Let's consider the general definitions of method and methodology.
Method is a set of techniques and operations for the practical and theoretical development of reality. Method is the fundamental theoretical basis of science.
Methodology - a description of specific techniques and methods of research.
Based on these general definitions we can conclude that a methodology is a formalized description of the implementation of a method.
Methodological foundations of psychology
The concept of the subject in the methodology of psychology
The idea of the object, subject and method of science constitutes its theoretical and methodological foundation. The method of science cannot be “born” before its subject and vice versa, since they are “gestated” together. Unless the subject of science is the first to “come into being”, and behind it - as its other “I” - its method. So, for example, according to A. Bergson, since the substance of mental life is pure “duration,” it cannot be cognized conceptually, through rational construction, but is comprehended intuitively. “Any law of science, reflecting what exists in reality, at the same time indicates how one should think about the corresponding sphere of existence; being cognized, in a certain sense it acts as a principle, as a method of cognition.” It is no coincidence, therefore, that when considering the question of the subject of psychology, the problem of its method is actualized. At the same time, as has already happened in history, the definition of the subject of science may depend on the prevailing idea of which method is considered truly scientific. From the point of view of the founders of introspectionism, the psyche is nothing more than “subjective experience.” The basis for such a conclusion was, as we know, the idea that the psyche can be studied exclusively through introspection, reflection, introspection, retrospection, etc. For orthodox behaviorists, on the contrary, the psyche does not exist, since it cannot be studied using objective methods in analogy with observable and measurable physical phenomena. N.N. Lange tried to reconcile both extremes. In his opinion, “...in psychological experiment The person being studied must always give (to himself or to us) an account of his experiences, and only the relationship between these subjective experiences and their objective causes and consequences constitutes the subject of research. And yet, of particular interest in the context of considering the paradigm “subject-object - object - method” is the position of K. A. Abulkhanova, who connects the idea of the object of psychology with the understanding of the “qualitative uniqueness of the individual level of being” of a person. The subject is defined by her as a specific method of abstraction, conditioned by the nature of the object, with the help of which psychology explores this qualitative uniqueness of the individual existence of a person. Clarifying his idea of the subject of psychology, K.A. Abulkhanova specifically emphasizes that the subject should be understood “... not specific psychological mechanisms revealed by psychological research, but only general principles for determining these mechanisms.” In other words, in the system of these definitions, the “object” of psychology answers the question “What qualitative specificity does the reality that psychology should study have?” The subject is defined, in essence, methodologically and answers the question “How, in principle, should this reality be investigated?” That is, there is a peculiar categorical shift from the traditionally understood subject of psychology to its object, and the method of this science to its subject. However, in this case, as it seems to us, new possibilities for meaningful separation/convergence of categorical oppositional pairs “subject-object”, “subject-method” are revealed. psychological science:
Psychology as a subject of knowledge
Subject of psychology
Psychology method
Object of psychology
What is the point of such a construction? Probably, first of all, that as a result of correlating ideas about psychology as a subject of knowledge with ideas about its object, subject and method, it will be possible to obtain a more complete picture of the basic definitions of this science.
Let us try to outline in a dotted manner the vectors that allow us to see these categories in their meaningful subordination and complementarity, “in their unity, but not identity.”
1. “Psychology and its object.” Psychology (if it is recognized as an independent science) acts as a subject of knowledge. The specific object for it is the psychic reality that exists independently of it. A qualitative feature of psychology is that it, as a subject of knowledge, in principle coincides with its object: the subject knows itself through contemplation and creation, through “self-revelation of possible self-transformations.” At the same time, psychology can lose its subjective status if, for example, it slides into subjectivism, if some other science makes psychology its appendage, or if for some strange reason the object (psyche) begins to mimic, degenerate, turn into a different reality.
2. “Subject and subject of psychology.” This is a semantic and target vector of psychology. If psychology, by definition, finds its object in a ready-made form, then it constructs and defines its object for itself independently, depending on the existing theoretical and methodological settings (ontological and epistemological, axeological and praxeological, etc.), as well as external conditions (for example , dominant philosophical doctrine, political regime, level of culture). In this sense, we can say that the subject of psychological science can undergo changes depending on the nature of sociocultural transformations.
3. “Object and subject of psychology.” If the object of psychology represents mental reality in its entirety and presumed integrity as a separate entity, the object of this science carries within itself the idea of what constitutes the quintessence of the psychic and determines its qualitative originality. Believing that the quality of subjectivity most adequately represents the essential potential of the psyche and reveals its optical irreducibility to other realities, it is logical to assert that it is the concept of subjectivity that meaningfully constitutes the subject of psychology, establishing it in the status of an independent science.
4. “Object and method of psychology.” The method of science must be relevant to the reality that is supposed to be studied with its help. That is, if the object of science is the psyche, then its method should be strictly psychological, not reduced to the methods of physiology, sociology, philosophy and other sciences. That is why A. Pfender considered the main method of psychology to be the “subjective method”, which is internally protected from subjectivist labels and which is no less “objective” than the most objective methods used in the natural sciences.
5. “Subject and method of psychology.” The task of psychology as a subject of knowledge is not only to state the need for the method to correspond to its object, but also to constitute, discover, produce and apply it in scientific practice. Therefore, the method, like the subject, is a function of the subject, a changing and developing product of his creative efforts. At the same time, it is important to maintain categorical subordination and not allow the method to determine and, moreover, replace the subject of psychology. The development of methodology can stimulate the development of theory; success in developing a method of science can determine a new vision of its subject. But just condition it and nothing more.
6. “The subject and method of psychology.” This pair in its existence and development ontologically depends on the object, and epistemologically it is determined by the subject of the cognitive process. The subject is not static, it is the movement of the penetration of the subject of knowledge into the essence of mental life. The method is the path along which the subject (psychology) directs this movement within the object (psyche). If in defining its subject psychology goes back to the quality of subjectivity, then it must base the construction of its method on the principle of subjectivity, “expressed in the categories of the subject, taken in relation to his life activity”
So, turning our attention to what constitutes its foundation and makes it a self-sufficient subject of cognition, psychology today can hardly afford vagueness and ambiguity in the definition of its object, subject and method. As evidenced by the analysis, this problem, to one degree or another, has always attracted the attention of psychologists. However, on the one hand, there are significant differences that have arisen recently in theoretical views and methodological approaches, and, on the other, a general decline in interest in all kinds of “ philosophizing" and "theorizing" in connection with the growth of pragmatist orientations, lead to the fact that ideas about the subject and method of psychology in their totality today constitute something to which, say, it is difficult to apply the word "Gestalt". At the same time, the method of considering these questions that are fateful for our science is now based primarily on the principle of trial and error or on the “shaking” principle, successfully used in a children's kaleidoscope. It is enough to shake up the mixture of “splinters” from Marxist, existential, phenomenological, depth, apex and other psychology and, as a result, you can sometimes get a simple, sometimes quite complex, but, importantly, always unpredictable, and therefore a new combination. So many changes - so many new ideas about the subject and method of psychology. If you multiply the number of shakes by the number of shakers, you get a completely “postmodern” portrait of the subject and method of the science of psychology, with its “simulacra” and “rhizomes,” as well as unambiguous hints, in the spirit of M. Foucault, about the “death of the subject.”
In our research, we adhere to the traditional orientation, giving preference in defining the subject of psychology to the “essential” approach, which in this work finds its meaningful concretization in the idea of a person as a subject of mental life. This conceptual-categorical construct plays a special role as an essential-subject lens-matrix through which psychology as a subject peers and penetrates its object. In this sense, even the simplest, genetically original mental phenomena can be adequately “disobjectified” if they are considered in the context of a subjective-psychological subject paradigm - as fragments or moments of movement towards subjectivity - the highest essential criterion for determining the qualitative uniqueness of the mental. The principle of subjectivity constitutes that “internal condition” in scientific psychology through which it “refracts” the mental reality opposing it as an objectively and independently existing entity.
The objective meaning of the category of subjectivity lies in the fact that the entire psychic universe can be folded into it, like a point, and from it the entire psychic universe can unfold. It absorbs into itself, “removes in itself” all the essential definitions of the psyche in all its completeness and diversity of manifestations.
“Ascend - descend,” taught the famous Indian philosopher and psychologist Sri Aurobindo Ghose. This formula helps to visualize the connection that exists between the object and the subject of psychological science. “Descent” into its object, psychology plunges into the bottomless depths of mental life, discovering new phenomena there, establishing new patterns, while simultaneously clarifying and clarifying what was previously discovered. However, it not only keeps all these results of penetration into the depths and expanses of the psyche (which is the subject of specific scientific research) for itself, not only shares them with other sciences or bestows them on social practice, but sends, figuratively speaking, “upward”, to “Laboratory for studying the essence of the psyche and the maximum possibilities of its development.” Why is this “Laboratory” called exactly that? Why, when determining the essence of the psyche, does the question arise about the highest (maximum possible) level of development of the psyche? The highest essence of the psyche is not revealed to psychology immediately and not in everything. It is possible that this essence will never be fully comprehended and will not be, for the secrets of the psyche tend not only to hide, but also to multiply as it develops. However, depending on the understanding of the ultimate essential characteristics of the mental as a being, all known mental phenomena receive a certain interpretation. Thus, having told ourselves that the essence of the psyche is its ability to reflect objective reality, we can limit our mental life to the framework of cognitive activity. If we add regulation to reflection, then the mental will appear before us as a mechanism that allows a person to navigate and adapt to the natural, social environment, achieve balance with yourself. If at a new level of psychological cognition the essential feature of the psyche is the conscious transformative, creative, creative mental and spiritual activity of a person, then it is this feature that acts as the main criterion for assessing existing knowledge and the main guideline in subsequent psychological research.
Where can the last causality be most rightly attributed, I. Kant asked, if not where the highest causality is also located, i.e. to that being that initially contains within itself a sufficient reason for every possible action. In relation to the topic of our research, the last and highest causality in the space of mental life is subjectivity. And it is precisely this that is the highest essential criterion by which the psychic world differs from any other world.
Recently, a tendency has developed in psychology to disidentify the concepts of activity and its subject, the desire to present them as unity, but not identity. This means the requirement to see the doer behind the manifestations of any activity, and the creator behind the acts of creativity. And, if indeed “first there was a deed,” then psychology cannot but be interested in who did this deed, if an act or feat, then who did it, and if a word, then who said it, when, to whom and why. Not the psyche in general, but that in it that over time reaches the level of a self-conscious subject, is the carrier, centralizer and driving force mental life. He decides what, how, with whom, why and when should be done. He evaluates
the results of his activity and integrates them into his own experience. He selectively and proactively interacts with the world. The ontological imperative “to be a subject” is a universal human expression of the sovereignty of a real person, responsible for the results of his actions, initially “guilty” of everything that depends on him and having no “alibi in being” (M.M. Bakhtin).
Therefore, if we talk about the uniqueness of mental reality, comparing it with other forms of existence, then it is the subjective definition of a person’s mental life that crowns the pyramid of its essential characteristics, and therefore has every right to meaningfully represent the objective core of psychological science. At the same time, other, previously or otherwise formulated definitions of the subject of psychology are not discarded, but are rethought and preserved in its subjective version in a “removed” form. “Ascent” to the subjective level of defining the subject of psychology, on the one hand, allows, and on the other hand, requires a rethinking of everything hitherto discovered by psychology in its object - the psyche. The emergence of new layers of being in the process of development leads to the fact that the previous ones act in a new capacity (S.L. Rubinstein). This means that the entire psyche in its formation, functioning and development, starting from the simplest mental reactions and ending with the most complex movements of the soul and spirit, is essentially a special kind of subjectivity unfolding and asserting itself, embodied in the form of free I-creativity.
The subjective specificity of the method of psychological science lies in the fact that it not only contemplates, not only explores the existing mental reality by all means and methods available to it, but, ultimately, higher levels strives to comprehend this reality by creating new ones
forms and thus goes back to the study of one’s own possibilities of scientific and psychological creativity (V.V. Rubtsov).
At this peak level, there seems to be a natural articulation of initially conventionally disconnected ideas about psychology as a subject of knowledge, about its object, subject and method. This is the self-knowing and creative psyche - the highest subjective synthesis of psychological science and the practice of mental life.
Through this kind of analysis and synthesis, the development of ideas about the object, subject and method of psychology as a subject of cognition occurs. The beginning that creates internal energy, sets the dynamics and determines the vector of this self-motion is the scientific idea of the subjective nature of the psyche.
A truly humanistic and certainly optimistic view of human nature, faith in the positive perspective of his personal and historical growth, in our opinion, opens up the possibility and makes necessary a subjective interpretation of the subject and method of psychology as an independent science. It should be thought that it is precisely with this approach that psychology will be able to discover its inherent significance both for other sciences and for itself.
Methodological principles of psychology
Psychology is a science where psychological methods extend like all requirements for the scientific method. The result of scientific activity can be a description of reality, an explanation for the prediction of processes and phenomena, which are expressed in the form of text, a structural diagram, a graphical relationship, a formula, etc. The ideal of scientific research is the discovery of laws - a theoretical explanation of reality.
However, scientific knowledge is not limited to theories. All types scientific results One can conditionally order on the scale “empirical-theoretical knowledge” a single fact, an empirical generalization, a model, a pattern, a law, a theory. Science as a human activity is characterized by method. A person applying for membership in the scientific community must share the values in this field, where human activity accepts the scientific method as an acceptable unity, the “norm”.
The system of techniques and operations must be recognized by the scientific community as a mandatory norm regulating research conduct. Many scientists tend to classify not “science” (because few people know what it is), but problems that need to be solved.
The purpose of science is a way to comprehend the truth, which is scientific research.
Research is distinguished: By type: - empirical - research to test theoretical
Theoretical - thought process, in the form of formulas. By nature: - applied
Interdisciplinary
Monodisciplinary
Analytical
Complex, etc.
To test it, a scientific research plan is built - a hypothesis. It includes groups of people with whom the experiment will be conducted. Proposals for solving the problem by experimental research.
The famous methodologist M. Bunge distinguishes between sciences where the result of the research does not depend on the method, and those sciences where the result and the operation with the object form an invariant: a fact is a function of the properties of the object and the operation with it. The last type of sciences includes psychology, where a description of the method by which the data was obtained
Simulation is used when it is impossible to carry out experimental studies object.
Instead of studying the characteristics of elementary forms of learning and cognitive activity in humans, psychology successfully uses “biological models” of rats, monkeys, rabbits, and pigs for this purpose. Distinguish between “physical” - experimental research
“sign-symbolic” - computer programs Empirical methods include - observation
Experiment
Measurement
Modeling
Non-experimental methods
Observation is the purposeful, organized perception and recording of the behavior of an object.
Self-observation is the oldest psychological method:
a) non-systematic - application of field research (ethnopsychology, psychological development and social psychology.
b) systematic - according to a certain plan, “continuous selective observation.
Subject of observation of behavior:
Verbal
Nonverbal
The concept of "methodology" has two main meanings:
a system of certain methods and techniques used in a particular field of activity (in science, politics, art, etc.); the doctrine of this system, general theory In action.
History and the current state of knowledge and practice convincingly show that not every method, not every system of principles and other means of activity provides a successful solution to theoretical and practical problems. Not only the result of the research, but also the path leading to it must be true.
The main function of the method is the internal organization and regulation of the process of cognition or practical transformation of a particular object. Therefore, the method (in one form or another) comes down to a set of certain rules, techniques, methods, norms of cognition and action.
It is a system of prescriptions, principles, requirements that should guide the solution of a specific problem, achieving a certain result in a particular field of activity.
It disciplines the search for truth, allows (if correct) to save energy and time, and move towards the goal in the shortest way. The true method serves as a kind of compass along which the subject of cognition and action makes his way and allows him to avoid mistakes.
F, Bacon compared the method to a lamp illuminating the way for a traveler in the dark, and believed that one cannot count on success in studying any issue by following the wrong path. The philosopher sought to create a method that could be an “organon” (instrument) of knowledge and provide man with dominance over nature.
He considered induction to be such a method, which requires science to proceed from empirical analysis, observation and experiment in order to understand causes and laws on this basis.
R. Descartes called the method “exact and simple rules”, the observance of which contributes to the growth of knowledge and allows one to distinguish the false from the true. He said that it was better not to think about finding any truths than to do it without any method, especially without a deductive-rationalistic one.
Each method is certainly important and necessary. However, it is unacceptable to go to extremes:
a) underestimate the method and methodological problems, considering all this an insignificant matter that “distracts” from real work, genuine science, etc. (“methodological negativism”);
b) exaggerate the importance of the method, considering it more important. than the object to which they want to apply it,
turn the method into a kind of “universal master key” for everything and everyone, into a simple and accessible “tool”
scientific discovery (“methodological euphoria”). The fact is that "... not a single methodological principle
can eliminate, for example, the risk of reaching a dead end in the course of scientific research."
Each method will turn out to be ineffective and even useless if it is used not as a “guiding thread” in scientific or other forms of activity, but as a template for reshaping facts.
The main purpose of any method is, on the basis of relevant principles (requirements, instructions, etc.), to ensure the successful solution of practical problems, the increase in knowledge, the optimal functioning and development of certain objects.
It should be borne in mind that questions of method and methodology cannot be limited only to philosophical or internal scientific frameworks, but must be posed in a broad socio-cultural context.
This means that it is necessary to take into account the connection between science and production at this stage of social development, the interaction of science with other forms of social consciousness, the relationship between methodological and value aspects, the “personal characteristics” of the subject of activity and many other social factors.
The use of methods can be spontaneous and conscious. It is clear that only the conscious application of methods, based on an understanding of their capabilities and limits, makes people’s activities, other things being equal, more rational and effective.
There is no single established technique for naming entities in programming languages, and each language, to be slightly different from others, for historical reasons has its own set of names and conventions.
Since programming came from mathematics, the initial roots need to be looked for there. And there were functions and procedures. The function generates some result based on its arguments. sin,cos- vivid examples. A function without arguments is a degenerate function and is usually a constant. In mathematics, functions are usually pure - that is, they do not have side effects. That is, calling a function with the same arguments gives the same result.
There are parallel procedures. A procedure is a sequence of actions leading to a certain result (yes, a regular program can also be a procedure, although...). In Pascal and Fortran, it is customary that a procedure does not return a result. But I believe that this is purely an agreement, because otherwise it would be necessary to do as in C/C++ and enter an empty type (void).
Why aren't members called "methods" in C++?
Many languages of the 60-70s did not have OOP in the sense that is known today. C++ was originally just a “front” (that is, a superstructure) over regular C. There was a long period when it was no longer Xi, but also not yet C++. Compiler C++ there wasn’t, but there was a translator in C. Apparently, that’s why the class function/class variable was fixed there. Stroustrup is now proposing N4174, and if accepted, the line between regular functions and class functions will blur even further.
In other languages - Java and family, were designed when OOP was already a little formed. They decided to abandon the usual functions and, apparently, in order not to cause confusion, they called everything methods. Yes, then they had to return the functions back, but in order not to break anything, they called them static methods.
Actually, what is the difference between the terms "method" and "function"
The correct answer is historical. How to correctly name entities in different languages, you need to check their documentation.
Everything is complicated here. For example, Eckel does this apparently because he also writes a lot of books about Java wrote. Also, do not forget that we read many books in translation, and they “correct” them because it is clearer for the translator.
So is it possible to call functions of a C++ class methods?
This is exactly the same as using obscenities/obscene language in high society. Or try to communicate with the gopniks in the language of Turgenev and the poems of Pushkin/Blok.
P.S. method is a word with many meanings and can easily be heard from C++ programmers say “this is a method for receiving data from the server, implemented in the form of 5 functions and two classes.”
Translated from Greek, the term “method” literally means “way.” It is used to describe interconnected and connected unified system views, techniques, methods and operations that are purposefully used in research activities or in the practical implementation of the learning process. The choice of method directly depends on the worldview of the person who will use it, on the goals and objectives of the activity.
In fact, any area of human activity is characterized by its own own methods. They often talk about methods of literary creativity, methods of collecting and processing information, and doing business. In this case, we are most often talking about the most general principles and approaches that form the basis for understanding one of the aspects of reality and acting with its objects.
There are several independent classifications of methods. They can be divided into general and private. Sometimes special methods of specific scientific disciplines are distinguished, for example, the comparative method in linguistics or the method of system descriptions in psychology. But there are also the most general methods, which are widely used in all sciences, as well as in education. These include direct observation, experiment and modeling.
The difference between technique and method
The technique, when compared with the method, is more specific and substantive in nature. In essence, it is a well-prepared and adapted to a specific task algorithm of actions within the framework of methodological approach. This more or less clearly defined sequence of operations is based on the accepted method, on its basic principles. In terms of its content, the concept of “methodology” is closest to the term “technology”.
A distinctive feature of the methodology is the detailing of the techniques and their approximation to the task facing the researcher or teacher. If, for example, in sociological research It was decided to use the interviewing method, then the methodology for calculating the results and their interpretation may be different. It will depend on accepted concept research, characteristics of the sample, level of equipment of the researcher, and so on.
In other words, the technique directly embodies the method. It is believed that a good scientist or teacher working within a certain method has a whole repertoire of techniques, which allows him to be flexible in his approaches and adapt to changing operating conditions.
This method is a combination of the first two methods, when, through analysis of many cases, it is discovered both similar in different, and different in similar.
As an example, let us dwell on the above reasoning using the method of similarity about the causes of the illness of three students. If we supplement this reasoning with an analysis of three new cases in which the same circumstances are repeated, except for similar ones, i.e. the same foods were consumed, except beer, and no disease was observed, then the conclusion will proceed in the form of a combined method.
The probability of a conclusion in such a complicated reasoning increases markedly, because the advantages of the method of similarity and the method of difference are combined, each of which separately gives less reliable results.
4. Method of accompanying changes
The method is used in the analysis of cases in which there is a modification of one of the preceding circumstances, accompanied by a modification of the action under study.
Previous inductive methods were based on repetition or the absence of a certain circumstance. However, not all causally related phenomena allow the neutralization or replacement of individual factors that make them up. For example, when studying the influence of demand on supply, it is impossible in principle to exclude demand itself. In the same way, by determining the influence of the Moon on the magnitude of sea tides, it is impossible to change the mass of the Moon.
The only way to detect causal relationships in such conditions is to record them during observation. accompanying changes in previous and subsequent events. The cause in this case is a preceding circumstance, the intensity or degree of change of which coincides with the change in the action under study.
The use of the accompanying change method also requires compliance with a number of conditions:
(1) Knowledge of everyone possible causes of the phenomenon under study.
(2) From the given circumstances there must be eliminated those that do not satisfy the property of unambiguous causality.
(3) Among the preceding ones, the only circumstance is singled out, the change of which accompanies change of action.
Associated changes may be straight And reverse. Direct dependency means: the more intense the manifestation of the preceding factor, the more actively the phenomenon under study manifests itself, and vice versa - with a decrease in intensity, the activity or degree of manifestation of the action decreases accordingly. For example, with an increase in demand for a product, supply increases; with a decrease in demand, supply decreases accordingly. In the same way, with the strengthening or weakening of solar activity, the level of radiation in terrestrial conditions increases or decreases accordingly.
Inverse relationship is expressed in that the intense manifestation of a previous circumstance slows down activity or reduces the degree of change in the phenomenon under study. For example, the greater the supply, the lower the cost of production, or the higher labor productivity, the lower the cost of production.
The logical mechanism of inductive generalization using the method of accompanying changes takes the form of deductive reasoning in the tollendo ponens mode of dividing-categorical inference.
The validity of the conclusion in the conclusion using the method of concomitant changes is determined by the number of cases considered, the accuracy of knowledge about previous circumstances, as well as the adequacy of changes in the previous circumstance and the phenomenon under study.
As the number of cases compared that demonstrate concomitant changes increases, the likelihood of a conclusion increases. If the set of alternative circumstances does not exhaust all possible causes and is not closed, then the conclusion in the conclusion is problematic and not reliable.
The validity of the conclusion also largely depends on the degree of correspondence between changes in the preceding factor and the action itself. Not any, but only proportionally increasing or decreasing changes. Those of them that do not differ in one-to-one regularity often arise under the influence of uncontrollable, random factors and can mislead the researcher.
Reasoning using the method of concomitant changes is used to identify not only causal ones, but also others, for example functional connections, when a relationship is established between the quantitative characteristics of two phenomena. In this case, it becomes important to take into account the characteristics characteristic of each type of phenomenon. change intensity scales, within which quantitative changes do not change the quality of the phenomenon. In any case, quantitative changes have lower and upper limits, which are called limits of intensity. In these border zones, the qualitative characteristics of the phenomenon change and thus deviations can be detected when applying the method of accompanying changes.
For example, a decrease in the price of a product when demand falls decreases up to a certain point, and then the price increases with a further drop in demand. Another example: medicine is well aware of the medicinal properties of drugs containing poisons in small doses. As the dose increases, the usefulness of the drug increases only up to a certain limit. Beyond the intensity scale, the drug acts in the opposite direction and becomes hazardous to health.
Any process of quantitative change has its own critical points, which should be taken into account when applying the method of concomitant changes, which effectively operates only within the framework of the intensity scale. Using the method without taking into account the boundary zones of quantitative changes can lead to logically incorrect results.