ESSAY

on the course "Philosophy"

on the topic: "Analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction"

INTRODUCTION

1. PROCESSES OF ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS

2. INDUCTION AND DEDUCTION METHODS

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION

The methods of scientific cognition, which are inseparable from each other and are in close unity and interrelation, can be conditionally divided into two groups: general and special.

General Methods allow linking together all aspects of the process of cognition. Their objective basis is the general patterns of cognition. These include the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, the unity of the logical and the historical, etc.

Special methods concern only one side of the subject being studied. These are observation, experiment, analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, measurement, comparison.

In natural science, special methods of science are given extremely importance, therefore, as part of the work, we will consider their essence in more detail. The main special methods are analysis, synthesis, induction and deduction.

It can also be said that analysis and synthesis are methods of scientific thinking that generate in each area special methods.

The relevance of this topic is due to the fact that analysis-synthesis and induction-deduction play an important role both in philosophical and in any other cognition, and are understood as a synonym for any scientific research.

1. PROCESSES OF ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS

Analysis-synthesis as the essence, as the content and form of human thinking, as techniques and methods of scientific thinking is comprehensively studied in multiple dimensions and by many sciences. Analysis and synthesis (from the Greek. analysis - decomposition, dismemberment, synthesis - connection) are two universal, oppositely directed operations of thinking.

There are several senses in which the terms "analysis" and "synthesis" are used:

· analysis and synthesis as characteristics of the structure of evidence in mathematics; in this sense one speaks of analytical and synthetic methods;

analysis and synthesis in the sense of Kant's distinction between "analytical" and "synthetic" judgments, which actually means the difference between the method of obtaining knowledge by purely logical processing of this experience ("analytical") from the method of obtaining knowledge by referring to the content, by bringing to the original knowledge what - some other data of experience ("synthetic");

most often the terms "analysis" and "synthesis" are used in relation to all thinking in general, to research in general.

Proceeding from this, analysis is a procedure for the mental (sometimes real) division of the object under study into its component parts, consideration of all aspects and methods of functioning of the property and study of them. The dismemberment is aimed at the transition from the study of the whole to the study of its parts and is carried out by abstracting from the connection of the parts with each other.

Synthesis is a procedure for combining the parts of objects obtained as a result of analysis, their sides or properties into a single whole, consideration of the method of connections and relations of parts, without which a truly scientific knowledge of this subject is impossible.

Analysis and synthesis are used both in mental and practical, in particular experimental, activities. In various sciences, specific methods of analysis and synthesis are used, and in each area there are special methods.

AT general sense thinking as a whole is "analysis-synthesis", the dismemberment of objects of consciousness and their unification. It arises already at the stage of sensory cognition, when we decompose phenomena into separate aspects and properties, highlighting their shape, color, size, constituent elements, etc. Knowing objects, we make an analysis. The selected parts can become the subject of independent, deeper study, certain relationships and dependencies can be established between them. Any thinking is the establishment of some kind of relationship between objects fixed in thought or their sides, that is, synthesis. Subsequent synthesis restores the integrity of the object, but after its analytical study, we are more deeply aware of the structure of this integrity. The ratio of synthesis and analysis is a certain process. It is based on the connection of abstractions in which thinking is carried out.

Dialectical thinking presupposes unity, a combination of analysis and synthesis in the course of the study of the subject. Hegel, who proceeded from the activity of thinking and posed the problem of analysis and synthesis as a problem logical thinking, in his writings substantiated the unity of analysis and synthesis, their dialectics, showed the correlativity of the categories of part and whole and the inconsistency of the process of reflecting an object as part and whole.

The construction of a theory about a certain subject area presupposes the presence of both analytical and synthetic knowledge about each subject of this area, objectively consisting of parts: special knowledge about individual objects of communication and knowledge about the properties of the connection of objects, which contains the result of processing together individual knowledge.

AT Everyday life in extracting a particular thought from the thick fog of layers of visual images, sounds, aromas and tastes - from everything that makes up our life, we usually use two qualities of the mind: the ability to analyze and the ability to synthesize.

Analyzing, we share big ideas to smaller ones. Synthesizing, we combine a certain amount of information based on a certain principle. Realizing the complexity of the huge amount of information we receive, we try to sort our thoughts into certain categories. We place mental brackets in the material of our life experience.

In many professions, to become a master of your craft, you need to master the art of classification, perceiving individual details, classifying them in your mind based on certain criteria, integrating this information and formulating thoughts regarding the object as a whole.

The procedures of analysis and synthesis are a necessary element of any scientific knowledge. Analysis is usually its first stage, when the researcher moves from an undivided description of the object under study to the identification of its structure, composition, as well as its properties and features.

In the process of scientific knowledge, synthesis, as a rule, follows analysis. Synthesis acts not as a method of constructing the whole, but as a method of representing the whole in the form of a unity of knowledge obtained through analysis. In synthesis, not just a union occurs, but a generalization of the analytically distinguished and studied features of an object. The provisions obtained as a result of the synthesis are included in the theory of the object, which, being enriched and refined, determines the paths of a new scientific search.

This knowledge is used in theory in a different and relatively independent way. Let's consider some examples of the use of analysis and synthesis in scientific knowledge.

In chemistry, when considering a number of compounds that in turn react with each other, instead of knowledge about the properties of the compound as a whole, one has to put knowledge about its individual parts, since they are important. quantitative characteristics. In other sciences, as a rule, knowledge is used indiscriminately, as synthetic.

In mechanics, depending on the needs of constructing a theory, or in terms of solving more challenging tasks, either knowledge of the constituent forces or knowledge of the resulting force is used (for example, addition and expansion of forces according to the parallelogram rule). The construction of a theory or the general course of research can be characterized here from the point of view of the logical conditions for the possibility of replacing one knowledge, a number of others, or a number of knowledge with one in the presence of coordination of various objects in the subject area (fixed accordingly in special knowledge) and manifestations of the results of this coordination in the properties of the whole. Synthetic knowledge is never a simple mechanical sum of knowledge about parts; it represents new knowledge (for example, when applied to several forces, one has to build a parallelogram rule and the resultant is not equal to a simple sum of forces).

The structural unity of analysis and synthesis means both the interdependence of knowledge (analytical and synthetic) or research tasks, and the characteristics of the method for implementing each of them separately. Even the elementary process of reflecting the simplest coordination and its various elements is both analysis and synthesis in the sense of obtaining analytical knowledge through synthesis and synthetic knowledge through analysis.

In scientific knowledge, the deductive method is a special case of analysis, and the inductive method is a special case of synthesis. Analysis and synthesis are used as methods of thinking, and induction and deduction as methods.

2. INDUCTION AND DEDUCTION METHODS

Rational judgments are traditionally divided into deductive and inductive. The question of the use of induction and deduction as methods of cognition has been discussed throughout the history of philosophy. Unlike analysis and synthesis, these methods were often opposed to each other and considered in isolation from each other and from other means of cognition.

AT broad sense words, induction, is a form of thinking that develops general judgments about single objects; it is a way of moving thought from the particular to the general, from less universal knowledge to more universal knowledge (the path of knowledge "from the bottom up").

Observing and studying individual objects, facts, events, a person comes to the knowledge of general patterns. No human knowledge can do without them. The immediate basis of inductive reasoning is the repetition of features in a number of objects of a certain class. A conclusion by induction is a conclusion about general properties of all objects belonging to a given class, based on the observation of a fairly wide set of single facts. Usually inductive generalizations are considered as empirical truths, or empirical laws. Induction is an inference in which the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises, and the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. From true premises, induction produces a probabilistic conclusion. Induction is characteristic of the experimental sciences, it makes it possible to construct hypotheses, does not provide reliable knowledge, and suggests an idea.

Speaking of induction, one usually distinguishes between induction as a method of experimental (scientific) knowledge and induction as a conclusion, as a specific type of reasoning. As a method of scientific knowledge, induction is the formulation of a logical conclusion by summarizing the data of observation and experiment. From the point of view of cognitive tasks, induction is also distinguished as a method of discovering new knowledge and induction as a method of substantiating hypotheses and theories.

Induction plays an important role in empirical (experimental) cognition. Here she is performing:

One of the methods of education empirical concepts;

the basis for the construction of natural classifications;

One of the methods for discovering causal patterns and hypotheses;

One of the methods of confirmation and substantiation of empirical laws.

Induction is widely used in science. With its help, all the most important natural classifications in botany, zoology, geography, astronomy, etc. The laws of planetary motion discovered by Johannes Kepler were obtained by induction on the basis of Tycho Brahe's analysis of astronomical observations. In turn, the Keplerian laws served as an inductive basis in the creation of Newtonian mechanics (which later became a model for the use of deduction). There are several types of induction:

1. Enumerative or general induction.

2. Eliminative induction (from the Latin eliminatio - exclusion, removal), containing various schemes establishing causal relationships.

3. Induction as reverse deduction (movement of thought from consequences to foundations).

General induction is an induction in which one moves from knowledge about several subjects to knowledge about their totality. This is a typical induction. It is general induction that gives us general knowledge. General induction can be represented by two types of complete and incomplete induction. Complete induction builds a general conclusion based on the study of all objects or phenomena of a given class. As a result of complete induction, the resulting conclusion has the character of a reliable conclusion.

In practice, it is more often necessary to use incomplete induction, the essence of which is that it builds a general conclusion based on the observation of a limited number of facts, if among the latter there are none that contradict inductive reasoning. Therefore, it is natural that the truth obtained in this way is incomplete; here we obtain probabilistic knowledge that requires additional confirmation.

The inductive method was already studied and applied by the ancient Greeks, in particular Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. But a special interest in the problems of induction manifested itself in the 17th-18th centuries. with the development of new science. The English philosopher Francis Bacon, criticizing scholastic logic, considered induction based on observation and experiment to be the main method of knowing the truth. With the help of such induction, Bacon was going to look for the cause of the properties of things. Logic should become the logic of inventions and discoveries, Bacon believed, the Aristotelian logic set forth in the work "Organon" does not cope with this task. Therefore, Bacon wrote the New Organon, which was supposed to replace the old logic. Another English philosopher, economist and logician John Stuart Mill extolled induction. He can be considered the founder of classical inductive logic. In his logic, Mill gave a great place to the development of methods for studying causal relationships.

In the course of experiments, material is accumulated for the analysis of objects, the selection of some of their properties and characteristics; the scientist draws conclusions, preparing the basis for scientific hypotheses, axioms. That is, there is a movement of thought from the particular to the general, which is called induction. The line of knowledge, according to supporters of inductive logic, is built as follows: experience - inductive method - generalization and conclusions (knowledge), their verification in the experiment.

The principle of induction states that the universal propositions of science are based on inductive conclusions. This principle is invoked when it is said that the truth of a statement is known from experience. In the modern methodology of science, it is realized that it is generally impossible to establish the truth of a universal generalizing judgment with empirical data. No matter how much a law is tested by empirical data, there is no guarantee that new observations will not appear that will contradict it.

Unlike inductive reasoning, which only suggests a thought, through deductive reasoning, one deduces a thought from other thoughts. The process of logical inference, as a result of which the transition from premises to consequences is carried out based on the application of the rules of logic, is called deduction. There are deductive inferences: conditionally categorical, dividing-categorical, dilemmas, conditional inferences, etc.

Deduction is a method of scientific knowledge, which consists in the transition from certain general premises to particular results-consequences. Deduction derives general theorems, special conclusions from the experimental sciences. Gives certain knowledge if the premise is correct. The deductive method of research is as follows: in order to obtain new knowledge about an object or a group of homogeneous objects, it is necessary, firstly, to find the nearest genus, which includes these objects, and, secondly, to apply to them the appropriate law inherent in to the whole given kind of objects; transition from knowledge to more general provisions to less general knowledge.

In general, deduction as a method of cognition proceeds from already known laws and principles. Therefore, the method of deduction does not allow obtaining meaningful new knowledge. Deduction is only a method of logical deployment of a system of provisions based on initial knowledge, a method of identifying the specific content of generally accepted premises.

Aristotle understood deduction as evidence using syllogisms. Deduction was praised by the great French scientist René Descartes. He contrasted it with intuition. In his opinion, intuition directly sees the truth, and with the help of deduction, the truth is comprehended indirectly, i.e. through reasoning. A clear intuition and the necessary deduction is the way to know the truth, according to Descartes. He also deeply developed the deductive-mathematical method in the study of natural sciences. For a rational method of research, Descartes formulated four basic rules, the so-called. "rules for the guidance of the mind":

1. That which is clear and distinct is true.

2. The complex must be divided into private, simple problems.

3. Go to the unknown and unproven from the known and proven.

4. Conduct logical reasoning consistently, without gaps.

The method of reasoning based on the conclusion (deduction) of consequences-conclusions from hypotheses is called the hypothetical-deductive method. Because there is no logic scientific discovery, no methods guaranteeing the receipt of the true scientific knowledge, insofar as scientific statements are hypotheses, i.e. are scientific assumptions or assumptions whose truth value is uncertain. This provision forms the basis of the hypothetical-deductive model of scientific knowledge. In accordance with this model, the scientist puts forward a hypothetical generalization, various kinds of consequences are deduced from it, which are then compared with empirical data. The rapid development of hypothetical deductive method began in the 17th and 18th centuries. This method has been successfully applied in mechanics. The studies of Galileo Galilei and especially Isaac Newton turned mechanics into a coherent hypothetical-deductive system, thanks to which mechanics became a model of science for a long time, and mechanistic views were long tried to be transferred to other natural phenomena.

The deductive method plays a huge role in mathematics. It is known that all provable propositions, that is, theorems, are deduced in a logical way using deduction from a small finite number of initial principles provable within the framework of a given system, called axioms.

But time has shown that the hypothetical-deductive method was not omnipotent. In scientific research, one of the most difficult tasks is the discovery of new phenomena, laws and the formulation of hypotheses. Here the hypothetical-deductive method rather plays the role of a controller, checking the consequences arising from hypotheses.

In the modern era, extreme points of view on the meaning of induction and deduction began to be overcome. Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, while recognizing experience and, therefore, induction as a major role in cognition, noted at the same time that the process of moving from facts to laws is not a purely logical process, but includes intuition. They assigned an important role to deduction in the construction and testing of scientific theories and noted that in scientific knowledge important place is occupied by a hypothesis that is not reducible to induction and deduction. However, it was not possible to completely overcome the opposition between inductive and deductive methods of cognition for a long time.

In modern scientific knowledge, induction and deduction are always intertwined with each other. Real scientific research takes place in the alternation of inductive and deductive methods. The opposition of induction and deduction as methods of cognition loses its meaning, since they are not considered as the only methods. In cognition, other methods play an important role, as well as techniques, principles, and forms (abstraction, idealization, problem, hypothesis, etc.). For example, probabilistic methods play a huge role in modern inductive logic. Estimating the probability of generalizations, searching for criteria for substantiating hypotheses, the establishment of complete reliability of which is often impossible, requires increasingly sophisticated research methods.

CONCLUSION

The special methods studied by us in the work refer to local knowledge, to the corresponding theories.

Analysis and synthesis of the concept are broader, induction and deduction are methods used specifically in cognition. Perhaps that is why the role of analysis and synthesis in scientific knowledge and in mental activity in general did not cause such disputes and contradictions among scientists and philosophers as discussions about the role of the inductive and deductive method.

Analysis and synthesis do not just complement each other, there is a deeper inner connection between them, which is based on the connection of abstractions, which forms, in fact, thinking.

Analysis and synthesis as methods of scientific thinking, applicable always and to everything, give rise to special methods in each area, and inductive and deductive methods are already used selectively. Analysis correlates with deduction, and synthesis with induction.

The development of the doctrine of induction led to the creation of inductive logic, which says that the truth of knowledge comes from experience. The development of the doctrine of deduction led to the creation of a fairly progressive hypothetical-deductive method - the creation of a system of deductively interconnected hypotheses from which statements about empirical facts are derived. Subsequent opposition inductive method deductive, was overcome and modern scientific knowledge is unthinkable without the use of all special methods.

Dialectical method thinking as a whole is the rules of analysis and synthesis complex systems connections, which are a means of revealing the necessary internal connections of the organic whole with the totality of its sides using inductive and deductive methods.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Alekseev P.V., Panin A.V. Philosophy: Textbook. - 3rd ed., revised. and additional - M.: TK Velby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2003.

2. Gubin D. Philosophy: a textbook. - M.: Gardariki, 2003.

3. Gurevich P.S. Fundamentals of Philosophy: Tutorial. - M.: Gardariki, 2003.

4. History of philosophy in summary. Per. from Czech. I.I. Bogut. - M.: Thought, 2005.

5. Ilyenkov E.V. Dialectics of abstract and concrete in scientific-theoretical thinking. - M., 2007.

6. Ilyin V.V. Theory of knowledge. Introduction. Common problems. - M., 2004.

7. Karatini R. Introduction to Philosophy. - M.: Eksmo Publishing House, 2003.

8. M. K. Mamardashvili, Processes of Analysis and Synthesis. // "Questions of Philosophy", 1958, No. 2.

9. A. A. Pechenkin, Substantiation of the scientific theory. Classic and modern. - M., Nauka, 1991.

10. Philosophy: Textbook // Ed. V.D. Gubina, T.Yu. Sidorina. - 3rd ed., revised. and additional - M.: Gardariki, 2003.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

To solve problems, a person uses many mental operations: analysis, synthesis, generalization, comparison, etc. Without them, it is impossible cognitive activity, education, productive thinking generally. Today we will look at the essence of basic mental operations and find out how to teach them to a child.

Types of mental operations

Mental operations or theoretical research methods are one of the tools of mental activity aimed at solving problems. The main function of these operations is the awareness of the essence of processes, phenomena or objects. Simply put, everything that we mean by the word "think".

There are many theoretical research methods. The main ones are:

• Analysis. The decomposition of the whole into parts, the selection of individual features, properties, qualities of objects / phenomena.
• Synthesis. Combining parts into a whole based on the semantic relationships of objects / phenomena among themselves.
• Comparison. Comparison of objects / phenomena with each other, finding similarities and differences between them.
• Generalization. The combination of various objects / phenomena into one group based on common features (based on similarity).
• Specification. Filling some generalized scheme with a particular meaning (features, properties).
• Analogy. Transfer of knowledge about one subject/phenomenon to another (less studied or inaccessible for study).

These operations are indispensable in the process of learning, assimilation of new knowledge. Many of them are used by a person unconsciously and intuitively. However, in order to effectively apply these mental operations, it is necessary to develop and improve them already from a young age. school age.

Analysis

For younger students

• Name the properties. Offer the child a number of concepts (apple, table, dog, etc.) and ask them to name essential features each of them. For example, an apple is round, green and grows on a tree. The more properties the student names, the better. To complicate the task, you can ask the child to highlight a certain number of signs (at least five, seven, ten).
• Divide by feature. The student is offered a set of different shapes (small / large, red / blue / green / yellow squares / circles / triangles), which must be divided according to a certain attribute: first by shape, then by color and, finally, by size.

• Analysis of a literary work. The student's task is to read a poem or a story and explain how he understands its meaning, to guess what the author wanted to say with one or another part of the work.
• Analysis of the situation. The child is offered a situation that he needs to consider from all sides, to offer some solution to the problem, a possible development of events. For example, studying at a university. It can be paid and free. Paid education costs 80,000 rubles, for free education you need to score at least 200 USE points. For admission to one faculty, Russian language, mathematics and biology are needed, to the other - mathematics, Russian language and physics. In physics, the student has a five, and in biology - a four. Etc.

IMPORTANT! The student should not only make assumptions, but also explain them. I think so because...

Synthesis

For younger students

• Draw the missing figure. The child is offered several figures, united according to some attribute (color, shape, size). One object is missing in the row - the student must name it and finish it.
• Lay out the figure. From a set of elements, the child needs to fold an object: a square, a triangle, a rhombus, a house, a chair, etc.

For middle and high school students

• Mosaic. The number of puzzle elements depends on the age of the child: middle school students can be offered a mosaic of 50-150 pieces or a multi-colored mosaic, from which various pictures can be assembled on a special board; older children - large-scale images from 150 elements.
• Link things in a meaningful way. The student is given two or more concepts that he needs to relate to each other in meaning. For example, a puddle and a rainbow. Possible line of reasoning: a puddle forms after rain, a rainbow appears when the sun's rays illuminate the drops of moisture in the air. This means that the connection between these concepts is that they appear due to one phenomenon - rain.

Comparison

For younger students

• What common? The child is given a number of objects and asked to find the similarities between them. These can be figures of the same shape / color / size, flowers / animals of the same species, similar people, etc.
• How are they different? This task is similar to the previous one, only here it is necessary to say what is the difference between the items. You can use shapes of the same color, but different shapes, animals different types(cat and dog), etc. For very young children, the most dissimilar objects are used. You can also offer the child two pictures to find the differences between them.

For middle and high school students

• What is superfluous? The task of the student is to select from a set of objects one that is not similar to the others, is somehow different from them. How older child, the more similar objects should be to each other, so that the difference is singled out as difficult as possible. Easy Example: table, chair, bed, floor, closet. Complicated example: robbery, theft, earthquake, arson, assault.
• Hero Comparison. After reading a literary work or watching a movie (several), the student is invited to compare any two (or more) characters with each other. You can compare the appearance, character, actions of heroes. It is important that the student not only notes how the characters are similar / different, but also gives examples, explains his point of view.

Generalization

For younger students

• Pick a picture. This exercise can be done in two ways. 1. The child is given a set of pictures depicting various objects / phenomena (table, wardrobe, book, doll, cup, dog, pen, rainbow, apple, etc.). Its task is to find and set aside all images of objects of a certain group (furniture: table, bed, chair, wardrobe). 2. The student receives the same set of pictures as in the first option, only now his task will be to select an image of an object included in the same group as the one proposed. For example, the proposed object is a sofa; a chair, a table, a wardrobe, a bed are included in the same group with it.
• Name the group. The task can be performed on the basis of pictures or verbal concepts. The student is given a number of images / definitions that he needs to combine into one general group and name it. For example, strawberries, cherries, raspberries, blackberries. The group is berries.

For middle and high school students

• Name the group. This task is performed in the same way as a similar exercise for children of primary school age. Only here students are given more complex concepts. For example, love, hate, happiness. The group is feelings.
• Classification. The material for the exercise can be a text from a textbook on biology, chemistry, social studies, etc. or an arbitrary set of concepts. In the first case, the task becomes more complicated, since first the student needs to isolate concepts from the text. Then he combines them into different groups according to a certain feature, which can be indicated in advance or asked the child to select independently.

Specification

For younger students

• Name the words. In this exercise, the student needs to name as many words as possible from the group. For example, a group - berries, furniture, toys, etc.
• Answer the question. The student must answer as fully as possible questions relating to his knowledge, skills, understanding. For example, what animals do you know, how do they differ?

For middle and high school students

• Give me a definition. The student is offered a number of concepts that need to be explained in his own words, to say how he understands the essence of this or that phenomenon. For example, joy, love, adolescence, etc.
• Detailed response. In this exercise, the child is asked questions that he needs to answer as fully as possible. Why does the sun shine? Why don't people fly? etc.

Analogy

For younger students

• Simple analogies. First, the child is given an example on the basis of which the exercise will be performed. It is important to make sure that the student understands the example. Task: forest - tree (tree in the forest); meadow - ? (and what about in the meadow?) a goat is an animal; bread - ? etc. The task can be both in free form (the student himself comes up with an answer), and with answer options.

For middle and high school students

• complex analogy. The exercise is performed according to the same principle as the "Simple Analogies" for students elementary school. Only pairs of words are more complex. Task: face is a mirror; voice - ? ball - circle; cube - ? etc.

NOTE. Tasks for analogy can be absolutely anything. The main condition is that they should be built on relationships understandable to the child. The student is given an example and, by analogy with him, similar tasks are performed. For example, popular mathematical examples with relations: A=C, B=D. A is greater than B, therefore C...? (More D). Also in this category of exercises can be attributed to the implementation of actions according to the model.

Analysis and synthesis.

1) Analysis (Greek - decomposition) - the division of an object or phenomenon into its constituent, simple parts.

2) Synthesis (Greek - connection, composition) - connection of parts of an object or phenomenon into a whole, consideration of an object in unity.

Metaphysics opposes analysis and synthesis as mutually exclusive methods. Materialistic dialectics, on the other hand, teaches about the unity of analysis and synthesis. Engels wrote that “thinking consists as much in the decomposition of objects of consciousness into their elements as in the unification of elements connected with each other into a unity. Without analysis, there is no synthesis.” V. I. Lenin also emphasizes the unity of analysis and synthesis in cognition. One of the elements of dialectics, V. I. Lenin points out, is “the combination of analysis and synthesis, - disassembly separate parts and the totality, the summation of these parts together"

Analysis and synthesis are powerful means human knowledge. Without them, even the elementary and simplest forms of mental activity—sensation, perception—are impossible. The objective world, objective things and phenomena appear before a person in all their complexity and concreteness. The concrete is the unity of the manifold. It is impossible to know this concrete without dividing it into its component parts and elements, without analyzing them. The chemist could know nothing about chemical processes, about the laws of association and dissociation of atoms, if analysis did not give him the opportunity to isolate the constituent parts of these processes - chemical elements, atoms, molecules. In the same way, an economist could not have known anything about capitalism and the laws of its economic development if, through analysis, he had not singled out its elements - commodity, price, value, surplus value, etc. - and did not know their essence.

Analysis by itself, however, cannot give a complete knowledge of objects. It requires an addition in the form of a synthesis, which, based on the result of analysis, cognizes objects and phenomena as a whole. Marx, who gave in "" (see) a brilliant example of dialectical knowledge, is not limited to one analysis. After analyzing the individual aspects, the elements of the capitalist mode of production, Marx then gives a majestic synthesis showing the capitalist mode of production as a whole, in the dialectical interconnection of all its aspects and laws. Vivid examples of the dialectical application of analysis and synthesis to the knowledge of complex issues. public life and struggle give the works of Lenin and Stalin.

Thus, for example, Lenin in his work “Imperialism, as the Highest Stage of Capitalism”, developing the ideas of “Capital” as applied to the new historical period of capitalism and deeply revealing the essence of imperialism, uses both analysis and synthesis. First, V. I. Lenin explores through analysis various parties, signs of imperialism as a new, higher stage of capitalism. Having singled out and elucidated these signs, V. I. Lenin further summarizes them by means of a synthesis and gives a general definition of the essence of imperialism. J. V. Stalin in his work “Marxism and the National Question”, defining the essence of the nation, first, through analysis, highlights the inherent character traits, signs: common language, territory, economic life, mental warehouse. Then II. V. Stalin, by means of synthesis, gives a deep definition of the concept of "nation", which contains in a generalized form all its main features.

Thus, in the process of cognition, it is necessary to apply both analysis and synthesis, which, as subordinate moments, are included in the method of materialistic dialectics.

In order to understand what these methods consist in, let us note that the particular position, conclusion, effect is in the same relation to the general position, principle, basis, in which the action is to the cause. Just as a certain effect is obtained from a known cause, so a certain conclusion, a consequence, is obtained from a known principle, a foundation. We look for a principle or foundation for a certain proposition just as we look for its cause for a certain action. On the other hand, just as for a known cause we look for its effect, so for certain principles we can look for their consequences.
Hence, depending on what we are looking for, we get two various process.
If we go from reason to action, from reason to conclusion, Then such a path is called progressive or synthetic. It is called progressive because it corresponds to the real course of nature, the actual course of things, since in nature the cause is earlier than the effect. The way back, namely from action to cause, from conclusions to principles, is called regressive, analytical.
Diagram of the relationship between analysis and synthesis:

Often the words "analysis" and "synthesis" are given a different meaning, namely, analysis is understood as the method of decomposing the whole into its component parts, and synthesis is the inverse method of adding the whole and into its parts, or elements. In this sense, they most often talk about chemical analysis and synthesis. But in order to true meaning the concepts of "analysis" and "synthesis", as they are used in scientific research and presentation, was clear, we must consider the basic meaning of the word "analysis" that which we have just indicated, namely the reduction of particular provisions to basic principles, and synthesis should be understood derivation of consequences from basic principles.
We use the analytical method of research when we are looking for the causes of these actions. The judge, the moralist, etc., who are looking for the causes of certain actions, use the analytical method; the legislator, the politician, the educator, who try to foresee the effects of known causes, must follow the synthetic path.
To explain the application of analysis, let's take the following example. To solve the problem of inscribing a regular hexagon in a given circle, we reason like this. Suppose that the problem is solved, and let AB be one of the sides of the inscribed hexagon. If we draw the radii to the end points of the sides, then the triangle formed in this way will be equiangular (since each angle is two-thirds right angle); therefore, the side of an inscribed regular hexagon is equal to the radius. It follows that, in order to inscribe a regular hexagon in a given circle, you need to apply the radius six times on the circle. Here application analytical method obviously. Having made the assumption that the problem has been solved, i.e., having admitted a given particular proposition, we have found that condition, that general principle under which this particular proposition is possible, i.e., from which this proposition can be deduced. In other words, we reduce this particular provision to a general principle.
An example of the application of synthesis is the theorem: "in any triangle, the sum of its angles is equal to two right angles." To prove this theorem, we must accept the following two general propositions: "internal cross-lying angles are equal" and "every pair of adjacent angles is equal to two right angles." From these general propositions we deduce the required proposition.
The relation of analysis and synthesis to induction and deduction. But, one may ask, in what relation are the methods of analytic and synthetic to the methods of inductive and deductive? The relation between them is such that analysis corresponds to induction and synthesis corresponds to deduction. That analysis corresponds to induction can easily be explained as follows.
Induction aims at discovering the laws general principles. In the process of induction, we go from particular provisions to general principles. Therefore, in the process of induction, we make a regressive path. It follows from this that induction corresponds to analysis.
On the contrary, deduction deduces particular propositions, certain consequences, from general principles. From this, the relationship between the deductive method and the synthetic method becomes clear. The synthetic method consists in assuming known principles as open and proven; from these general principles we draw corollaries.

Review questions
What is a proof and how does it differ from a syllogism? What three parts do we distinguish in a proof? What are the main principles? What is direct evidence? What is indirect evidence? State the circumstantial evidence. What is called a method? What is called a system? In what two cases is the method used in scientific thinking? Which method is called analytical and which is synthetic? Why is the synthetic method called progressive, and the analytical regressive? Show the application of analytical and synthetic methods in mathematics. What is the relationship between analytic and synthetic methods and inductive and deductive methods?

When solving problems of the widest range, including economic ones, methods of logical knowledge are used, among which analysis and synthesis stand out. In the aggregate of all methods of logical research, these two are characterized by the fact that they are applied practically without restrictions, they can be used both on patterns and in everyday comprehension of facts, phenomena, events.

Analysis is such a logical technique in which the researcher mentally divides the object or subject of research into conditional components, and then studies each of the selected parts separately. In everyday life, we often use this word, sometimes without attaching much importance to the conditions that are put forward by the use of this method in cognition. One of the most important of these conditions is that both analysis and synthesis used in the study of any subject should be mentally divided only and exclusively into those components that together form the subject of study. Replacing them with analogues and components of the same type is not allowed, this replacement already means a transition to another method of logical knowledge - modeling.

Synthesis is one in which the individual elements of the subject of knowledge are combined into a whole and are studied as part of this whole. As can be seen from the content, both methods - analysis and synthesis - represent a dialectical integrity, and therefore, in practice, as a rule, they are (or should be) used together, thus ensuring a higher reliability of the results.

The use of these methods is so widespread that it is directly connected in general with the ability of a person to comprehend rationally. the world and the things that happen in it. However, their use has a number of features that are determined by the scope and properties of the object or subject being studied. So, for example, analysis and synthesis in economics is understood as the movement of thought in the "reverse direction", such that the reasoning is built from an unknown economic phenomenon to a known one, and vice versa. It should also be taken into account that both analysis and synthesis, in themselves, do not act as a proof or a solution to any problem, they are only a means of finding this solution.

The applied purpose of these logical methods in the economy is that with their help the essential aspects of the ongoing economic processes are revealed, the most important development trends are studied. economic activity at the macro- and microeconomic levels, global, national and local-regional economic problems.

In addition, the analysis and synthesis of management systems, for example, acts as a starting point for planning and forecasting the economic situation, regardless of the scale of the object we are studying, or what form of ownership it belongs to. The use of these logical techniques, both independently and as part of a system analysis, makes it possible to reasonably justify, based on scientific data, the entire economic policy of the object that is being studied.

Synthesis and analysis in their application cover both the global and national economic spheres. The same at the microeconomic level is limited to considering the development of a particular industry, enterprise, and even an individual entrepreneur. Here there is a selection as the subject of analysis or synthesis of the study of such indicators as the volume of production, the magnitude of the costs and profitability of an enterprise or firm.

Both synthesis and analysis in the economic sphere have several varieties, determined by the interests and objectives of the study itself. So, if we need to learn about past trends in the development of an enterprise, a retrospective option is used, and if we want to "look" into the future, a promising one.

The most productive is the right combination these methods as part of a combined methodology, for example, when studying an object. This ensures the preservation of all the advantages of the methods, while leveling their shortcomings, through the use of other methods of cognition.