in all modern societies. To an increasing extent, the very existence of modern society depends on advanced scientific knowledge. Not only the material conditions for the existence of society, but also the very idea of ​​the world depends on the development of science. In this sense, there is a significant difference between science and technology. If science can be defined as a system of logical methods by which knowledge about the world is acquired, then technology is the practical application of this knowledge.

The goals of science and technology are different. technology aims at the knowledge of nature, technology - the application of knowledge about nature in practice. Technology (however primitive) is available in almost all societies. Scientific knowledge requires an understanding of the principles underlying the phenomena of nature. Such knowledge is necessary for the development of advanced technology. The connection between science and technology was formed relatively recently, but led to the emergence of a scientific and technological revolution, the development of a process of modernization, a process that is radically changing the modern world.

Institutionalization of science is a relatively recent phenomenon. Until the beginning of the 20th century, science existed mainly in the form of non-professional activities of representatives of the intellectual elite. Its rapid development in the 20th century led to the differentiation and specialization of scientific knowledge. The need to master special disciplines of a relatively narrow, specialized profile predetermined the emergence of institutes for long-term training of relevant specialists. The technological consequences of scientific discoveries have made it necessary to involve in the process of their development and successful industrial application of significant capital investments, both private and public (for example, the US government finances more than half of scientific research).

The need for coordination of specialized research led to the emergence of large research centers, and the need for an effective exchange of ideas and information led to the emergence of "invisible colleges" - informal communities of scientists working in the same or related areas. The presence of such an informal organization allows individual scientists to keep abreast of trends in the development of scientific thought, receive answers to specific questions, feel new trends, and evaluate critical comments on their work. Outstanding scientific discoveries were made within the "invisible colleges".

Principles of Science

The emergence of a community of scientists, awareness of the growing role and purpose of science, the increasing social significance of social and ethical requirements for scientists predetermined the need to identify and formulate specific norms, following which should become an important duty of scientists, principles and norms that form the moral imperative of science. The formulation of the principles of science was proposed by Merton in 1942. Among them: universalism, communalism, disinterest and organized skepticism.

The principle of universalism means that science and its discoveries have a single, universal (universal) character. No personal characteristics of individual scientists, such as their race, class, or nationality, are of any importance in assessing the value of their work. Research results should be judged solely on their scientific merit.

According to principles of communalism no scientific knowledge can become the personal property of a researcher, but must be available to any member of the scientific community. Science is based on a common scientific heritage shared by all, and no scientist can be considered the owner of a scientific discovery made by him (unlike technology, achievements in which are subject to protection through patent law).

The principle of disinterest means that the pursuit of personal interests does not meet the requirement for professional role scientist. A scientist, of course, may have a legitimate interest in his recognition from scientists and in a positive assessment of his work. This kind of recognition should serve as a sufficient reward for the scientist, since his main goal should be the desire to increase scientific knowledge. This implies the inadmissibility of the slightest manipulation of data, their juggling.

In accordance with principle of organized skepticism the scientist should refrain from formulating conclusions until the relevant facts are fully revealed. No scientific theory, whether traditional or revolutionary, can be taken uncritically. In science, there can be no restricted areas that are not subject to critical analysis, even if political or religious dogmas prevent it.

Such principles and norms, of course, are not formalized, and the content of these norms, their real existence is derived from the reaction of the community of scientists to the actions of those who violate such norms. Such violations are not uncommon. Thus, the principle of universalism in science was violated in Nazi Germany, where they tried to distinguish between "Aryan" and "Jewish" science, as well as in our country, when in the late 1940s - early 1950s. a distinction was preached between "bourgeois", "cosmopolitan" and "Marxist" domestic sciences, and genetics, cybernetics and sociology were classified as "bourgeois". In both cases, the result was a long-term lag in the development of science. The principle of universalism is also violated in a situation where research is classified under the pretext of military or state secrets or hidden under the influence of commercial structures in order to maintain a monopoly on scientific discovery.

scientific paradigm

The result of successful scientific activity is the increment of scientific knowledge. At the same time, science as a social institution is influenced by social factors both on the part of society as a whole and on the part of the community of scientists. The research process includes two steps: "normal development" and "scientific revolutions". An important feature of scientific research is that it never comes down to a simple accumulation of discoveries and inventions. Most often, a certain system of concepts, methods and proposals about the subject of research is formed in the community of scientists within the framework of a single scientific discipline. T. Kuhn calls such a system of general views a "paradigm". It is the paradigms that predetermine what the problem to be investigated is, the nature of its solution, the essence of the discovery achieved, and the features of the methods used. In this sense, scientific research is an attempt to "catch" the diversity of nature in the conceptual network of the actual paradigm. In fact, textbooks are mainly devoted to the presentation of the paradigms existing in science.

But if paradigms are a necessary prerequisite for research and scientific discovery, allowing you to coordinate research, achieve rapid growth knowledge, then scientific revolutions are no less necessary, the essence of which is to replace obsolete paradigms with paradigms that open up new horizons in the development of scientific knowledge. “Subversive elements”, the accumulation of which leads to scientific revolutions, are constantly emerging separate phenomena that do not fit into the current paradigm. They are referred to as deviations, exceptions, they are used to clarify the existing paradigm, but over time, the growing inadequacy of such a paradigm becomes the cause of a crisis situation, efforts to search for new paradigm, with the establishment of which the revolution within the framework of this science begins.

Science is not a simple accumulation of knowledge. Theories arise, are used and discarded. Existing, available knowledge is never final, irrefutable. Nothing in science can be proven in an absolutely final form, for any There are always exceptions to scientific law. The only possibility remains the possibility of refuting hypotheses, and scientific knowledge just consists of hypotheses that have not yet been refuted, capable of being refuted in the future. This is the difference between science and dogma.

Technological imperative

A significant share of scientific knowledge in modern industrialized countries is used to create highly developed technologies. The influence of technology on society is so great that it gives grounds for advancing technological dynamism as the leading force in social development as a whole (technological determinism). Indeed, the technology of energy production imposes clear restrictions on the way of life of a given society. The use of muscular strength alone limits life to the narrow confines of small, isolated groups. The use of animal power expands these limits, allows the development of agriculture, the production of a surplus product, which leads to social stratification, the emergence of new social roles of an unproductive nature.

The emergence of machines using natural energy sources (wind, water, electricity, nuclear energy) has greatly expanded the field of social opportunities. The social perspectives, the internal structure of modern industrial society is immeasurably more complex, wider and more diverse than ever before in the past, which has allowed the formation of multimillion-strong mass societies. Rapid development computer technology, unprecedented opportunities for transmitting and receiving information on a global scale portend and are already leading to serious social consequences. The decisive role of the quality of information in improving the efficiency of both scientific, industrial, and social development. The one who leads in the development of software, the improvement of computer equipment, the computerization of science and production, is the leader today in scientific and industrial progress.

However, the specific consequences of technological development directly depend on the nature of the culture within which this development takes place. Different cultures accept, reject or ignore technological discoveries in accordance with prevailing values, norms, expectations, aspirations. The theory of technological determinism should not be absolutized. Technological development should be considered and evaluated in close connection with the entire system of social institutions of society - political, economic, religious, military, family, etc. At the same time, technology is an important factor in social change. Most technological innovations are directly dependent on the growth of scientific knowledge. Accordingly, technological innovations are intensifying, which, in turn, leads to the acceleration of social development.

Accelerated scientific and technological development brings to life one of the most serious questions: what can be the results of such development in terms of their social consequences - for nature, the environment and the future of mankind as a whole. Thermonuclear weapons, genetic engineering are just some examples scientific achievements containing a potential human threat. And only at the global level can such problems be solved. In fact, we are talking about the growing need to create an international system of social control, orienting world science in the direction of creative development for the benefit of all mankind.

Central problem modern stage development of science in Russia is the transformation of the status of science from an object of directive planned state management and control, existing within the framework of state supply and support, into an economically and socially independent, active social institution. In the field of natural sciences, discoveries of military importance were introduced by order, providing a privileged position for the corresponding scientific institutions that served the military-industrial complex. Industrial enterprises outside this complex in the conditions of the planned economy had no real interest in the modernization of production, the introduction of new, scientifically based technologies.

In market conditions, the primary stimulus for industrial development (and the scientific developments that provide it) is the demand of consumers (where one of them is the state). large business units, production associations, companies whose success in the competition (struggle for the consumer) will ultimately depend on success in the development of high technologies; by the very logic of such a struggle are made dependent on success in the development and implementation of the latest technologies. Only such structures with sufficient capital are able to make long-term investments in the study of fundamental problems of science, which leads to a new level of technological and industrial development. In such a situation, science as a social institution acquires independent significance, acquires the role of an influential, equal partner in the network of socio-economic interactions, and the institutions of science receive a real impetus to intensive scientific work- the key to success in a competitive environment.

In a market economy, the role of the state should be expressed in the provision of state orders on a competitive basis to enterprises that have modern technology based on the latest scientific achievements. This should give a dynamic impetus to such enterprises in providing economic support to scientific institutions (institutes, laboratories) that are able to supply production with technologies that ensure the production of competitive products.

Outside the direct action of the laws of the market remain par excellence sciences of the humanitarian cycle, the development of which is inseparable from the nature and characteristics of the socio-cultural environment within which the society itself and its social institutions are formed. It is on the development of such sciences that the social worldview and ideals largely depend. Great events in this area often foreshadow, lead to decisive social changes (Enlightenment philosophy). The natural sciences discover the laws of nature, while the sciences of the humanitarian cycle seek to know the meaning of human existence, the nature of social development, largely determine social self-awareness, contribute to self-identification of the people awareness of one's place in history and in modern civilization.

The influence of the state on the development of humanitarian knowledge is internally contradictory. Enlightened government can promote such sciences (and arts), but the problem is that the state itself (like society as a whole) is an important (if not the most important) object of critical scientific analysis of the disciplines of the social science cycle. Truly humanitarian knowledge as an element of public consciousness cannot directly depend solely on the market or on the state. Society itself, acquiring the features of a civil society, must develop humanitarian knowledge, uniting the intellectual efforts of its bearers and providing their support. At present, the sciences of the humanities cycle in Russia are overcoming the consequences of ideological control and international isolation in order to introduce the best achievements of Russian and foreign thought into the arsenal of modern science.

Social strata, classes, groups of people participate in the development of society. Technological progress originates in research teams. But one fact is indisputable: the ideas that move society, the great discoveries and inventions that transform production, are born only in individual mind; it is in it that everything great is born, of which humanity is proud, which is embodied in its progress. But creative intelligence is the property of a free person. Free economically and politically, acquiring human dignity in conditions of peace and democracy, the guarantor of which is constitutional state. Now Russia is only at the beginning of such a path.

philosophy science social scientist

Science took shape as a social institution in the 17th and early 18th centuries, when the first scientific societies and academies were formed in Europe and the publication of scientific journals began. Prior to this, the preservation and reproduction of science as an independent social entity was carried out mainly in an informal way - through traditions transmitted through books, teaching, correspondence and personal communication of scientists.

Until the end of the 19th century. science remained "small", occupying a relatively small number of people in its field. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. a new way of organizing science is emerging - large scientific institutes and laboratories, with a powerful technical base, which brings scientific activity closer to the forms of modern industrial labor. Thus, the transformation of "small" science into "big" takes place. Science includes 15 thousand disciplines and several hundred thousand scientific journals. 20th century called the century of modern science. New energy sources and Information Technology- perspective directions of modern science. Trends in the internationalization of science are growing, and science itself is becoming the subject of an interdisciplinary complex analysis. Not only the science of science and the philosophy of science, but also sociology, psychology, and history begin to study it. Modern science is increasingly connected with all social institutions without exception, penetrating not only industrial and agricultural production, but also politics, administrative and military spheres. In turn, science as a social institution becomes the most important factor of socio-economic potential, requires growing costs, due to which science policy is becoming one of the leading areas of social management.

With the split of the world into two camps after the Great October Socialist Revolution, science as a social institution began to develop in fundamentally different social conditions. Under capitalism, under the conditions of antagonistic social relations, the achievements of science are used to a large extent by the monopolies to obtain superprofits, intensify the exploitation of the working people, and militarize the economy. Under socialism, the development of science is planned on a national scale in the interests of the entire people. On the scientific basis the planned development of the economy and the transformation of social relations are being carried out, thanks to which science plays a decisive role both in creating the material and technical base of communism and in shaping the new man. A developed socialist society opens the widest scope for new advances in science in the name of the interests of the working people.

The emergence of "big" science was primarily due to a change in the nature of its connection with technology and production. Until the end of the 19th century. science played an auxiliary role in relation to production. Then the development of science begins to outstrip the development of technology and production, a single system "science - technology - production" is formed, in which science plays a leading role. In the era of the scientific and technological revolution, science is constantly transforming the structure and content of material activity. The process of production more and more "... appears not as subordinate to the direct skill of the worker, but as a technological application of science."

The role of science in the era of the scientific and technological revolution has grown so exorbitantly that a new scale of its internal differentiation was required. And it was no longer just about theorists and experimenters. It became obvious that in "big" science, some scientists are more inclined towards heuristic search activity - putting forward new ideas, others - to analytical and operational - substantiating existing ones, still others - to their verification, fourth - to the application of acquired scientific knowledge.

Along with the natural and technical sciences, social sciences are becoming increasingly important in modern society, setting certain guidelines for its development and studying man in all the diversity of his manifestations. On this basis, there is an ever-increasing convergence of the natural, technical and social sciences.

In the conditions of modern science, the problems of organizing and managing the development of science are of paramount importance. The concentration and centralization of science brought to life the emergence of national and international scientific organizations and centers, the systematic implementation of major international projects. In the system of state administration, special bodies for the management of science have been formed. On their basis, a scientific policy mechanism is being formed that actively and purposefully influences the development of science. Initially, the organization of science was almost exclusively tied to the system of universities and other higher educational institutions and was built on a sectoral basis. In the 20th century specialized research institutions are widely developed. The emerging trend towards a decrease in the specific efficiency of expenditures on scientific activity, especially in the field of fundamental research, has given rise to a desire for new forms of organization of science. Such a form of organization of science is being developed as research centers of a branch (for example, the Pushchino Center for Biological Research of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in the Moscow Region) and a complex nature (for example, Novosibirsk science Center). There are research units built on the problem principle. To address specific scientific problems, often of an interdisciplinary nature, special creative teams are created, consisting of problem groups and combined into projects and programs (for example, the space exploration program). Centralization in the system of science management is increasingly combined with decentralization and autonomy in conducting research. Informal problematic associations of scientists, the so-called invisible collectives, are becoming widespread. Along with them, within the framework of "big" science, such informal formations continue to exist and develop as scientific directions and scientific schools that arose in the conditions of "small" science. In turn, scientific methods are increasingly used as one of the means of organization and management in other areas of activity. has become massive scientific organization labor (NOT), which is becoming one of the main levers for increasing the efficiency of social production. Are being introduced automatic systems production management (ACS), created with the help of computers and cybernetics. object scientific management becomes more and more human factor especially in human-machine systems. The results of scientific research are used to improve the principles of managing teams, enterprises, the state, and society as a whole. Like any social application of science, such use serves opposite purposes under capitalism and socialism.

Importance for science have national features of its development, expressed in the distribution of the available composition of scientists in different countries, national and cultural traditions of the development of individual branches of science within the framework of scientific schools and directions, in the ratio between fundamental and applied research on a national scale, in state policy in relation to the development of science (for example, in the size and direction of appropriations for science). However, the results of science - scientific knowledge are international in nature.

The reproduction of science as a social institution is closely connected with the system of education and training of scientific personnel. In the conditions of the modern scientific and technological revolution, there is a certain gap between the historically established tradition of teaching in secondary and high school and the needs of society (including science). In order to eliminate this gap, new teaching methods are being intensively introduced into the education system, using the latest achievements of science - psychology, pedagogy, cybernetics. Education in higher education reveals a tendency to approach the research practice of science and production. In the field of education, the cognitive function of science is closely connected with the task of educating students as full-fledged members of society, forming in them a certain value orientation and moral qualities. The practice of social life and Marxist-Leninist theory have convincingly proved that the ideal of the Enlightenment, according to which the universal dissemination of scientific knowledge will automatically lead to the education of highly moral personalities and a just organization of society, is utopian and erroneous. This can only be achieved through a fundamental change social order replacing capitalism with socialism.

For science as a system of knowledge, the highest value is the truth, which in itself is neutral in moral and ethical terms. Moral assessments can refer either to knowledge-acquisition activities ( professional ethics a scientist requires intellectual honesty and courage in the process of unrelenting search for truth), or to activities for the application of the results of science, where the problem of the relationship between science and morality arises with particular acuteness, specifically speaking in the form of a problem of the moral responsibility of scientists for social consequences, brought about by the application of their discoveries. The barbaric use of science by the militarists (the experiments of the Nazis on people, Hiroshima and Nagasaki) caused a number of active social actions of progressive scientists aimed at preventing the anti-humanistic application of science.

The study of various aspects of science is carried out by a number of its specialized branches, which include the history of science, the logic of science, the sociology of science, the psychology of scientific creativity, etc. From the middle of the 20th century A new, integrated approach to the study of science is intensively developing, striving for a synthetic knowledge of all its many aspects - science of science.

Science as a social institution is a collection of various organizations and people subordinate to the common goal of understanding the world around us. This is one of the youngest areas of human activity. We will find out what features it is characterized by and what functions it performs in society.

Stages of the formation of science

The development of science as a social institution began in the 16th-17th centuries (although some scientists believe that it originated as early as the 5th century BC, but, according to the generally accepted version, then only prototypes of scientific discoveries appeared, since there were no special means to obtain objective knowledge).

The impetus for the start of scientific activity was technological progress, which made it possible to use new means, to discover what was previously inaccessible to humans. For example, start studying the cosmos, the structure of the smallest particles - atoms.

Functions of Science

Any scientific works created with one common goal: to gain new knowledge.

The functions of science include:

• development of objective knowledge about the surrounding reality;
• formalization of this knowledge in theory.

At present, science has a close relationship with education. This is explained by the need to disseminate and transfer objective knowledge about the world, to develop methods and ways of teaching scientific disciplines, a theoretical basis for teachers and educators. Before educational institutions the state sets two goals at once - the organization of pedagogical and scientific activities.

TOP 4 articleswho read along with this

Consider the system of scientific institutions in Russia:

• Academy of Sciences;
• branch academies: medical, pedagogical sciences;
• research institutes/

The results of the activities of these organizations are reflected in monographs, textbooks, encyclopedias, atlases, which are published and are in the public domain for all people.

Introduction

Social philosophy and social science

1 Social Institute of Science as Scientific Production

2 The social institution of science as a system of institutions

Science as a social institution

Social functions of science

1 The functions of science as a direct productive and social force

2 Cultural and ideological functions of science

Social responsibility of a scientist

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The question of the relationship between philosophy and science is important for a deeper understanding of the meaning and purpose of philosophy.

Today, science permeates all spheres of human activity. It has become a powerful factor in the achievements of mankind in various fields. However, it is clear that this was not always the case. Mankind needed to go a long way to move from pre-scientific forms of cognition to scientific ones.

Philosophy summarizes the achievements of science, relies on them. Ignoring scientific achievements would lead to its empty content. Philosophy inscribes the facts of the development of science in a broad context of cultural and social development.

Not only does philosophy need science, but science also needs philosophy to solve the problems it faces. One of the greatest scientists of the twentieth century. A. Einstein wrote: “In our time, a physicist is forced to deal with philosophical problems to a much greater extent than physicists of previous generations had to do. Physicists are forced to do this by the difficulties of their own science.

Social philosophy is the philosophical concepts of society. Social philosophy takes its place among the sciences that study society in various aspects and manifestations. Its subject is the most general questions concerning public life. Chief among them is the question of the meaning of public institutions and society as a whole.

The main form of human knowledge - science today is becoming an increasingly significant and essential component of the reality that surrounds us and in which we somehow have to navigate, live and act.

The complex nature of the development of modern science, the identification of contradictions in the development of science enhance the role of institutional forms of scientific production. In this regard, it becomes important to consider science as a specific social institution.

In the process of knowledge production, its translation, etc., people enter into certain relations of joint activity, the need arises for organization, management, and, consequently, the very activity of management in science.

Consideration of science as a social institution is necessary to understand the social system of science in the unity of its objective and subjective sides. This is important for explaining the patterns of development of science.

Considering that the formation of science as a social institution is closely connected with the emergence of the profession of a scientist, I would like to consider such an issue as the social responsibility of a scientist. It lies not only in the responsibility for the scientific nature of the results of research, but also for the nature of their use in society.

1. Social philosophy and social science

To date, a significant complex of sciences, which are commonly called social sciences, has developed. AT modern world the role and importance of the social sciences are universally recognized. Moreover, the development of socio-scientific knowledge is a characteristic sign of our days. Its validity is not disputed. However, at one time a real revolution in scientific thinking was required in order for knowledge about society to take place, moreover, as knowledge that meets the requirements of scientific character. This revolution took place from the thirteenth century. and ended only in the twentieth century, when knowledge about society was finally established as scientifically legitimate.

Obviously, objectivity is just as necessary in the social sciences as in the natural sciences. However, it is also clear that in reality it is much more difficult to achieve. Just as important is the attitude towards intellectual honesty, which, over time, by R. Descartes determines any research that claims to be scientific. Finally, in the social sciences, it is extremely important to choose the right method to avoid arbitrary or deliberately desired conclusions. A lot of such methods have been accumulated in the arsenal of scientific social science today.

At the same time, out of all the diversity of social life, science can purposefully single out a certain aspect - economic, political, social, cultural, etc. In this case, a certain system of society and the subsystems that make it up are singled out. In its turn systems approach, as a rule, is complemented by structural and functional. The scientific approach to social reality is also served by the methods of social statistics, which make it possible to identify and fix a certain regularity in the manifestations of social life in various spheres.

In view of the foregoing, we can conclude that the social sciences in the modern world are a huge variety of scientific disciplines that have accumulated a wealth of experience in studying social processes. The question arises: what is the relation of social philosophy to the social sciences? The answer is not based on several factors. First, social philosophy seeks not only to survey social life as a whole, but also to discover the meaning of the existence of social institutions and society as such. Secondly, within the framework of social philosophy, one of the most important is the problem of the relationship between the individual and society, posed primarily in general terms, i.e. in a certain independence from specific types of social organization. Thirdly, social philosophy thinks about the ontological foundations of social life, i.e. explores the conditions under which society retains its integrity, does not crumble into isolated parts or into a set of individuals not connected by any commonality. Fourthly, within the framework of social philosophy, the methodology of scientific knowledge of social life is comprehended, and the experience of social sciences is generalized. According to these parameters, philosophical knowledge about society differs from scientific knowledge proper.

2. Science as a social institution

Consider one of the most important aspects of the subjective side of science - its social institution. This is necessary for understanding the entire social system of science as a unity of its objective and subjective sides. Let us turn, first of all, to the consideration of the main definitions of the social institution of science that take place in the literature.

For American sociological literature, despite the diversity of shades, the idea of ​​a social institution as a system of social roles or stereotypes of behavior is characteristic. So, P. Hortov and C. Hunt define an institution as "an organized system of behavior", "an organized system of social relations, which includes certain common values ​​and procedures that are in accordance with the basic needs of society." T. Parsons also writes about this.

From such positions the social institution of science is interpreted. Prominent American sociologist of science N. Storer believes that “the sociology of science is the study of patterns of behavior characteristic of scientists, factors influencing their behavior, and the consequences of their behavior for the wider groups and societies to which they belong. Thus, science is conceived as a social institution, as a set of patterns of behavior and relationships, having enough internal cohesion to allow us to delimit it from other spheres. social behavior". A social institution is thus "a complex of patterns of behavior and relationships." It is, therefore, about the functioning of a specific system of roles in the social institution of science, "whose members collectively expand knowledge and are guided in their activities by a system of norms and values ​​that both provide value to their scientific contribution and reinforce their motivation." A similar point of view is supported by R. Koenig, who understands a social institution as a system of norms that regulate human behavior.

For J. Shchepansky, a social institution is a system of institutions with formalized roles. Social institutions, in his opinion, "are systems of institutions in which certain people, elected by members of groups, are empowered to perform certain social and impersonal functions in order to satisfy the existing individual and group needs of individuals and to regulate the behavior of other members of groups."

In Soviet scientific literature, the term "social institution" is often used loosely and ambiguously, which hinders the differentiation of different ways of using this concept. There are two approaches to understanding the social institution. In the first approach, a social institution is understood as all scientific production with all its moments, in the other - this or that moment of scientific production (different authors call different moments of scientific production with this term). Let's consider some of the most typical and essential points of view.

2.1 Social institution of science as scientific production

Such an idea of ​​the social institution of science is especially characteristic for Rostov philosophers. So, M.M. Karpov, M.K. Petrov, A.V. Potemkin proceed from the fact that “the elucidation of the internal structure of science as a social institution, the isolation of those bricks from which ² temple of science ² , the study of the laws of communication and the existence of its structural elements is now becoming the topic of the day. The most important aspects of scientific production are considered as “bricks”, starting from the discussion of the problem of the origin of science and ending with the features modern requirements to the system of training scientific personnel.

THEM. Oreshnikov is inclined to identify the concept of "social institution" with the concept of "scientific production". In his opinion, “social sciences are a social institution, the purpose of which is the knowledge of the laws and phenomena of social reality (the production of socio-economic and political knowledge), the dissemination of this knowledge among members of society, the struggle against bourgeois ideology and any of its manifestations, the reproduction of scientific and scientific and pedagogical personnel necessary for the development of science itself and for the needs of social life. However, here we are talking, in fact, about the institutional study of scientific production, and not about the social institution of science. A very close position is taken by A.V. Uzhogov, for whom a social institution is scientific production (“production of ideas”).

For all these researchers, the term "social institution" is not of a specialized nature, but, on the contrary, simultaneously replaces several categories of historical materialism and abstractions of the systemic method. This is the main drawback of using the term "social institution" as a synonym for scientific production.

2.2 The social institution of science as a system of institutions

This understanding of the social institution seems to be the most productive. In this sense, this term is used by V.A. Konev. Thus, the concept of a social institution (through the concept of social control) is included in the system of categories of historical materialism. Apparently, V.Zh. also comes to a similar conclusion. Kelle. Speaking of "social institution", "system of organization of science", he calls them institutions.

A social institution is a functionally unified system of institutions that organizes one or another system of relations of social management, control and supervision. The social institute of science is a system of institutions that organizes and maintains the production and transmission of scientific knowledge, as well as the reproduction of scientific personnel and the exchange of activities between science and other branches of social production. The social institution of science in this case is a social form of existence of management relations in scientific production.

In the process of production of scientific knowledge, its translation and diverse practical use, the participants in scientific production enter into relations of joint activity that require an organizing principle.

A scientific institution, like any other institution, is characterized primarily by the presence of a permanent and paid staff (not to be confused with an association, group, collective) with its characteristic division of functions and service hierarchy, as well as a certain legal status. (A great connoisseur of this business, Ostap Bender, when creating his office "Horns and Hooves", took into account, by the way, in the first place precisely these circumstances - by creating a staff and hanging a sign, he thereby organized the institution.)

With the professionalization of scientific activity, the organizational forms of science acquire an economic and ideological content, turn into an extensive system of institutions, which we call the social institution of science.

3. Science as a social institution

philosophy science social scientist

Science took shape as a social institution in the 17th and early 18th centuries, when the first scientific societies and academies were formed in Europe and the publication of scientific journals began. Prior to this, the preservation and reproduction of science as an independent social entity was carried out mainly in an informal way - through traditions transmitted through books, teaching, correspondence and personal communication of scientists.

Until the end of the 19th century. science remained "small", occupying a relatively small number of people in its field. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. a new way of organizing science is emerging - large scientific institutes and laboratories, with a powerful technical base, which brings scientific activity closer to the forms of modern industrial labor. Thus, the transformation of "small" science into "big" takes place. Science includes 15 thousand disciplines and several hundred thousand scientific journals. 20th century called the century of modern science. New energy sources and information technologies are promising areas of modern science. Trends in the internationalization of science are growing, and science itself is becoming the subject of an interdisciplinary complex analysis. Not only the science of science and the philosophy of science, but also sociology, psychology, and history begin to study it. Modern science is increasingly connected with all social institutions without exception, penetrating not only industrial and agricultural production, but also politics, administrative and military spheres. In turn, science as a social institution becomes the most important factor of socio-economic potential, requires growing costs, due to which science policy is becoming one of the leading areas of social management.

With the split of the world into two camps after the Great October Socialist Revolution, science as a social institution began to develop in fundamentally different social conditions. Under capitalism, under the conditions of antagonistic social relations, the achievements of science are used to a large extent by the monopolies to obtain superprofits, intensify the exploitation of the working people, and militarize the economy. Under socialism, the development of science is planned on a national scale in the interests of the entire people. The planned development of the economy and the transformation of social relations are carried out on a scientific basis, thanks to which science plays a decisive role both in creating the material and technical base of communism and in shaping the new man. A developed socialist society opens the widest scope for new advances in science in the name of the interests of the working people.

The emergence of "big" science was primarily due to a change in the nature of its connection with technology and production. Until the end of the 19th century. science played an auxiliary role in relation to production. Then the development of science begins to outstrip the development of technology and production, a single system "science - technology - production" is formed, in which science plays a leading role. In the era of the scientific and technological revolution, science is constantly transforming the structure and content of material activity. The process of production more and more "... appears not as subordinate to the direct skill of the worker, but as a technological application of science."

The role of science in the era of the scientific and technological revolution has grown so exorbitantly that a new scale of its internal differentiation was required. And it was no longer just about theorists and experimenters. It became obvious that in "big" science, some scientists are more inclined towards heuristic search activity - putting forward new ideas, others - to analytical and operational - substantiating existing ones, still others - to their verification, fourth - to the application of acquired scientific knowledge.

Along with the natural and technical sciences, social sciences are becoming increasingly important in modern society, setting certain guidelines for its development and studying man in all the diversity of his manifestations. On this basis, there is an ever-increasing convergence of the natural, technical and social sciences.

In the conditions of modern science, the problems of organizing and managing the development of science are of paramount importance. The concentration and centralization of science brought to life the emergence of national and international scientific organizations and centers, the systematic implementation of major international projects. In the system of state administration, special bodies for the management of science have been formed. On their basis, a scientific policy mechanism is being formed that actively and purposefully influences the development of science. Initially, the organization of science was almost exclusively tied to the system of universities and other higher educational institutions and was built on a branch basis. In the 20th century specialized research institutions are widely developed. The emerging trend towards a decrease in the specific efficiency of expenditures on scientific activity, especially in the field of fundamental research, has given rise to a desire for new forms of organization of science. Such a form of organization of science as scientific centers of a sectoral nature (for example, the Pushchino Center for Biological Research of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in the Moscow Region) and a complex nature (for example, the Novosibirsk Scientific Center) is being developed. There are research units built on the problem principle. To solve specific scientific problems, often of an interdisciplinary nature, special creative teams are created, consisting of problem groups and combined into projects and programs (for example, the space exploration program). Centralization in the system of science management is increasingly combined with decentralization and autonomy in conducting research. Informal problematic associations of scientists, the so-called invisible collectives, are becoming widespread. Along with them, within the framework of "big" science, such informal formations continue to exist and develop as scientific directions and scientific schools that arose in the conditions of "small" science. In turn, scientific methods are increasingly used as one of the means of organization and management in other areas of activity. The scientific organization of labor (SOT) has gained mass character and is becoming one of the main levers for increasing the efficiency of social production. Automatic production control systems (ACS) created with the help of computers and cybernetics are being introduced. The object of scientific management is increasingly becoming the human factor, primarily in human-machine systems. The results of scientific research are used to improve the principles of managing teams, enterprises, the state, and society as a whole. Like any social application of science, such use serves opposite purposes under capitalism and socialism.

Of great importance for science are the national characteristics of its development, expressed in the distribution of the available composition of scientists in different countries, national and cultural traditions in the development of certain branches of science within the framework of scientific schools and directions, in the ratio between fundamental and applied research on a national scale, in state policy on attitude to the development of science (for example, in the size and direction of appropriations for science). However, the results of science - scientific knowledge are international in nature.

The reproduction of science as a social institution is closely connected with the system of education and training of scientific personnel. In the conditions of the modern scientific and technological revolution, there is a certain gap between the historically established tradition of teaching in secondary and higher schools and the needs of society (including science). In order to eliminate this gap, new teaching methods are being intensively introduced into the education system, using the latest achievements of science - psychology, pedagogy, cybernetics. Education in higher education reveals a tendency to approach the research practice of science and production. In the field of education, the cognitive function of science is closely connected with the task of educating students as full-fledged members of society, forming in them a certain value orientation and moral qualities. The practice of social life and Marxist-Leninist theory have convincingly proved that the ideal of the Enlightenment, according to which the universal dissemination of scientific knowledge will automatically lead to the education of highly moral personalities and a just organization of society, is utopian and erroneous. This can only be achieved by radically changing the social system, replacing capitalism with socialism.

For science as a system of knowledge, the highest value is the truth, which in itself is neutral in moral and ethical terms. Moral assessments can relate either to the activity of obtaining knowledge (the professional ethics of a scientist requires him to be intellectually honest and courageous in the process of never stopping the search for truth), or to the activity of applying the results of science, where the problem of the relationship between science and morality is particularly acute. , specifically speaking in the form of a problem of the moral responsibility of scientists for the social consequences caused by the application of their discoveries. The barbaric use of science by the militarists (the experiments of the Nazis on people, Hiroshima and Nagasaki) caused a number of active social actions of progressive scientists aimed at preventing the anti-humanistic application of science.

The study of various aspects of science is carried out by a number of its specialized branches, which include the history of science, the logic of science, the sociology of science, the psychology of scientific creativity, etc. From the middle of the 20th century A new, integrated approach to the study of science is intensively developing, striving for a synthetic knowledge of all its many aspects - science of science.

4. Social functions of science

Prerequisite social science is the recognition of the fact that society is a special formation, different from nature. Consequently, social life is subject to its own laws, which differ from the laws of nature. Society is the joint existence of people.

Social science must be distinguished from the concrete sciences of society. For a long time in our country, the functions of social science and sociology, as well as the philosophy of history, were performed by so-called "historical materialism".

The problem associated with the classification of the functions of science is still controversial, partly because science has developed, assuming new and new functions, partly due to the fact that, acting as a sociocultural phenomenon, it begins to care more than about the objective and impersonal regularities, but about the co-evolutionary fitting into the world of all the achievements of scientific and technological progress. The question of the social functions of science is singled out as a special and priority problem.

The social functions of science are not something given once and for all. On the contrary, they historically change and develop, like science itself; moreover, the development social functions represents an important aspect of the development of science itself.

Modern science is in many respects essentially, radically different from the science that existed a century or even half a century ago. Its entire appearance and the nature of its interrelations with society have changed.

Speaking about modern science in its interaction with various spheres of human life and society, we can distinguish three groups of social functions it performs. These are, firstly, cultural and ideological functions, secondly, the functions of science as a direct production force, and, thirdly, its functions as a social force, due to the fact that scientific knowledge and methods are now increasingly used in solving a variety of problems. problems arising in the course of social development.

The order in which these groups of functions are listed essentially reflects the historical process of the formation and expansion of the social functions of science, that is, the emergence and strengthening of ever new channels of its interaction with society.

4.1 The functions of science as a direct productive and social force

As for the functions of science as a direct productive force, these functions seem to us today, perhaps, not only the most obvious, but also the first, primordial. And this is understandable, given the unprecedented scale and pace of modern scientific and technological progress, the results of which are tangibly manifested in all sectors of life and in all spheres of human activity. However, historically, the picture appears in a different light. The process of turning science into a direct productive force was first recorded and analyzed by K. Marx in the middle of the last century, when the synthesis of science, technology and production was not so much a reality as a prospect.

During the formation of science as a social institution, the material prerequisites for the implementation of such a synthesis matured, the intellectual climate necessary for this was created, and an appropriate way of thinking was developed. Of course, even then scientific knowledge was not isolated from rapidly developing technology, but the connection between them was one-sided. Some problems that arose during the development of technology became the subject of scientific research and even gave rise to new ones. scientific disciplines. So it was, for example, with hydraulics, with thermodynamics. Science itself has given little practical activities- industry, agriculture, medicine. And the matter was not only in the insufficient level of development of science, but above all in the fact that practice itself, as a rule, did not know how, and did not feel the need to rely on the achievements of science, or even simply take them into account systematically. Until the middle of the 19th century, the cases when the results of science found practical application were episodic and did not lead to a general awareness and rational use of the richest possibilities that the practical use of the results of scientific research promised.

Over time, however, it became obvious that the purely empirical basis was too narrow and limited to ensure the continuous development of the productive forces and the progress of technology. Both industrialists and scientists began to see in science a powerful catalyst for the process of continuous improvement of the means of production. The realization of this drastically changed the attitude towards science and was an essential prerequisite for its decisive turn towards practice, material production. And here, as in the cultural and ideological sphere, science was not limited to a subordinate role for long and rather quickly revealed its potential as a revolutionary force that radically changes the appearance and nature of production.

An important aspect of the transformation of science into a direct productive force is the creation and strengthening of permanent channels for the practical use of scientific knowledge, the emergence of such branches of activity as applied research and development, the creation of scientific and technical information networks, etc. Moreover, following industry, such channels also appear in other branches of material production and even beyond. All this entails significant consequences for both science and practice.

If we talk about science, then it first of all receives a new powerful impetus for its development, since "the application of science to direct production itself becomes for it one of the defining and motivating moments." For its part, practice is more and more clearly oriented towards a stable and continuously expanding relationship with science. For modern production, and not only for it, the ever wider application of scientific knowledge appears as an indispensable condition for the very existence and reproduction of many types of activity that arose in their time without any connection with science, not to mention those generated by it.

Today, in the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution, one more group of functions is more and more clearly revealed in science - it begins to act as a social force, directly involved in the processes of social development. This is most clearly manifested in those rather numerous situations today, when the data and methods of science are used to develop large-scale plans and programs for social and economic development. When compiling each such program, which, as a rule, determines the goals of the activities of many enterprises, institutions and organizations, it is fundamentally necessary for the direct participation of scientists as carriers of special knowledge and methods from different fields. It is also significant that in view of the complex nature of such plans and programs, their development and implementation presuppose the interaction of the social, natural and technical sciences.

A curious example confirming that science has always tried to present itself as an additional social force is associated with the first demonstration of such a purely "contemplative" instrument as the telescope, which Galileo, introducing to the senators of the Republic of Venice, promoted as a means of distinguishing enemy ships by "two or more hours" earlier.

The functions of science as a social force in solving the global problems of our time are very important. An example of this is environmental issues. As you know, rapid scientific and technological progress is one of the main reasons for such phenomena dangerous to society and man as exhaustion. natural resources planet, growing pollution of air, water, soil. Consequently, science is one of the factors of those radical and far from harmless changes that are taking place today in the human environment. Scientists themselves do not hide this. On the contrary, it was they who were among those who were the first to sound the alarms, they were the first to see the symptoms of an impending crisis and attracted the attention of the public, political and statesmen, business leaders. Scientific data play a leading role in determining the scale and parameters of environmental hazards.

Science in this case is by no means limited to the creation of means for solving the goals set before it from the outside. Both an explanation of the causes of an environmental hazard, and a search for ways to prevent it, the first formulations environmental problem and its subsequent refinements, the promotion of goals to society and the creation of means to achieve them - all this in this case is closely connected with science, which acts as a social force. In this capacity, science has a complex impact on social life, especially intensively affecting the technical and economic development, social management and those social institutions that are involved in shaping the worldview.

The growing role of science in public life gave rise to her special status in modern culture and new features of its interaction with various layers of social consciousness. In this regard, the problem of the features of scientific knowledge and its relationship with other forms is acutely posed. cognitive activity(art, everyday consciousness, etc.). This problem, while philosophical in nature, is at the same time of great practical significance. Understanding the specifics of science is a necessary prerequisite for the implementation scientific methods in the management of cultural processes. It is also necessary for constructing a theory of management of science itself in the context of the development of scientific and technological revolution, since the elucidation of the patterns of scientific knowledge requires an analysis of its social conditioning and its interaction with various phenomena of spiritual and material culture.

4.2 Cultural and ideological functions of science

Culture as a holistic phenomenon presupposes the existence of certain procedures. They capture patterns of behavior that are recognized by this association of people as positive. However, neither in science nor in culture as a whole does the cult, of course, play such a significant role as it plays in religion.

It is necessary first of all to compare the two doctrines, i.e. philosophy and theology. There are several options for resolving the issue of theology and philosophy.

First optioncan be characterized by a short formula: "philosophy is theology itself." It is most clearly represented by ancient philosophy. Ancient philosophers in most cases build an independent religious and philosophical system, different from contemporary folk religions. These are rational systems that seek to substantiate the abstract concept of God.

Second optionrelations between philosophy and theology develops in the Middle Ages. It can be described as "philosophizing in faith". Philosophy here exists "under the sign" of faith. It proceeds directly from the tenets of theology. The truths of revelation are regarded as immutable.

Third optionassociated with the focus of philosophical knowledge on the discovery of such universal characteristics of being that do not depend on the religious worldview.

Fourth optionthere is an open recognition of the irreconcilability of philosophy and religion. This is an atheistic or god-fighting philosophy. It fundamentally rejects religion, considering it as a delusion of humanity.

During the period of the formation of science as a special social institution (and this is the period of the crisis of feudalism, the emergence of bourgeois social relations and the formation of capitalism, that is, the Renaissance and modern times), its influence was found primarily in the sphere of worldview, where during all this time there was a sharp and stubborn struggle between theology and science.

In the Middle Ages, theology gradually won the position of the supreme authority, called upon to discuss and solve fundamental worldview problems, such as the question of the structure of the universe and the place of man in it, the meaning and higher values ​​of life, etc. In the sphere of the emerging science, problems remained more private and "earthly" order.

In the Copernican coup that began four and a half centuries ago, science for the first time challenged theology's right to monopoly determine the formation of a worldview. This was the first act in the process of penetration of scientific knowledge and scientific thinking in the structure of human activity and society; it was here that the first real signs of the emergence of science into worldview problems, into the world of human reflections and aspirations, were discovered. After all, in order to accept the heliocentric system of Copernicus, it was necessary not only to abandon some of the dogmas approved by theology, but also to agree with ideas that sharply contradicted the ordinary worldview.

A lot of time had to pass, which absorbed such dramatic episodes as the burning of J. Bruno, the abdication of G. Galileo, ideological conflicts in connection with the teachings of Charles Darwin on the origin of species, before science could become the decisive authority in matters of paramount ideological significance, concerning the structure of matter and the structure of the Universe, the origin and essence of life, the origin of man, etc. It took even more time for the answers proposed by science to these and other questions to become elements general education. Without it scientific ideas could not become an integral part of the culture of society. Simultaneously with this process of the emergence and strengthening of the cultural and ideological functions of science, the pursuit of science gradually became in the eyes of society an independent and quite worthy, respectable sphere of human activity. In other words, the formation of science as a social institution took place. in the structure of society.

5. Social responsibility of a scientist

Having considered the social essence of scientific knowledge, I would like to turn to the clarification of such an acute issue at the present time - the question of the social responsibility of scientists.

For all its modernity and relevance, the problem of social responsibility of a scientist has deep historical roots. For centuries, since the birth of scientific knowledge, faith in the power of reason was accompanied by doubt: how will its creations be used? Is knowledge a power that serves man, and will it not turn against him? The words of the biblical preacher Ecclesiastes are widely known: “... in much wisdom there is much sorrow; and whoever increases knowledge, increases sorrow.”

The question of the relationship between truth and good was also asked by ancient philosophy. Already Socrates explored the connection between knowledge and virtue, and since then this question has become one of the eternal questions of philosophy, appearing in a variety of guises. Socrates taught that by nature a person strives for the best, and if he does evil, then only out of ignorance, when he does not know what true virtue is. Thus, knowledge turned out to be, on the one hand, a necessary condition for a good, good life, and on the other, one of its main components. Up until our time, high mark knowledge, first substantiated by Socrates, has remained and remains among the foundations on which European culture relies. No matter how influential different times history of the power of ignorance and superstition, the tradition dating back to Socrates, which affirmed the dignity and superstition of reason and ethically justified knowledge, was continued.

This does not mean, however, that the Socratic solution to the problem was not questioned. So, already in the 18th century, J.J. Rousseau argues that the development of science in no way contributes to the moral progress of mankind. With particular tragedy, the theme of the relationship between truth and goodness was voiced by A.S. Pushkin, who made us think about whether genius and villainy are compatible...

These are just some of the grains of the historical experience of human thought, which is so necessary today, when the problems of ambiguity, and sometimes the danger of the social consequences of scientific and technological progress, are so acute.

Among the areas of scientific knowledge in which the issues of the social responsibility of a scientist and the moral and ethical assessment of his activity are especially sharply and intensely discussed, a special place is occupied by genetic engineering, biotechnology, biomedical and genetic research of a person; they are all pretty close to each other. It was the development of genetic engineering that led to a unique event in the history of science, when in 1975 the world's leading scientists voluntarily entered into a moratorium, temporarily suspending a number of studies that were potentially dangerous not only for humans, but also for other life forms on our planet.

Along with this, the rapid development of biotechnology began based on the application of genetic engineering methods in the food and chemical industries, as well as to eliminate and prevent certain types of pollution. environment. In an unprecedentedly short time, literally in a few years, genetic engineering has gone from fundamental research to industrial and general research. practical application their results.

However, the other side of this breakthrough in the field of genetics was the potential threats lurking in it for man and mankind. Even the simple negligence of the experimenter or the incompetence of the laboratory personnel in safety measures can lead to irreparable consequences. Genetic engineering methods can bring even more harm when they are used by all kinds of malefactors or for military purposes. The danger is primarily due to the fact that the organisms with which experiments are most often carried out are widely distributed in natural conditions and can exchange genetic information with their "wild" relatives. As a result of such experiments, it is possible to create organisms with completely new hereditary properties that have not previously been found on Earth and are not evolutionarily determined.

It was this kind of fear that forced scientists to take such an unprecedented step as the establishment of a voluntary moratorium. Later, after extremely strict safety measures were developed for conducting experiments (including biological protection, that is, the construction of weakened microorganisms that can only live in artificial laboratory conditions) and sufficiently reliable estimates of the risk associated with conducting experiments were obtained, studies gradually renewed and expanded. However, some of the more risky types of experiments are still banned.

Nevertheless, discussions around the ethical problems of genetic engineering have by no means subsided. A person, as some of their participants note, can construct a new form of life that is sharply different from everything known to us, but he will not be able to return it back to oblivion ... “Do we have the right,” one of the creators of new genetics, an American biologist, asked, laureate Nobel Prize E. Chargaff, - to irreversibly oppose the evolutionary wisdom of millions of years in order to satisfy the ambitions and curiosity of a few scientists? This world is given to us on loan. We come and go; and in the course of time we leave earth, air and water to those who come after us.”

These discussions discuss the possibilities of artificially constructing human individuals. And the intensity of the discussions is explained not so much by the extent to which these possibilities are real, but by the fact that they force people to perceive in many ways in a new way or more acutely such eternal problems as the problems of man, his freedom and destiny. The prospects opened up by genetics are already beginning to have an impact today, making us wonder, for example, whether we want and should want clonal reproduction in humans. And modern people have to look more closely at themselves in order to understand what they want, what they strive for and what they consider unacceptable.

The development of genetic engineering and fields of knowledge close to it (and not only them) forces us to comprehend in a slightly new way the dialectical connection between freedom and responsibility in the activities of scientists. For centuries, many of them, not only in word but also in deed, had to affirm and defend the principle of freedom of scientific research in the face of dogmatic ignorance, fanaticism of superstitions, and simply awakenings. The responsibility of the scientist at the same time acted primarily as a responsibility for obtaining and disseminating proven, substantiated and rigorous knowledge, which makes it possible to dispel the darkness of ignorance.

Today, however, the principle of freedom of scientific inquiry must be comprehended in the context of those far from unambiguous consequences of the development of science that people have to deal with. In the current discussions on the socio-ethnic problems of science, along with the defense of the unrestricted freedom of research, a diametrically opposite point of view is presented, proposing to regulate science in the same way as the movement on railways. Between these extreme positions there is a wide range of opinions about the possibility and desirability of regulating research and how this should combine the interests of the researcher, the scientific community and society as a whole.

There is still a lot of controversy and unresolved in this area. But. Be that as it may, the idea of ​​unrestricted freedom of inquiry, which was undeniably progressive for many centuries, can no longer be accepted without reservation. Without taking into account social responsibility, with which scientific activity should be inextricably linked. After all, there is responsible freedom - and there is free irresponsibility fundamentally different from it, fraught - with the current and future possibilities of science - with very serious consequences for man and mankind.

The fact is that rapid scientific and technological progress, unprecedented in its pace and scope, is one of the most obvious realities of our time. Science colossally raises the productivity of social labor and expands the scale of production. She achieved incomparable results in mastering the forces of nature. It is on science that a complex mechanism relies modern development, so that a country that is not able to ensure a sufficiently high rate of scientific and technological progress and the use of its results in the most different areas social life, condemns itself to a state of backwardness and a dependent, subordinate position in the world.

At the same time, science puts forward many new alternatives to mankind. Even in the recent past, it was customary to unrestrainedly praise scientific and technological progress as almost the only pillar of the overall progress of mankind.

Today, many just as recklessly deny the humanistic essence of the development of science. The belief has spread that the goals and aspirations of science and society today are divided and have come into irreparable contradictions, that the ethical norms of modern science are almost opposite to universal social, ethical and humanistic norms and principles, and the scientific search has long gone out of the moral control and Socratic postulates "knowledge and virtue are inseparable" has already been written off into the archive.

Scientific and technological progress not only exacerbates many of the existing contradictions of the existing social development, but also gives rise to new ones. Moreover, its negative manifestations can lead to catastrophic consequences for the destinies of all mankind. However, scientific and technological progress, as such, like any historical development, is irreversible. But one should not think that people are left meekly submitting to the development of science and technology, adapting as much as possible to its negative consequences. Specific areas of scientific and technological progress, scientific and technical projects and decisions affecting the interests of both living and future generations - this is what requires a broad, open, democratic and at the same time competent discussion, this is what people can accept or reject by their will.

This determines today the social responsibility of a scientist. The experience of history has convinced us that knowledge is power, that science reveals to man the sources of unprecedented power and power over nature. The consequences of scientific and technological progress are very serious and far from always favorable for people. Therefore, acting with the consciousness of his social responsibility, the scientist must strive to anticipate possible undesirable effects that are potentially inherent in the results of his research. After all, thanks to his professional knowledge, he is better prepared for such a foresight and is able to do it earlier than anyone else. Along with this, the socially responsible position of the scientist assumes that he informed the public as widely and in accessible forms about possible undesirable effects, about how they can be avoided, eliminated or minimized. Only those scientific and technical decisions that are made on the basis of sufficiently complete information can be considered socially and morally justified in our time. All this shows how great is the role of scientists in the modern world. For it is they who have the knowledge and qualifications that are now needed not only to accelerate scientific and technological progress, but also to direct this progress for the benefit of man and society.

Conclusion

Scientific and technological achievements play a special role in shaping global trends. The achievements of science and technology, spreading throughout the world, bring to life certain social consequences that are approximately the same in all countries and regions. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the universal typology of a public organization in most cases is built taking into account the stage at which a particular country or group of countries is mastering advanced scientific and technological achievements. This approach is clearly presented in the well-known theories of post-industrial society,the author of which was the American sociologist D. Bell.

An attempt to consider such a complex social formation as science is inevitably connected with the fact that many of its important aspects remain in the shadows.

The increased role of science in society, the growth of its social prestige and the increase in hopes that cardinal issues of human existence will be solved with its help, place increased demands on knowledge about science. In the context of scientific and technological progress, these requirements will continue to grow rapidly. At present, “science acts as a social organism, which includes the labor activity of people aimed at obtaining scientific knowledge, the means of this activity and the direct product - scientific knowledge. The core of this organism is scientific activity, without which there are no other components of science.

Bibliography

1.Dobrov G.M. Science about science. - Kyiv, 1966.

2.Kochergin A.N., Semenov E.V., Semenova N.N. Science as a kind of spiritual production. - Novosibirsk: Science, 1981.

.Leiman I.I. Science as a social institution. - L., 1971.

.Leshkevich T.G. Philosophy of science: traditions and innovations. - M., 2001.

.Frolov I.T., Yudin B.G. etc. Introduction to philosophy: a textbook for higher. educational institutions, 2 hours - M., 1989.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

The science is not only a form of social consciousness aimed at an objective reflection of the world and providing humanity with an understanding of patterns, but also a social institution. A social institution is a component of a social structure that specializes in meeting social needs, based on the organization of joint activities of people to meet it (army, police, institutions).

Joint activity in science is organized on the basis of professional ethos, and includes 6 major provisions: 1-universalism-scientist's desire to achieve maxfundamental knowledge. 2-selflessness-the main value of a scientist is the achievement of truth, which costs more than money. 3-organized skepticism. 4-collectivity of scientific activity - a ban on private property in science. 5-rationality. 6-emotional neutrality (“Do not cry, do not laugh, but understand” - Spinoza).

In Western Europe, science as a social institution arose in the 17th century. in connection with the need to serve the emerging capitalist production and began to claim a certain autonomy. In the system of social division of labor, science as a social institution has secured specific functions : be responsible for the production, examination and implementation of scientific and theoretical knowledge. As a social institution science included not only a system of knowledge and scientific activity, but also a system of relations in science, scientific institutions and organizations.

Basic features of science as a social institution: 1) symbols of science: degrees, titles, mantles, coat of arms. 2) utilitarian features: laboratories, departments, buildings, institutes. 3) code of conduct: contract and norms of informal behavior. 4) patterns of behavior: the life of great scientists. 5) Social roles and statuses: associate professors, professors, academicians, doctors. 6) ideology - ensuring the survival of mankind.

Functions of science as a social institution:Explicit Functions: 1) integrative - rallying the scientific community, 2) communications - ensuring communication. 3) translation of experience. 4) organizational - ensuring the predictability of human behavior, based on its inclusion in joint activities, limited by certain limits. Latent functions and dysfunctions: 1) increasing the prestige of a person, 2) enrichment, 3) manipulating public opinion, 4) avoiding the army.

The process of institutionalization of science testifies to its independence, to the official recognition of the role of science in the system of social division of labor, to its claims to participate in the distribution of material and human resources. As a social institution, science includes the following components : the totality of knowledge and its carriers; the presence of specific cognitive goals and objectives; performance of certain functions; availability of specific means of knowledge and institutions; development of forms of control, examination and evaluation of scientific achievements; existence of certain sanctions.

For a modern institutional approach typical taking into account applied aspects of science. The normative moment loses its dominant place, and the image of "pure science" gives way to the image of "science put at the service of production." The competence of institutionalization includes the problems of the emergence of new areas of scientific research and scientific specialties, the formation of scientific communities corresponding to them, and the identification of various degrees of institutionalization. There is a desire to distinguish between cognitive and professional institutionalization. Science as a social institution depends on other social institutions that provide material and social conditions.

Sociology of science explores the relationship of the institute of science with the social structure of society, the typology of the behavior of scientists in various social systems, the dynamics of group interactions of professional and informal communities of scientists, and the conditions for the development of science in various types of societies.

Science of Science captures the general trends in the development and functioning of science, tends to be descriptive. Scientific studies are aimed at developing the theoretical foundations of political and state regulation of science, developing recommendations for improving the efficiency of scientific activity, principles of organization, planning and management of research.

The field of statistical study of the dynamics of information arrays of science, scientific information flows is called scientometrics. It is the application of methods of mathematical statistics to the analysis of the flow of scientific publications, reference apparatus, the growth of scientific personnel, financial costs.

At present, the institutional approach is one of the dominant instances of the development of science. However, it has drawbacks: an exaggeration of the role of formal moments, insufficient attention to the psychological and socio-cultural foundations of people's behavior, a rigid prescriptive nature of scientific activity, and ignoring informal development opportunities.

The relation of science and power:

BUT) The influence of power on science : 1)Political aspect(financing of fundamental science to ensure the subsequent technological breakthrough of the state; providing science with military orders; creating a positive image of the scientists of the state; organizing international aspects of scientific activity). 2) Management aspect(planning of scientific activity - budget items for science; reforming scientific structures; ensuring the integration of science, production and higher education; control over scientific activity). 3)Financial and economic aspect(material and technical support of scientific activity - science cities, technology parks; budgetary financing and organization of grants).

B) The influence of science on power : 1)Lobbying interests of science in government structures. 2) Fight for scientific autonomy. 3)Defending the interests of scientists on an international scale. four) Fight for peace(nuclear weapon).

Science itself has power functions and can function as a form of power and control. In practice, the government either oversees science or dictates its own government priorities to it. From the point of view of the state, science should serve the cause of education, make discoveries and provide prospects for economic growth and the well-being of the people. Developed science is an indicator of the strength of the state. The presence of scientific achievements - the economic and international status of the state, the rigid dictate of power is unacceptable. The degree of the relationship between science and government - the involvement of scientists in the process of substantiating important government and management decisions. In Europe and the USA, scientists are involved in management. In Russia, the authorities provide scientists with a modest allowance, and scientists are not responsible for the state of affairs in the country.

At the same time, science has specific goals and objectives, scientists adhere to objective positions, the intervention of the authorities and the people is unacceptable for the National Assembly. It is necessary to take into account the difference between fundamental sciences (aimed at studying the universe, requiring huge investments, returns in decades) and applied sciences (they solve the goals set by the production process, autonomy and independence are reduced). This is an unprofitable industry, associated with a high degree of risk. This raises the problem of determining the most priority areas of public funding.

The current state of science necessitates state regulation of the pace and consequences of scientific and technological development, applied engineering and technological applications and their humanitarian control. When science is guided by the ideological principles of this or that type of state, it turns into pseudoscience. The true goal of state power and state regulation of science should be to ensure the growth of scientific potential for the benefit of mankind.