Epistemology

Characteristic Features of Science, Types, and Functions of Scientific Knowledge

In developed societies, cognitive activity becomes specialized, resulting in a segment of individuals whose primary occupation is knowledge acquisition and research. In recent decades, concepts such as "information society" or "knowledge society" have gained considerable prominence, indicating that in the modern world, intellectual activity has emerged as the most vital resource. The most refined manifestation of knowledge is science; however, not all forms of knowledge stem from scientific inquiry. Elements of cognitive activity are present in everyday worldviews, represented at the level of common sense, and certain cognitive procedures are also invoked in art, religion, and similar domains.

Reflecting on historical types of worldview, it is essential to note that the scientific worldview has only solidified since the 17th and 18th centuries. During the Enlightenment, the problem of knowledge became central in philosophy, coinciding with the emergence of modern science. While some epistemologists trace scientific knowledge back to ancient civilizations (for instance, the development of mathematics in Ancient Greece), it is reasonable to consider this as proto-science, as knowledge during those periods was often intertwined with mythological or religious elements. The true emergence of science in the contemporary sense is primarily linked to advancements in mathematics and natural sciences during the 17th and 18th centuries.

One of the pressing issues in epistemology is the relationship between scientific and non-scientific knowledge. A general term for cognitive activity that extends beyond the bounds of science is "non-scientific knowledge." This encompasses forms of knowledge that do not contradict scientific principles yet lie outside its purview. The most vivid expressions of such knowledge include common sense and everyday understanding, which rely on spontaneous generalizations drawn from ordinary experience. In many instances, these generalizations provide a reasonably accurate picture, albeit a more simplified one compared to scientific descriptions. Furthermore, scientific knowledge is integrated into the worldview of the average individual through formal education, becoming part of their everyday perspective. Within scientific inquiry, common sense also plays a role, serving as an expression of professional intuition and research sensibility. Nevertheless, common sense can sometimes lead to misleading conclusions, as some everyday stereotypes are proven erroneous when examined in light of more detailed data acquired through scientific research.

Certain forms of non-scientific knowledge can be categorized as anti-scientific, meaning they openly contradict scientific principles. Various religious or mystical doctrines assert the existence of realms inaccessible to scientific inquiry; for example, the medieval concept of the duality of truth posited that truths of faith, while not entirely incompatible with rational understanding, existed beyond the realm of rationality. In contemporary society, several esoteric theories proclaim the existence of distinct spheres (spiritual, astral, parapsychological, etc.) that are fundamentally beyond scientific scrutiny. Anti-scientific theories, by asserting the limitations of science, fail to offer a more reliable means of knowledge acquisition, instead attempting to appear convincing by appealing to the emotional sphere of individuals, their fascination with the mysterious, and their tendency towards uncritical acceptance of superstitions.

In addition to anti-scientific theories, there are also teachings that can be classified as quasi-scientific (or pseudo-scientific). Unlike anti-science, which overtly rejects scientific principles, pseudo- or quasi-science attempts to mimic scientific reasoning, employing seemingly scientific terminology while deviating from scientific standards or distorting accepted scientific methods. Given the significant authority that scientific knowledge holds in society, various charlatans endeavor to lend their concepts a veneer of scientific legitimacy, thereby deceiving many ordinary individuals. However, both anti-scientific and quasi-scientific doctrines share a fundamental characteristic: they are not aimed at describing objective reality but rather at satisfying psychological needs—be it curiosity for the new or extraordinary (such as UFOs or fantastical beings), a desire for health or success (in situations of risk, individuals are inclined to believe in superstitions, and insurmountable circumstances, like terminal illness, may prompt illusory hopes in healers), or a yearning to elevate self-esteem (pseudo-historical concepts or "hate literature" rely on a biased selection of facts yet find an audience as they evoke feelings of superiority over other nations or social groups).

This raises the question: what is the specificity of scientific knowledge, and how does science distinguish itself from other types of cognitive activity? This issue is known as the problem of demarcation, that is, the differentiation between scientific and non-scientific knowledge. A definitive criterion for demarcation has yet to be established due to the diversity inherent in scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, several characteristics, collectively, can sufficiently distinguish scientific knowledge from non-scientific: objectivity, precision, systematicity, logical validity, testability, a critical approach, theoretical or empirical justification, and practical applicability, among others. Ultimately, scientific inquiry differs from other types in its very purpose. The primary aim of science is the search for truth, while for other forms of social consciousness, knowledge serves merely as an auxiliary element.

Thus, science constitutes a domain of activity directed towards the production and systematization of knowledge about reality, aiming to explore the objective laws governing the development of nature, society, and thought through specific methods of inquiry, to predict and transform reality in the interests of humanity and society. Science is simultaneously a system of knowledge, a means of acquiring new knowledge, and a social institution that facilitates research. Science is an integral component of human culture, and its significance continues to grow in the modern world.

Science fulfills several essential functions:

1. Cognitive Function: This is central to science, focusing on the search for and reproduction of knowledge. Within this function, several sub-functions can be identified, including explanatory, predictive, and methodological.
2. Cultural-Worldview Function: This indicates that science is a component of humanity's spiritual culture, with scientific knowledge forming the foundation of the contemporary worldview and significantly influencing public opinion on a wide range of issues.
3. Practical Function: This highlights that scientific knowledge serves as the basis for technological development; thus, science is a vital driving force of societal progress, fulfilling diverse human needs. Sometimes, this is further delineated into a social function, which arises from the critical role of science in addressing social issues.
4. Critical Function: The scientific mode of inquiry is an important means of fostering critical thinking, as scientific activity entails rigorous verification and justification of knowledge, reflection on established knowledge, and its revision and refinement.
5. Educational Function: Scientific knowledge provides the essential content for the educational process; during their education, individuals must assimilate a specific body of scientific knowledge.

Modern science is a complex system of knowledge. A common typology categorizes sciences based on their subjects of study into natural, technical, humanitarian, and social sciences. The subject matter of science influences its methods and approaches to object investigation. The formation of classical science in the 17th century was primarily associated with natural sciences and mathematics, while the development of social and humanitarian sciences occurred later. This led to the idea that the methods of natural sciences should be applied to social and humanitarian sciences, a notion that gained considerable popularity in positivism. This idea was most vividly manifested in the form of physicalism—the attempt to build all sciences on the basis of the language of physics. The appeal of this idea lay in the possibility of creating a unified science; however, efforts to model all sciences on physics, or even more broadly, on natural sciences, proved unfeasible, as they inevitably distorted the subject matter of social and humanitarian sciences. Thus, the specificity of these sciences prompted a contrary approach: the differentiation or even opposition between natural and humanitarian knowledge, vividly illustrated in the theories of W. Dilthey, G. Rickert, and W. Windelband, who regarded "cultural sciences" as fundamentally distinct from "natural sciences." They emphasized that the uniqueness of "cultural sciences" lies in their study of the particular rather than the general; for instance, a historian is interested in the description of a unique event. In contrast to natural-scientific explanations, a method of understanding and interpretation was proposed in the humanitarian realm, which gained significant weight in hermeneutics. However, this approach raises the issue of objectivity: how can one distinguish an objective description or explanation of the object of study from the subjective biases of the researcher? Ultimately, the ongoing development of humanitarian and social sciences demonstrates a trend toward avoiding extremes: both the assimilation of social and humanitarian sciences to natural sciences and their opposition.

During the formation of a particular science, its subject matter is delineated and distinguished from that of other sciences. This is associated with the disciplinary structure of the science, within which each field has its own specificity and research methods. However, many issues are not confined to a single science—for instance, the problem of environmental pollution inevitably gives rise to a series of questions that fall within the purview of a broad spectrum of sciences. Consequently, the role of interdisciplinary research is increasingly significant in the modern world, manifesting as the transfer of methods from one science to another and the interaction of multiple disciplines in addressing complex problems.

The structure of science encompasses both fundamental and applied levels. Fundamental research pertains to basic patterns, wherein foundational theories are established, and a scientific worldview is formed. In contrast, applied research is conducted on the basis of fundamental findings, addressing narrower, more specific, and, at the same time, practically significant tasks. The primary aim of fundamental research is knowledge for its own sake, which is why it is sometimes referred to as "pure" science, whereas applied research is pragmatically oriented, as it seeks to solve specific problems. Typically, fundamental studies occur at the forefront of inquiry and serve as the theoretical foundation for applied research, which in turn aids in the practical application of acquired knowledge. Furthermore, the results of applied research can stimulate new questions in fundamental inquiries.

These two types of research reflect two vital characteristics of science—science as a cognitive activity and science as a means of transforming the world. Fundamental research is the core of science when discussing it as a tool for explaining the world; this level is generally what is meant in such contexts. However, research driven solely by cognitive interest cannot meet all societal expectations of science. People are not merely interested in what a certain object is, but also in what properties it may possess that could be beneficial to them. Thus, scientific knowledge is often viewed as a guide for practical activity, where knowledge ceases to be an end in itself and becomes a means to address other issues. Progress in technology is based on applied research, and scientific achievements are evaluated in terms of their effectiveness and potential for practical use. It is unsurprising that in contemporary science, the majority of research consists of applied studies, as society expects immediate returns from them. Yet, this presents a danger: science risks becoming imbalanced in favor of applied research, receiving insufficient support for fundamental studies. Since fundamental research does not yield immediate returns, it often appears detached from life in the eyes of ordinary people, significantly less useful compared to applied research, which addresses pressing issues. Consequently, applied research enjoys far greater opportunities related to securing funding. However, the decline of fundamental research would soon precipitate a decline in applied research, as the latter relies on the former.

The levels of scientific knowledge encompass empirical and theoretical dimensions. This distinction somewhat mirrors that between the sensory and the rational; however, a difference exists: while the sensory level deals directly with sensory data, the empirical level considers sensory data through the lens of rational interpretation. For example, when recording instrument readings, a researcher would indicate that the air temperature is 15°C, rather than stating that the mercury column has stopped at the 15 mark. Thus, the empirical level is one where content is primarily derived from sensory experience subjected to rational processing. A characteristic feature of the empirical level is the direct contact between the researcher and the subject through the senses or instruments that complement them. In modern science, research increasingly relies on data obtained via instruments—processes occurring at the level of micro-particles cannot be perceived through the senses. Nevertheless, even indirectly obtained empirical data serves as vital information regarding objective phenomena or processes. It is at the empirical level that facts are recorded.

The theoretical level represents the realm of generalizing theories, explaining the connections between phenomena and processes, and formulating laws characteristic of the studied objects. At this level, idealization emerges, reflecting the constructive activity of thought that organizes experience and presents it in a systematic and generalized form. The theoretical level encompasses a system of concepts, abstractions, and theories. Here, objects appear not as a direct result of sensory reflection but as abstract entities—the outcome of logical reconstruction through abstraction and idealization. For instance, abstractions such as a point or a line in geometry; the chemical substance H2O is an idealization of water, which in its natural state contains impurities; in marketing research, the consumer is viewed as an abstraction reflecting typical consumer behavior traits, and so forth. It is precisely at the theoretical level that the essence of objects, the laws governing their functioning, and predictions are articulated.

The empirical and theoretical levels are interrelated: the empirical serves as a foundation for theoretical explanations and a means of verifying them, while the theoretical level organizes empirical data and formulates deeper explanations, identifying patterns that are not directly perceived at the level of empirical data.