If the target of the investigation is practical more that theoretical, but the background and the instruments are scientific, of that time the problem it is of applied science or technology, and not of pure science. Nevertheless, it is not a rigid line the one that separates the scientific problems of the technological ones, since the same problem raised and solved with any end, it can give a solution that has both values, the cognitive one and the practical one.
When it goes away to solve a problem in scientific form, it is very suitable to have a knowledge of the possible types of investigation that can follow. This knowledge makes possible to avoid mistakes in the selection of the method adapted for a specific procedure.
In accordance with the immediate intentions that the author of the investigation chases, this one has split into two forms and three and types, of which they get rid or the different studies of investigation can be included.
5.1. Forms of scientific investigation 1. Pure investigation. Also acquaintance as basic or fundamental investigation rests inside a theoretical context and his fundamental intention is of developing theory by means of the discovery of wide generalizations with a view to hypothetical formulations of possible later application.
2. Applied investigation. It is the study and application of the investigation to concrete problems. It depends on the technological discoveries, and his fundamental intention is that of the pure investigation, looking for his immediate application and to confront the theory with the reality.
Types of investigation 1. Historical investigation. It is a question of a critical search of the truth that sustains the events of the past. It is applied to all scientific disciplines.
2. Descriptive investigation. He understands the record, analysis and interpretation of the current nature and the composition or processes of the phenomena. It works on realities de facto and his fundamental characteristic is that of presenting to us a correct interpretation.
3. Experimental investigation. It is that one that appears by means of the manipulation of an experimental not verified variable, in conditions rigorously controlled in order to discover of what way or for which cause produces to itself a situation or particular phenomenon.
Characteristics of the scientific investigation Several types of investigation exist, since it has been mentioned previously; from the elementary one and the daily one that consists of broadening the horizons of the well-known objects, up to the scientific investigation that possesses already certain aspects that give him a character of top level.
The scientific investigation differs in the following characteristics: In effect, to investigate in the scientific area means to look by means of readings, experiments, interviews, polls and remarks for the necessary information of the particular and general causes of some phenomenon. But the above mentioned search and investigation will have to submit to the following qualities like they are:
1. Sistematicidad This wants to say that, it is realized from a program or more or less detailed plan; that there is an explicit intention of advancing in the field of the truth and that establishes a rhythm of work adapted to the investigated topic.
2. Objectivity He wants to say that, it tries to leave of the arbitrary thing, the subjective thing, and the fortuitous thing, which depends on personal opinions or prejudices that do not have a solid foundation. An investigation is objective, only when it establishes a fact, a relation or an explanation of way cost for any subject. The science treats of knowledge cost for all.
To remove this message, purchase the product at www.SolidPDF.com
6.- THE PROCESSES OF ABSTRACTION Of what does the process of abstraction consist? "In the process of abstraction, the thought does not limit itself to standing out and isolating any obtainable property and relation of the object to the senses …, but it tries to discover the secret and unattainable connection to the empirical knowledge." To carry out this process of abstraction it is necessary to think about dialectical form, since the thought owes apprehender a world in continuo movement in which the contradiction is the engine that impels the development of the processes and objects of the nature and the society. The essence, the structure of the things is not revealed in direct and immediate form, "the thing itself – points out Kosík – does not demonstrate directly the man. To receive her it is needed not only to do an effort, but also to give a detour. " The starting point of the process of abstraction, of the formation of concepts, categories, is the reality as it appears to the sensory organs (I specify sensory), but this reality is infested of appearances, of pseudoconcretions, then it cannot be the real, but apparent concrete one. It be remembered what Marx was saying: " Any science would be of more, if the way of there demonstrating the things and the essence of these they were coinciding directly ". The real concrete one is only possible to discover it by means of the thought, when I went in search of the initial determinant abstraction, separating as if it was webs, the phenomenon or illusorily of the processes and objects in study.
Done this, the following mental operation in the process of abstraction consists of constructing the concrete one of thought (mental abstract or concrete thought), with the help of the analysis and the synthesis. This means to rise from the concrete to the abstract thing. "Precisely in the process of this elevation, the thought reproduces the object in his integrity." This "separation" will allow apprehender better the processes that are studied since the thought, across the analysis and the synthesis, will eliminate the aspects and not essential or secondary relations that conceal the characteristics and basic relations of the processes, in order to be able to establish scientific explanations on the same ones.
In the process of abstraction, the analysis implies going from the concrete thing to the abstract thing. By means of him there is dismantled everything (certain reality: a structure, the social one, for example; a process or set of processes) in each of his parts and relations to analyze them in more finished and deep form with the intention of emphasizing those aspects, elements and more important relations for the construction of the scientific knowledge.
The synthesis allows reconstructing in the thought everything in accordance with certain mental makings in order to understand better the characteristics, elements and essential connections of the processes and objects. This implies going from the abstract thing to the concrete thing with the intention of apprehender the object of study in his multiple determinations (aspects, relations, connections).
If it breaks of that the knowledge begins, in the first moment, with the contact of the sensory organs with the external world and of here the raw material arises for the conceptual makings, which will be confirmed in turn with the concrete reality across the scientific practice, there can be observed in this process the link of four methods described previously.
The contact with the reality across diverse methods and skills as the observation, the interview and the poll allows to obtain empirical information to initiate the knowledge of the parts and interrelations of the objects and processes (analysis).
This contact realizes with base in an idea, a concept or hypothesis previous (synthesis) achieved in previous analyses. These hypotheses of work are a preliminary guide that faces the analysis in order to look for those empirical facts and relations excellent to construct more consistent and precise hypotheses. The results of the analysis materialize in partial syntheses that allude to the empirical obtained knowledge.
From these syntheses and by means of a process of induction richer generalizations of content are established compared to the hypotheses of work that served as base for the study. The new synthesis (hypothesis) has been obtained across a generalization of particular facts, but also it has strained with the existing knowledge in the frames of the respective science. We have left with the hypotheses or laws as if they were definitive truths it would imply falling down in the field of the metaphysics.
We depart that the reality is a process and therefore all knowledge with regard to her is also a process that goes from less complex synthesis to more complex others. But these syntheses even if they are complex and are widely based, have to be confirmed with the empirical reality across a deductive process that allows to derive consequences that are verifiable in direct or indirect, mediate or immediate form.
To realize analysis without resting on synthesis (hypothesis, laws and theories) limits us in the wide and deep comprehension of the processes of the universe. Simultaneously, to carry out synthesis from other syntheses without resorting to the analysis can drive to incorrect or absurd conclusions.
Equally, the induction has to exceed the particular facts of which it breaks and establish affirmations of general character since the science does not become exhausted with the observation and measurement of the empirical facts. Also, these generalizations (hypothesis, laws and theories) serve as handlebar to explain the behaviour of concrete phenomena and to face other empirical investigations by means of the deduction of particular consequences.
The process of abstraction in the construction of the knowledge What sound the scientific abstractions? Of what does the process of abstraction consist?: What is the criterion to demonstrate the veracity of the abstractions of the science? In the daily life, the abstract thing makes a mistake frequently with the cloudy thing, with what it does not belong to the reality. It is said, for example, that certain person has an abstract conception of the things when it wants to devote being understood that his way of thinking is removed from the reality.
The abstractions that the common man carries out, in contrast to those of the scientist, do not allow to reveal the essence of the things, the law of the phenomena; in other words, to penetrate the appearances, the phenomenon or, in terms of Kosík, to destroy the world of pseudoconcretion to penetrate in the thing itself. It is necessary, therefore, if one tries to reproduce the processes and objects of the reality in the abstract thought to discover his essence, or, the aspects and relatively stable and fundamental relations, to realize abstractions of scientific character.
The scientific abstractions (sound) those widespread concepts prepared by the human thought, abstracted of the concrete, direct character proper, of the fact or of the investigated phenomenon, of his features and peculiarities not essential, which allows to reveal the most important and essential aspects of the phenomena that are investigated, to know his causes objectives, to reveal the laws that govern these processes and phenomena.
In accordance with this definition, the scientific abstractions are the concepts, the categories and his relations (laws, hypothesis) that the human thought prepares with base in the concrete reality and in whom emphasize the aspects and fundamental relations of the processes or objects with the intention of knowing the laws for which they exist, they develop and transform.
The scientific concepts, that are to say, the abstractions, they take place in a certain theoretical and historical context and they are being a part of theoretical systems, of laws. "The abstractions do not exist separatedly, to the margin of the connection with other products of the human thought. A series of interrelated concepts of a special way can form a new concept, a new, more concrete, and more exact and finished knowledge, which describes more exhaustively one or another phenomenon.
The realism aristotlelics, from point of view of the knowledge, pushes back the existence of the innate ideas. "Everything what is in the intelligence has happened for the senses", it says his famous motto of Aristotle.
The intellectual knowledge is obtained from the sensitive knowledge. And it is not that this one only serves as occasion so that the idea arises, but the sensitive fact brings with it the intelligible information, which are inadvertent for the senses, but then, illuminated and received for the intelligence. This one is, grosso way, the process of abstraction.
The general concepts (categories) involve other concepts, for example, it includes that of social class, in accordance with the definition of Lenin, concepts as: system of social production, means of production, social organization of the work. The mathematical equations imply the interrelation of concepts: where E = energy, m = mass and c = speed of the light. The laws are relations between concepts to explain a certain plot of the reality for example, the Law of the Universal Gravitation of Newton: " Every particle of the Universe, it attracts to each of other particles with a force that is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the particles and inversely proportionally to the square of his distance.
The concepts, the categories, are abstract representations of the reality that they reproduce by means of the thought for the aspects and essential relations of the processes and objects.
The content of the concepts is a target and historical, that is to say, there corresponds to the reality objective that, as has already been said reiterated, he is in movement and transforms in his occurring historical. For it, with the concepts it has an adjustment to the reality and not this one to those, which implies a permanent investigation of the processes and phenomena to adapt the content of the concepts to the situation from which they are extracted, in order that they serve as instruments in the concrete investigation; otherwise, the abstract representations of the processes prove of little or no utility in the scientific chore.
The categories are the most general concepts inside a particular branch of the science (in physics: mass, energy, atom; in biology: life, species, heredity, etc.).
The philosophical categories of the materialistic dialectics are applied to all the sciences since they have validity for all the processes and natural, social objects and of the thought: cause and effect, content and form, essence and phenomenon, the singular thing and general, need and causality, possibility and reality, the contradiction, etc. The categories, as the concepts, are prepared in the process of the practice sociohistórica of the individuals. "The categories as other concepts do not remain stagnant, invariable. They change, develop, prosper with a new content. This happens first of all, because it changes the reality itself and, in second, because our knowledge develops on her" across the practice linked to the abstract thought.
The categories and the concepts serve as instrument in the cognitive activity of the man, since they provide the aspects and essential connections of the processes and objects that must be investigated in order that the process of investigation is not erratic or of few utility in the discovery of the truth objective. The construction of knowledge presupposes the attachment between the abstract thought and the reality that is studied to be able to corroborate the concepts, laws, theories, as well as to obtain a wider new knowledge and I require that it should allow to reproduce in the abstract thought the processes in his essential aspects.
The scientific abstractions are the most finished product of the human thought and, for the same, the process of his making is complex and dialectical since it breaks of simple abstractions up to going so far as to construct theoretical complex systems showing a constant improvement in the expositions.
The analogy It consists of inferring of the resemblance of some characteristics between two objects, the probability of which the remaining characteristics are also similar.
In the daily life we use frequently analogical reasonings. Almost we all understand for analogy, for example, that an electronic device of certain nationality must be of good quality, for the fact that we have dyed other of the same mark that made us satisfied. But it can happen that the electronic device, in spite of everything, does not have the awaited quality. The analogical reasonings are not always valid. His conclusions have major or minor grade of probability.
There exist, for Copi, several criteria by means of which it is possible to judge the probability of the analogical reasonings.
1. The number of cases that present resemblances. If the not one, but several times that an automobile of certain mark has trumped and, also, if this has happened with some frequency the grade of probability of which a new car of this mark goes out defectively is major than if it will be a question of only one case.
2. The number of aspects that present analogies. Insisting on the example of the automobile, we can say that the analogy will have major probabilities if it is of the same mark and of the same style; if it was bought in the same agency, he will support the same dealing started to the previous one.
3. The force of the conclusions with regard to the premises. If a student takes a medicine that takes a stomachache from him in 10 minutes, the analogical reasoning of another student, it is the sense of that this medicine also will take a stomachache from him in a little time, it will perform big probability (it would bring over in any nearby minute). It will diminish his grade of possibility, if it infers that his pain will come out in eight or in twelve minutes (the time is restricted). And it would be even less the probability if it reasons that will take him from him also in 10 minutes, the same that to another student.
The latter it represents only a probability; the first two reasonings represent major make possible.
4. The number of differences between the examples of the premises and the example of conclusion. The previous conclusion of the example of the students diminishes his probability if there is between them big difference of age and of organic conditions; it could be that one has suffered during much more time that other this discomfort, and has become less sensitive to the medicine. This difference diminishes the force of the conclusion of the previous criterion.
5. The differences in the examples of the premises. The analogical reasoning has major probability meanwhile it is more different the examples of the premises. Big probability exists in the conclusion that an automobile will be of good quality because other twenty it were. But there will be still major force in the probability if there exist a lot of differences between they such as that of that belongs to different model, to different year, of having been submitted to different dealings, and being used in very diverse climates.
6. The relations of the analogies with the conclusion. The conclusion will have more force when the analogies are more narrowly related to the conclusion. In case of the automobile, the potency, the engine and the electrical system they make mainly his good quality possible, that the mark of the rims, the colour of the garb or the accessories. If someone was reasoning that his automobile has to make it satisfied because it has the same colour as another car, it might not obtain force in his conclusion. This one will have major visors of probability if it is based on only one analogy related to the conclusion, and with the good functioning of the automobile.
The analysis and the synthesis All the phenomena that appear to the consideration of the man are too many complexes if one examines them thoroughly. They are simple only at first sight. If the causes want to be investigated, it becomes necessary to separate in parts the phenomenon to study it of better way. But since in this separation errors could be committed, it is essential to join again the parts completely separated in order to see if it is possible to turn to integrate of equal form. If one entrusts us to decide on the quality of a book, first we will have to separate it in parts to be able to study it; we might consider separately the literary style, the thematic aspects and the facility to be understood. This would facilitate to penetrate more to the work. Once completed this study, there will meet in everything what we observe separately, which will be our verdict with regard to the quality of the book.
This procedure used as for the book, repeats itself daily in all the matters of the life.
The scientific investigation is not foreign to these procedures. The scientific method uses this decomposition and repairing. To the decomposition there is called he an Analysis, and the repairing is named a Synthesis. The analysis is the intellectual operation that considers separately the parts of everything; the synthesis assembles the parts of the quite separated one and considers them to be a unit.
The concepts of "everything" and "parts" are interrelated. Everything presupposes the parts and the parts they presuppose everything.
They all, as composition of parts, are diverse. There exist " all " who only add parts, like a heap of oranges; and all the unitary ones, that like units depend on diverse organizing beginning. They can be organized by physical relations, since it is the case of the atom. It can, in another case, be considered to be a unit by human or spiritual relations; such is the case of a painting or a building, where the physical elements receive felt only according to the man that it is simultaneously one of his parts and his organizing beginning.
They "all" can join in wider "all". The cells form textiles and these integrate organs. The organs compose devices and these you compose systems; systems that are reports of "every" so-called human being.
It stays for saying something with regard to the "part". The parts can be considered like: " you divide all " when they "all" form " parts " of major "all"; the word is " it divides everything " of the phrase.
" Reports – elements " that are parts that do not integrate " all " for lacking simultaneously " all "; such would be the case of the lettering with regard to the words. " Reports – pieces " are arbitrary parts that do not result from his internal structure, but of the caprice of our will. It is logical that a quarter splits into flat, walls and roof. It is arbitrary that splits into dividing walls, cement and rods, which would result from his demolition; these would be " reports – pieces ".
To the analysis that we consider, obviously he is not interested in the " parts pieces "; " separable parts " are that they can be considered separately, as the engine and the bodywork of an automobile. " Inseparable parts " cannot treat separately of another object; such would be the case of the colour that is inseparable of the extension. " Genetic parts " consider the time and the change; they go on from one object to different other. The oxygen and the hydrogen are not present "parts" in the water, in the sense of other examined parts. Both are gases and as such they are not present in the water.
"The analysis and the synthesis that studies the logic – say Rosemary and Pucciarelli – is intellectual, not material procedures. It is not a question of putting really separately the components, but of considering them separately. The material analysis, which removes one of other the components, is only the auxiliary one of the intellectual analysis, and it does not coincide with him completely, since in the analysis it goes over of ordinary to not material aspects, since we will see immediately. It would be a rude error to conceive any analysis on the model of the chemical analysis, or of any other analytical material procedure.
The analysis and the synthesis can be studied in two planes: the empirical one and the rational one. In the empirical plane, these procedures are applied, for example, in the decomposition and repairing of the mineral water, from the oxygen, hydrogen, calcium, sulphur, lithium, etc.
With the purpose of clarifying the relative thing to the analysis and the synthesis, it is suitable to be necessary to what extent they intervene in the scientific thought.
All scientific knowledge is, actually, the synthesis of a lot of other previous knowledge. The hypothesis they gather synthetically the results of the experiments. The scientific theories represent the synthesis of the whole set of knowledge of very general relations. In any scientific investigation the analysis is used frequently in order to know better the recondite nature of the phenomena. But this analysis does not consist only of the separation of the elements of everything. The analysis tries to be dynamic; one does not happen without other one.
"First the immediate declarations of the existence are analyzed, discovering his fundamental aspects. Then these elements are synthesized in the rational reconstruction of the existence, which is formulated by means of an explanatory hypothesis. " Later, when the hypothesis has turned theoretically, there is analyzed the evolution of this synthetic simple form, discovering this way the necessary elements to practise a top synthesis. And this way it is continued continuously in the advance of the scientific knowledge, which passes from the rational synthesis to the experimental analysis, of the synthesis realized in the experiment to the employment of the reason analogized, from the analysis of the experiment to the synthetic development of the reasoning, of the rational analysis to the experimental synthesis.
Process of the scientific resource For consensus, let's give known that, on having alluded to a process, we will be doing it to the temporary, tidy and systematized sequence of steps continuing to achieve an end subject to foreseeable, typical results of this process and not of other.
The process begins with a question tied to a problem of investigation, in fact, which has the characteristic of practicality, in turn that is related to a tentative or probable affirmation from a theoretical sustenance, which puts the investigator in the central point of the probable assumptions.
The real knowledge does not rest on the simple apprehension of the things, the same that if this one is carried out separately as if it is obtained across statistical sets. Therefore, the illation and the deduction constitute the only base of the knowledge. The important thing there is the secret that lies I conceal behind the disconcerting evidence. To think scientifically there means not to take the things such a which they present us to him, but it consists of formulating questions and of giving them shrewd and persistent responses up to managing to cross cluttered plot of the experimentation and the truth.
The scientific method and the general methods
Nevertheless, whereas the representatives of the " way more raised towards the truth " toil to demonstrate that the procedures – disciplined and positive – of the science limit his radio of action up to the point of excluding the undoubted aspects of the reality. And on what do these base such a point of view? His argument rests, first of all, on the presentation of the scientific method as interested only the physics and the chemistry (experimental sciences), that is to say, on the measurable thing (what can measure oneself, weigh and count), excluding aspects of the reality as the life and the human mind, which remain limited – and to this they give it discounted – exclusively to the material thing, to the corporeal thing, to the external thing. Secondly, they have to demonstrate that the scientific reasoning constitutes a strict process of deduction, process from which the imagination and the intuitive thought are excluded.
In other words, the scientific method has his base and position on the theory mechanicist (everything is considered to be a machine, and to understand everything we must decompose it in small parts that they allow to study, to analyze and to understand his connections, interdependence and connections between everything and his parts), and, consequently also the same character.
If it was really like that, it is clear that there would stay out of the scope, the scientific reasoning vast fields or plots of the reality, of the truth; being then necessary to find a new way that takes us up to the same truth.
Any more the science is not in any way limited to the measurable thing. "The role redeemed by the measurement and by the quantity (quantitative qualities) in the science – says Bertrand Russel – is in very important reality, but I believe that sometimes he is overvalued. The qualitative laws can be so scientific as the quantitative laws. " The science is not limited to the physics and to the chemistry either; more for the defenders of the " high way towards the truth " it is convenient for them to believe that it is like that. For them it is necessary, in effect, to present to the science as be limited, for the same nature, to the task of preparing the stage so that the entry in he a higher form of knowledge.
But the sphere of the action of the science is already quite wide, not already to include to the biology and to the psychology, to the economy and to the anthropology, to the sociology and to the history, but also his methods are capable of going being modified to if same, with the object of better to be adapted to each of the studied fields.
What does that the scientific reasoning is, first of all, the method of observation, the experiment and the analysis, and, later, the construction of hypothesis and the subsequent cross-check of these. This procedure not only is valid for the physical sciences, but it is perfectly applicable to all the fields of knowing.
Along the history, the man has faced a innumerate of obstacles and problems to unravel the secrets of the nature, so much to live with her, as of her in "perfect" harmony. To overcome these problems it has used very diverse strategies, which passed to the formalization of procedures that, ultimately, are not but the proper scientific method.
The scientific method is the raised procedure that follows in the investigation to discover the forms of existence of the processes targets, to unravel his internal and external connections, to generalize and to deepen the this way acquired knowledge, to go so far as to demonstrate them with rational rigor and to verify them in the experiment and with the skills of his application.
After targets refer to the forms of existence of the processes, Elí de Gortari is doing it to the diverse ways in which the processes of for yes existing develop and only to them; and when he says that the purpose is to redeem his internal and external connections, it is referring fenomenológicamente to the natural process of the events of the nature, but not to all, only to those that still do not have a finished explanation that they realize precisely of how they happen such or which phenomena, and of that, laws, theories stem, models, which later will be a starting point for the search of new knowledge.
The scientific method is used in order to increase the knowledge and consequently to increase our well-being and our power (objectivity extrinsic or utilitarian).
In rigorous sense, the scientific method is only, both in his generality and in his peculiarity. To the scientific method also he is characterized as a feature typical of the science, both of the pure one and of the applied one; and by his familiarity it can be perfected by means of the estimation of the results to which it leads by means of the direct analysis.
Another characteristic is that, it is not autosufficient: it cannot operate in one it emptied of knowledge, if not that needs from some knowledge previous that could then readjust and reelaborated; and that later could complement each other by means of special methods adapted to the peculiarities of every topic, and of every area, nevertheless in general the scientific method becomes attached to the following principal stages for his application:
1. To enunciate formulated well questions and believable fertilize.
2. To arbitrate guesswork, founded and contrastables with the experience to answer the questions.
3. To derive logical consequences of the guesswork.
4. To arbitrate skills to submit the guesswork to contrastación.
5. To submit in turn to contrastación these skills to verify his relevancy and the faith that they deserve.
6. To carry out the contrastación and to interpret his results.
7. To estimate the pretension of the truth of the guesswork and the loyalty of the skills.
8. To determine the domains in which they cost the guesswork and the skills, and to formulate the new problems caused by the investigation.
Described from another point of view, we can say that the scientific method is the way for which we try to give response to the questions about the order of the nature. The questions that we raise to ourselves in an investigation generally are determined by our interests, and determined by the knowledge that we already possess. On these two factors there depends also the "class" of response that we will have to consider to be like "satisfactory", once found.
The scientific method is the general used, tacit logic or explicitly to value the merits of an investigation. It is, therefore, useful to think about the method scientific as constituted by a set of norms, which serve as bosses that must be satisfied if some investigation is estimated as responsibly guided investigation which conclusions deserve rational confidence.
The scientific method continues that a univocal direccionalidad that him is typical, because the as such method is in yes a procedure directed to a target, trying to achieve it takes implied a dynamics that for the case of the scientific method begins with the Phase of the Observation, where the subject expert (scientist) contacts the phenomenon, and it is known about him a little, a little that he induces it to keep on looking; in the second big moment, level supposes of that one true phenomenon really, this is, in the second phase, or Phase of the Exposition of the hypothesis, which based on knowledge previous and on the information for gathering, might be demonstrated; finally we have the Phase of Cross-check, which depends on the grade of generality and sistematicidad on the hypothesis. The evidences that they verify or disapprove are equally estimable.
The postulates of the Functionalisms are: a) That of the functional unit of the society, b) That of the universal functionalisms, and c) That of the indispensability.
Of these postulates one can detach that the society:
1. It is a totality of parts interdependent and interrelated (that work harmonically).
2. As complex structure of groups and individuals, stays joined by a jumble of social relations.
3. It is a system of institutions related between yes and that react reciprocally.
4. It can be considered as everything who works, or a system that operates, and that.
5. The different components of the society constantly act and react between yes, adapting itself for yes same or being prepared of different ways for the changes or processes that take place in other segments of the society.
The functionalisms has influence of the metaphysics as soon as that accepts the change of some parts of the system so that this one keeps on working, but it pushes back the change or transformation of the whole system. His idealistic robes are in the fact of considering to the social structure as the result and the particular way of the mutual effects of dispositions, feeling and emotions of the human beings and therefore, do not hold to laws objectives.
It is preferable, to name to the theory the theoretical conception or general theory, which is a set of concepts, categories and general laws on the processes and objects of the reality. From this general theory the general method of conceived knowledge stems – although in fact he is inserted in her – this one as the way of tackling the object of study and which is a general for a certain theoretical conception.
Yes he considers to the phenomena of the nature and of the society in movement, in constant development, that is to say in his past, present and future; in his connections and interaction; in his internal contradictions, and it is considered that the quantitative changes transform in certain moment and conditions, in qualitative changes, the method of knowledge will be a dialectical materialist; but if it is conceived to the phenomena and objects as something finished, immutable, that is to say, without change, and each of the aspects of the reality are analyzed in outlying form, and there does not exist interest to know the essential causes for which the phenomena arise, they develop and transform, then in approach it will be metaphysical.
Any general theory or theoretical conception involves certain concepts and his interrelations that realize of the form as the processes and objects are conceived. In case of the dialectical materialism, the concepts, categories, beginning and general laws, they are: the matter, the movement, the contradiction, cause and effect, essence and phenomenon, form and content, appearance and reality; the beginning of the historicisms, and of the connection and interaction of the phenomena, the laws of the dialectics, between others.
These categories and general laws – that are a part of the Marxist philosophy: the dialectical materialism – they realize of a certain conception of the reality and, in turn, they are methodological instruments that face the apprehension of the phenomena of the concrete reality.
Also, the theories, laws and hypotheses that are prepared in the different fields of the science (for example, the theory of the classic mechanics, the Marxist theory of the social classes), they allow to tell the causes of the phenomena or the relation between them, but simultaneously, such laws or theories turn into methodological instruments that guide the process of knowledge of the particular phenomena object of study.
The matter of the relation between the theory and method must be docked, in his first moment and level, as the relation between the theoretical conception or general theory of the processes and objects, and the way of tackling the study of such processes (general method of knowledge, which for us is the dialectical one that possesses a truly scientific character as soon as that allows to discover the essence of the objects and processes to formulate scientific laws. The dialectical materialism supposes that everything is linked and in interaction.
In the process of the scientific investigation there is used diverse methods and skills as the particular science about which it talks each other and in accordance with the concrete characteristics of the object of study.
There exist, nevertheless, methods that generals can consider for all the branches of the science while they are procedures that are applied in the different stages of the process of investigation with major or minor emphasis, according to the moment in which this one develops. These methods are the analysis and the synthesis, the induction and the deduction.
7.2. The Analytical Method The analytical Method is that method of investigation that everything consists of the dismemberment of, decomposing it in his parts or elements to observe the causes, the nature and the effects.
The analysis is the observation and examination of a fact in particular. It is necessary to know the nature of the phenomenon and I protest that it is studied to understand his essence. This method allows us to know more of the object of study, with which it can: to explain, to do analogies, to understand better his behaviour and to establish new theories.
What does He mean to analyze? To analyze means to disintegrate, to decompose everything in his parts to study in intensive form each of his elements, as well as the relations between if and with everything.
The importance of the analysis resides in that to understand the essence of everything is necessary to know the nature of his parts. Everything can be of different nature: the quite material one, for example, certain organism, and his constituent parts: the systems, devices, organs and textiles, each of which can separate to carry out a deeper analysis (this does not mean necessarily that a device or organ has to separate physically of the rest of the organism; in other words, to isolate an organ or device means here that do not take in account other parts completely). Other examples of everything the material one is: the society and his parts: economic base (productive forces and social relations of production) and the superstructure (political, juridical, religious, and moral). The society is the quite material one while it exists out and independently of our conscience.
Everything can be also rational, for example, the products of the mind: the hypotheses, laws and theories. We decompose a theory as the laws that integrate it; a law or hypothesis, according to the variables or phenomena that they link and the type of relations that they establish, therefore, one can speak about empirical analysis and rational analysis. The first type of analysis drives necessarily to the use of the second type; by it he is considered to be an auxiliary procedure of the rational analysis.
The analysis goes from the concrete to the abstract thing since it supports the resource of the abstraction one can separate the parts (to isolate itself) completely as well as his basic relations that are of interest for his intensive study (a hypothesis is not a material product, but it expresses relations between material phenomena; then, it is the concrete one of thought).
7.3. The Synthetic Method The synthetic method is a process of reasoning that tends to reconstruct everything, from the elements differed in the analysis; it is a question of doing consequently a methodical and brief explosion, in short.
In other words we must say that the synthesis is a mental procedure that takes the complete comprehension of the essence as a goal of what we already know in all his parts and peculiarities.
The synthesis means to reconstruct, to integrate the parts again completely; but this operation implies an improvement with regard to the analytical operation, since it does not represent only the mechanical reconstruction completely, so this will not allow to advance in the knowledge; he implies going so far as to understand the essence of the same one, knowing his aspects and basic relations in a perspective of totality. There is no synthesis without analysis Engels pronounces himself, since the analysis provides the raw material to realize the synthesis.
With regard to the rational syntheses, for example, a hypothesis, they link two or more concepts, but he organizes them of a certain form; on having linked, the concepts undernourishment and industrial accidents can give for turned out a hypothesis: as it increases the undernourishment of the workers, the valuation of industrial accidents increases. The hypothesis is a synthesis that can be simple or complex. Also, all the materials can be simple (an organism unicellular) or complexes (a mammalian animal); the societies can be relatively simple (a primitive community) or complex (an industrial society).
The synthesis, be material or rational, it is understood in the thought; for it, it is necessary to point out that the thought, if it does not want to incur arbitrarinesses, cannot assemble in a unit but those elements of the conscience in which – or in whose real prototypes – the above mentioned unit already existed.
The synthesis goes from the abstract thing to the concrete thing, or, on having reconstructed everything in his aspects and essential relations, allows a major comprehension of the constituent elements.
When it is said that it goes from the abstract thing to the concrete thing it means that the outlying elements meet and there is obtained the real quite concrete one (for example, the water) or the quite concrete one of thought (a hypothesis or law). In other terms, The concrete thing (that is to say the permanent movement towards a more and more concrete theoretical comprehension) there is here the specific end of the theoretical thought, while it is an end of such a nature, the concrete thing defines as a law the way of acting of the theoretical one (it is a question of a mental action naturally) in every particular case, for every taken separate generalization.
The analysis and the synthesis are opposed in certain moment of the process, but in other they complement each other, prosper; one without other cannot exist since both are articulated in the whole process of knowledge.
7.4. Induction and deduction We must bear in mind that, in any area of the scientific knowledge the interest takes root in being able to raise hypothesis, laws and theories to reach a wider and deep comprehension of the origin, development and transformation of the phenomena and not to remain only with the empirical facts received across the sensitive experience (it be remembered that in the science there is not true that one about which the facts speak for yes alone).
Also, to the science it is interesting to him to confront his truths with the concrete reality since the knowledge, since it has been said, cannot be considered to be finished, definitive, it is necessary to fit continuously, in minor or major grade as the area about which it talks each other, to the concrete reality which is in permanent change. In this process of going from the particular thing to the general thing and of this one to return to the particular thing we have the presence of two methods: the induction and the deduction.
The induction refers to the movement of the thought that goes from the particular facts to affirmations of general character. This implies going on from the obtained results of remarks or experiments (that always refer to a limited number of cases) to the exposition of hypothesis, laws and theories that include not only the cases of which it broke, but to others of the same class; that is to say it generalizes the results (but this generalization is not mechanical, rests on the theoretical existing formulations on the respective science) and on having done this, there is an improvement, a jump in the knowledge on not having remained in the particular facts but we look for his deepest comprehension in rational syntheses (hypothesis, laws, theories).
This generalization is not achieved only from the empirical facts, since of already reached knowledge it can be obtained to (generalize) new knowledge, which will be more complex. We insist again: the scientific work does not go from the mechanical step of the empirical facts to the abstract thought; levels of intermediation exist and as it is promoted, the generalizations are losing contact with the immediate reality since they rest on other knowledge which yes have direct or indirect relation with the reality.
To be able to think about the possibility of establishing laws and theories with base in the induction, it is necessary to depart from the beginning of the regularity and interconnection of the phenomena of the nature and the society, which allows to go on from the description (that refers fundamentally to the empirical facts) at other levels of the science: the explanation and prophecy across laws and theories.
It can be said that the conclusions obtained across the induction have a probable character, which increases as there increases the number of particular facts that are examined.
It is necessary to emphasize that the procedures of the induction only allow to establish relations between empirical facts (empirical laws); to formulate theoretical laws that they explain to those, it is necessary to rest on other theoretical existing expositions on the frames of the science about which it talks each other.
The deduction is the method that allows to go on from affirmations of general character to particular facts. It comes of deductive that means to descend. This method was widely used by Aristotle in the syllogistic where from certain premises conclusions stem: for example, all the men are mortal, Socrates is a man, then, and Socrates is mortal. Nevertheless, the same Aristotle was attributing big importance to the induction in the process of knowledge of the initial beginning of the science. Therefore it is clear that we have to go so far as to know the first premises by means of the induction; because the method for which, up to the sensitive perception it implants the universal thing, is inductive. " The deductive method is present also in the axiomatic theories, for example in the Geometry of Euclides where the theorems are deduced of the axioms that are considered to be beginning that do not need demonstration. They exist another related method from the logical point of view: the hypothetical one – the deductive one. The difference with regard to the axiomatic one rests on that the hypotheses of which particular expositions are deduced are prepared by base in the empirical material gathered across diverse procedures as the observation and the experiment.
In this deductive process one has to take in account the form as there are defined the concepts (the elements and relations that they understand) and it is realized in several stages of intermediation that allows to more particular others to go on from general affirmations up to approaching the concrete reality across warning or regarding empirical. This procedure is necessary to be able to verify the hypotheses with base in the empirical material obtained across the scientific practice.
The deduction redeems a very important role in the science. By means of her the beginning discovered to particular cases is applied. The role of the deduction in the scientific investigation is double:
a) First he consists of finding unknown beginning, from other acquaintances. A law or beginning can come down to other one more general that includes it. If a body falls down, we say that it weighs because it is a particular case of the gravitation.
b) Also the deduction serves scientifically to describe unknown consequences, of well-known beginning. If we know that the formula of the speed is we will be able to calculate with facility the speed that develops a plane. The mathematics is the deductive excellent science; part of axioms and definitions.
Immediate and medium inferences. In the deductive reasoning there are recognized two classes of inferences (taken like synonymous of conclusion, although some authors reserve the name of conclusion for the complex inferences). The immediate inference of a judgment extracts other from only one premise. In the mediate inference the conclusion is obtained from two or more premises.
Example of immediate inference: "The books are a culture." "Consequently, some cultural declarations are books." Example of mediate inference:
"The Englishmen are punctual." "Therefore, William is punctual." From Rene Descartes, the Philosophy continues two main, clearly opposite currents: the rationalism (centred on the reason) and the empiricism (which base is the experience). Whereas the Germans and Frenchmen cultivate preferably the rationalism, the English authors are the classic empiricist, which, already from Roger Bacon, in the Middle age (1210-1292), show a determined inclination towards this type of thought. In the Renaissance, Francis Bacon (1561-1626) is the promoter of the empiricism, and then it is even continued by John Locke and George Berkeley, to his culmination, by David Hume, in the XVIII Th century.
The central idea of Bacon is the critique against the syllogism and the apology of the induction. He says that the first thing that it is necessary to criticize and to push back, if a solid certainty is tried in the scientific investigation, it is the serious one of prejudices that usually slip in in our ordinary knowledge. Bacon is right, on having indicated with all precision four types of prejudices, which plastically, are called idols: idols of the species, idols of the cavern, idols of the forum and idols of the theater.
Bacon detects the abuse of the syllogism aristotlelics as the principal cause of the stagnation of the sciences. He criticizes clearly to Aristotle and his work. In his place, it proclaims the inductive method (generalization from the observation of particular cases) as the key to make to progress to the sciences.
The inductive method in modern version was developed by the Englishman Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and he is tied to the empirical investigations. Bacon pushed back the syllogistic of Aristotle on which the scholastic one was resting (doctrine of the medievo) and which disdained the sensitive experience. In his place, Bacon emphasized the importance of the observation and the experiment in the securing of the knowledge, but it minimized the role of the hypotheses by which it has been widely criticized.
About the science, Bacon has an idea completely utilitarian (john Dewey). Whereas the empiricists – he affirms – are like ants, which only accumulate facts without any order; the rationalist ones or the theoretical ones are like chandeliers, since only they construct beautiful theories, but without soundness. The real scientist must be like the bee, which digests what it receives, and produces honey for the community to which it belongs.
To construct science it is necessary to proceed by means of experimentation, in order to observe the causes of the phenomena, and to be able to understand the processes of the nature and society. To interpret it, first it is necessary to be docile to her.
The observation can give us the form, or the law of behaviour of the studied phenomenon. The form is like the intimate essence of the phenomenon; but it does not perform metaphysical, but physical and social order, or, observable experimentally.
Undoubtedly, it is necessary to give an affirmative vote of the inductive method. Thanks to him as they can discover the laws that govern the nature and the society.
Nevertheless, it was not necessary to dazzle so much for the efficacy of the induction, as to despise or to leave of side the deductive reason. The correct thing is to be able to use each of two processes: deduction and induction, as be the nature of the science and of the treated matter.
One notice how there is the methodological topic the one that affects often in the philosophical thought of these times. Whereas one inclines Descartes towards the deductive method, the current empiric will incline towards the experimental – inductive method. The true thing is that each one has his own zone of application, without it is necessary to spoil one or another method as soon as such.
7.5. The Cartesian thought in the Contemporary world Rene Descartes (1596-1650)), has been the most famous genius of the XVII Th century. With him the first dividing stone is placed in the History, with regard to the thought ancient and medieval, and that's why one usually calls him the " Father of the modern Philosophy ", nevertheless of him other thinkers shone also revolutionary, as, for example, Nicolas de Cusa (1401-1464) and Francis Bacon (1561-1626).
His central idea is the creation of a completely unassailable philosophical, free system of the critiques of the subsequent thinkers, and perfectly guaranteed in his truth and in his logical order, suitability to what was happening in the Mathematics, solidly structured mental and immune building to the simple opinions of any layman in the matter.
7.5.1. The rules of the method To avoid the error, the intelligence is not enough, it is necessary to be able to apply it appropriately, that is to say, it needs a method from itself. Descartes puts special emphasis on the need of a Rational Method, which for beginning liberates the man of the easy fall in the error. In the Speech of the Method (the Second Part) it describes his famous four methodical rules, as it continues:
a) Rule of the Evidence: Not to accept like really but what is clear.
Or, in other terms: to try to receive intuitively the proper object of the intelligence, to knowing, the clear and different ideas. When one manages to perceive the notes typical of an idea and when one manages to distinguish these notes with regard to other ideas, a clear and different idea is possessed, and this is already a guarantee of the truth of the possessed knowledge. For that it is necessary to avoid the prevention and the precipitation. In a word, only it is possible to possess the truth when the spirit receives the ideas with all his evidence, of an easy way, immediate, serene and clear. This evidence cannot already shut the doubt and the error up.
b) Rule of the Analysis: "To divide each of the difficulties that go away to examine, in so many parts as it is possible and necessary to solve them better." That is to say, to decompose the complex ideas in his simplest parts; but, also, to go back to the simplest beginning, on which there depends the matter that is examined.
c) Rule of the Synthesis: " To lead for order the thoughts, beginning for the simplest objects, easier to know, to rise gradually up to the knowledge of the most complex … " talks each other about the operation opposite to the previous one, and it is complementation. Once divided into parts matter, for his best comprehension, is necessary to reconstruct everything, from the opposing beginning. It coincides, as it has been studied in Logic, with the Deduction. The important thing consists of the gradual procedure that advances logically (with chaining and natural congruity), from the simple of the beginning, to the complex of the conclusions, theorems and other consequences of the first truths.
d) Rule of the Enumerations and Repetitions: " To do so finished enumerations, and so general reviews, as for to be sure of not omitting anything. " With this there chases a global intuition of the treated matter, in such a way that the intelligence possesses and dominates the matter from the beginning up to the end, which supposes the repetition or revision of the walked way.
This way, simple and coherently, Descartes proposes to the intelligence the four most important rules that it is necessary to bear in mind if an effective result is wanted in his functioning. Therefore, we must allow that the mind should notice, for yes same, the treated matter, which the effort should split into sufficient parts like to simplify the work, which reconstructs the totality of the effort, and which checks globally the result.
7.5.2. The Methodical doubt As soon as the method continuing was established, Discard it proposes to build a perfectly structured Philosophy, like the mathematical sciences. For it will be necessary to depart from an absolutely undoubted truth, and from which it is possible to derive the whole philosophical building.
To find this first truth, it is necessary to erase, in advance, all knowledge that is not properly based. Therefore, attention is necessary to pay omits, or better, doubt, of everything what we perceive for the senses, and of all the scientific knowledge.
The doubt that Descartes proposes takes as a purpose the foundation of the new philosophy on undoubted bases. Therefore, it is not a question of a skeptical doubt, where the end is to doubt for doubting. It is a methodical doubt, put only as a method or way, to come to a completely clear beginning.
In these conditions, with a certain ambiguity with regard to the seriousness of the methodical and universal doubt, Descartes it is thrown to the search of his first beginning. If I doubt (he reflects this way in the Fourth part of the Speech of the Method), it is that I think, and if I think, the fact is that I exist. From this way comes to what looks like to him his first fundamental beginning: "I think, and then I exist". (Cogito, ergo sum). 7.5.3. The first Cartesian beginning It is not so original Descartes on having announced his fundamental beginning: "Cogito, ergo sum". San Agustin had already used a similar weapon, against the skeptics: " If fallor, sum" (if I am wrong, I exist). Nevertheless, the innovation, in Descartes, consists of the fact that, for the first time, tries to erect on this truth the whole body of philosophical truths. His beginning will work like the axioms of the mathematical sciences.
The "Cogito" (this way one usually calls to the first Cartesian beginning, for briefness) is, since, a fundamental intuition. Everybody will be able to doubt on what he wants, but he will not be able to doubt his own existence. If he doubts, it is that he thinks, and if he thinks, the fact is that it exists.
For his{your} part, Holy Thomas never speaks about this intuition of the proper one I; what is known is the effect, the fruits, and by means of them, but already in a mediate way, we can step back even the substance, which is inferred as the cause is inferred from the effects, and not for intellectual intuition (direct and immediate vision of the object).
7.6. The procedures of the induction, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), it exhibited them in the shape of rules: 1. Method of resemblances: " If two or more cases of the phenomenon submitted to investigation have of common only a circumstance, then this circumstance – in which only they reconcile all these cases – it is the cause (or consequence) of the given phenomenon. " The importance of this procedure takes root in that it allows an approach the knowledge of the real cause since it helps to eliminate diverse factors, because they do not keep relation, although it is possible to incur error this point. Secondly, it indicates that certain factors seem to happen jointly. In the third place, he allows us to observe that, in the concrete situation, the factor.
2. Method of the difference: " If the case in which there appears the given phenomenon and the case in which it does not appear they are similar in all the circumstances, except in one, which they find in the first case, this circumstance in which these two cases differ only, it is the consequence or the cause, or the necessary part of the cause of the phenomenon." 3. Combined method of resemblance and difference: " If two or more cases of emergence of the phenomenon have in common only one circumstance, and two or more cases in which this phenomenon does not arise have in common only the absence of the same circumstance, of that time such a circumstance in which only both types of cases differ, it is the consequence or the cause, or the necessary part of the investigated phenomenon." 4. Method of concomitant changes: "Any phenomenon that changes somehow whenever another phenomenon several in a particular way or it is the cause or is the effect of this phenomenon, or it is connected with him by some cause." 5. Method of residues: "To separate from the phenomenon such part, which is known by previous inductions, that it is the effect of certain precedents and the rest of the phenomenon is the effect of other precedents."
The phases of the scientific method Characterization of the problems
The expressions of the thought constitute questions and problems for resolving, or, responses and solutions to the realized investigations. In this sense, the course of the scientific knowledge consists of an uninterrupted succession of problems that arise from the results obtained in the previous investigations and are solved by means of the reasoning and the experimentation.
To find the solution of these problems, the scientific activity has established suitable procedures and unrolls continuously new others. Between they find the experiments that they inform us, so exact and completely like there is possible, about the natural and social processes, the same that on his active connections and his mutual causality. Also there are the theories, which allow us to assemble the results of the experiments in a common, necessary and sufficient explanation. Finally, we have the application of the above mentioned theories to intervene, in a direct and concrete way, in the behaviour of the processes of the society and of the nature, doing that produce the satisfaction of the human needs and solving practically, this way, the problems that impel the proper scientific activity.
In general terms, for problem we understand any difficulty that cannot be solved automatically, that is to say, with the alone action of our instinctive and determined reflexes, or by means of the memory of that we have learned previously.
On the other hand, in addition to the problems that impose on us directly the natural and social conditions in which we live, constantly we are creating or inventing other problems; like with, for example, the explanation of the newly open processes, the demonstration of theorems, the cross-check of hypothesis, the decision between two or more theories of battle, or, the transformation of the nature and the society.
In the election of the topic it will materialize, as much as the object of knowledge is possible; also there will have to be structured the tentative title of the project of investigation, tentative because it might do him to him some small precisions during the process of the investigation.
The object that tries to be reached on having delimited the topic is finally to avoid deviations as soon as the process was initiated, that's why from the beginning it is necessary that the topics are conceived by some fundamental characteristics that assure the success of the work, and that are those who are suggested next.
EXPOSITION OF THE PROBLEM The problem is the fixation of the contradictions that happen in the proper reality, contradictions that are fixed in the theory and that conclude once "clarified" with the exposition of a new problem, which solution might be solved by other investigators. For a suitable exposition of the problem it is needed of, to eliminate of the problem any deceitful addition, or, to identify those difficulties that collide with the theory.
The process of solution of any problem, he supposes as necessary condition, the suitable and scientific formulation of the question that one finds in the base of the problem. If the problem is formulated scientifically, the way for the solution is more clearly definite. A correct exposition of the problem, also it must make clear the premises that allow to solve it, from the reality as condition for his solution united to the assumption of a theoretical examination, fixing logical – methodological certain forms.
One of the most important heuristic rules for the solution of problems consists of the fact that this one could resolve oneself using initial, clearly included and stipulated idealizations, which simplify his complexity without prevaricating the reality showing the general tendency of the development of the investigated object, since it is in the reality in the one that finds his possible solution.
Another heuristic rule, it is the demand of solving on parts the problems, this condition is the relative one to the differentiation of the conceptual device (conceptual frame) that consists of doing from now a clear distinction between the concepts involved in the problem itself, since think the absence of differentiations them the scientific treatment of the problem makes possible. This conceptual differentiation for his essence represents the process previous for the making of the hypothesis, which in yes same realizes of the problem.
Delimitation and place of the problem Mario Bunge recounts that: "fallible recipes are not known to prepare correct solutions to problems of investigation by means of the mere handling of the ingredients of the problem". Nevertheless there can take in account some suggestions that they allow to delimit and to locate the problem of investigation as the following ones:
Elements of the problem The problems as such do not exist, it is the investigator who them raises given his worries, capacity of observation and knowledge.
This affirmation rests on the fact that before a phenomenon or given situation, we all might spend them for high place, but only one stops and one raises the questions that this one wakes up him.
Design of the investigation This one consists of indicating with all clarity and precision the course and the goal. So to need the field to which the problem belongs would be at first the first step; to determine with all his characteristics the problem to resolve; it would be the second step; to fix the target that thinks about how to be reached, or rather to establish what will be the end that tries to be reached by the investigation; for this the procedures will have to be defined, this is, the methodology and all kinds of requests that will allow to obtain the information by means of the processes if this was the case.
Structure of the scheme The scheme is the graphic systematized representation, which takes as a principal function to structure a set of ideas and the necessary and essential information of way synthesized with the minor number of words, in a logical order, which allows to receive in only one blow of sight the detached subject-matter.
Immediately after the project of the investigation has been designed and approved, there is structured the scheme that also one meets him as plan of work or sketch; the importance of this section resides in that by means of his structure split into chapters and these in turn in subchapters, they allow in a tidy way to develop his parts with a certain order, or to take it as a base for possible modifications. Generally the first paragraph of the scheme is destined to an introduction, the immediate following chapters, they do a review of the precedents, this is of investigations that they precede the one that is realized. The intermediate chapters correspond to the development of the investigation in yes, and the last chapters fade to concluding on the results of the investigation.
The theoretical frame is the set of theoretical beginning that guide the investigation establishing excellent units for every problem to investigate, It is necessary to mention that with certain frequency in the literature the terms are used indistinctly: Marco Theoretical, Marco Conceptual, Marco Theoretical Conceptual, and Marco de Reference. Although it is true that some are understood in others or that they are related between yes, it is worth while doing a precision on this matter. The Theoretical Frame is the paragraph that understands the theoretical relative and exclusive delimitation that gives sustenance to a topic of investigation of logical form, where his conceptual elements are inherent in the theory (s) in study.
Tamayo and Tamayo establishes that the Theoretical Frame fulfills the following functions.
ü Delimitation the area of the investigation; for it will be necessary to select the facts that have relation between yes, by means of a theory that gives response to the problem in question.
ü To suggest handlebars of investigation, to find alternative piece of news of solution of the problem.
ü To summarize existing knowledge in the area that is investigated.
ü To express theoretical general propositions, postulates, laws that will have to serve as base for the most "suitable" formulation of the hypothesis, his operacionalización, and even for the determination of the indicators.
The points earlier above-mentioned can be combined to say that the principal function of the Theoretical Frame constitutes it the intention of giving consistency, unit and coherence to the theories with the investigation in process. The Theoretical Frame, it is so a conceptual methodological instrument that is constructed on the base of the pertinent information to the problem of investigation, more precisely with or the theories that gave sustenance to other resources.
To the chosen information that shows us the advance of the achieved in previous investigations and that are related to the problem of investigation, he is named, State of the Art, and that will be the one that serves as base for the construction of Marco Theoretic. Of the State of the Art it is needed to know what will be the theory that will serve as base to sustain the work in question.
For the making of Marco Theoretic, there be analyzed the theory or the most related theories themselves, that will allow him to formalize the work by means of the reduction of the phenomena to logical propositions, and this way to be able to relate as precisely as possible the theoretical body to the reality to face the search.
Summing up, for the making of Marco Theoretic it will have to be considered to be basically the following thing: a) The problem of investigation.
b) The reference to the related studies of investigations fundamental and recent, related to the problem of investigation.
c) Place of theorizes or theories base to give sustenance to the investigation in process.
d) Conceptual definition.
e) The theoretical and methodological implications that might allow to determine the theoretical, methodical and methodological limitations.
f) Of previous works, to establish the system of hypothesis that gave them sustenance, and the role that they redeemed in them, and to consider them to the moment to structure the proper hypothesis of work.
g) To outline the variables and of being viable, the indicators.
In any investigation it is necessary to establish the hypothesis of investigation. The hypothesis must agree with the definition of the problem, as well as with other elements of the design. His principal function is that of producing as an axis handlebar of the investigation, because concerning her they will have to turn all the operations that are realized, this means, that during the process it will not have to lose of sight his functionality.
Definition of scientific hypothesis The word `hypothesis` derives from the hiccup: down, and thesis: position or situation. Abiding by his etymological roots, hypothesis means a supposed explanation that this one under certain facts, to which it serves as support. The hypothesis is that early explanation that allows the scientist to appear to the reality.
Another definition of hypothesis that the previous one extends, says to us:
A hypothesis is an assumption that allows to establish relations between facts. The value of a hypothesis resides in his aptitude to establish these relations between the facts, and that way to explain ourselves why it takes place.
The hypothesis is an assumption of the existence of an entity, which allows the explanation of the phenomena or of the studied phenomenon. The hypotheses are the tentative propositions that were relating the empirical information to the set of theories adopted and provisionally analyzed in the Theoretical Frame.
In yes to preparing the hypothesis, the investigator does not have the entire certainty to be able to verify it. " The hypotheses will have to be propositions prepared correctly from the formal point of view (not tautological, coherent and contradictory, etc.) and they have to, from the formal correction, provide some meaning, that is to say, they must say something as regards the facts to which one alludes. Secondly, they must be based on the scientific preexisting knowledge or, ultimately, not to be in opened contradiction with what the science knows already about the structure and behaviour of the nature and of the society. In the third place on having raised a hypothesis, it will have to be born in mind that it could be verified appealing to the methodological and technical procedures which the science has.
In effect, the hypotheses forged by the scientists can be directed to explain a set of phenomena, as in case of the ether, or to explain only one fact, like the hypothesis that allowed to discover the existence of Neptune and Pluto.
The purpose of these hypotheses is not different that that of explaining, of giving account of the events by means of the interpolation of facts that might have been observed, in suitable conditions.
What is an explanation? We can define it as a set of statements of which we deduce the fact or the facts that it is desirable to explain. The explanation allows us to eliminate the problematic character of the things.
The function of a descriptive hypothesis consists of symbolizing the connection been ordained as the facts. An example of this type of hypothesis will be found by us in Ptolemy, in measurement in which this astronomer provided a geometric representation of the celestial bodies, and, on the other hand, the hypothesis of the ether, conceived as a fluid without friction and as solid completely elastic, is actually a descriptive hypothesis.
The analogical hypotheses are those by means of which we formulate a hypothesis basing that what is real in a set of phenomena, can be also real about another set, because both have in common certain formal properties.
| Página siguiente |