficult to detect and study. This is due to the existence of many conditions, their complexity, as well as the fact that they are superimposed on each other, intertwined, complicating the field of study. That is why the repetition of people's behavior in social groups, and hence the operation of social law, is often simply difficult to single out because of the heap of details, the abundance of initial data and assumptions.

However, there is a circumstance that somewhat simplifies the scientific approach to the study of social laws. It should always be remembered that social laws are objective rules that exist independently of consciousness, which regulate the behavior of people in relation to each other and which are based on historically established motives, interests and aspirations of people to satisfy their needs in improving living conditions, security and recognition. from others, in self-expression, etc. Therefore, when studying social laws, it is necessary first of all to identify the needs of individuals that make up a social group, stratum, social class or society as a whole, and, starting from these needs, look for repeatability in their behavior, determine the conditions under which the found repeatability is observed, and formulate social laws, the knowledge of which is necessary for the successful management of social processes occurring in society.

Man and social laws. When a sociologist publishes materials on the operation of social laws, they may cause mistrust among many readers. “How is it,” the reader says to himself, “the law is something unshakable, it cannot be circumvented, and I, if I want, can break it.” And there is no doubt that if any person sets out to violate the social law at any cost, he will definitely do it. But does this mean that this law does not exist?

To explain this seeming discrepancy, let's take a simple example from physics. When a body moves forward at a certain speed, then, strictly speaking, not all of its particles move at that speed. Due to movement inside the body (for example, due to thermal motion), individual particles can move even against the direction of body movement. This is due to the fact that they simply found themselves in different conditions. Of course, the movement of bodies in the physical world differs significantly from social movements and processes. But in this case, we are only interested in the fundamental point: a separate part of the whole can move in a direction different from that specified by law, and even in the opposite direction. This circumstance does not affect the law describing the behavior of the whole. A single individual, a member of a social group who is not subject to social law, cannot influence the operation of this law in a social group. Why does he fall out of the general movement? Yes, because he finds himself in conditions not stipulated by this law. But his individual deviation and falling out of the scope of the law cannot prevent the operation of the law. Thus, some individuals may, for a period of time, give up vital needs, including the need for self-preservation, but the law based on these needs will continue to operate on the scale of this social group.

At the same time, the deviation of any individual from the direction of the action of the social law (due to conditions that do not correspond to the agreed ones) can weaken the manifestation of the social law in this particular group. Despite the fact that the law must be implemented without any exceptions, that part of the group falls into conditions not stipulated by the law, as a result, activities within the framework of this law are carried out by a smaller number of persons, which weakens its manifestation. Since people in society fall under the influence of a large number of different forces and have different resources (both material and spiritual), their deviation (or departure) from the operation of social law is often observed. However, the law always makes its way where social conditions become close to the stipulated ones.

Social laws are not created consciously by members of society or groups, such as cultural norms or legal laws. People act in accordance with social laws unconsciously and learn such “legalized” behavior in the process of communicating with other people and social institutions based on their needs.

Social laws are of great importance in the study of social phenomena, in the management of social processes. It is the existence and operation of social laws that make it possible to apply the scientific approach in sociology. The unpredictability, disorderliness and chaotic behavior of people in society cannot be investigated using scientific methods; on the contrary, the predictability, repeatability, predetermination of many aspects of human behavior allow scientists involved in the study of human society to discover social laws, determine the conditions for their operation and foresee the behavior of people in social groups and society.

Like many other sciences, sociology has developed in two main directions: fundamental and applied. The first direction includes the problems of socio-philosophical understanding of the most general issues of the development and functioning of society and the place of the human person in it, epistemological problematic issues of sociology, problems of building structures of social associations, building mathematical models of social communities and processes, developing methods for studying social processes and phenomena etc. At the fundamental level, sociology is interconnected with other sciences and areas of scientific knowledge: philosophy, history, cultural studies, political science, anthropology, psychology, economics, cosmogony, etc. The concepts put forward by sociology at the fundamental level are distinguished by a high degree of abstraction, while, as a rule, , such specific social units as a social group or a social process are not singled out for study. This level of sociological knowledge is called general sociological, and the theories that arise at this level are general sociological. Fundamental sociological theories emerged from social philosophy and psychology; they were based on observations, conclusions and generalizations of various aspects of social life, which provided information about the laws of human behavior common to all social structures.

At the same time, it is obvious that sociology as a science must be based on precise, concrete data on individual social facts that make up the process of change and the structure of society. These data are collected by researchers using a set of empirical research methods (surveys, observations, study of documents, experiments). As for the empirical level, in sociology it is the collection of numerous facts, information, opinions of members of social groups, personal data, their subsequent processing, as well as the generalization and formulation of primary conclusions regarding specific phenomena of social life. This includes theoretical generalizations obtained by induction (inferences from particular, isolated cases to general conclusions). General sociological theories and empirical research should be inextricably linked, since theorizing, not supported by knowledge of specific facts of social reality, becomes meaningless, lifeless. At the same time, empirical studies that are not bound by general theoretical conclusions cannot explain the nature of most social phenomena.

As the requirements for a practical solution to the social problems of modern society increased, an urgent need arose to study and explain social phenomena occurring in certain areas of people's life, in certain social communities and social institutions. The sharply increased level of empirical research required a universal theoretical apparatus to explain the results of theoretical research. However, fundamental research in sociology could not adapt its theoretical apparatus to study such different social phenomena as the family, the state, deviant behavior, etc., due to significant differences in the nature of these objects of study. In turn, fundamental science experienced a significant shortage of empirical information, since empirical research, as a rule, was carried out for narrowly practical, utilitarian purposes and it was difficult to link them into a single system. As a result, there was a gap between fundamental sociology and empirical research. In practice, this was reflected, on the one hand, in the creation of speculative theoretical constructions not based on a sufficiently broad empirical base, and on the other hand, in the emergence of such areas of knowledge acquisition as positivism and empiricism, which deny the need for general sociological, fundamental theories.

The confrontation between fundamental and empirical research to a large extent hindered the development of sociology, hindered the cooperation of scientists and the unification of their efforts. The way out of this situation was found as a result of the formation of another level of sociological knowledge - theories of the middle level. This scientific term was introduced into the practice of researchers by the American sociologist R. Merton. As can be seen from fig. 2
, middle-level theories occupy some intermediate position between fundamental theories and empirical generalization of primary sociological information.

According to R. Merton, theories of the middle level are “theories that are in the intermediate space between private, but also necessary working hypotheses that arise in many in the course of everyday research, and systematic attempts to create a unified theory that will explain all the observed types of social behavior , social organizations and social change". Such theories are designed to generalize and structure empirical data within certain areas of sociological knowledge, such as the study of the family, deviant behavior, conflict, and so on. In the theories of the middle level, where ideas and terminology borrowed from fundamental sociological theories are generally used, a system of specific concepts and definitions has been formed that are used only in this area of ​​sociological research.

Theories of the middle level, therefore, are relatively independent and at the same time are closely connected both with empirical research (which supplies the necessary "raw" material for their creation and development), and with general sociological theoretical constructions, which make it possible to use the most general theoretical developments, models and research methods. This intermediate position of theories of the middle level allows them to play the role of a bridge between the "high" theory and empirical data obtained as a result of the study of specific phenomena and processes.

Sociologists believe that the selection of theories of the middle level creates a number of undeniable conveniences and advantages, the main of which are: the possibility of creating a solid and convenient theoretical basis for research into specific areas of human activity and individual components of social structures without using the cumbersome and overly abstract conceptual apparatus of fundamental theories; close interaction with the real life of people, which is always in the field of view of theories of the middle level, reflecting the practical problems of society; demonstrating the possibilities and persuasiveness of sociological research in the eyes of managers, scientists and specialists in non-sociological fields of knowledge.

The emergence and development of theories of the middle level were met with satisfaction by sociologists. At present, these theories are firmly established in scientific practice. At the same time, they gave rise to a rather narrow specialization of sociologists, for example, sociologists appeared who work only in the field of the sociology of the family or the sociology of education, collect empirical data, generalize them and draw theoretical conclusions and models only within these areas of sociological knowledge. At the same time, with the introduction of middle-level theories into scientific practice, the effectiveness of the activities of sociologists engaged in fundamental research increased, as they began to receive rich theoretical developments in certain areas of sociology and generalize them without constantly referring directly to empirical data.

As can be seen from fig. 2, all theories of the middle level can be conditionally divided into three groups: theories of social institutions (studying complex social dependencies and relationships), theories of social communities (considering the structural units of society - from a small group to a social class) and theories of specialized social processes (studying social changes and processes).

Each of the groups we have identified contains a large number of theories of the middle level, which increases with the deepening and development of the study of society, with the development of sociology as a science. Sociologists engaged in narrow fields of research develop a specific conceptual apparatus, conduct empirical research on their group of problems, generalize the data obtained, make theoretical generalizations, and finally combine these generalizations into a theory within their narrow field. As a result of this activity, sociologists engaged in theories of the middle level are in close contact with sociologists engaged in fundamental research, providing valuable theoretical materials that can be considered as an integral part of fundamental theoretical developments.

However, at present, the use of these middle-level theories for the development of general sociological theories is associated with certain difficulties, since sociologists involved in the study of various aspects of society use different scientific approaches to the study of the problems they face (some use concepts related to the field of conflict theory, others to the field of social exchange, etc.). This suggests that fundamental sociology has not yet solved its problems and has not developed a single, synthesized approach to the study of society.

Each person has his own image of the surrounding reality and the society in which he exists. This image includes ideas about personality, freedom, equality and justice in relation to other people, about the family, organization of activities and other attributes of his life. Unlike such sciences as physics, chemistry or biology, sociology operates with concepts that are understandable and clear and are constantly used in everyday life. Burdened with erroneous opinions, prejudices, false stereotypes, people in many cases misinterpret the content of social phenomena. In this regard, it is important to separate ordinary knowledge, often erroneous and incomplete, from scientific knowledge. To do this, we will give a brief description of the various methods and sources of obtaining knowledge about the physical and social reality that surrounds us.

Intuition. The famous ancient Roman physician, physiologist and anatomist Galen, who lived in the II century. AD, developed a diagram of the structure of the human body, showing exactly the places where it can be opened without a lethal outcome. How could he determine the vulnerabilities of the human body? Of course, he proceeded from the knowledge of human anatomy, obtained as a result of observations. But, according to modern scientists, this was not enough. Much was based on intuition, which Galen trusted greatly. It was intuition that prompted him to zones, interference in which from the outside could be fatal for a person.

Scientists, public and political figures, military leaders often base their actions on intuition, which can lead to favorable consequences for them, justify their assumptions, but can also turn out to be erroneous, cause long-term delusions and serious consequences.

Speaking about the intuitive way of obtaining knowledge, we will proceed from the fact that intuition is a flash of insight (true or false), the source of which cannot be accurately identified or explained. Intuition serves as the basis for many very important hypotheses that can be tested by other methods. The experience of the development of science shows that intuition is an indispensable component of scientific knowledge and its main value lies in finding and formulating hypotheses of a scientific theory, which, after verification, can become the defining moments of a scientific discovery.

At the same time, intuition cannot be considered a satisfactory source of knowledge about the surrounding reality, the formulation of deep conclusions. Indeed, flashes of insight are not enough to determine the essence of the phenomena of the physical and social world around us. To be fair, it must be said that in some cases, intuition, based on vague information and fragmentary, unfinished experiments, can lead to wonderful, brilliant conclusions and even to the construction of scientific theories. But how can such intuitive knowledge be tested and verified? Often this is simply not possible. For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Anaximander came on the basis of intuition to construct a theory of evolution. This happened in the VI century. BC, but only in the XIX century. AD, there were opportunities to verify and confirm it. In most cases, intuition cannot be verified at the moment an intuition occurs. As for the study of relations between people, the behavior of individuals and social groups, social movements and processes, in this case, intuitive knowledge most often cannot be verified at all, or such an opportunity is provided only when the situation in society has already changed.

Reliance on scientific authorities. Two thousand years ago, Galen knew more about human anatomy than any mortal, and until now, physiologists and anatomists revere him as an authority in this field of knowledge. Euclid established that two parallel lines never intersect, and many generations of schoolchildren and students had no doubt to trust this axiom, because otherwise they were considered ignorant of elementary truths. For many centuries, the scientific creative thought of Europe was suppressed by the authority of Aristotle, and such examples can be cited in great numbers. Even now, situations are common when everyone is convinced that the authority on some issue is certainly right, and ideas that do not correspond to his judgment are wrong, that he is the leader in the world around us and shows the way to researchers.

There is a danger of abuse of authority in science, but we cannot do without an authoritative opinion. This is due to the fact that all the knowledge we have accumulated is too voluminous and vague, and therefore difficult for assimilation and practical use. Landmarks and basic provisions are needed, points of reference from which one could start. We will take on faith what is collected and processed in certain areas of knowledge by specialists, considering them to be authorities. But only information obtained by scientists and specialists in those areas in which they are competent is recognized as authoritative; people, as a rule, do not recognize authorities who judge everything and in general.

Usually, there are several types of authority in the field of obtaining, mastering and using knowledge. Sacred authority, or the authority of faith, rests on the unshakable conviction that certain traditions or documents (for example, the Bible, Koran, Vedas, etc.) are supernatural objects and, therefore, all knowledge, all information contained in them, must be considered absolutely true and cannot be questioned. Sacred authority also includes the belief that some groups or categories of people, as well as social institutions, really have supernatural knowledge and means of influencing people (church, doctors, healers, saints, psychics, etc.). In contrast to the sacred, secular authority appears as a result of faith not in supernatural insights and abilities, but in human capabilities, by virtue of knowledge and human experience. Secular authority is divided into secular scientific authority, which is based on empirical research, on data obtained from experience, and secular humanistic authority, which is based on the belief that a certain remarkable or great person really has an outstanding insight in understanding the phenomena of the environment. us of the world or in the field of human behavior.

The area in which this or that authority is recognized by a society, social stratum or social group is usually very narrow and limited by rigid limits. People who are incompetent in this field of knowledge must rely on other authorities: specialists, professionals. This is the only way not to be ridiculous in the eyes of others. Everyone, depending on the level of his development and social environment, solves the problem of choosing the most significant authorities in various fields of human knowledge in his own way.

However, the acquisition of true scientific knowledge is based on the indispensable condition that there are no scientific authorities who would have the last word in achieving the truth on any issue. The scientist must respect scientific authorities, but at the same time he creates and advances new scientifically based assumptions and tests authoritative conclusions. Authority should not hinder future researchers, but, on the contrary, can and should become a springboard for new research. Scientific knowledge is expanding, ruthlessly rejecting "final" solutions, constantly questioning the theories and conclusions of recognized authorities.

Tradition. One of the most convincing sources of obtaining and transmitting knowledge is tradition, since it is in it that the wisdom of centuries is accumulated. But does this mean that those who neglect traditional ideas and conclusions can be considered either mentally handicapped or stupid, that if the tradition has worked well in the past, then its main provisions should be accepted unchanged? In answering this question, it should be taken into account that the tradition preserves both the total wisdom and the total stupidity accumulated by past generations. It can be thought of as the attic of society, in which are squeezed all kinds of useful specimens and all kinds of delusions, useless and obsolete relics. The great work of scientific knowledge is to help avoid repeating the mistakes of ancestors. As for sociology, one of its tasks can be considered to isolate the present, the true from these traditions and sweep aside everything obsolete, which is an obstacle to the study of society.

public common sense. For thousands of years, people have believed that the earth is flat, that stone and iron are absolutely solid bodies, that a person's true character can be recognized by the expression of his face, that the Sun is smaller than the Earth, and so on. Today we know that many of these statements, based on common sense, on public opinion, are not true. In the case when we do not know where these or those ideas or statements come from and on what they are based, we explain them with common sense. Having given such an explanation to our ideas, we usually believe that they do not need to be tested, and convince ourselves that the idea or statement is true, because it is self-evident. This belief can unite people in a collective self-deception, suggesting that all these ideas and statements can always be tested, that their truth can be proved at any moment. The term "public common sense" gives significance and importance to various concepts (views, opinions) that do not have systematic evidence of truth to which one could refer. Public common sense and tradition are most closely related, since behind the multiple and varied statements of public common sense there is a certain past experience, some traditional ideas. The difference between tradition and public common sense can be seen primarily in the fact that traditional truths are trusted for some long period of time, while statements made on the basis of public common sense are accepted uncritical and usually short-lived conclusions about various aspects of the reality around us, in which a very limited circle of people can believe and follow.

Often the propositions and statements put forward by public common sense arise from collective conjectures, forebodings, accidents, and mistakes. It is the use of past experience by public common sense that in some cases allows us to come to useful and correct guesses and conclusions. For example, the statement that "in the event of a collision of people, a gentle response relieves irritation and tension" is a valuable practical observation of the events that occur in the process of everyday human interaction. However, observations based on public common sense often lead to erroneous conclusions.

Common sense can be determined by both folk wisdom and delusions, which are separated from each other - the task of science. Sociologists more often than representatives of other sciences have to deal with the fallacies of public common sense, since people encounter the subject of sociological research almost daily and have fairly stable judgments about it. Therefore, sociologists, presenting the results of their scientific developments, must be able to connect scientific knowledge with the valuable everyday experience accumulated by people in the course of their social activities.

scientific knowledge. Only in the last two and a half centuries has the scientific method become a generally accepted way of obtaining answers to questions that arise when people interact with the surrounding reality. As for the study of the social world, in this area science has become an authoritative source of knowledge relatively recently (about 100 years ago), and in such a short period of time humanity has received more knowledge about the social world than in the previous 10 thousand years. Effective acquisition of new reliable knowledge is associated primarily with the use of scientific methods. What makes scientific methods so productive? How do they differ from other ways of knowing the world around us, from other ways of comprehending the truth?

The main distinguishing feature of scientific knowledge is that it is based on evidence that can be verified. By evidence, in this case, we will understand the concrete results of actual observations that other observers have the opportunity to see, weigh, measure, count or check for accuracy. Evidence-based knowledge is now commonplace among members of societies, and many are somewhat aware of scientific methods. But even a few centuries ago, medieval scholastics could have lengthy disputes about how many teeth a horse has without taking the trouble to look into its mouth and count the teeth.

Since the knowledge of people is associated with actually verifiable proofs, science deals only with questions on which these proofs can be given. Questions such as whether there is a God, how to predict fate, or what makes things beautiful, do not fall within the realm of scientific knowledge, since the facts relating to them cannot be weighed, evaluated and verified. These questions may be of extraordinary importance to people, but the scientific method has no tools to deal with them. Scientists can study the reasons for a person's belief in God, in fate, in beauty, or in something else, or to determine the personal or social consequences of a particular belief, but this does nothing to determine the truth or fallacy of the beliefs themselves. Thus, science cannot provide answers to all important questions for mankind, many of them are beyond its competence. The scientific method is the most effective source of real, actual knowledge about human behavior and the reality around them, but science cannot answer questions about supernatural phenomena or the fundamental principles of aesthetics. The answers to these questions are found in metaphysics or religion.

Each scientific conclusion serves as the best interpretation of all the evidence currently available, but new evidence can appear the very next day, and a seemingly comprehensively and carefully proven scientific conclusion will instantly be untenable. Constant criticism and refutation of what has been previously proven is a common and even obligatory phenomenon in science: the fundamental property of scientific knowledge is that all conclusions and hypotheses obtained using the scientific method can be criticized and refuted. This leads to the fact that the process of scientific knowledge is endless and there can be no absolute truth. All scientific truths are based on experimental data corresponding to a certain stage in the development of human thought. Therefore, they are constantly revised in the light of new evidence, new experimental data. Some scientific conclusions (for example, that the Earth is a spheroid, that innate abilities only manifest themselves in certain cultural settings) are based on such a strong foundation of evidence that scientists doubt that they can be refuted by new evidence.

WAYS TO ACQUIRE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SOCIETY

CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE

Each person has his own image of the surrounding reality and the society in which he exists. This image includes ideas about personality, freedom, equality and justice in relation to other people, about the family, organization of activities and other attributes of his life. Unlike sciences such as physics, chemistry or biology, sociology operates in terms that are clear and understandable and are constantly used in everyday life. Burdened with erroneous opinions, prejudices, false stereotypes, people in many cases misinterpret the content of social phenomena. In this regard, it is important to separate ordinary knowledge, often erroneous and incomplete, from scientific knowledge. To do this, we will give a brief description of the various methods and sources of obtaining knowledge about the physical and social reality that surrounds us.

Intuition. The famous ancient Roman physician, physiologist and anatomist Galen, who lived in the II century. AD, developed a diagram of the structure of the human body, showing exactly the places where it can be opened without a lethal outcome. How could he determine the vulnerabilities of the human body? Of course, he proceeded from the knowledge of human anatomy, obtained as a result of observations. But, according to modern scientists, this was not enough. Much was based on intuition, which Galen trusted greatly. It was intuition that prompted him to zones, interference in which from the outside could be fatal for a person.

Scientists, public and political figures, military leaders often base their actions on intuition, which can lead to favorable consequences for them, justify their assumptions, but can also turn out to be erroneous, cause long-term delusions and serious consequences.

Speaking about the intuitive way of obtaining knowledge, we will proceed from the fact that intuition is a flash of insight (true or false), the source of which cannot be accurately identified or explained. Intuition serves as the basis for many very important hypotheses that can be tested by other methods. The experience of the development of science shows that intuition is an indispensable component of scientific knowledge and its main value lies in finding and formulating hypotheses of a scientific theory, which, after verification, can become the defining moments of a scientific discovery.

At the same time, intuition cannot be considered a satisfactory source of knowledge about the surrounding reality, the formulation of deep conclusions. Indeed, flashes of insight are not enough to determine the essence of the phenomena of the physical and social world around us. In fairness, it must be said that in some cases, intuition, based on vague information and fragmentary, unfinished experiments, can lead to wonderful, brilliant conclusions and even to the construction of scientific theories. But how can such intuitive knowledge be tested and verified? Often this is simply not possible.

For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Anaximander came on the basis of intuition to build a theory of evolution. This happened in the VI century. BC, but only in the XIX century. AD, there were opportunities to verify and confirm it. In most cases, intuition cannot be verified at the moment an intuition occurs. As for the study of relations between people, the behavior of individuals and social groups, social movements and processes, in this case, intuitive knowledge most often cannot be verified at all, or such an opportunity is provided only when the situation in society has already changed.

Reliance on scientific authorities. Two thousand years ago, Galen knew more about human anatomy than any mortal, and until now, physiologists and anatomists revere him as an authority in this field of knowledge. Euclid established that two parallel lines never intersect, and many generations of schoolchildren and students had no doubt to trust this axiom, because otherwise they were considered ignorant of elementary truths. For many centuries, the scientific creative thought of Europe was suppressed by the authority of Aristotle, and such examples can be cited in great numbers. Even now, situations are common when everyone is convinced that an authority on some issue is unconditionally right, and ideas that do not correspond to his judgment are wrong, that he is the leader in the world around us and shows the way to researchers.

There is a danger of abuse of authority in science, but we cannot do without an authoritative opinion. This is due to the fact that all the knowledge we have accumulated is too voluminous and vague, and therefore difficult for assimilation and practical use. Landmarks and basic provisions are needed, starting points from which one could start. We will take on faith what is collected and processed in certain areas of knowledge by specialists, considering them to be authorities. But only information obtained by scientists and specialists in those fields in which they are competent is recognized as authoritative; people, as a rule, do not recognize authorities who judge everything and in general.

Usually, there are several types of authority in the field of obtaining, mastering and using knowledge. Sacred authority, or the authority of faith, rests on the unshakable conviction that certain traditions or documents (for example, the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, etc.) are supernatural objects and, therefore, all knowledge, all information contained in in them must be considered absolutely true and cannot be questioned. Sacred authority also includes the belief that some groups or categories of people, as well as social institutions, really have supernatural knowledge and means of influencing people (church, doctors, healers, saints, psychics, etc.). In contrast to the sacred, secular authority appears as a result of faith not in supernatural insights and abilities, but in human capabilities, by virtue of knowledge and human experience. Secular authority is divided into secular scientific authority, which is based on empirical research, on data obtained from experience, and secular humanistic authority, which is based on the belief that a certain remarkable or great person really has an outstanding insight in understanding the phenomena of the environment. us of the world or in the field of human behavior.

The area in which this or that authority is recognized by a society, social stratum or social group is usually very narrow and limited by rigid limits. People who are incompetent in this field of knowledge must rely on other authorities - specialists, professionals. This is the only way not to be ridiculous in the eyes of others. Everyone, depending on the level of his development and social environment, solves the problem of choosing the most significant authorities in various fields of human knowledge in his own way.

At the same time, the acquisition of true scientific knowledge is based on the indispensable condition that there are no scientific authorities who would have the last word in achieving the truth on any issue. The scientist must respect scientific authorities, but at the same time he creates and advances new scientifically based assumptions and tests authoritative conclusions. Authority should not hinder future researchers, but, on the contrary, can and should become a springboard for new research. Scientific knowledge is expanding, ruthlessly rejecting "final" solutions, constantly questioning the theories and conclusions of recognized authorities.

Tradition. One of the most convincing sources of obtaining and transmitting knowledge is tradition, since it is in it that the wisdom of centuries is accumulated. But does this mean that those who neglect traditional ideas and conclusions can be considered either mentally handicapped or stupid, that if the tradition has worked well in the past, then its main provisions should be accepted unchanged? In answering this question, it should be borne in mind that the tradition preserves both the total wisdom and the total stupidity accumulated by past generations. It can be thought of as the attic of society, crammed into it with all kinds of useful specimens and all kinds of delusions, useless and obsolete relics. The great work of scientific knowledge is to help avoid repeating the mistakes of ancestors. As for sociology, one of its tasks can be considered to isolate the present, the true from these traditions and sweep aside everything obsolete, which is an obstacle to the study of society.

public common sense. For thousands of years, people have believed that the earth is flat, that stone and iron are absolutely solid bodies, that a person's true character can be recognized by the expression of his face, that the Sun is smaller than the Earth, and so on. Today we know that many of these statements, based on common sense, on public opinion, are not true. In the case when we do not know where these or those ideas or statements come from and on what they are based, we explain them with common sense. Having given such an explanation to our ideas, we usually believe that they do not need to be tested, and convince ourselves that the idea or statement is true, because it is self-evident. This belief can unite people in a collective self-deception that assumes that all these ideas and statements are always tested, that at any moment their truth can be proven. The term "public common sense" gives significance and importance to various concepts (views, opinions) that do not have systematic evidence of truth to which one could refer. Public common sense and tradition are most closely related, since behind the multiple and varied statements of public common sense there is a certain past experience, some traditional ideas. The difference between tradition and public common sense can be seen primarily in the fact that traditional truths are trusted for some long period of time, while statements made on the basis of public common sense are accepted uncritical and usually short-lived conclusions about various aspects of the environment. us a reality that a very limited circle of people can believe in and follow.

Often the propositions and statements put forward by public common sense arise from collective conjectures, forebodings, accidents, and mistakes. It is the use of past experience by public common sense that in some cases allows us to come to useful and correct guesses and conclusions. For example, the statement that "in the event of a collision between people, a gentle response relieves irritation and tension" is a valuable practical observation of the events that occur in the process of everyday human interaction. At the same time, observations based on public common sense in many cases lead to erroneous conclusions.

Common sense can be determined by both folk wisdom and delusions, which are separated from each other - the task of science. Sociologists more often than representatives of other sciences have to deal with the fallacies of public common sense, since people encounter the subject of sociological research almost daily and have fairly stable judgments about it. For this reason, sociologists, when presenting the results of their scientific developments, must be able to connect scientific knowledge with the valuable everyday experience that people have accumulated in the course of their social activities.

scientific knowledge. Only in the last two and a half centuries has the scientific method become a generally accepted way of obtaining answers to questions that arise when people interact with the surrounding reality. As for the study of the social world, in this area science has become an authoritative source of knowledge relatively recently (about 100 years ago), and in such a short period of time mankind has received more knowledge about the social world than in the previous 10 thousand years. Effective acquisition of new reliable knowledge is associated primarily with the use of scientific methods. What makes scientific methods so productive? How do they differ from other ways of knowing the world around us, from other ways of comprehending the truth?

The main distinguishing feature of scientific knowledge is that it is based on evidence that can be verified. By evidence, in this case, we will understand the concrete results of actual observations that other observers have the opportunity to see, weigh, measure, count or check for accuracy. Today, knowledge based on evidence has become commonplace among members of societies, and many are somewhat aware of scientific methods. But even a few centuries ago, medieval scholastics could have lengthy disputes about how many teeth a horse has without taking the trouble to look into its mouth and count the teeth.

Since the knowledge of people is associated with evidence that is actually verifiable, science deals only with questions on which these proofs are given. Questions such as whether there is a God, how to predict fate, or what makes things beautiful, do not fall within the realm of scientific knowledge, since the facts relating to them cannot be weighed, evaluated and verified. These questions are of extraordinary importance to people, but the scientific method has no tools for solving them. Scientists can study the reasons for a person's belief in God, fate, beauty, or something else, or determine the personal or social consequences of a particular belief, but this does nothing to determine the truth or fallacy of the beliefs themselves. Τᴀᴋᴎᴍ ᴏϬᴩᴀᴈᴏᴍ, science cannot provide answers to all questions important to mankind, many of them are beyond its competence. The scientific method is the most effective source of real, actual knowledge about human behavior and the reality around them, but science cannot answer questions about supernatural phenomena or the fundamental principles of aesthetics. The answers to these questions are found in metaphysics or religion.

Each scientific conclusion serves as the best interpretation of all the evidence currently available, but new evidence can appear the very next day, and a seemingly comprehensive and carefully proven scientific conclusion will instantly be untenable. Constant criticism and refutation of what has been previously proven is a common and even obligatory phenomenon in science: the fundamental property of scientific knowledge is that all conclusions and hypotheses obtained using the scientific method can be criticized and refuted. This leads to the fact that the process of scientific knowledge is endless and there can be no absolute truth. All scientific truths are based on experimental data corresponding to a certain stage in the development of human thought. For this reason, they are constantly being revised in the light of new evidence, new experimental data. Some scientific conclusions (for example, that the Earth is a spheroid, that innate abilities appear only in certain cultural environments) are based on such a strong foundation of evidence that scientists doubt that they can be refuted by new evidence.