In his studies of nature scientific discoveries, Imre Lakatos introduced the concepts of positive and negative heuristics. Within the framework of some scientific school certain rules prescribe what paths to follow in further research. These rules form a positive heuristic. Other rules tell you which paths should be avoided. This is a Negative Heuristic. EXAMPLE. The "positive heuristic" of a research program can also be formulated as a "metaphysical principle." For example, Newton's program can be stated in the following formula: “The planets are rotating tops of approximately spherical shape, attracted to each other.” No one has ever followed this principle exactly: planets have not only gravitational properties, they have, for example, electromagnetic characteristics that affect movement. Therefore, positive heuristics are, generally speaking, more flexible than negative ones. Moreover, it happens from time to time that when a research program enters a regressive phase, a small revolution or creative push in its positive heuristics can again move it towards a progressive shift. Therefore, it is better to separate " hard core"from more flexible metaphysical principles expressing positive heuristics." I. Lakatos, Methodology research programs, M., “ACT”, “Ermak”, 2003, p. 83. Pedagogical technique

This issue has already been touched upon above; here we will make some additions. In one of its definitions, heuristics is understood as a method, or methodological discipline, the subject of which is solving problems under conditions of uncertainty. The field of heuristics includes imprecise methodological regulations, and its main problem is resolving contradictions that arise in science. Heuristic (creative) methods for solving problems are usually contrasted with formal solution methods based on precise mathematical models.

From the point of view of Lakatos and some other Western methodologists, heuristics are characterized by guesswork, limiting the scope of search through the analysis of goals, means and materials, attempts to integrate thinking and sensory perception, consciousness and the unconscious. “The program is made up of methodological rules: some of them are rules indicating which research paths should be avoided (negative heuristics), the other part are rules indicating which paths should be chosen and how to follow them (positive heuristics)” 2.

At the same time, Lakatos believes that, firstly, “the positive heuristic of the research program can also be formulated as “metaphysical (i.e. philosophical. - V.K.) principle". Secondly, “positive heuristics are, generally speaking, more flexible than negative ones.” Third, it is necessary to “separate the ‘hard core’ from the more flexible metaphysical principles that express positive heuristics.” Thursday

1 Lakatos I. Methodology of scientific research programs // Questions of Philosophy. 1995. No. 4. P. 138. 2 Ibid. P. 148.

tykh, “positive heuristics play the first violin in the development of a research program.” Fifth, "positive and negative heuristics together provide a rough (implicit) definition of the 'conceptual framework' (and hence language)" 1 .

Thus, positive heuristics are methodological rules that promote the positive development of research programs. These rules dictate which paths to follow in further research. Positive heuristics include a series of assumptions about how to modify or develop refutable versions of the research program, how to modernize or clarify the “safety belt,” and what new models should be developed to expand the scope of the program.

Negative heuristics are a set of methodological rules that limit the many possible paths of research, allowing one to avoid roundabout or wrong paths towards the truth. She proposes inventing auxiliary hypotheses that form a “safety belt” around the “hard core” of a research program, which must be adapted, modified, or even replaced entirely when confronted with counterexamples.

Program effectiveness

Relatively this parameter Lastly, Lakatos notes that, firstly, a scientist should not abandon a research program if it is not working effectively: such refusal is not a universal rule.

Secondly, he suggests that “the methodology of research programs could help us formulate laws that would stand in the way of the origins of the intellectual turbidity that threatens to flood our cultural environment even before industrial waste and automobile fumes spoil the physical environment of our habitat."

Third, Lakatos believes that understanding science as a battleground of research programs rather than individual theories suggests a new criterion of demarcation between "mature science" consisting of research programs and "immature science" consisting of "the well-worn pattern of trial and error." mistakes."

Fourth, “we can evaluate research programs even after they have been eliminated by their heuristic power: how much new evidence they produce, how much power they have to explain refutations as they grow.”

Positive and negative heuristic

This issue has already been touched upon above; here we will make some additions. In one of its definitions, heuristics is understood as a method, or methodological discipline, the subject of which is solving problems under conditions of uncertainty. The field of heuristics includes imprecise methodological regulations, and its main problem is resolving contradictions that arise in science. Heuristic (creative) methods for solving problems are usually contrasted with formal solution methods based on precise mathematical models.

From the point of view of Lakatos and some other Western methodologists, heuristics are characterized by guesswork, limiting the scope of search through the analysis of goals, means and materials, attempts to integrate thinking and sensory perception, consciousness and the unconscious. “The program is made up of methodological rules: some of them are rules indicating which research paths should be avoided (negative heuristics), the other part are rules indicating which paths should be chosen and how to follow them (positive heuristics)” .

At the same time, Lakatos believes that, firstly, “the positive heuristics of a research program can also be formulated as a “metaphysical (i.e., philosophical - V.K.) principle.” Secondly, “positive heuristics are, generally speaking, more flexible than negative ones.” Third, it is necessary to “separate the ‘hard core’ from the more flexible metaphysical principles that express positive heuristics.” Fourth, “positive heuristics play the first violin in the development of a research program.” Fifth, “positive and negative heuristics together provide a rough (implicit) definition of the “conceptual framework” (and thus language).”

Thus, positive heuristics are methodological rules that promote the positive development of research programs. These rules dictate which paths to follow in further research. Positive heuristics include a series of assumptions about how to modify or develop refutable versions of a research program, how to modernize or clarify the “safety belt,” and what new models should be developed to expand the scope of the program.

Negative heuristics are a set of methodological rules that limit the many possible paths of research, allowing one to avoid roundabout or wrong paths towards the truth. She proposes inventing auxiliary hypotheses that form a “safety belt” around the “hard core” of a research program, which must be adapted, modified, or even replaced entirely when confronted with counterexamples.

9. Positive and negative heuristics.

This issue has already been touched upon above; here we will make some additions. In one of its definitions, heuristics is understood as a method, or methodological discipline, the subject of which is solving problems under conditions of uncertainty. The field of heuristics includes imprecise methodological regulations, and its main problem is resolving contradictions that arise in science. Heuristic (creative) methods for solving problems are usually contrasted with formal solution methods based on precise mathematical models.

From the point of view of Lakatos and some other Western methodologists, heuristics are characterized by guesswork, limiting the scope of search through the analysis of goals, means and materials, attempts to integrate thinking and sensory perception, consciousness and the unconscious. “The program is made up of methodological rules: some of them are rules indicating which research paths should be avoided (negative heuristics), the other part are rules indicating which paths should be chosen and how to follow them (positive heuristics)” .

At the same time, Lakatos believes that, firstly, “the positive heuristics of a research program can also be formulated as a “metaphysical (i.e., philosophical - V.K.) principle.” Secondly, “positive heuristics are, generally speaking, more flexible than negative ones.” Third, it is necessary to “separate the ‘hard core’ from the more flexible metaphysical principles that express positive heuristics.” Fourth, “positive heuristics play the first violin in the development of a research program.” Fifth, "positive and negative heuristics together provide a rough (implicit) definition of the 'conceptual framework' (and hence language)" 1 .

Thus, positive heuristics are methodological rules that promote the positive development of research programs. These rules dictate which paths to follow in further research. Positive heuristics include a series of assumptions about how to modify or develop refutable versions of a research program, how to modernize or clarify the “safety belt,” and what new models should be developed to expand the scope of the program.

Negative heuristics are a set of methodological rules that limit the many possible paths of research, allowing one to avoid roundabout or wrong paths towards the truth. She proposes to invent auxiliary hypotheses that form a "safety belt" around the "hard core" of the research program, which must be adapted, modified, or even replaced completely when confronted with counterexamples.

Literature.

1. Lakatos I. Methodology of scientific research programs // Questions of Philosophy. 1995. No. 4.

2. Lakatos I. Falsification and methodology of research programs. M., 1995.

4. Methodology in the field of theory and practice. Novosibirsk, 1988.

5. Mikeshina L. A. Methodology scientific knowledge in the context of culture. M., 1992.

In his studies of the nature of scientific discovery, Imre Lakatos introduced the concepts of positive and negative heuristic. Within a scientific school, certain rules prescribe which paths to follow in further reasoning. These rules form positive heuristics. Other rules tell you which paths to avoid. This is a Negative Heuristic.

EXAMPLE. « Positive heuristics" of a research program can also be formulated as a "metaphysical principle". For example, Newton's program can be stated in the following formula: “The planets are rotating tops of approximately spherical shape, attracted to each other.” No one has ever followed this principle exactly: planets have not only gravitational properties, they have, for example, electromagnetic characteristics that affect movement. Therefore, positive heuristics are, generally speaking, more flexible than negative ones. Moreover, it happens from time to time that when a research program enters a regressive phase, a small revolution or creative push in its positive heuristics can again move it towards a progressive shift. Therefore, it is better to separate the “hard core” from the more flexible metaphysical principles that express positive heuristics.”

I. Lakatos, Methodology of research programs, M., “AST”, “Ermak”, 2003, p. 83.

• 36 plots by J. Polti (the author proposed 36 plots to which famous plays are reduced. Numerous attempts to supplement this list only confirmed the correctness of the original classification).