Experimental Science. N. Copernicus and G. Galileo are the founders of experimental science. What will we do with the received material?

Historians find the prerequisites for the emergence of experimental science in a number of factors of an economic, political and general cultural nature that developed in Europe in the 14th-15th centuries. These include the decomposition of feudal relations, accompanied by an increase in the exchange of goods, the transition from natural to monetary exchange, which contributed to the accumulation of capital and the gradual transition to capitalist relations. The development of trade required the expansion of spheres of activity, the development of new countries and continents: geographical discoveries expanded the horizon of the medieval European’s vision of the world. It turned out that the world is not limited to the territory of principalities or a separate state, it is inhabited by different peoples who speak different languages ​​and have their own traditions and customs. There is an interest and need to study them, as well as an exchange of ideas (trade relations with the Arab East led to the discovery of the natural philosophy of the Arabs for Western Europe).

Medieval universities, which later became centers of science, played an important role in the process of secularization (from the Latin sacularis - worldly, secular), the liberation of culture from the authority of the church, the separation of philosophy and theology, science and scholasticism.

The growth of cities and, consequently, the expansion of crafts, the emergence of manufactories, and the development of trade required new tools, tools that could be created by new technology, based on experience and science. The demand for new inventions that have undergone experimental testing led to the abandonment of speculative conclusions in science. Experimental science was declared “the mistress of the speculative sciences” (R. Bacon).

At the same time, the science of the Renaissance could not be free from the influence of Antiquity, but unlike the Middle Ages, which transmitted the experience of ideal modeling of reality, the Renaissance significantly revised and modified it.

At the origins of the development of experimental (experimental) science are the figures of N. Copernicus (1473-1543) and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642).

N. Copernicus, relying on astronomical observations and calculations, made a discovery that allows us to talk about the first scientific revolution in natural science - this is the heliocentric system. The essence of his teaching briefly boils down to the statement that the Sun, and not the Earth (as Ptolemy believed), is at the center of the universe and that the Earth revolves around its axis in a day, and around the Sun in a year. (At the same time, when making observations, Copernicus relied only on the eye unaided with a special instrument and mathematical calculations.) This was a blow not only to the Ptolemaic picture of the world, but also to the religious one in general. However, Copernicus’ teaching contained many contradictions and gave rise to a lot of questions that he himself could not answer. For example, when asked why the Earth, when rotating, does not throw off everything from its surface, Copernicus, in the spirit of Aristotelian logic, answered that bad consequences cannot be caused by residual motion and that “the rotation of our planet does not cause a constant wind due to the presence an atmosphere containing the earth (one of Aristotle’s four elements) and thereby rotating in harmony with the planet itself.” This answer shows that Copernicus's thinking was not free from the tradition of Aristotle and religious faith - he was a son of his time. Copernicus himself believed that his theory did not pretend to be a real reflection of the structure of the Universe, but represented only a more convenient way of calculating the motion of planets. I will give another quote from the indicated source: Copernicus “... challenged the difficulty of predicting the movements of the planets based on the Ptolemaic legacy, and tried to look at the available data differently.

This is the significance of Copernicus for the philosophy of science: he demonstrated the possibility of different interpretations of the same facts, putting forward alternative theories and choosing from them the simpler one, which allows one to draw more accurate conclusions.”

More than a century passed before another outstanding thinker - Galileo Galilei - was able to answer many unresolved questions and contradictions of Copernicus.

Galileo is considered the founder of the experimental study of nature, but at the same time he was able to combine experiment with mathematical description. Having set himself the goal of proving that nature lives according to certain mathematical laws, he conducted experiments using various instruments. One of these was a telescope he made from a spyglass, which helped him make a number of discoveries that were of enormous importance for science in general and cosmology in particular. With his help, he discovered that moving stars (meaning planets) are not like fixed stars and are spheres that glow with reflected light. In addition, he was able to discover the phases of Venus, which proved its rotation around the Sun (and therefore the rotation of the Earth around the same Sun), which confirmed the conclusion of Copernicus and refuted Ptolemy. The movement of the planets, the annual movements of sunspots, the ebb and flow of the tides - all this proved the actual rotation of the Earth around the Sun.

An example of the fact that Galileo often resorted to experiments is the following fact: trying to prove the conclusion that bodies fall down at the same speed, he threw balls of different weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa and, measuring the time of their fall, refuted Aristotle in his statement that that the speed of a body increases when moving towards the Earth in proportion to its weight.

I will give another example that is important for the establishment of a scientific approach to the study of the world. As you know, Aristotle believed that the basis of all things in the world are four causes: matter (physical substrate), form (design, appearance), action or movement (what caused their appearance), purpose (design, intention). Galileo, exploring the reasons for the acceleration of movement, comes to the conclusion that one should look not for the cause of any phenomenon (i.e., why it arose), but how it happens. Thus, the principle of causality is subsequently, in the course of the development of science, gradually eliminated from it.

Galileo not only conducted experiments, but also mentally analyzed them, in which they received a logical interpretation. This technique greatly contributed to the ability not only to explain, but also to predict phenomena. It is also known that he widely used methods such as abstraction and idealization.

Galileo, for the first time in the history of science, proclaimed that when studying nature, it is possible to abstract from direct experience, since nature, as he believed, is “written” in mathematical language, and it can only be unraveled when, abstracting from sensory data, but on their basis, created mental constructs, theoretical schemes. Experience is material purified in mental assumptions and idealizations, and not just a description of facts. The role and significance of Galileo in the history of science cannot be overestimated. He laid (in the opinion of most scientists) the foundation of the science of nature, introduced the thought experiment into scientific activity, and substantiated the possibility of using mathematics to explain natural phenomena, which gave mathematics the status of a science. Laws that are clear and obvious to every schoolchild today were derived by him (the law of inertia, for example), he set a certain style of thinking, brought scientific knowledge out of the framework of abstract conclusions to experimental research, liberated thinking, and reformed the intellect. His name is associated second scientific revolution in natural science and the birth of true science.

The second scientific revolution ends with the name of Isaac Newton (1643-1727). J. Bernal called Newton's main work, “The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” “the bible of science.”

Newton is the founder of classical mechanics. And, although today from the standpoint of modern science Newton’s mechanistic picture of the world seems rough and limited, it was it that gave impetus to the development of theoretical and applied sciences for the next almost 200 years. We owe to Newton such concepts as absolute space, time, mass, force, speed, acceleration; he discovered the laws of motion of physical bodies, laying the foundation for the development of the science of physics. However, none of this could have happened if Galileo, Copernicus and others had not preceded him. No wonder he himself said: “I stood on the shoulders of giants.”

Newton perfected the language of mathematics by creating integral and differential calculus, he is the author of the idea particle-wave nature of light. It would be possible to list much more of what this scientist gave to science and understanding of the world.

Let us dwell on the main achievement of Newton’s scientific research – the mechanistic picture of the world. It contains the following provisions:

The statement that the entire world, the Universe, is nothing more than a collection of a huge number of indivisible and unchanging particles moving in space and time, interconnected by gravitational forces transmitted from body to body through the void.

It follows that all events are strictly predetermined and subject to the laws of classical mechanics, which makes it possible to predetermine and pre-calculate the course of events.

The elementary unit of the world is the atom, and all bodies consist of absolutely solid, indivisible, unchanging corpuscles - atoms. When describing mechanical processes, he used the concepts of “body” and “corpuscle”.

The movement of atoms and bodies was represented as a simple movement of bodies in space and time. The properties of space and time, in turn, were presented as unchangeable and independent of the bodies themselves.

Nature was presented as a large mechanism (machine), in which each part had its own purpose and strictly obeyed certain laws.

The essence of this picture of the world is the synthesis of natural scientific knowledge and the laws of mechanics, which reduced (reduced) all the diversity of phenomena and processes to mechanical ones.

One can note the pros and cons of this picture of the world. The advantages include the fact that it made it possible to explain many phenomena and processes occurring in nature, without resorting to myths and religion, but from nature itself.

As for the minuses, there are many of them. For example, matter in Newton's mechanistic interpretation was represented as an inert substance, doomed to eternal repetition of things; time is empty duration, space is a simple “container” of matter, existing independently of either time or matter. The cognizing subject was eliminated from the picture of the world itself - it was a priori assumed that such a picture of the world always exists, in itself, and does not depend on the means and methods of the cognizing subject.

It should also be noted that the methods (or principles) of studying nature that Newton relied on. They can be presented in the form of a research program (or plan).

First of all, he proposed resorting to observation, experiment, experiments; then, using induction, isolate individual aspects of the observed object or process in order to understand how the basic patterns and principles are manifested in it; then carry out a mathematical expression of these principles, on the basis of which to build an integral theoretical system and, through deduction, “come to laws that have unlimited power in everything.”

The mechanistic picture of the world, the methods of scientific explanation of nature developed by Newton, gave a powerful impetus to the development of other sciences, the emergence of new fields of knowledge - chemistry, biology (for example, R. Boyle was able to show how the combination of elements occurs and explain other chemical phenomena based on ideas about the movement of “small particles of matter” (corpuscles)). Lamarck, in search of an answer to the question about the source of changes in living organisms, relying on Newton’s mechanistic paradigm, concluded that the development of all living things is subject to the principle of “increasing movement of fluids.”

The mechanistic picture of the world had a huge influence on philosophy - it contributed to the establishment of a materialistic view of the world among philosophers. For example, T. Hobbes (1588-1679) criticized the “incorporeal substance,” arguing that everything that exists must have a physical form. Everything is moving matter - he even presented the mind as a kind of mechanism, and thoughts as matter moving in the brain. In general, philosophical debates about the nature of reality contributed to the creation of the environment in which the development of various sciences took place.

Until the 19th century, a mechanistic picture of the world reigned in natural science, and knowledge was based on methodological principles - mechanism and reductionism.

However, as science and its various fields (biology, chemistry, geology, physics itself) developed, the fact became obvious that the mechanistic picture of the world was not suitable for explaining many phenomena. Thus, by studying electric and magnetic fields, Faraday and Muskwell discovered the fact that matter could be represented not only as a substance (in accordance with its mechanistic interpretation), but also as an electromagnetic field. Electromagnetic processes could not be reduced to mechanical ones, and therefore the conclusion suggested itself: not the laws of mechanics, but the laws of electrodynamics are fundamental in the universe.

In biology J.B. Lamarck (1744-1829) made the stunning discovery of the constant change and complexity of all living organisms in nature (and nature itself), proclaiming the principle evolution, which also contradicted the position of the mechanistic picture of the world about the immutability of the particles of the universe and the predetermined nature of events. Lamarck's ideas found their completion in the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin, who showed that animal and plant organisms are the result of a long development of the organic world, and revealed the causes of this process (which Lamarck could not do before him) - heredity and variability, as well as driving factors - natural and artificial selection. Later, many of Darwin's inaccuracies and assumptions were supplemented by genetics, which explained the mechanism of heredity and variability.

The cellular theory of the structure of living organisms is also one of the links in the general chain of discoveries that undermined the foundations of the classical, mechanistic picture of the world. It is based on the idea: all living plants and organisms, from the simplest to the most complex (human), have a common structural unit - the cell. All living things have internal unity and develop according to uniform laws (and not in isolation from each other).

Finally, the discovery of the law of conservation of energy in the 40s of the 19th century (J. Mayer, D. Joule, E. Lenz) showed that phenomena such as heat, light, electricity, magnetism are also not isolated from each other (as is previously imagined), but interact, transform under certain conditions into one another and are nothing more than different forms of movement in nature.

Thus, the mechanistic picture of the world was undermined with its simplified idea of ​​movement as the simple movement of bodies in space and time, isolated from one another, of the only possible form of movement - mechanical, of space as a “container” of matter and of time as an unchanging constant, not depending on the bodies themselves.

The formation of science in the proper sense of the word is associated with the use of the experimental method in scientific research, which was the basis of theoretical natural science. As V.S. Stepin noted, the very idea of ​​experimental research implicitly assumed the presence in culture of special ideas about nature, activity and the cognizing subject, which were not characteristic of ancient culture, but began to take shape in the Renaissance and received complete expression in modern times. In experimental research, the subject of cognition acts as an active principle opposing natural matter, changing its things through force pressure on them. A natural object is known in an experiment because it is placed in simulated conditions and only thanks to this does it manifest its invisible essential connections for the subject.

The socio-cultural prerequisite for the experimental study of nature was a new system of value orientations, which began to be visible already in the culture of the Renaissance. On the one hand, in contrast to the medieval worldview, a new system of humanistic ideas is asserted, associated with the concept of man as actively opposing nature as a thinking and active principle. On the other hand, interest in understanding nature is emphasized, which is considered as a field for the application of human forces.

Already in the Renaissance, a new understanding of the connection between the natural, natural and artificial, created by human activity, began to take shape. The traditional Christian teaching about the creation of the world by God receives a special interpretation. In relation to the divine mind that created the world, nature is viewed as artificial. Human activity is interpreted as a unique similarity on a small scale to acts of creation. And the basis of this activity is imitation of nature, recognition of the rational principle (laws) in it and following the meaningful harmony of nature in human arts - science, artistic creativity, technical inventions. The values ​​of the artificial and the natural are equalized, and a reasonable change in nature in the process of human activity appears not as something contrary to it, but as consistent with its natural structure. It is this new attitude towards nature was enshrined in the category “nature,” which served as a prerequisite for the development of a fundamentally new way of understanding the world: the idea arises of the possibility of posing theoretical questions to nature and obtaining answers to them through the active transformation of natural objects.

New meanings of the category “nature” were associated with the formation of new meanings of the categories “space” and “time” as homogeneous entities, and this made it possible to affirm the idea of ​​the possibility and reproducibility of experiment anywhere in the world and at any time.

The experimental method began to be prepared for development by Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519). But Leonardo lived a hundred years before this era, and he did not have the appropriate technical capabilities and conditions. The logical structure of the experimental method was also not developed. Leonardo da Vinci's experiment lacked the rigor of its definitions and the accuracy of its measurements.

The modern experimental method began with the invention of two important instruments: the compound microscope (c. 1590) and the telescope (c. 1608). Already the ancient Greeks were familiar with the magnifying power of lens glasses. But the essence of both a microscope and a telescope is the combination of several magnifying glasses. Apparently, initially such a connection occurred by chance, and not under the influence of any guiding theoretical idea. The first microscope was apparently invented by the Dutch glass grinder Zachary Jansen. The first telescope was created by the Dutch optician Franz Lipperstey.

With the advent of telescopes, the development of astronomy rose to a qualitatively new level. The four largest satellites of Jupiter, many new stars not visible to the naked eye, were discovered; It was reliably established that nebulae and galaxies are huge clusters of stars. In addition, dark spots on the Sun were discovered.

G. Galileo played a fundamental role in substantiating the experimental method. Galileo and his followers at the Florence Academy of Experiments, founded after his death, conducted full-scale experiments. A natural experiment is carried out with objects in the situation of the reality being studied and, as a rule, involves the intervention of the experimenter in the natural course of events. Galileo also introduced the thought experiment into scientific knowledge. A thought experiment involves setting a conditional situation that exhibits properties of interest to the researcher and operating with idealized objects. Galileo actively introduced into the consciousness of the scientists of his time the idea that science without mental construction, without idealization, without abstractions, without generalizing conclusions based on facts is impossible.

Galileo's ideas about the experimental method were most productively developed by H. Huygens. Based on experimental research, Huygens invented a pendulum clock with an escapement mechanism, established the laws of oscillation of a physical pendulum, and laid the foundations for the theory of impact. Huygens improved the telescope by constructing an eyepiece and, using this instrument, discovered the rings of Saturn and its moon Titan.

The productivity of the experimental method was demonstrated in the subsequent period of development of mechanics. The tradition, going from Galileo and Huygens to Hooke and Newton, was associated with attempts to simulate the forces of interaction between celestial bodies in thought experiments with mechanical devices. For example, Hooke considered the rotation of planets by analogy with the rotation of a body attached to a thread, as well as a body tied to a rotating wheel. Newton used an analogy between the rotation of the Moon around the Earth and the movement of a ball inside a hollow sphere.

It is characteristic that it was on this path that the law of universal gravitation was discovered. Newton’s formulation of this law was led by a comparison of Kepler’s laws and the mathematical expressions obtained in a thought experiment on an analogue mechanical model that characterize the motion of a ball under the action of centrifugal forces.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Experimental Science of the New Age

Introduction

Chapter 1. Factors in the formation of modern science

Chapter 2. Organizational forms of scientific life

Conclusion

List of sources and literature used

Introduction

The era, defined as Modern Time, is characterized by intense changes in the political, socio-economic, and cultural life of a vast region. The events of the era - political revolutions, the industrial revolution, the emergence of civil society, urbanization - having influenced the way of life of a person, formed a qualitatively different mentality, a historically new style of thinking (A. Koyré's term).

Modern science as a product of the ideological “leap” and at the same time its factor, as a way of understanding the new socio-economic situation, brought with it a change in the perception of the world, a change in the fundamental philosophical concepts of natural science, and a transformation in the understanding of scientific activity.

Proposals were made to consider the scientific revolution of the 16th - 17th centuries. as a particular example of periodically recurring scientific revolutions. Mechanistic thinkers, according to this interpretation, reproduced a stable scenario: through the efforts of individual scientists, it turns out that the dominant paradigm does not adequately describe some physical phenomena, it is abandoned and, as a result, a new paradigm is created T. Kuhn. The structure of scientific revolutions. M.: Progress, 1977. S. 235 - 259. . But let us dwell on the point of view according to which the changes in the “mental zone” of European society of the New Age were “exceptional”: in terms of the strength of the intellectual and emotional impact, the scientific revolution of the 17th century. was a unique phenomenon that no subsequent “scientific revolution” can compete with. Koenigsberger G. Early Modern Europe. 1500 - 1789. M.: Ves mir, 2006. P. 226. . Let us use a somewhat harsh and incorrect formulation: “natural science in Europe before the 17th century. was in its infancy” Kopelevich Yu.Kh. The emergence of scientific academies. Mid-17th - mid-18th centuries. L.: Nauka, 1974. P. 8. .

It is in modern times that science becomes the dominant form of comprehension of existence Solomatin V.A. History of science. M.: Per se, 2003. P. 16. . The more than century-long process of science acquiring its own categories, methods, ways of thinking and institutions is being updated. Social recognition of such theoretical concepts of modern science as heliocentrism, atomism or the concept of infinite homogeneous space determines the “social need for their emergence” Kosareva L.M. Sociocultural genesis of modern science: philosophical aspect of the problem. M.: Nauka, 1989. P. 7. .

Research addressing the problem of the emergence of modern science constitutes a vast range of literature. In chronological terms, the evolution of the historiography of natural science and science in general represents the following scheme: the direction of the vector of influence from science to society within the framework of positivism (scientific ideas were included by positivists directly in social development as determining it in several ways. Principles of the historiography of natural science: 20th century. St. Petersburg: Aletheia , 2001. P. 70.), which dominated in the 19th and early 20th centuries. - the idea of ​​parallel development of science and society in the middle of the 20th century - the turn and movement of the vector of influence from society to science and even “the invasion of social characteristics into the structure of scientific knowledge and into the history of scientific ideas” Ibid. P. 76., which occurred at the turn of the 70s - 80s. XX century The symbiosis of philosophy and history of science, which formulates cognitive history, is penetrated and established by the sociology of the history of science, which considers the latter as an element of sociocultural space. In line with overcoming the traditional dichotomy of external (externalist approach) and internal (internalist direction) influence on science in the desire for synthesis characteristic of modern historiography Principles of historiography of natural science: Theory and history. M.: Nauka, 1993. P. 320. This work is being built.

The work is based mainly on material from the 17th century, touching on the second half of the 16th century. and the first half of the 18th century. Such a chronological framework is due to the determining influence of the Renaissance tradition, on the one hand, and phenomena attributed to the Enlightenment, on the other.

The concept of “science” as a multifaceted one includes specialized cognitive activity, a knowledge system and a social institution. The structural division of the work is determined by the identification of two main semantic planes: the factors in the formation of modern science and the mechanisms for its implementation, its main organizational forms.

The conceptual apparatus of the work includes terms used in the context of the modern era, when any scientific pursuit was called “philosophy” (natural science - “natural philosophy”), the concept of “physics” could combine all sciences about nature, and the scientist was designated as “natural philosopher”, “ physiologist", "virtuoso" Kosareva L.M. Decree. op. P. 15. .

Factors in the formation of modern science

science new heliocentrism atomism

The emergence in Western culture of the phenomenon designated by the concept of “modern science”, naturally, is based on a complex of “multi-branch” factors.

The high cultural and ideological significance of scientific concepts (“around the beginning of the 19th century, the ideological context of the development of scientific ideas was of predominant importance” Kosareva L.M. Op. cit. P. 9.), their ethical load in the perception of contemporaries forces us to turn to those who prepared the intellectual a revolution in events in the spiritual sphere. Religion remained the main reference point for the poorly differentiated “body” of social consciousness of the era. Among the “springs” of the restructuring of European mentality, one of the most noticeable is the influence of the Reformation. The main impetus for research into the connections between religion and science in the era of its genesis was given by M. Weber, R. Merton See M. Weber. Research on the methodology of science. M.: INION, 1980; Merton R. Science, technology and society in England in the 17th century. M., 1978. . “The spirit of the Reformation and the spirit of experimental science showed a close relationship” Quoted. by: Gaidenko P.P. Evolution of the concept of science (XVII - XVIII centuries). M.: Nauka, 1887. P. 191.: within the framework of Protestantism, cognitive attitudes matured, which formed the basis of new thinking Yurevich A.V. Psychological foundations of modern science // Questions of the history of natural science and technology. 1998, No. 2. P. 7. .

One of the defining properties of modern science is its reliance on experiment. The establishment of experiment as the leading scientific method is largely due to the establishment of a new attitude to work postulated by Protestantism. The Reformation deepens and expands the movement to destroy the border that existed between science as an activity to comprehend existence and practical, technical, craft activity, which began in the Renaissance. The idea of ​​equality of all spheres of activity, all types of labor put forward by Protestant reformers leads to a change in the public assessment of occupations in the “mechanical arts”, an increase in the social prestige of technical activity in general, which creates conditions for fruitful communication between “academically trained scientists” and the “upper layer of artisans” Kosareva L .M. Decree. op. P. 26. . Among the educated privileged strata of society, the idea of ​​“experimental philosophy” (the combination of manual labor and scholarship) and interest in the activities of artisans arose. Thus, Galileo became interested in the activities of the Venetian arsenal and organized the first university laboratory; Gilbert reproduces the experiments of the artisan Norman; Descartes speaks about the benefits of crafts: “combining the art of a craftsman with the intellect of a philosopher, science will eventually generate an infinite number of devices, thanks to which we would without any difficulty enjoy the fruits of the earth and all the amenities that are available on it” Descartes R. Works. M.: Mysl, 1989. T. 1. P. 305. . Bacon compares cognition using the new scientific method with mechanical work facilitated by special tools.

An experiment, in contrast to a simple random experience or observation, begins to be interpreted as a kind of artifact, as a special creation of artificial conditions in which a phenomenon, torn out of natural connections, could reveal a certain pattern (the stability of its existence). Boyle, one of the most active fighters for the institutionalization of experimental science in England, argued that “experimental philosophy can not only benefit from penetration into the crafts, but in turn contribute to their development” Quote. by: Bernal J. Science in the history of society. M. 1956. P. 254. .

The cult of patience and delayed motivation, characteristic of Protestantism, also played an important role in the formation of experimental science. Experimental science involves a rather long wait for the result - as, for example, in the case of Faraday, who conducted an experiment to obtain this result Yurevich A.V. Decree. op. P. 9. .

Natural science of the 17th century. paints an image of the material world created in the era of early bourgeois revolutions, using conceptual means “borrowed” from another transitional era - the decomposition of antiquity (Epicureanism, Stoicism) and the formation of early feudal relations (Augustinianism). The understanding of the new picture of the world was carried out in terms of the physics of Epicurus (Gassendi, Charlton, Boyle, Newton) and the Stoics (Descartes).

The scholastic image of a rational Cosmos (including both physical and ethical dimensions), an image that has withstood social “verification” for many centuries, loses its credibility in the era of destruction of this social foundation.

Doubt about the Christian authenticity of the scholastic tradition gave rise to the search for a philosophy that corresponded to the new sense of Christian truth. and capable of bringing knowledge about the world into line with the changed inner world of a person. Almost simultaneously with unorthodox mass religious movements (Protestantism, Jansenism, Unitarianism) in post-Reformation Europe, the topical late antique “individualistic” philosophical systems (Epicureanism, Stoicism, skepticism Kosareva L.M. Op. op. p. 41.) gained popularity.

Stoicism, Epicureanism and other ethical systems were closely connected with physics, seeing in it their “objective” justification.

In the wake of exceptional interest in moral philosophy (and the resulting publication and repeated reprinting of the main works of the Epicureans and Stoics), a thorough acquaintance of the European educated public with the physical ideas of antiquity, alternative to Aristotle's, arose. These primarily include the physics of the atomists, the continualist, strictly deterministic physics of the Stoics.

In contrast to scholastic Aristotelianism, which divided the universe into qualitatively different levels, they emphasized the qualitative unity of the physical world. The basis of this unity and homogeneity were atoms - among the Epicureans, Logos and pneuma - among the Stoics.

The popularity of atomism (epicureanism), apparently, is also due to cultural and historical factors, in particular the tendency towards the “atomization” of society itself in the 17th - 18th centuries,” and the maturation of individualistic psychology. Social upheavals, similar in strength to the 30-year war in Germany, maximally accelerated the process of reification of social relations, as well as atomization, autonomization of the individual’s consciousness, which was the starting point of the epistemological teachings of the 17th century. “Protestant ideology, being a reflection of social atomization in the era of emerging capitalism, itself, in turn, became a powerful subjective factor in the aggravation of this atomization” Kosareva L.M. Decree. op. P.18. .

The connection between cognitive and social phenomena - atomism and individualism - is drawn quite clearly, which is manifested even in the etymology of these terms. Ethical individualism (“individual” is the Latin translation of the Greek “atom”) and natural science atomism (corpuscularism) in the 17th - early 18th centuries. were perceived as various aspects of a single worldview, according to which the fundamental elements of natural and social existence are independent individuals (atoms, corpuscles), the interaction between which is carried out in an externally regulated, mechanical manner and is subject to strict laws. That. the structure of society was imprinted in the style of thinking directed towards nature Yurevich A.V. Decree. op. P. 4. .

The emerging craving for Epicurean atomism, as most satisfying the new worldview of man in the 17th century, gave rise to the need for social “rehabilitation” of the doctrine, which had been neglected throughout the Middle Ages. The campaign to “cleanse” the Epicurean teaching from “pagan filth”, the procedure for its “Christianization” was started by Gassendi, who discredited the intellectual merits and moral character of the opponent of atomism, Aristotle, and created an ethically attractive image of Epicurus in the works “Paradoxical Exercises against the Aristotelians”, “On the Life and death of Epicurus." His work was continued by Charlton, Boyle and other thinkers; Newton enjoyed the fruits of these efforts.

Atomistic theory, Boyle writes, “invented by Democritus, Leucippus, Epicurus and their contemporaries<…>revived and celebrated with such skill in various parts of Europe by the learned works of Gassendi, Magnenus, Descartes and his disciples<…>and has now become too significant not to be ridiculed, and so significant as to deserve serious study. by: Kosareva L.M. Decree. op. P. 91. .

A strongly pursued version of the non-Greek - Jewish - origin of the atomistic concept, coincidence with the interpretation of the material world introduced by the ideologists of Protestantism (the absence of substantial qualities in nature), the need for reformation ideology in a suitable physical concept, because according to tradition, dating back to antiquity, it was perceived as the basis of a correct ethical system, as the continuation and justification of the proposed new ethical orientation determined the social sanction of atomistic mechanism.

The classic country for the institutionalization of atomistic-mechanistic ideas was Protestant England, where atomism turned from a “circle” worldview into a socially recognized concept.

One of the distinctive features of the Reformation teaching is the transfer of the center of gravity from the mind of God to his will, understood as the main definition of the nature of God as a creator. The voluntarist attitude in theology assumes that God creates the world completely freely, and not out of rational necessity. If everything in the world is ultimately determined solely by God’s will, which knows no limits and no rational foundations that exceed it, then in order to understand such a world, experience, experiment, and testing are necessary first of all. The experiment turns out to be an integral and constitutive part of the new natural science, a logically necessary characteristic of it, if the whole world, all the phenomena in it are thought to be ultimately determined by the absolutely free, rationally incomprehensible will of God V.P. Vizgin. Experiment and miracle: religious and theological factor in the genesis of modern science // Questions of the history of natural science and technology. 1995, No. 3. P. 4. . A priori deduction in natural science (for example, Van Helmont’s assertion that God created cures for all diseases), according to Boyle, has no theological justification; it even insults divine dignity, which we would better respect if we discard such schemes and practice it empirically study nature (in particular, the question of which medicines exist in nature and which do not). The image of piety that Boyle assimilates requires precisely humble empiricism, an expectant experimental attitude Vizgin V.P. Decree. op. P. 9. . The anti-rationalistic attitude can already be traced in the apology of F. Bacon's empirical research: affected by the Fall and falling into excessive pride, reason obscures the reality of things with its crude schemes.

The beliefs of Boyle and Locke are usually assessed as radical empiricism, which is contrasted with the no less radical rationalism of Leibniz. The middle, moderate position belongs to Descartes, who assessed experiment as a means of choosing a specific mechanism for a certain phenomenon in the event that deduction provides several possible ones: “As for experiments, I noticed that they are all the more necessary the further we advance in knowledge.” Descartes R. Decree. op. P. 306. .

In general, the voluntaristic attitude in theology can be considered one of the main prerequisites for the legitimation of the experimental method, for it to obtain the status of a methodological base of knowledge V.P. Vizgin. Decree. op. P. 8. .

In the 17th century the picture of the world is being mechanized: the scholastic idea of ​​the material world as a hierarchically ordered organism, as matter animated “from within” by substantial qualities, is being replaced by a different idea of ​​the world as a homogeneous, inanimate, dead substance, the particles of which interact according to purely mechanical laws. The image of the world as an organism is being replaced by the idea of ​​the Universe as a mechanism. Critical work on de-anthropomorphization, devitalization of ideas about matter, endowed by the scholastics with inner life, aspirations, and goal-setting, was begun by the ideologists of the Reformation: Luther and Calvin affirmed the omnipotence of a supernatural God and the “lack of independence” of nature - inert, passive performer of the living Word of God. 75 By the will of God, unchanging, eternal laws were established in the universe, the “clockwork” of the Universe was wound up.

The concept of the physical world of the Epicureans (atoms and voids) and the Stoics (a rigidly determined world filled with a continuous medium - pneuma), fused with the idea of ​​the physical world of the reformers (absolutely passive matter, subject to divine predestination) were the conceptual basis from which the mechanical picture of the world grew Descartes, Hobbes, Boyle, Newton.

In his essay “Some Considerations on the Usefulness of Experimental Natural Philosophy,” first published in 1663, Boyle puts forward mechanistic arguments against the Aristotelian explanation of the behavior of water in a Toricellian void (i.e., in a tube sealed and inverted into a liquid). Aristotelians explain the rise of the column of liquid in the said experiment by saying that “nature is afraid of emptiness,” which endows the water in the tube with an intelligent force capable of lifting the water for a specific purpose. According to Boyle, the rise of water in the tube occurs due to the difference in gas pressures inside and outside the tube Kosarev L.M. Decree. op. P. 105. .

The Aristotelians, explaining the reason why heavy bodies do not fall to the ground, pointed to the tendency of the bodies to move towards the center of the earth. In this regard, Hobbes writes: “As if stones and metals, like men, had a desire and could mark the place where they would like to be, or as if these bodies, unlike men, loved peace, or as if a piece of glass felt less comfortable in a window than after falling into the street" Hobbes T. Selected Works. M.: Mysl, 1965. T. 2. P. 646. .

The idea of ​​the mechanistic nature of nature is closely related to the mechanists of the 17th century. with recognition of the uniqueness of man in the created world, with recognition of his moral responsibility for himself and for creation as a whole. Boyle wrote: “I do not know a single thing in nature that is composed of matter and substance other than material, except man; only he is created from the immaterial form and the human body.” Due to his unique position in the universe, man is the only conscious, intelligent, morally responsible being. Therefore, it is man who is charged with the “duty” of caring for salvation and given the right to cognize nature and dominate over it. Boyle “succeeded in tainting scholastic physical theory with heresy, and also succeeded in justifying his corpuscular philosophy on the grounds that it avoided the heretical implications of the scholastic alternative.” Op. by: Kosareva L.M. Decree. op. P. 106. .

Considered separately from the Creator, creation, strictly subordinated to laws emanating from a single divine source - nature - generally acquires the features of unity, homogeneity, unification. The world represented in this way can, in principle, be measured and counted.

In addition, the emergence of a feeling of isolation and even alienation from nature made for the first time acceptable the idea of ​​using artificial, technical methods to understand nature.

The conditions of devaluation of traditional values ​​and the collapse of the basic foundations of life resulted in a very uncomfortable state of man, which prompted him to look for ways to renew his life. The Reformation expressed this sentiment in a program of purposeful restructuring of the entire way of life based on control of the mind over affects, because It was in the absence of such discipline that Yurevich A.V. saw the main reasons for what was happening. Decree. op. P. 5. .

According to the conviction of a person of the 17th century, in nature, in the divine creation, in contrast to human society, harmony reigns:

Why does all of God's creation serve us?

Why does the Earth and Water feed us?

When any of the elements is pure,

Are our souls in shambles? European poetry of the 17th century. M.: Artist. lit., 1977. P. 522.

Oh, what a beautiful face

Nature, how pure it is!

He is so obedient, quiet. Ibid. pp. 536 - 537. .

(J. Herbert)

The idea of ​​self-control through knowledge of nature arises Yurevich A.V. Decree. op. P. 5. . “Know nature in order to live correctly” - this maxim of Epicurus and the Stoics is completely shared by Descartes: “Even among the saddest phenomena and the heaviest sorrows, you can always remain content, since you will use reason” Descartes R. Decree. op. P. 239. .

Descartes was confident that if people understood the principles of the existence of nature, set out by him in “Principles (philosophy)” and other works, then they would come to their senses, stop being in the chaos of affects, and begin to live in harmony with “quiet” nature. For Descartes, comprehension of the absolutely determined course of natural processes is an important means for ridding oneself of absurd, empty thoughts and worthless desires. The laws of nature act as a “educator” of the virtues of restraint, courage, consistency, and responsibility. “I could neither limit my desires nor find contentment if I had not followed the path that... led me to the acquisition of all the knowledge of which I am capable” Descartes R. Decree. op. P. 279. .

Man of the 17th century strives to gain power over the spontaneous life of his consciousness, while relying on the experience of late antique philosophy, the desire to contrast the conscious methodical nature of life and knowledge with the way of existence according to the principle of “automatism” by Kosarev L.M. Decree. op. P. 50. .

The pragmatic attitude towards nature generated by Protestantism was reflected in the pragmatic attitude towards science itself. “Whoever believes that the purpose of all science is its practical usefulness is certainly right” Quote. by: Yurevich A.V. Decree. op. P. 7. - wrote F. Bacon. The purpose of knowledge is to serve the good of people, which also shows God’s care for us. “The sciences,” says Mersenne, “are incomplete if they are not applied in practical life, since God gave them to us in order to use them” Quote. by: Vizgin V.P. Decree. op. P. 11. . A scientist, according to Mersenne, is a mechanical engineer, a practical designer, and in this he imitates God - the greatest Engineer, the Creator of the machine of the world.

At the same time, a pragmatic attitude towards the pursuit of science is developing, which is also influenced by Protestantism and the development of commodity-money relations that it stimulated. As a result, scientific activity has turned into a type of work that brings results useful to society. Having characterized it as “genuine work,” F. Bacon formalized the desacralization of scientific knowledge, in many ways, depriving it of the status of a “special” occupation. The science of modern times has turned bearers of learning into scientific workers Yurevich A.V. Decree. op. P. 10. .

The connection between science and the Protestant religion was indirect and ambiguous.

R. Merton identifies three main directions of transformation of Protestant values ​​into the basic settings of research work. The first is that the spread of the Protestant ethic created “psychological pressure in society towards certain patterns of thinking and behavior.” The second covers the personal influence of people raised in Protestant culture. For example, the overwhelming majority of members of the Royal Society of Great Britain, in which modern science was actually born, were Puritans. The third way Protestantism influences science runs through the education system. Protestants gained a foothold in all major universities and other educational centers - both in Britain and in continental Europe, won dominant positions there, established an education system based on the priority of science, technology and crafts, and supplanted the Catholic education system based on theology and scholasticism , training in oratory and the study of “dead” languages ​​Yurevich A.V. Decree. op. P. 11. .

The positions of the ideologists of Protestantism are characterized as follows: “Luther was at best indifferent to science,” “Calvin had an ambivalent attitude towards it.” Calvin “was suspicious of secular learning: he admitted that he would prefer to destroy all sciences if they were the reason for the cooling of Christian piety” Quote. by: Kosareva L.M. Decree. op. P. 78. .

It was not the Protestant religion itself that gave birth to science, but the Protestant ethics, which, although it was in close connection with the corresponding religious doctrine, but, at the same time, had sufficient autonomy from it, and did not so much express religious dogmas as “only articulated basic values ​​of that time" Quoted. by: Yurevich A.V. Decree. op. P. 11., which were embodied in systems of scientific knowledge not only by Protestants - for example, R. Descartes. As a result, the system of attitudes from which modern science grew was “an unintended and largely unforeseen consequence of the religious ethics created by the leaders of the Reformation” Quote. by: Yurevich A.V. Decree. op. P. 11. . Modern science turned out to be inevitable, but a by-product of what the reformers were striving for.

The thesis about the determining role of the “hermetic impulse” in the genesis of modern science belongs to F. Yeats Yeats F. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic tradition. M.: New Literary Review, 2000. .

“Hermetic sciences” - alchemy, astrology, magic - an influential intellectual movement in Europe, which received its greatest development in the Renaissance tradition and maintained its popularity in the 17th century. 28

On the one hand, the naturalism of the Renaissance was a means to undermine the authority of the scholastic tradition, the peripatetic science of the universities. On this path, natural philosophers sometimes put forward new ideas, supporting bold scientific innovations (for example, the infinitist Bruno was an ardent propagandist of Copernicanism). But, despite this, the natural philosophy of the Renaissance as a whole represented more of an “epistemological obstacle” (Bachelard’s expression) to the new science than served its development and formalization Vizgin V.P. Decree. op. P. 12. .

Hermetic and modern philosophy contradict each other “methodologically.” In the works of apologists of Hermeticism, for example, Pomponazzi, magic is naturalized, the magical infinity of possibilities, taken away from professional magicians and sorcerers, on the one hand, from demons and angels, on the other, is attributed to nature itself. Nature, to which omnipotence is ascribed, leaves no significant place for God, and does not need to be studied by experimental methods. For mechanical thinkers, pannaturalism was equally anti-religion and anti-science, and the apology for Christianity merges with the apology for the new mechanistic science (for example, in Mersenne).

In addition, magical naturalism was unpromising from the point of view of the possibility of its official social recognition and formal institutionalization.

Hermetic “anti-Christianity” contributed to the general ferment of minds during the Renaissance, became one of the factors in the departure from the scholastic tradition, but did not create science and could not create it Vizgin V.P. Decree. op. P. 17. .

Another concept of the determining role of religion in the genesis of modern science is the theory of S. Yaki, according to which the decisive role in the formation of the latter belongs to Catholicism and the scholastic tradition.

An additional advantage of scientific activity, according to Gassendi, is that free philosophical research leads to the greatest peace of mind and happiness. Koenigsberger G. Decree. op. P. 222. . The actualization of science can be interpreted as a global reaction of society to mass neurosis caused by the social upheavals of the era, based on the fact that science allows us to explain and order the world and, thus, reduce mass anxiety generated by the feeling of its uncontrollability and uncertainty. Science is one of the main means of ordering the world - through its explanation and reduction of the infinite variety of individual phenomena to a limited number of general laws - and in this capacity can really serve as a means of “therapy”, a means of “rationalization of all social life” (M. Weber’s term) and sublimation of mass neurosis Yurevich A.V. Decree. op. P. 15. .

Statements about the influence of socio-economic relations on the formation of modern science, for example: “capitalism and modern science were born in the same movement” Cited. by: Kopelevich Yu.Kh. Decree. op. P. 9. (J. Bernal) - raise the question of the practical application of the latter’s achievements to the process of organized material production. In Europe XVI - XVII centuries. there were only sporadic connections between formal science and production, many of the largest technical inventions that had the greatest impact on industry and agriculture were carried out by practicing inventors, experimenters who were not scientists and did not receive a traditional scientific education” Motroshilova N.V. Science and scientists in the conditions of modern capitalism. M.: Nauka, 1976. P. 18. . In the 17th century scientific achievements were not yet the basis for the functioning and development of material production.

For the purposes of more efficient production of, say, cloth in England in the 17th century, it did not matter how matter was structured: whether it consisted of atoms, or whether it was based on substantial qualities. Questions of the structure of matter and the reasons for its movement were central to the formation of the worldview of man in the 17th century in L.M. Kosareva. Decree. op. P. 40. .

As paradoxical as it may sound, the material production of emerging capitalism required for its development, first of all, the solution not of scientific and technical problems, but of moral and ideological problems, because without the formation of a new type of person, it was impossible to develop a new economy based on private initiative: a person of the medieval type (internally immobile and spiritually dependent) could not become a subject of new production, capable of quickly making decisions under his own responsibility; Nor could a nihilist full of apathy (a product of the disintegration of medieval existence) become a subject of the new production. Mechanistic picture of the world of the 17th century. was a resolution of the ethical problems of the beginning of the New Age, which, in a certain sense, met the “needs of material production of the era of early capitalism” by Kosarev L.M. Decree. op. P. 109. .

De-anthropomorphization, de-animation of ideas about nature is ultimately caused by the reification of social relations during the transition from the feudal to the early capitalist mode of production. The image of the world, which forms the core of the new science, in its social genesis reflects the process of formation of the bourgeois mode of production through the mediating link of ideological systems of the Reformation era.

The genesis of philosophical knowledge of the New Age is characterized by a reorientation from ontological research to epistemological analysis Panfilov V.A. Changing the priorities of philosophical understanding of scientific knowledge // Bulletin of Dnepropetrovsk University. History and philosophy of science and technology. Vol. 1, 1994. P. 3. .

The specificity of the emerging concept of knowledge about the physical world, starting from the middle of the 17th century, consists not in the affirmation of an ideal, but in the rejection of this high ideal of absolutely reliable physical knowledge, dating back to antiquity; and in the introduction of the subject into the “body” of epistemological concepts. For the first time in the history of epistemological thought, the subject of knowledge is realized in all its fundamental irreducibility. For the first time, being is split into two levels - “being in itself” (God and nature) and the human world, and for the first time the corporeal Universe ceases to be postulated as completely transparent, intelligible to humans Kosareva L.M. Decree. op. P. 117. .

By the middle of the 17th century. The Aristotelian confidence that experimental natural science can achieve absolutely reliable, error-free and comprehensive knowledge of the physical world is irreversibly gone. There is a widespread belief that a person can know with absolute certainty only what he himself has produced with his own hands or thought (Merseny, Sanquez, etc.). For the first time, epistemology becomes probabilistic, incorporating elements of skeptical argumentation. Skepticism for the first time becomes an inescapable companion of scientific knowledge, acquiring a specific form of “organized skepticism” (R. Merton).

New theories (Copernican concept, atomistic “hypothesis”) in this context are perceived as confirmation of ideas about the relativity of human cognition.

John Donne, famous English "poet of skepticism":

Everything in the new philosophy is doubt:

The former fire has lost its meaning.

No sun, no earth - you can’t understand

Where should we look for them now...

So much new; the world is doomed

It is again fragmented into atoms.

Everything is falling apart, and the connection between times is gone,

From now on everything was relative in European poetry of the 17th century. P. 561. .

The result of the influence of skepticism was the formation in the 17th century. probabilistic epistemology Kosareva L.M. Decree. op. P. 123. .

Most thinkers of this period divide the knowledge available to humans into two spheres - completely subject to the control of thought (mathematics, logic, metaphysics) and not entirely dependent on thinking (experimental, factual knowledge - physics, history, jurisprudence).

The maximum level for the last area was the level of moral credibility. The term “moral certainty” (Latin certitude moralis, English moral certainty) came into natural philosophy in the 17th century. from theology and meant the highest state of a person’s personal conviction in the truth of a given position.

Offering the reader in the “Principles of Philosophy” his concept of the physical world (the structure of the solar system, the matter of the sky, the nature of the movement of the planets), Descartes writes that he offers it only “as a hypothesis, perhaps very distant from the truth; but still, even in this case, I will consider it a great merit to myself if everything further deduced from it is consistent with experience, for then it will turn out to be no less valuable for life than if it were true, since it will be possible with the same success use in order to extract the desired consequences from natural causes” Descartes R. Decree. op. P. 510. .

“The acquisition and improvement of our knowledge of substances in this way, exclusively through experience and description, i.e. the only path possible for us given the weakness and mediocrity of our abilities in this world, and makes me suspect that the philosophy of nature cannot be made a science. It seems to me that we are capable of achieving only a very small general knowledge of the types of bodies and their various properties. Experiments and historical observations are possible for us, from which we can derive benefits for our contentment and health, and thereby increase the number of comforts in this life” Locke J. Works. M.: Mysl, 1976. T. 1. P. 525. .

Locke argues that, unlike the sphere of mathematics, where reliable knowledge is possible, in the field of empirical knowledge of the physical world only more or less probable hypothetical knowledge is possible Kosareva L.M. Decree. op. P. 135. .

The emphasis on the contingency of experimental knowledge of nature and at the same time the hope that in the future, perhaps, the fullness of true knowledge of the nature of the corporeal world will be revealed, is fundamental to the entire empiricist program of Locke and Newton. From their point of view, the randomness of knowledge should not lead to despair - this reflects the random nature of the connection between God and man.

The social and cultural life of the era under consideration gives rise to a new value system. The value becomes not the assimilation of ready-made, “absolutely reliable” knowledge obtained by the ancients about the sublime and beautiful Cosmos, but, albeit imperfect, only probable, but personally found, new, morally reliable knowledge of the physical world.

The morality of the researcher played a major role in assessing the credibility of the study. For example, members of the Royal Society are introducing the practice of indicating a specific person collecting certain observations, and a number of moral information about this person, on the basis of which one could judge the degree of objectivity of the fact reported by him.

Mathematical formalism is a “presumption of innocence” based on reliability criteria. An example of such an “escape” is the position of Newton, who eliminated as much as possible from the “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy” his philosophical thoughts about the world, about man, about the ways of knowing nature Kosareva L.M. Decree. op. P. 144. .

As a result of the scientific revolution, mathematics became not only a form of organization of scientific knowledge, but also a form of presentation, representation of the very subject of knowledge. What is completely new, characteristic specifically for the science of the 17th century, is the amazing gap between the mathematically precise, transparent for a “clear and attentive mind” formulation of a scientific hypothesis and the lack of absolute confidence in its full correspondence with objective reality.

The craving for mathemization of general concepts of the universe in the 17th century. largely due to the fact that the mathematical form was the most demonstrative in the sense of external justification; mathematical proof was most consistent with the nature of subjectivity, the internal spiritual interior of the subject, his spiritual skills, formed by the era of early bourgeois revolutions. Ibid. pp. 144 - 145. .

Organizational forms of scientific life

Forming a new type of knowledge, the scientific revolution also created new structures. The basic mechanisms of the social embodiment of modern science and its dominant organizational forms underwent significant changes throughout the 17th century.

In the first half of the century, practically the only social niche within which the creators and bearers of new ideas, theories, inventions and technologies could feel relatively comfortable and their innovative activities were considered legitimate and worthy of encouragement as innovative was the court patronage of I.S. Dmitriev. Creativity and miracle-working: natural history in the court culture of Western Europe in the era of the intellectual revolution of the 16th - 17th centuries // New Literary Review. 2007, No. 87 (5). P. 113. . Here we can cite the example of Galileo, who received the title of “chief mathematician of the University of Pisa and chief philosopher and mathematician of the Grand Duke of Tuscany” for proposing a natural monument to the Medici in 1610, and Leibniz, who settled in Brunswick-Lüneburg, holding the position of adviser and court librarian (1676 - 1679 ), and from 1685 - court historiographer.

The courtier gave his patron either something useful as an engineer, craftsman or financier, or something that could add shine to the court - such gifts included philosophical and mathematical treatises, musical or literary works, paintings, etc. For this, the patron (a secular or spiritual ruler or someone from the nobility) rewarded his client with money, gifts, a profitable and honorary position (often a sinecure). The client enhanced the shine of the courtyard that warmed him, receiving in return material benefits and status. A clear expression of such an exchange can be the frontispiece of J. Kepler’s “Rudolfin Tablets” published in 1627. At the top of this frontispiece there is an eagle - a symbol of the power of Emperor Rudolf II, at whose court the scientist worked. From the beak of an eagle carrying imperial regalia, thalers are poured onto the “astronomical temple”, and the structure itself is under the protection of the eagle’s wings Dmitriev I.S. Decree. op. P. 115. .

The typology of “scientific” patronage distinguishes cultural patronage “for show” and “utilitarian patronage”. The first is typical for small states of Central and Southern Europe (primarily in the German and Italian monarchies): the Medici in Florence, Alfonso II d'Este in Ferrara, Landgrave of Hesse Wilhelm IV. Cultural rivalry between sovereigns was a kind of surrogate for their military-political and dynastic confrontations Ibid. .

Pragmatic patronage, based on considerations of practical benefit, is more characteristic of Northern Europe.

Scientists appealed both to the importance of their activities for the general rise of culture, the “common good,” and to its practical value. For example, Galileo presented his “spotting scope” to the Venetian Senate as an instrument useful for military purposes, and to the Florentine court as a natural philosophical instrument.

It was at the courts, where restrictions on intellectual research affected, as a rule, to a lesser extent than in other social institutions, that the researcher received attention to his ideas and inventions, the opportunity to implement a research program (which sometimes involved the use of expensive equipment) at the expense of a patron, a certain protection from ideological attacks Dmitriev I.S. Decree. op. P. 116. .

The development of science was accompanied by an increase in the mandatory element of joint work Pompeev Yu.A. Essays on the history of European scientific thought. St. Petersburg: Abris, 2003. P. 187. . In addition to universities, which had complex relationships with the church administration, new forms of organization and coordination of research work appeared - academies and scientific societies Yureneva T.Yu. Western European natural science classrooms of the 16th - 17th centuries // Questions of the history of natural science and technology. 2002, No. 4. P. 775. . Although it is worth noting that in many large universities some progress was taking place: new scientific departments were opened - primarily in medicine and related disciplines Koenigsberger G. Decree. op. P. 220. .

The tradition of creating humanitarian academies, most of which were circles of lovers of philosophy, theology, literature, and art, which arose in Italy during the Renaissance, was extended to natural sciences.

The first to study natural science was founded by Giovanni Baptista della Porta in Naples in 1560. The Academy of the Sacraments of Nature, which did not last long and was dissolved at the request of the church authorities, Kopelevich Yu.Kh. Decree. op. P. 21. . The most famous Italian academies of a “physical” orientation: the Accademia dei Lincei (“Lynx-Eyed Academy”), created on the initiative and at the expense of Federico Cesi in 1603 (which suspended its activities with the death of the founder in 1630) and the Accademia Chimento (Academy of Experiments, 1657 - 1667), founded in Florence by the scientist-cardinal Leopoldo de' Medici with the support of his brother, the Tuscan Duke Ferdinand II. The latter conducted experiments on studying natural air pressure, artificially freezing water, and identifying the properties of a magnet: members of the academy refuted Aristotle’s teaching that opposites reinforce each other due to their proximity: cold - warmth, and warmth - cold; proved the falsity of the claims that a lamp wick soaked in turtle blood produces a miraculous effect, and vinegar extinguishes fire better than other liquids Yureneva T.Yu. Decree. op. P. 776. .

In the lands of Germany, the first to emerge was the society Societas Erevnetika, founded in Rostock in 1622 by Joachim Jung (logician, mathematician, botanist), whose members made the first attempts to create natural science literature in German; lasted for several years. In 1652, the “Society of Natural Scientists” arose in the free city of Schweinfurt, which laid the foundation for the now existing German Academy of Naturalists, otherwise known as “Leopoldina”. In the 70s, Emperor Leopold I took the Society under his protection.

In Europe at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries. Atomistic Epicurean circles begin to emerge one after another. They received the greatest development in England, the classic country of institutionalization of atomistic-mechanistic ideas. One of the first to appear was the Northumberland Circle, whose patron was the Earl of Northumberland, Henry Percy. Its leader was T. Hariot, an astronomer, mathematician and physicist; it included mathematicians and physicists W. Warner, N. Hill, N. Topoli, as well as philosophers and poets J. Donne and C. Marlowe. Bacon joined this circle for some time. In the 1630s. In England, the Newcastle Circle was formed, which played an important role in the socialization of Epicurean atomism. It included Thomas Hobbes, the famous economist William Petty, and the mathematician and priest J. Pell. The group's patron was William Cavendish, the future Duke of Newcastle. The period of existence of the group covers the 1630s - 1650s; in the 1640s, many members of this circle were in exile in Paris, where they communicated with R. Descartes, P. Gassendi and other mechanical philosophers Kosareva L.M. Decree. op. P. 88. .

The most significant scientific institutions of modern times: the Royal London Society for the Progress of Natural Sciences (since 1660) and the French Royal Academy of Sciences (since 1666), which arose on the basis of private circles and appeared already in the 18th century. Berlin Academy of Sciences. Scientific corporations can be seen as a formalization of the proliferation of participants in patronage relationships on the part of protégés. “As a rule, the client gathered around himself a certain circle of people - students, listeners, like-minded people.” The nature of the activities of the new institutions was determined not so much by the scholastic university canon, but by the court ethos, which also determined the manner of discussion, membership, goals and the degree of independence in the choice of research topics Dmitriev I.S. Decree. op. P. 136.

The Paris Academy of Sciences was directly financed from the royal treasury and received from the royal administration a list of projects that the Academy had to implement (for example, to develop the best type of gunpowder or to find out whether new white or rouge was harmful to aristocratic skin, etc. Royal Society of London did not receive practically any subsidies from the treasury, due to which it was like a gentleman’s club, nevertheless it was not completely free from the political discourse of the era and the mood of the court. Ibid., p. 147. .

This period, when scientific Europe was “fraught” with scientific societies and academies and they were born here and there and were intensively searching for a viable organization, was marked by another important innovation - the emergence of scientific journalism Kopelevich Yu.Kh. Decree. op. P. 31. .

With the intensification of scientific work in the 17th century. The book has not become a fast enough medium of information. In newspapers that began to be published in European countries in the first half of the century, “scientific news” was sometimes included among military and political reports. But the main means of scientific communication remained increasingly intensive correspondence, which found its own “workaround” paths during periods of wars and political complications between states. After Mersenne's death (1648), his role as a link in the correspondence of scientists was assumed by Oldenburg in England and Tschirnhaus in Germany. But scientific correspondence, naturally, was accessible to a small circle of people and could not satisfy the ever-widening interest of the reading public in what was happening in the “republic of sciences.” In the middle of the century, small printed treatises, brochures, and pamphlets were distributed everywhere, reflecting intrascientific controversy and public controversy around science. Scientists sometimes printed and sent out leaflets, a kind of “challenges”, in which they offered, sometimes with the promise of a reward, to solve some problem, which stimulated scientific research. Many of the problems announced by Mersenne gave rise to “in absentia” disputes between Descartes, Fermat and Robenval.

A tangible need was realized for a scientific journal - a new type of publication in which one could briefly and quickly communicate one's ideas and discoveries, debate with opponents and appeal to a public interested in science. The first such journal - the Parisian "Journal of Scientists" (the first issue was published on January 5, 1665) arose outside of any societies and academies. Published by Denis de Sallo, an advisor to the parliament in Paris, the magazine contained notices of new books with brief annotations, new experiments in physics and mathematics, new discoveries and inventions, and reports of all sorts of amazing natural phenomena, comets, freaks, with which the publisher clearly sought to attract a wide audience. reading public Kopelevich Yu.Kh. Decree. op. P. 34. .

Journals were published both by formal scientific communities: the “Philosophical Notes” of the Royal Society of London (since 1665), Leopoldina’s “Ephemerides”, the “Journal of Scientists”, eventually attributed to the Paris Academy of Sciences, and through the efforts of “free journalists”: the Dutch 34 “News” Republic of Sciences” by P. Belle, “Universal and Historical Library” by J. Leclerc. Since 1668, the “Journal of Scientists” has been published in Rome, and in 1671, a similar journal was published in Venice. In 1701 the so-called magazine "De Trevoux", a publication of the Jesuit Order: a popular science magazine - one of the eloquent manifestations of the new policy of the Catholic Church regarding science, the search for influence on minds through active participation in the scientific movement Ibid. P. 35. .

Similar documents

Studying the specifics of modern culture. Ideas and philosophical works of Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, Leibniz. New discoveries in the field of astronomy, physics, mathematics. Significance of the Modern Age on the development of encyclopedism in the following century of Enlightenment.

abstract, added 06/28/2010


The main features of Western European culture of the New Age. Features of European culture and science in the 17th century. Significant dominants of the culture of the European Enlightenment of the 18th century. The most important cultural trends of the 19th century. Stages of artistic culture of the 19th century.

abstract, added 12/24/2010


The Age of Enlightenment in European culture of modern times. Formation of a new type of culture. Characteristics of styles in architecture, painting, decorative and applied arts. Aesthetic principles of Baroque and classicism. Analysis of the characteristic features of Rococo.

presentation, added 02/03/2014


Everyday life in the everyday genre as part of historical development, its functions and features. Everyday genre as a special type of painting. Analysis of the representation of the New Time through the image of everyday life depicted in the works of artists of this period.

course work, added 01/14/2015


General characteristics and characteristic features of the culture of the New Age and the Enlightenment. Rococo as an artistic style of the New Age. Classicism in the artistic culture of the 13th-19th centuries. Sentimentalism: artists, poets, major works.

test, added 05/17/2011


European culture of modern times, its features: humanism and Eurocentrism. Philosophical and aesthetic features of the cultural development of the Enlightenment. Ideas of enlighteners and social utopias. Scientific cultural concepts of the Enlightenment.

test, added 12/24/2013


Chronological framework of the modern era. The contradictory nature of the European cultural process in the 17th century. The culture of Europe in the era of absolutism and the age of Enlightenment. Periodization of classicism. Main philosophical trends in Europe of the 19th century.

test, added 01/09/2011


Conditions and main stages of development of European culture of the New Age: Absolutism and Enlightenment. Transforming money into a goal for the development of society and culture. Creation of a technical and technological base - an industrial culture with its mechanized processes.

test, added 09.19.2011


Stages of changing the costume of social groups: nobility, bourgeoisie, burghers, burghers and peasants. A characteristic feature of the clothing of the nobles of the Netherlands and France. Consideration of the evolution of children's costume. Studying laws against luxury, determining their effectiveness.

thesis, added 02/13/2016


Education in Western Europe and North America. Philosophical views of the Enlightenment, formed in accordance with the science of that time. General characteristics of the style trends of Baroque and Classicism, their most prominent representatives.