156

[introduction.]

p By cognising the surrounding world, man develops and uses the relevant forms and methods of reflecting reality. He resorts to various types of judgements, inferences and concepts and is guided by the norms and principles of cognitive activity. The forms and methods of cognition used by man reflect the aspects and connections of reality and the laws governing the development of social knowledge and practice.

p A method ot cognition is a totality oi the requirements and principles man should follow in studying a certain sphere of reality. These requirements are based on certain universal aspects and connections of reality and the laws governing the development and functioning of cognition.

Some of these requirements are applicable to any stage in the development of cognition, to all spheres of scientific analysis, while others are applicable to one stage in the development of cognition, to one field of science. For this reason there are general and particular methods of scientific cognition.

157

a) Observation

Observation is the purposeful, deliberate perception of phenomena related to the object under study. It presupposes the preliminary setting of an objective, definition of ways of achieving it, availability of a plan for watching the object, use of apparatus to extend the possibility of perceiving the object’s qualities and recording them. The extent to which observation is successful and fruitful also depends on how well the observer is versed in the given field of phenomena and on how well he is prepared and organised.

b) Experiment

p Experiment is a research method presupposing a corresponding change in an object or its reproduction under conditions specially created for this purpose.

p In contrast to observation, where the subject does not interfere with the phenomenon under study, but confines himself to recording its natural state, experiment involves the subject’s active interference in the field of phenomena under study, disruption of the natural state of things, and the placing of an object under different, specially created conditions. The researcher thus compels the object to react to the new conditions and to reveal new properties not observed in its natural state. Moreover, by changing these conditions, he traces how these and other properties of the object change and thus obtains plentiful data on 158 the object’s behaviour under different circumstances.

By making an experiment, the researcher proceeds from the information he has on the given field of phenomena, and on this basis choses the ways and means of conducting the experiment. Besides, he is guided by certain assumptions that are to be either confirmed or refuted by the experiment. In other words, although experiment involves new concrete data about the object under study, it entails not only the sensuous forms of cognition, but also abstract thinking.

c) Comparison

p Comparison is the way of revealing the likeness to or difference from other phenomena of the phenomenon under study. It is a necessary method of research widely used at different stages in the development of cognition. Scientific knowledge is inconceivable without it.

Indeed, the aim of science is to reveal what is common and recurrent in phenomena, thus penetrating their essence. By comparing the object under study with other objects, and data obtained under certain conditions at a certain time with data obtained under other conditions at another time, we establish what is common. Comparison helps in revealing that which is recurrent in phenomena and in formulating on this basis some common propositions as regards the object under study.

159

d) Hypothesis

p Hypothesis is a major form of thinking linking theoretical with empirical knowledge and ensuring a transition from reflecting the external aspects of phenomena to reflecting their internal aspects.

p Hypothesis is an assumption, based on established facts, of the cause underlying certain phenomena.

p A hypothesis is advanced in the following way. First, all phenomena relating to the object under study are thoroughly examined. Through observation and experiment, data are collected on the object’s perceivable properties, their changes and connections with other phenomena. Analysis of these data makes it possible to assume a likely cause behind the properties observed. A number of conclusions are made on the basis of the assumption, which are then verified. If a certain assumed conclusion does not bring about the anticipated result under the corresponding circumstances, the hypothesis is proved false. If, however, all the anticipated consequences are observed, the hypothesis is recognised as scientifically sound. Later on, as it is further substantiated and confirmed by experience, the hypothesis becomes a scientific theory and authentic knowledge.

p The process of building up a hypothesis and transforming it into authentic knowledge may be easily traced from the explanation of the fact that the radioactivity of a substance exposed to neutrons increases in the presence of some light substances.

160

p Bruno Pontecorvo and Edoardo Amaldi noticed in their experiments that the amount of radioactivity acquired by a substance exposed to radiation depends on surrounding objects. For example, when a silver cylinder was exposed to radiation in a lead box its radioactivity was negligible; when, however, it was exposed on a wooden support, its radioactivity increased significantly. When analysing the circumstances of this phenomenon, Enrico Fermi made the following assumption as regards the reason for the greater radioactivity of a substance when exposed to radiation in the vicinity of light bodies.

p Inside a substance, a neutron collides with a nucleus and loses part of its energy. The amount of energy it loses in every particular case depends, however, on what nucleus-heavy or light-it collides with. If it collides with a heavy nucleus, such as the nucleus of the lead atom, it bounces off at virtually the same speed, i.e. it loses very little energy. If, however, it collides with a light nucleus, such as that of the hydrogen atom, it bounces off, having transmitted to it part of its energy, at a slower speed. It follows that the lighter the nucleus, the more energy is lost by the neutron upon colliding with it. But a change in the neutron’s speed increases its chances of being captured by the nuclei of the atoms of the substance through which it passes, since, when travelling at a slower speed, it interects with nuclei for a longer time. So, when light bodies, such as wood containing a great amount of hydrogen, are close to a substance exposed to radiation, neutrons 161 passing through them slow down and are captured by atomic nuclei more frequently, which results in increased radioactivity.

p Having disclosed the assumed reason for the greater radioactivity of a substance exposed to neutron radiation, Fermi made a corresponding conclusion-the radioactivity of substances exposed to neutron radiation must increase in the presence of any light body.

p In order to verify this conclusion, Fermi decided to expose silver to neutron radiation in paraffin, which contains far more hydrogen atoms than wood that increases its radioactivity in the presence of silver. The silver exposed to radiation in paraffin acquired still more radioactivity than when it was exposed on a wooden support. This fact showed that Fermi’s assumption was true.

Hypothesis plays an exceptionally important part in the development of scientific knowledge. This is not fortuitous, because it is a form of transition from description to explanation of the object under study, from recording its external manifestations to reproducing their inner causes.

e) Analogy

p Analogy is another form of thinking that makes possible the transition from empirical to theoretical knowledge.

p Analogy is an inference making it possible to draw conclusions about the similarity of objects in certain of their properties on the basis of the similarity of their other properties.

162

p Analogy is normally used as a form of thinking in dealing with a phenomenon that is more or less studied and resembles other phenomena not yet studied. Given this resemblance, one can assume that a phenomenon not yet studied is governed by laws inherent in the first phenomenon. This assumption is based on the fact that properties and relations inherent in objects are connected and interdependent, so the presence of some properties and relations presupposes the existence of other properties and relations.

Inference by analogy plays an important part in scientific progress. Many major scientific discoveries were made by transferring laws intrinsic to one sphere of phenomena to another. The Dutch physicist Christian Huygens, for example, concluded that light had a wave form on the basis of its resemblance, in many ways, to sound. Kronig compared the motion of gas molecules with the motion of resilient balls, established some features common to both processes and on this basis calculated gas pressure. A similarity between the flow of fluid in a pipe and of electrons in a conductor helped in developing the theory of electric current. Lastly, the discovery of a certain resemblance between reflective processes in a living organism and some physical processes was conducive to the development of cybernetic devices.

f) Model-building

p The close connection between empirical and theoretical knowledge and the transition from the 163 first to the second are also effected through another method of scientific analysis-model-building.

p Model-building is reproduction ot certain properties and connections ot the object under study in another specially created object-a model-in order to study them more closely.

p A geographical map which reproduces certain properties and connections of the Earth’s surface is an ideal example of a model. Cybernetic machines imitating the properties of the human brain, and structural formulae reproducing the properties and connections of the molecules or atoms of a certain substance, are also models.

p Model-building is very similar to analogy. Here, too, the discovery of certain properties inherent in one object-the model-provides grounds for concluding that the same properties are intrinsic to another object-the object of cognition.

p The advantage of model-building is that it makes it possible to single out certain properties of the object under study, conceive them in their pure form and study them in the absence of the original. This is vitally important whenever access to the object or action upon it are hampered by certain circumstances or are not possible at all.

p There are material and ideal (logical) models. Material models are objects specially made or selected by man to physically reproduce certain properties, connections and processes inherent in the object under study. Material models exist in reality, function and develop according to some objective laws that exist outside and independently of the human mind. A model of a house, 164 a bridge or a dam, for example, is a material model.

p Ideal models are mental constructions, images, theoretical schemes that reproduce in an ideal form the properties and connections of the object under study. These models are formed with the help of particular symbols, figures and other material means. As distinct from material models, ideal models do not reproduce the physical state and properties of the object under study-they merely copy or reflect them in the corresponding mental constructions.

The role of model-building in knowledge and practice has especially increased now that cybernetics and mathematical logic have developed.

g) Induction and Deduction

p Another form of thinking-induction-is widely used at the empirical stage of knowledge.

p Induction is inference in the process of which a general conclusion is made on the basis of knowledge of particular cases in relation to all phenomena of the given class.

p As a rule, knowledge obtained through induction is only a probability and is problematic, because a general conclusion is drawn here on the basis of a simple repetition of a particular property in all the phenomena under study. The presence of a property in these cases certainly does not mean that it will necessarily be observed in other phenomena not yet studied. It may or may not be. It will necessarily be observed if it is law- 165 governed; it may not be if it is not connected with the nature of the phenomena of a given class and stems from external circumstances. Induction, however, cannot establish whether this property is necessary or accidental. Other methods of scientific cognition are required for this, such as deduction which is connected with the theoretical level of knowledge.

p Deduction is inference in which a new thought is logically developed from certain propositions that are a general rule for all phenomena of a given class. The following inference may serve as an example of deduction. “The state is an instrument used by the ruling class in society to suppress its class enemies. The bourgeoisie is the ruling class in capitalist society, it follows that, in capitalist society, the state is an instrument used  by the bourgeoisie to suppressjts class enemies."

p Deduction is very important in a scientific substantiation of propositions reflecting various aspects and connections of the objects under study that cannot be perceived directly.

Although induction and deduction are two independent forms of thinking, they are intrinsically connected, presuppose one another and cannot ensure the development of knowledge in isolation from each other. By generalising accumulated empirical knowledge, induction paves the way for various assumptions to be made concerning the causes of the phenomena under study and the existence of a certain necessary connection, and for these assumptions to be verified. Deduction, on the other hand, by theoretically substantiating 166 the conclusions drawn through induction, sublates their problematic nature and makes them authentic knowledge. “Induction and deduction,” Engels wrote, “belong together as necessarily as synthesis and analysis. Instead of one-sidedly lauding one to the skies at the expense of the other, we should seek to apply each of them in its place, and that can only be done by bearing in mind that they belong together, that they supplement each other.”  [166•1 

h) The Method of Ascension
from the Abstract to the Concrete

p The abstract is a one-sided reflection in men’s consciousness of the object under study. The concrete is an integral reproduction of the object (1) as a system of abstract concepts or (2) in a sensuously visual form. The first reproduces the object as a unity of its inner, necessary aspects and expresses its essence; the second reproduces the object’s external aspects and is a superficial notion of the whole.

p Ascension from the abstract to the concrete is an important form of theoretical knowledge. It can lead to the reproduction in man’s consciousness of the essence of the object under study through abstract concepts.

p Hegel was the first to develop this method and use it in constructing his philosophical system. The Hegelian method of ascension from the abstract to the concrete, however, was not scientifically grounded, inasmuch as it expressed the 167 development of pure thought that existed prior to nature and man, i.e. was idealist in its essence. Marx developed this method on a materialist and scientific basis in his Capital. According to this method, cognition should start from the abstract, rather than the concrete whole, with analysis of the concepts reflecting particular, very simple aspects and connections of the object under study. Not any very simple abstract concept, however, can serve as a point of departure for studying the whole. This can only be done by the concept that reflects the main aspect or relation of the whole under study. The main aspect (relation) directly affects all other aspects of the whole. For this reason, by taking the main aspect as the point of departure and by viewing it in its development, we can explain the emergence and peculiarities of the other aspects of the whole, and deduce them from changes in the main aspect (relation). By tracing these changes one by one, and explaining one aspect of the whole after another, we shall reproduce in our mind, through a system of concepts, the necessary interconnection and interdependence of all these aspects, thereby arriving at concrete knowledge of the essence of the object under study.

p Marx’s analysis of the capitalist socio-economic system in his Capital may serve as an example of cognition through ascension from the abstract to the concrete. Marx took commodity as the initial, main aspect and explained, on the basis of the development of commodity relations, the formation of all other aspects and connections of the capitalist 168 system. He mentally reproduced the essence of capitalist society through a system of abstract concepts reflecting these aspects and connections.

The method of ascension from the abstract to the concrete is applicable at that stage of knowledge when the whole under study has to a certain extent been examined, when its general aspects and connections have been isolated and expressed in the relevant abstract concepts and definitions. This, however, can be achieved at the stage of knowledge developing from the sensuously concrete to the abstract. For this reason the above form of knowledge should precede the development from the abstract to the concrete.

i) The Historical and the Logical in Knowledge

p The concept “historical” means objective reality in a state ot motion and development. The concept “logical means the necessary connection ot thoughts reflecting surrounding reality in man’s consciousness.

p The historical is primary to the logical, which reflects the former. As such, the logical may or may not correspond to the historical. It does so when the interrelation of thoughts reproduces the actual historical process. It does not correspond to the historical when the interrelation of thoughts does not reflect the history of an object, when, for example, the train of thought proceeds in the opposite direction to the development of history.

p Saying that the logical corresponds to the historical does not mean that this correspondence is 169 complete. The logical does not fully coincide with the historical. “History often proceeds by leaps and zigzags....”  [169•1  The logical must not and cannot reproduce all these zigzags of history. Its sole objective is to reflect the necessary changes, the necessary tendency to pass from one qualitative state to another.

The correspondence of the logical to the historical is an essential aspect of the dialectical method of cognition, particularly the method of ascension from the abstract to the concrete. We have already noted that, according to the method of ascension from the abstract to the concrete, a study begins by finding the general, main aspect ^or relation. The study traces changes in the given aspect or relation, making it possible to explain the formation and transtormation of the other aspects of the whole. The thinking process reproduces connections and relations that somehow reflect the actual formation of the essence of the object under study. As a result, the logical development of thought corresponds to the historical development of the object. True, this correspondence relates only to necessary connections. The logical thus reproduces the historical that is free of fortuity. Engels stressed the agreement between the logical and the historical when proceeding from the abstract to the concrete. He wrote: “The chain of thought must begin with the same thing with which this history begins, and its further course will be nothing else but the reflection of 170 the historical course in abstract and theoretically consistent form; a corrected reflection but corrected according to laws furnished by the real course of history itself. . . .”  [170•1 

j) Analysis and Synthesis

p In the process of cognising the surrounding world, man constantly singles out in his mind certain aspects of the object he studies and synthesises them into combinations in order to obtain new knowledge. The mental division of the object of cognition into its separate parts (properties) is analysis; the mental combination of the separated parts (properties) into one whole is synthesis.

p The forms and methods of research change as knowledge develops and passes from one stage to another. This holds true for both analysis and synthesis. They do not always remain the samethey change as cognition develops.

p So-called direct analysis and synthesis take place during the initial stages in the development of cognition. They are characterised by a direct, purely mechanical breakdown of the whole under study into separate aspects or parts and a direct, mechanical union of the separate aspects or parts into particular combinations. Here, analysis is effected irrespective of synthesis, and vice versa. There is no intrinsic link between the two. This type of analysis and synthesis ensures initial familiarisation with the object, but goes no further.

p A change in cognition from recording the 171 properties and connections observed on the surface of phenomena to revealing the causes underlying them, gives rise to a new, reflexive type of analysis and synthesis.

p Reflexive analysis is not confined to a mechanical breakdown of a whole into its component parts, but rather involves breaking it up into cause and effect. Reflexive synthesis is not a mechanical combination of separated parts-it is a combination reflecting a cause-and-effect connection. This connection is a pivot for the analytical and synthetical activity of the brain. It directs and unites this activity.

p The above type of analysis and synthesis helps explain separate parts of the whole under study and reveal their nature and causes. It is unable, however, to reproduce all its aspects and connections in their natural interdependence, i.e. reproduce its essence in the mind. A need for a new type of analysis and synthesis arises at the stage of cognising the essence of objects. This new type is called progressive or system-structural analysis and synthesis.

p A characteristic feature of system-structural analysis and synthesis is that the break-up of the whole into separate parts and the combining of the parts into one whole corresponds to the actual breakdown of a material entity into separate phenomena, qualitatively definite aspects and properties and to the actual, natural interconnection of these aspects and properties. In this case, analysis and synthesis form a natural unity and are effected at one and the same time. An analytical 172 action here is also a synthetical one. For example, the deduction of such phenomena of bourgeois society as money, surplus value, labour force, and capital from the development of commodity relations is not only analysis, but also synthesis, not only a breakdown of the object under study into its separate manifestations, but also a reproduction of the whole system of connections arising between these phenomena.

p Lenin’s study of the imperialist stage of capitalism may serve as an example of the use of the above types of analysis and synthesis in scientific knowledge. In the course of this study Lenin analysed primarily available material on imperialism and singled out the separate aspects distinguishing it from the pre-monopoly stage. He found the following characteristic features of imperialism: the concentration of capital and the formation of monopolies, a change in the role of banks, the emergence of finance capital, the export of capital, the division of the world among capitalist countries. At this stage of his study Lenin combined the characteristic features of imperialism he had singled out into one whole, not in the sequence reflecting their natural necessary interdependence, but in that in which they had been treated in the economic studies he analysed. In this case Lenin used direct analysis and synthesis.

p Lenin used reflexive analysis and synthesis to expose the cause of a certain feature of the imperialist stage of development and to define its nature. This type of analysis and synthesis enabled him to establish, for instance, that monopoly arises 173 as a result of excessive concentration of production.

p After explaining the specific properties of imperialism he had singled out, Lenin found the main determining aspect underlying all the other properties of imperialism: the emergence and domination of monopolies. This is the basis underlying the development of the imperialist essence of capitalism. It is, as Lenin put it, the general and main law of the given stage of capitalism.  [173•1 

p Lenin took monopoly as his point of departure, traced its development and reproduced the essence of imperialism in a system of economic concepts. He pointed out that the appearance of monopoly in production resulted in the elimination of the predominance of free competition and made it possible to ensure approximate accounting of production, markets, raw material sources and their division among monopoly associations. The emergence of banking monopolies turned the banks from modest intermediaries into almighty managers of “almost the whole of the money capital of all the capitalists and small businessmen...".  [173•2  This led to the merger of banks and industry and the rise of finance capital, the domination of the financial oligarchy, the formation of surplus capital in some countries and the consequent export of capital to other countries, which has virtually resulted in the division of the world into spheres of influence among the largest capitalist countries.

174

p Taking monopoly as a basis for deducing the features of the imperialist stage in the development of capitalism, Lenin singled out certain particular aspects of the whole under study and put them within the context of their necessary interconnection and interdependence that express the actual essence of imperialism. Any train of thought here is both analytic and synthetic, i.e. both the breakdown of the whole into separate aspects and the combination of the separate aspects into one comprehensive whole. All this indicates that, at this stage of his research, Lenin used system-structural analysis and synthesis.

The above example shows that each of the types of analysis and synthesis discussed is connected with a particular stage in the development of knowledge and has its own essential sphere of use.