In modern science, the desire to build a general scientific picture of a shooting gallery on the basis of the principles of universal (global) evolutionism, uniting the ideas of evolutionary and systemic approaches into a single whole, is clearly manifested.
Global evolutionism is a doctrine that unites biological and cultural evolution in the concept of "co-evolution", which is based on the unity of man and nature, as well as natural and human sciences, recognizing the universal nature of evolutionary processes and, as a result, the fundamental nature of the laws of the development of the Universe.
This doctrine reveals a single process of evolution - from the appearance of chemical elements to the emergence of man. The project of combining biological and social evolution was proposed by Vernadsky, was expressed in his theory of the biosphere and noosphere, and then was developed by T. de Chardin, while the concept of global or universal evolutionism itself was developed by I. Prigogine, E. Young, N. N Moiseev within the framework of synergetics. Global evolutionism can also be viewed in a broader sense, namely, as a denial of the predetermined laws of nature and, in this sense, as overcoming the theological model of creation. Global evolutionism as a scientific paradigm is preceded by three stages in the development of science:
1. The denial of evolutionism in general, which is characteristic of classical science, and in particular of physics. At this stage, the immutability of the laws of nature and the impossibility of the development of matter are recognized: the world has no beginning in time, and all living organisms arise simultaneously.
2. Acceptance of evolutionism as the dominant model of explanation in individual sciences (biology and astronomy). At the same time, self-organization is allowed at certain levels of matter, which occurs by chance.
3. Global evolutionism, recognizing the variability of even the laws of nature. The most important in this regard are the following provisions: the world has a beginning in time, there are levels of organization of matter that necessarily arise from each other, thereby having a predetermined form and suggest a hierarchy - elementary particles, atoms, molecules, organisms, social structures, structures of thinking . This type of evolutionism was developed by V. I. Vernadsky. The picture of the world that is formed by global evolutionism includes not only the physical picture of the world, but also the sciences of life, the sciences of man.
Three major modern scientific approaches contributed to the justification of global evolutionism: theory of non-stationary Universe, concept of biosphere and noosphere, ideas of synergetics.
Two scientific discoveries played a special role in shaping the concept of global evolutionism: discovery of self-organizing systems(systems that are formed from chaos and change their structure under the influence of spontaneous processes of information exchange with the environment) and anthropic principle(The appearance of a person in the Universe according to this principle is not an accident, but a consequence of the formation of a favorable situation, in other words, the appearance of a person is a natural result of the development of the Universe). The combination of these discoveries can be made as follows: in order for the necessary conditions for the appearance of an observer to arise in the Universe, it is necessary to imagine it as a self-developing system that develops according to the same laws as other similar systems. This thesis is substantiated by experiments carried out in thermodynamics and biology. The appearance of mind from the point of view of global evolutionism is a natural event in the evolution of the Universe.
The followers of global evolutionism suggest that scientists can reconstruct the process of the Universe development from its appearance to the formation of the modern stage of development of human civilization, and link cosmogenesis, geogenesis, biogenesis and anthroposociogenesis into a single process. Such a project can be carried out only with the interaction of various areas of scientific knowledge based on the integration processes taking place in science. The goal of global evolutionism is to create a theory that would unite various conceptual systems of knowledge. However, integration processes are associated with certain difficulties. Thus, the processes of self-organization of living organisms are associated with qualitative changes, complication of the structure, therefore this model cannot be applied to processes of inorganic nature; because of this, such sciences as, for example, mechanics or inorganic chemistry fall out of the integration process. The presence of this discrepancy casts doubt on the very possibility of formulating a general law of development. In addition, global evolutionism poses the problem of the future of the universe. In classical science, it did not exist, since it was believed that the universe is infinite. The question of the role of humanity in its fate also remains open.
There are two points of view: 1) fatalistic, according to which the world is a space in which evolutionary processes unfold; and human existence is also conditioned by these processes, therefore humanity cannot influence the fate of the Universe and cannot prevent its own death; 2) voluntaristic, which provides a person with the opportunity to influence the processes of evolution of the Universe; this becomes possible when the laws of its development are somehow connected with the mind; moreover, it depends on human activity whether the universe will exist or disappear. Finalistic concepts are formed in biology, physics, chemistry, and other sciences; they are formulated as theories of the "death of the Universe." The concept of an ever-evolving Universe is also being developed in Russian cosmism (K. E. Tsiolkovsky, A. L. Chizhevsky, V. I. Vernadsky, and others).
The term "paradigm" comes from the ancient Greek word "paradeigma", which translates as "example, model, sample." There are paradigms absolute, scientific, state, personal and generally accepted. This article analyzes the concept of "scientific paradigm". This concept was introduced into literature in the 1960s by the American philosopher and historian of science T. Kuhn.
A scientific paradigm is a system of several fundamental theories that have guided the development of human science for some time. Examples of such theories are Ptolemy's astronomy, Newton's mechanics, Euclid's geometry, Darwin's theory of evolution, Bohr's theory of the atom, Einstein's theory of relativity, etc. Similar universal theories are created by talented scientists who, with their help, explain previously incomprehensible phenomena of the world around them in an accessible way for all educated people. Theories tested by practice are consolidated in scientific articles, abstracts, dissertations, popular science publications, and then they are included in textbooks of all levels. In this way, a new scientific ideology - a paradigm - spreads and becomes fixed in people's minds. For some time, it defines the range of the most important problems for modern science and ways to solve them. All issues that do not fall within the scope of the dominant paradigm are declared insignificant and are not subject to consideration.
Any scientific paradigm depends on the level of development of society: a low level of social consciousness will not accept a scientific paradigm developed by a thinker ahead of his time. An example of this is the fate of the Serbian electrical and radio engineer N. Tesla (1856-1943) and the Russian scientist-cosmist K.E. Tsiolkovsky (1957-1935). If the scientific paradigm corresponds to the level of development of public consciousness, it is recognized by the majority of scientists, and then it becomes the official scientific ideology, uniting the bulk of researchers around itself.
In any particular society, there is only one scientific paradigm, which is accepted, developed and defended by almost all scientists in the scientific community. People who, for some reason, begin to investigate issues that are insignificant, in the opinion of the scientific community, as a rule, lose financial support from the state and become outcasts in science.
Modern scientific paradigm
The current scientific paradigm is based on global theoretical studies of outstanding philosophers and scientists of their time - Yuri Lotman (1922-1993), Barry Smith (b.1950), Charles Darwin (1809-1882), Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936) Niels Bohr (1985-1962), Albert Einstein (1879-1955) and many others. It is based on the following main ideological principles:
· Matter is primary, consciousness is secondary.
The world is known.
The universe and life are not created by anyone. They arose as a result of a random combination of circumstances.
· Physical matter is the only form of existence of animate and inanimate nature.
· Life is a unique phenomenon that exists only on Earth.
· Humans evolved from apes.
Development of human knowledge
Human society develops in stages. At each of these stages, a person encounters incomprehensible phenomena of the world around him, studies them and tries to explain them. Attempts to study and explain nature and society in this way can be based on pre-scientific, scientific and extra-scientific worldviews.
The pre-scientific stage of social development includes the pre-scientific and pre-scientific periods that existed at the stage of primitive society. Pre-scientific knowledge about the world is usually reflected in mythology, which combines real knowledge and fabulous, unrealistic attempts to interpret it. At the stage of pre-science, the world is divided into physical and otherworldly. There is a close connection between these worlds: a person can travel both on earth and through the levels and spaces of the other world, where he meets with dead ancestors, receives knowledge that is inaccessible on earth and applies it in earthly practice. At this stage, information is collected, accumulated and stored. Science as such does not exist.
Pre-scientific stage
- the era of ancient civilizations (Mesopotamia; Ancient Egypt, China, India; the ancient world). The knowledge accumulated and preserved by this time reaches a significant volume, the life experience of mankind is also quite large; there comes a moment when the information must be "sorted out" and thought out. Scientific disciplines are born and begin to develop, and philosophy becomes the first of them.
Soon, medicine, mathematics, astrology and some other disciplines branch off from philosophy. Pre-science is still connected with the religious and mythological worldview, it is not independent and has an applied character, that is, it develops only in the interests of human practical activity. During this period, knowledge turns into an object of worship and becomes the monopoly of the priests. Real knowledge about the world is mixed with magic and acquires a sacred (secret) character.
The cradle of modern science is Ancient Greece, especially the stage of its highest development (6-4 centuries BC), as well as Ancient Rome (III century BC - 1 century AD). The Greeks borrowed knowledge from the Egyptians, Babylonians, scientists of ancient India. This allowed them to summarize a huge amount of information, systematize it and start looking for scientific evidence. It is no coincidence that the terms lemma, theorem, axiom appeared in Ancient Greece.
However, the ancient scientists could not proceed to the scientific interpretation of knowledge. Until the 17th century, experiment and practical experience were not recognized in pre-scientific knowledge and, with rare exceptions, were not used. Human feelings and ideas based on them were considered a crude form of knowledge. Scientists relied primarily on intuition and divine revelation, by which we understand today the connection with the Information Field of the Earth.
In addition, there was still no clear division of knowledge in specific sciences, the same phenomenon was studied and explained from the standpoint of several disciplines. In contrast to the pre-scientific period, ancient pre-science did not connect its research with practical human activity, therefore the knowledge it received was not tested in practice. In science, interest in the state, politics and law still prevailed.
Science as one of the forms of social consciousness began to take shape in the Renaissance (XVII century) and finally took shape during the XVII century. Its origins are the works of the English materialist philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and the English mathematician, physicist and astronomer Isaac Newton (1643-1727).
By this time, scientific work is gradually turning into professional activity, a layer of scientific intelligentsia appears and begins to grow rapidly in society. Latin ceases to be considered a scientific language, its place is taken by national languages. The basis of any research activity is an experiment that confirms or refutes theoretical propositions. And only the experiment is now considered a measure of the correctness of the conclusions drawn.
In contrast to the sacred knowledge of pre-science, all the acquired knowledge is widely distributed among the educated part of society. The culmination of this desire to popularize scientific knowledge is the famous Encyclopedia, compiled and published by French enlighteners in the second half of the 18th century (1751-1780). This work brought together all the knowledge accumulated by mankind by that time.
Since the middle of the twentieth century, the rate of scientific and technological development of human civilization has increased dramatically compared to previous periods, and over the past 60 years, science has made a real breakthrough in a number of areas of scientific knowledge. New scientific branches arose and began to develop rapidly. There are many of them in physical science alone: astrophysics, mathematical physics, medical physics, quantum physics, plasma physics…
In a short time, scientists managed to significantly expand the range of knowledge about the Cosmos (discovery of pulsars and neutron stars, confirmation of the existence of antimatter, dark matter and dark energy). Methods for studying the Universe are rapidly improving (manned flight to the moon, creation of space orbital and interplanetary stations).
Thanks to scientific discoveries, a breakthrough has been made in the development and improvement of the system for receiving and processing information (Internet, flash memory). The successes of science in the field of communications (cellular and video phones), in medicine (heart transplantation and the creation of its artificial substitute, the discovery of embryonic stem cells), in everyday life and recreation are impressive.
However, at present, terrestrial science has faced a number of problems, which it cannot explore and explain on the basis of the scientific paradigm that exists today. How was the cellular structure of the universe formed? What is "dark matter" and "dark energy"? Do torsion fields really exist? What is the nature of the ether? There are no scientifically sound answers to these questions.
Extra-scientific knowledge
- this is a type of scientific activity in the process of which scientists use not only the methods and means allowed by the current scientific paradigm, but also the possibilities prohibited by it to obtain new information.
Extra-scientific knowledge seeks to study the world in all ways available to man. So, at present, the basis of any academic research is a scientific experiment with subsequent observation of the results. The scientist must see and touch the results of his research. But the phenomena of the Subtle World (human aura, biofields of animals and plants) cannot be seen or touched by an ordinary researcher, therefore clairvoyance, clairaudience and other forms of a more developed consciousness as methods of research are prohibited by the modern scientific paradigm.
However, these methods in practice are increasingly proving their scientific viability, since their research and conclusions, in the presence of special equipment, are confirmed by academic science itself. And it must be said that the technical equipment of modern knowledge has reached such a high level that it makes it possible to start researching levels of the material and non-material world that were previously inaccessible to humans.
The most advanced representatives of the academic community are beginning to understand the need to combine the methods of academic knowledge (scientific experiment, observation) with the possibilities of non-scientific methods of research, subject to strict control over the results obtained using the latest equipment.
At the same time, scientists - enthusiasts are convinced that modern science should study the entire previous experience of mankind, which today is united by the term " Ancient Knowledge”, and actively use it in the scientific study of the world, since many of the details of this previously lost layer of information are beginning to be confirmed in practice.
All this causes a sharp protest on the part of the defenders of the current scientific paradigm, and this protest often takes the form of an open struggle. However, the evolutionary development of nature and human society cannot be stopped, therefore, in the depths of the old academic science, a new scientific paradigm is being formed today, the basic principle of which should be the unity of experiment and extra-scientific methods of obtaining information.
To be continued.
Global evolutionism is an integrative research direction that takes into account the dynamics of the development of the inorganic, organic and social worlds. It relies on the idea of the unity of the universe and the idea that the whole world is a huge evolving system. In the modern philosophy of science, one of the central places is assigned to global evolutionism. The concept of global evolutionism took shape in the 80s. 20th century Coming out of the bowels of the natural sciences, based on the laws of the Universe, it is distinguished by its universality and huge integrative potential.
Global evolutionism includes four types of evolution: cosmic, chemical, biological and social evolution - uniting them with genetic and structural continuity.
Along with the desire to combine ideas about animate and inanimate nature, social life and technology, one of the goals of global evolutionism is the need to integrate natural science, social science, humanitarian and technical knowledge, i.e. global evolutionism claims to create a new type of holistic knowledge that combines scientific, methodological and philosophical foundations. The emergence of synergetics also testifies to the search for global and general evolutionary patterns that universally unite the development of systems of different nature.
According to V.S. Stepin, three most important modern scientific approaches contributed to the substantiation of global evolutionism: the theory of a non-stationary Universe, the concept of the biosphere and noosphere, as well as the ideas of synergetics.
Evolutionary processes of space, stellar groups of clusters and galaxies, which are studied by astronomy, are probabilistic in nature. They are described in the language of statistical regularities. Dynamic laws apply to the evolution of stars and planets. In the evolution of the living, one of the important postulates is the statement about the random nature of mutations. The anthropic principle fixes the connection between the properties of the expanding Universe and the possibility of the emergence of life in it. The properties of our Universe are due to the presence of fundamental physical constants, with a slight change in which the structure of the Universe would be different from the existing one. The hypothetical nature of the idea of the anthropic principle does not reduce the significance of the problem of cosmic evolutionism. Global evolutionism also reveals contradictions between the provisions of Darwin's evolutionary theory, which proclaims the selection and strengthening of the orderliness of forms and states of living things, and the second law of thermodynamics, which proclaims the growth of entropy - a measure of chaos. The chemical form of global evolutionism traces the totality of interatomic compounds and their transformations that occur with the breaking of some atomic bonds and the formation of others. Within its framework, various classes of compounds, types of chemical reactions are studied.
In understanding global evolutionism, the anthropic principle is of great importance, which fixes the connection between the properties of the expanding Universe and the possibility of the emergence of life in it.
The properties of our Universe are due to the presence of fundamental physical constants, with a slight change in which the structure of our Universe would be different from the existing one.
The hypothetical nature of the anthropic principle does not reduce the significance of cosmic evolution. Global evolutionism reveals contradictions between the provisions of Darwin's evolutionary theory and the second
beginning of thermodynamics. The first proclaims the selection and strengthening of the orderliness of the forms and states of the living, the second - the growth of entropy - a measure of chaos.
Within the framework of global evolutionism, much attention is paid to biological evolution. Evolutionary teachings (Lamarck, Darwin, and others) recreated a picture of the natural historical change in life forms, the emergence and transformation of species, the transformation of biogeocenoses and the biosphere. In the XX century. a synthetic theory of evolution arose, in which a synthesis of the main provisions of Darwin's evolutionary theory, modern genetics, and a number of the latest biological generalizations was proposed.
Humanity as a product of natural evolution is subject to its basic laws. The stage of slow, gradual change in society is called social evolution. Moreover, the changes taking place in society are not carried out simultaneously and are multidirectional.
The evolution of human society occurs while maintaining the genetic constants of the Homo sapiens species and is realized through interrelated processes of development of social structures, social consciousness, production systems, science, technology, material and spiritual culture. The qualitative nature of these interactions is changing as a result of scientific and technological progress, technoevolution, the speed of which, unlike bioevolution, is constantly increasing. With a large difference in the rates of bioevolution and technoevolution (three tenths of an order), it is impossible to talk about the co-evolution of nature and society. Focal and local consequences of environmental degradation lead to diseases, mortality, genetic deformity, they are fraught with regional and global consequences.
Therefore, the problem of “co-evolution”, which means the coordinated existence of nature and humanity, becomes important in the theory of global evolutionism. The mechanisms of humanity's "growing" into nature include biological, technical and social aspects. This is a complex integrative quality of interactions of micro-, macro-reality and the reality of a global cosmic scale, where one level is superimposed on another, modifies the third under its pressure, etc. Man is inseparable from the biosphere, he lives in it and at the same time he himself is a part of it. The implementation of the principle of co-evolution is a necessary condition for ensuring its future. The collective mind and collective will of humanity must be able to ensure the joint development (co-evolution) of nature and society.
The concept of “evolution” entered the intellectual discourse in the 17th century, the first evolutionist concepts of the development of man, society, and culture were created by the enlighteners: Voltaire, Condorcet, Saint-Simon. Since the time of Aristotle, in philosophy there has been an idea of development as self-development, i.e. change in accordance with the internal principle of development, which was considered embodied in the "seed" or "herm" of all things. This idea is extended by the founders of classical evolutionism G. Spencer, E.B. Tylor, L.G. Morgan, who, abandoning the idea of providentialism, put forward the idea of internal sources for the development of culture and society. As a scientific paradigm, evolutionism arises at the end of the 19th century, it is an international scientific tradition: in England, its representatives are G. Spencer, J. Lebock, E. Tylor, J. Fraser, in Germany - A. Bastian, T. Weitz, Yu Lippert, in France - C. Letourneau, in the USA - L.G. Morgan, Russia is developing such a variety of evolutionism as a formational approach. The latter is part of the Marxist-Leninist scientific paradigm cultivated in Soviet Russia. In the 50s of the 20th century, neo-evolutionism was formed, whose representatives L. White, T. Parsons direct their efforts to identify patterns of general and specific, micro- and macroevolution.
The founder of evolutionism as a scientific tradition is Herbert Spencer(1820 - 1903) - English philosopher, sociologist, methodologist, author of the works "Basic Principles", "Foundations of Biology", "Foundations of Psychology", "Foundations of Sociology", "Foundations of Ethics". He viewed evolution as an integration (bringing to an articulate unity) of matter, accompanied by a dissipation of motion, during which the unspent motion undergoes a similar transformation. Spencer was not a supporter of a uniform linear progress, on the contrary, he believed that social types, like the types of individual organisms, do not form a certain series, but are distributed only into divergent and branching groups. Spencer believed that the development of society is due to both external (natural and cultural environment) and internal (racial, mental characteristics) factors. In his vision, a developed society has three organ systems: a supporting system that ensures the production of necessary products; a distribution system that streamlines the distribution of manufactured products; and a regulatory system that subjugates parts, elements of culture to the whole. Evolution, according to Spencer, is subject to a universal law: any natural or social phenomenon goes from the original undivided syncretic integrity to the differentiation of parts within the whole with their subsequent integration into a new integrity, which is the unity of diversity. Development, therefore, is a three-stage process: it begins with the quantitative growth of the elements of the system, quantitative growth leads to functional and structural differentiation of the whole, which creates a need for coherence or integration. Spencer tested his scheme on extensive ethnographic material, he studied the evolution of various social institutions (industrial, distribution, political, domestic, ritual, church), calling them organs of a self-regulating social system.
One of the founders of evolutionism is an English ethnographer, methodologist, author of the following works: "Primitive Culture", "Anthropology", "On the method of studying the development of institutions", "Research in the field of ancient history of mankind" Edward Barnett Tylor(1832 - 1917). Like Spencer, Tylor tried to apply Darwin's theory of evolution to social phenomena. The scientist considered the history of mankind as a continuation of the history of nature, respectively, he qualified historiography as a continuation of natural science. Tylor believed that the historical process is subject to rigid causal relationships and the task of the scientist is to identify these relationships. He was a consistent supporter of the theory of the progressive development of culture and society. The scientist criticized the theory of "degradationism" of Count de Maistre, according to which, starting from the appearance on earth of a semi-civilized race of people, history moved in two ways: back to the society of savages, and forward to the society of civilized people. Taylor explained cultural differences by the asynchrony of the evolution of different peoples, their being at different stages of sociocultural development. It should be noted that Tylor did not deny the possibility of regressive movements in culture, however, he believed that progress was the main direction. The scientist was convinced that all cultures should go through approximately the same stages in general cultural development as civilized European countries - from an ignorant state to an enlightened one. Thus, in Taylor's teachings, all peoples and all cultures were united in a common, progressively developing evolutionary series. He writes: “The origin of the latest civilization from the Middle Ages, the development of this latter in turn from the civilization of Greece, Assyria or Egypt - all this is the generally accepted property of historiography. Thus, if a higher culture can be traced back to that state which can be called middle culture, then the only question remains whether this middle culture can be traced back in the same way to a lower culture, i.e. to a wild state" (1).
Starting from the idea of the development of culture as the evolution of species, Tylor forms a methodological apparatus, the basis of which is the natural science systematics. The key principle of Tylor's methodology is the principle of classifying cultural phenomena by species and their arrangement in evolutionary series - from simpler to more complex species. Tylor's initial research procedure is the procedure for identifying the types and varieties of cultural phenomena, their systematization and classification according to common features, just as biology singles out, systematizes and classifies plant and animal species. As types and varieties of cultural phenomena, he has such elements of material and spiritual culture as: myths, rituals, tools, weapons, etc. The next after the selection of culture species, the research procedure is associated with tracing the evolution of each of the selected species. The task of the researcher, in the vision of Tylor, is to trace the improvement of one or another tool, ritual, myth. Tylor writes: “Fire making, kitchen art, pottery, weaving can be traced along the lines of their gradual improvement. Music begins with the rattle and drum, which, in one form or another, retain their place throughout the history of civilization, while the flute and stringed instruments are already the latest achievement of musical art ”(2). This approach was based on the belief that each element or type of culture develops independently, and the progress of culture is the gradual displacement of less perfect species by more perfect ones. At the same time, the evolution of each species or element of culture was studied in isolation, without connection with the evolution of other species. Culture in this context was presented as a collection of species, losing its integrity and internal unity.
The most important element of Tylor's methodology was the theory of "survivals". By a relic, he understood rituals, customs, etc., which, being transferred by force of habit from one stage of culture characteristic of it, to another, later one, remain a living testimony or monument of the past. The scientist believed that at first they have a mythological content, and then they acquire a metaphorical character. Tylor believed that on the basis of these living evidence of an older culture, it is possible to reconstruct the historical past. At the same time, the scientist believed that mystical and ecstatic practices are harmful remnants that do not fit into the educational-rationalistic way of life of a civilized society.
The techniques used by Tylor for the natural scientific study of cultural phenomena were later called typological comparison and became an integral part of the comparative historical method.
As for Tylor's research topics, his favorite topic was religious culture. The scientist studied the development of religious ideas among various peoples of the world from disparate animistic beliefs, fetishism, totemism to established polytheistic systems and modern world religions. He created the animistic concept of religion. In Tylor's interpretation, animism is the "minimum of religion", the first religion that appeared along with the separation of man from the animal kingdom and the emergence of culture. It represents the basis of the primary source of archaic and modern religions.
A prominent representative of evolutionism is James George Frazier(1854 - 1941) - English (Scottish) anthropologist, folklorist, historian of religion. Fraser's main works: The Golden Bough, Folklore in the Old Testament. "Totemism and exogamy" "Reverence for nature".
Fraser is an armchair scientist, he received research materials from missionaries who lived in the colonies, as well as from special questionnaires sent to him. Fraser's main study is The Golden Bough, which presents extensive material on primitive magic, totemism, animism, taboos, folklore, and customs. A distinctive feature of Fraser's research is the desire to understand, explain, build a hierarchy of such cultural phenomena as myths, customs, rituals. He is considered the creator of the historical approach to the Holy Scriptures, in which the Holy Scriptures are considered as a source of information about real events in the life of mankind. Fraser undertook a comparative study of the Old Testament and the mythology of other peoples. He put forward the idea of the origin of myth from ritual, the connection of Christianity with the ancient cult of dying and resurrecting gods, and so on.
The scientist formulates the theory of the evolution of human thinking. Starting from the idea of the unity of the mental nature of man, Fraser identifies three stages in the evolution of human thinking: magical, religious and scientific, corresponding to three ways of relating to nature.
Magical thinking is based on the notion that the natural world is governed by impersonal and unchanging laws and that there are causal relationships between ritual practice and natural events. Magic in general relies on superficial associations and thinking by analogy. At the stage of magical thinking, a person believed in his magical abilities, in his magical power.
Religious thinking personifies natural forces; it is based on belief in supernatural beings that rule the world. Accordingly, religious thinking sees causal relationships between religious practices and natural phenomena. At the stage of religious thinking, a person is inclined to attribute supernatural abilities to gods, spirits, to whom he addresses with requests.
Scientific thinking is aimed at revealing the real causal relationships of natural phenomena; to achieve this goal, it uses logical-experimental methods. Knowledge of real causality helps a person to control natural phenomena. At the stage of scientific thinking, the conviction is born that it is possible to influence the natural world only if its laws are known.
Fraser's merit is the introduction of the comparative method into anthropology.
A prominent representative of evolutionism is also an American anthropologist, author of the following works: "Systems of kinship and properties in the human family", "Ancient Society" Lewis Henry Morgan(1818 - 1881). Morgan was a supporter of the evolutionary idea of the uniformity of the development of all peoples. Morgan's most important achievement is the substantiation of evolutionary series by field research facts. The scientist carried out comparative studies of the facts of kinship on the material of the culture of North American Indian tribes, as a result of which he showed that it was the genus that was the “primary cell” of primitive society. Fraser divided the history of mankind into two periods: the early one, characterized by the tribal organization of the social system, and the later one, determined by other territorial, political and economic ways of social organization.
Morgan can be considered the forerunner of the "materialistic understanding of history", since he believed that the development of productive forces, technology lies at the basis of cultural progress. Morgan considered the collective ownership of land to be the original form of ownership. Private property became dominant, in his vision, in connection with the general growth of productive forces. Morgan carries out a periodization of the history of ancient culture on the basis of "inventions and discoveries". The most important historical milestones that marked the transition from one type of culture to another, in his vision were: making fire, the invention of the bow, pottery, agriculture, cattle breeding, iron processing. He connected the idea of natural evolution with the idea of the progress of the human mind. Morgan believed that the main goal of progress is the common good of mankind, which will be achieved as a result of the establishment of social harmony and the dominance of reason over private property arbitrariness.
One of the main theorists of neoevolutionism is an American anthropologist, culturologist, methodologist, author of the following works: "The Science of Culture", "The Evolution of Culture", "The Concept of Cultural Systems: The Key to Understanding Tribes and Nations" Leslie Alvin White(1900 - 1975). White introduced the term "culturology" into science. He proposed to distinguish three types of processes in culture and the same number of methods of its interpretation. First, these are temporal processes, which are a chronological sequence of unique events, their study, in White's definition, is history. Secondly, these are formal processes - timeless, structural and functional aspects of phenomena, studied in the framework of structural and functional analysis. Thirdly, these are formal-temporal processes in which phenomena appear as a temporal sequence of forms and which are considered by the evolutionary method.
The starting point of White's evolutionary theory is the idea that the elements of culture cannot exist independently of each other, they are combined into forms of culture. These forms change over time. According to White, evolution is a process in which, in chronological order, one form grows out of another and becomes a third. The scientist argues that if you trace the development of axes, looms, writing, legislation, public organizations, mathematics, philosophy, you can see a consistent change in the forms of their existence. The scientist actively uses the concepts of stages of evolution, progress and proves that different states of culture can and should be evaluated and compared using the words “higher”, “more developed”. White believes that the evolution of cultural forms can be considered both from the standpoint of unilinearity and from the standpoint of multilinearity.
White presents culture as a system of three horizontal layers: technological at the base, philosophical at the top, and social in between. Such a picture, in White's vision, corresponds to their relative roles in the cultural process. The technological system is primary, it lies in the foundation. The social system is a technological function. The philosophical system reflects social relations. “The technological factor is thus the determinant of the cultural system as a whole. It determines the form of social systems, and technology and society together determine the content and direction of philosophy. Of course, it cannot be argued that social systems do not influence technological processes in any way, or that philosophy does not have any influence on social and technological systems. Both are definitely happening. But influencing is one thing; defining is another,” writes White(3). The main source of cultural development, according to White, is the development of technology. The core of White's concept of universal cultural evolutionism is the law that cultural evolution is a function of energy per inhabitant per year. Evolution is thus understood by White as an increase in the amount of energy used. The energy supply of society acts for him as a criterion for the development of cultures. The history of culture, in the representation of an anthropologist, appears as a battle between people and nature for an ever greater level of control over energy. The first level and source of energy was the human body - the muscular strength of man. The era of human energy is being replaced by the era of the conquest of solar energy in the form of cultivation of cultivated plants and the use of domestic animals. Then come the era of wind, water, fossil fuels and nuclear energy.
The level of cultural development is determined, according to White, by three indicators:
1. The amount of energy used per capita;
2. The effectiveness of the technological means by which energy is extracted and put at the service of man;
3. The number of goods and services produced to meet human needs (2).
The scientist proposes to determine the level of cultural development by the formula: E T \u003d C, in which C denotes the level of cultural development, E is the amount of energy consumed per year per capita, T is the degree of efficiency of labor tools used to extract and use energy (5) .
White believes that each way of harnessing energy corresponds to certain cultural values, a certain ideology and a certain social structure.
Similar information.
July 21, 2016
Global evolutionism and the modern scientific picture of the world is a topic that many researchers have devoted their works to. Currently, it is becoming more and more popular, as it addresses the most important issues of science.
The concept of global (universal) evolutionism assumes that the structure of the world is being consistently improved. The world in it is considered as an integrity, which allows us to talk about the unity of the general laws of being and makes it possible to make the universe "commensurate" with a person, to correlate it with him. The concept of global evolutionism, its history, basic principles and concepts are discussed in this article.
background
The idea of the development of the world is one of the most important in European civilization. In its simplest forms (Kantian cosmogony, epigenesis, preformism), it penetrated natural science as early as the 18th century. Already the 19th century can rightfully be called the century of evolution. Theoretical modeling of objects characterized by development began to receive great attention, first in geology, and then in biology and sociology.
The teachings of Ch. Darwin, the research of G. Spencer
Charles Darwin was the first to apply the principle of evolutionism to the realm of reality, thus laying the foundations for modern theoretical biology. Herbert Spencer made an attempt to project his ideas onto sociology. This scientist proved that the evolutionary concept can be applied to various areas of the world that do not belong to the subject of biology. However, classical natural science as a whole did not accept this idea. Evolving systems have long been considered by scientists as a random deviation resulting from local perturbations. Physicists made the first attempt to extend this concept beyond the social and biological sciences by hypothesizing that the universe is expanding.
Big bang concept
The data obtained by astronomers confirmed the inconsistency of the opinion about the stationarity of the Universe. Scientists have found that it has been developing since the Big Bang, which, according to the assumption, provided the energy for its development. This concept appeared in the 40s of the last century, and in the 1970s it was finally established. Thus, evolutionary ideas penetrated into cosmology. The concept of the Big Bang significantly changed the idea of how matter arose in the Universe.
Only by the end of the 20th century, natural science received methodological and theoretical means for the formation of a unified model of evolution, the discovery of general laws of nature that bind the appearance of the Universe, the Solar System, the planet Earth, life and, finally, man and society into one whole. Universal (global) evolutionism is such a model.
The Emergence of Global Evolutionism
In the early 80s of the last century, the concept of interest to us entered modern philosophy. Global evolutionism began to be considered for the first time in the study of integrative phenomena in science, which are associated with the generalization of evolutionary knowledge accumulated in various branches of natural science. For the first time, this term began to define the desire of such disciplines as geology, biology, physics and astronomy to generalize the mechanisms of evolution, to extrapolate. At least, this is the meaning that was invested in the concept of interest to us at first.
Academician N. N. Moiseev pointed out that global evolutionism can bring scientists closer to resolving the issue of meeting the interests of the biosphere and humanity in order to prevent a global ecological catastrophe. The discussion was conducted not only within the framework of methodological science. It is not surprising, because the idea of global evolutionism has a special ideological load, in contrast to traditional evolutionism. The latter, as you remember, was laid down in the writings of Charles Darwin.
Global evolutionism and the modern scientific picture of the world
At present, many estimates of the idea that interests us in the development of the scientific worldview are alternative. In particular, the opinion was expressed that global evolutionism should form the basis of the scientific picture of the world, since it integrates the sciences of man and nature. In other words, it was emphasized that this concept is of fundamental importance in the development of modern natural science. Global evolutionism today is a systematic formation. As V. S. Stepin notes, in modern science, his positions are gradually becoming the dominant feature of the synthesis of knowledge. This is the core idea that permeates special worldviews. Global evolutionism, according to V. S. Stepin, is a global research program that sets the research strategy. Currently, it exists in many versions and variants, characterized by different levels of conceptual elaboration: from unsubstantiated statements that fill ordinary consciousness to detailed concepts that consider in detail the entire course of the evolution of the world.
The essence of global evolutionism
The emergence of this concept is associated with the expansion of the boundaries of the evolutionary approach adopted in the social and biological sciences. The fact of the existence of qualitative leaps to the biological, and from it to the social world, is largely a mystery. It can be comprehended only by assuming the necessity of such transitions between other types of movement. In other words, based on the fact of the existence of the evolution of the world at the later stages of history, it can be assumed that it as a whole is an evolutionary system. This means that as a result of successive change, all other types of movement were formed, in addition to social and biological.
This statement can be considered as the most general formulation of what global evolutionism is. Let us briefly outline its main principles. This will help you better understand what is being said.
Basic principles
The paradigm we are interested in made itself felt as a well-formed concept and an important component of the modern picture of the world in the last third of the last century in the works of specialists in cosmology (A. D. Ursula, N. N. Moiseeva).
According to N. N. Moiseev, the following basic principles underlie global evolutionism:
- The Universe is a single self-developing system.
- The development of systems, their evolution has a directed character: it follows the path of increasing their diversity, complicating these systems, and also reducing their stability.
- Random factors that influence development are inevitably present in all evolutionary processes.
- Heredity dominates the Universe: the present and the future depend on the past, but they are not unambiguously determined by it.
- Considering the dynamics of the world as a constant selection, in which the system chooses the most real ones from many different virtual states.
- The presence of bifurcation states is not denied; as a result, further evolution becomes fundamentally unpredictable, since random factors act during the transition period.
The Universe in the concept of global evolutionism
The Universe in it appears as a natural whole, developing in time. Global evolutionism is the idea according to which the entire history of the Universe is considered as a single process. Cosmic, biological, chemical and social types of evolution in it are interconnected successively and genetically.
Interaction with various fields of knowledge
Evolutionism is the most important component of the evolutionary-synergetic paradigm in modern science. It is understood not in the traditional sense (Darwinian), but through the idea of universal (global) evolutionism.
The primary task of developing the concept that interests us is to overcome the gaps between different areas of being. Its supporters concentrate on those areas of knowledge that can be extrapolated to the entire universe and that could link different fragments of being into a kind of unity. Such disciplines are evolutionary biology, thermodynamics, and recently it has made a great contribution to global evolutionism and synergetics.
However, the concept that interests us at the same time reveals contradictions between the second law of thermodynamics and the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin. The latter proclaims the selection of states and forms of the living, the strengthening of order, and the first - the growth of the measure of chaos (entropy).
The problem of the anthropic principle
Global evolutionism emphasizes that the development of the world whole is aimed at increasing the structural organization. According to this concept, the entire history of the Universe is a single process of self-organization, evolution, self-development of matter. Global evolutionism is a principle that requires a deep understanding of the logic of the development of the Universe, the cosmic order of things. This concept currently has multi-sided coverage. Scientists consider its axiological, logical-methodological and ideological aspects. The problem of the anthropic principle is of particular interest. Discussions on this issue are still ongoing. This principle is closely related to the idea of global evolutionism. It is often regarded as the most modern version of it.
The anthropic principle is that the emergence of mankind was possible due to certain large-scale properties of the universe. If they were different, then there would be no one to know the world. This principle was put forward by B. Carter several decades ago. According to him, there is a relationship between the existence of intelligence in the universe and its parameters. This led to the question of how the parameters of our world are random, how much they are interconnected. What happens if there is a slight change? As the analysis showed, even a slight change in the basic physical parameters will lead to the fact that life, and hence the mind, simply cannot exist in the Universe.
Carter expressed the relationship between the appearance of intelligence in the universe and its parameters in a strong and weak formulation. The weak anthropic principle only states the fact that the conditions existing in it do not contradict the existence of man. The strong anthropic principle implies a more rigid relationship. The universe, according to him, must be such that at a certain stage of development, the existence of observers is allowed in it.
co-evolution
In the theory of global evolutionism, such a concept as "co-evolution" is also very important. This term is used to denote a new stage in which the existence of man and nature is coordinated. The concept of co-evolution is based on the fact that people, changing the biosphere in order to adapt it to their needs, must change themselves in order to meet the objective requirements of nature. This concept in a concentrated form expresses the experience of mankind in the course of history, which contains certain imperatives and regulations of socio-natural interaction.
Finally
Global evolutionism and the modern picture of the world is a very topical topic in natural science. In this article, only the main issues and concepts were considered. The problems of global evolutionism, if desired, can be studied for a very long time.