Semantic loading of categories in modern science (on the example of the "Movement" concept) Chapter 3

The complexity of the idea

?Thus, confining ourselves only to the framework of Antiquity, we were able to trace how one of the modern science conceptions – Movement - arose and took shape as a theoretical category. Already the ancients attributed various properties to it, often returning to the properties that had already been discarded at previous stages.

The movement occupied a different place in the picture of the universe. For some, movement is the cause, order and origin of the world, while for others it is the opposite. In the future, a huge number of properties were attributed to the movement.

Using this concept as an example, we see that in the XXI century any of the scientific concepts have gained a huge number of characteristics, properties and meanings. Some of these properties are rejected by scientists as knowingly incorrect. But as the quantity and quality of empirical data increases, they are again attributed to Movement.

It becomes clear that the Movement, as an important concept in Greek philosophy, had a very “hard time”. The Movement was considered from various positions of philosophical analysis; various ontological, logical, epistemological and other properties were attributed to it. Moreover, sometimes such properties were relative in some thinkers, absolute in others, and completely absent in others. Having accumulated all these properties, the Movement entered the conceptual composition of European science. It cannot be said that the researchers who followed the Greek thinkers relied on their predecessors. Often, they did not even know the ideas of their predecessors or even have their manuscripts. Movement conceptions were created anew. Sometimes they echoed in some way what the Greeks talked about and taught, and sometimes they did not. But one very important difference appeared, which now prevailed in the movement conceptions. New thinkers, in contrast to the thinkers of Antiquity, have already begun to rely on experiment.

We faced with such a huge volume of material and, accordingly, with the problem of understanding it. The question arises about those methodological methods that can make it possible to resolve them.

Sometimes even looking at an old problem in a new way can provide new vectors for solutions. The problems are a complex and varied combination of ideas not only from different areas of philosophical knowledge but also facts and theories of natural and social sciences.

?

New methodological instrument

?In connection with such a complexity of the considered conceptions, it seems necessary to use a method that can most adequately analyze the main provisions of both theories. Complexity, and in contrast, simplicity, has long attracted the attention of researchers. They explore simplicity-complexity as a parameter value. For this, the object should be represented as a system with a set of parameter values (SP analysis).

The systemic dimension of a scientific theory, its structure and development make it possible to reveal new aspects of knowledge.

The essence of the approach is that the object under study, for example, a scientific theory or concept, is represented in the form of a system, i.e. a systemic model of a scientific theory is being built. System characteristics and system patterns are investigated on the system model. The first stage of the SP analysis is building the system of the object to study by distinguishing three system descriptors - concept, structure and substrate.

The concept is exactly what we want to tell about the object. It can be attributive or relational. The structure is the way we want to study the object. As well as a concept, structure can be attributive or relational. The substrate is the object we study itself. If the concept is attributive then the structure corresponds to some relations of the studied objects and vice versa. In SP analysis it’s called a principle of duality of system modelling.

The concept, structure and substrate are the first-order descriptors. The relations between the first-order descriptors are the second-order descriptors. These second-order descriptors indicate the presence of specific system attributes. In our case, with the attributive concept, they are attributive system parameters.

So, the second stage of the study is the identification of specific system parameters. There are also general system parameters and sub-parameters. One of the examples is statistical and dynamic parameters. However, not all systems can be divided into such categories. The social-ecological system is a dynamic one. If we take time as the basis for the dividing. In such a system time plays a significant role.

But to reach the prognostic stage in our analysis we need to concentrate on the general system parameters. Attributive parameters can be point or binary. It means these parameters divide the objects on such it belongs to and it does not belong to. Also, there are linear system parameters. They are characterised by the degree of the attribute or the validity of the object. It means that attributes are characterised by categories “more” or “less”. (As we see, there is a degree on the measurement scale.) Cohesion and simplicity-complexity are these linear system parameters.?