The concept of experiment, its difference from observation and measurement. Signs of experimental psychological research

Human curiosity is the main reason for the rapid development of civilization. Since ancient times, knowledge has been carried out using two main methods: observation and experiment. Despite the apparent identity, these concepts are significantly different from each other.

Definition

Experiment is a method scientific knowledge, in which objects are immersed in an artificially created environment, and their behavior is controlled by the experimenter. The main goal of such an action is to test a hypothesis, to search for new facts that can answer questions important to science.

Observation is a method of cognition in which the observer studies the properties of the object under study and records them. Intervention in the natural environment is minimal, and any person can carry out these activities, even in the absence of equipment and technology, as well as special knowledge.

Comparison

So, the most important difference lies in the way of interaction with the subject being studied. If the observer stands aside and studies objective data, then the experimenter actively intervenes in the course of events and directs them. Observation can be spontaneous, but experiment can only be purposeful.

The experimenter is busy confirming the hypothesis that he formulated earlier. The observer simply receives new data by collecting previously unknown information. The experiment is carried out under special conditions and in a closed (limited) environment, usually artificially created, while observation is carried out in natural conditions. Another important point– availability of special equipment. For an experiment it is necessary, while observation can do without it.

Conclusions website

1. Interaction with an object. The observer distances himself from the natural environment, and the experimenter actively intervenes in it.
2. Conditions. Observation is carried out in natural conditions, and experiment is carried out in artificially created ones.
3. Special equipment. To conduct an experiment, a base is needed; observation can be carried out without equipment and tools.
4. Target. Observation is intended to record reality and obtain new data, experiment is to confirm a hypothesis formulated speculatively.

A characteristic feature of experiment as a special empirical research method is that it provides the opportunity for active practical influence on the phenomena and processes being studied. The researcher here is not limited to passive observation of phenomena, but consciously intervenes in the natural course of their occurrence. He can do this either by isolating the phenomena under study from some external factors, or by changing the limiting conditions under which they occur. In both cases, test results are accurately recorded and monitored.

Thus, the addition of simple observation with an active influence on the process being studied turns the experiment into a very effective method empirical research. This is facilitated primarily by a closer connection between experiment and theory. “Experimentation,” write I. Prigogine and I. Stengers, “means not only reliable observation of genuine facts, not only the search for empirical dependencies between phenomena, but also implies a systematic interaction between theoretical concepts and observation” 1.

The idea of ​​an experiment, its design, and the interpretation of the results depend much more on theory than the search for and interpretation of observational data.

Currently, the experimental method is used not only in those experimental sciences that are traditionally classified as exact natural sciences (mechanics, physics, chemistry, etc.), but also in sciences that study wildlife, especially in those that use modern physical and chemical research methods (genetics, molecular biology, physiology, etc.).

In modern science, the experimental method was first systematically applied, as we already know, by Galileo, although individual attempts to use it can be found in antiquity and especially in the Middle Ages.

Galileo began his research by studying the simplest natural phenomena - the mechanical movement of bodies in space over time (the fall of bodies, the movement of bodies along an inclined plane and the trajectories of cannonballs). Despite the apparent simplicity of these phenomena, he encountered a number of difficulties of both a scientific and ideological nature. The latter were associated mainly with the tradition of a purely natural-philosophical, speculative approach to the study of natural phenomena, dating back to antiquity. Thus, in Aristotelian physics it was recognized that movement occurs only when force is applied to a body. This position was considered generally accepted in medieval science. Galileo was the first to question it and suggested that the body would be at rest or in a uniform and straight motion until external forces act on it. Since Newton's time, this statement has been formulated as the first law of mechanics.

It is noteworthy that to justify the principle of inertia, Galileo was the first to use mental an experiment that later found wide application as a heuristic research tool in various industries modern natural science. Its essence lies in the analysis of the sequence of real observations and in the transition from them to some limiting situation in which the action of certain forces or factors is mentally excluded. For example, when observing mechanical movement, you can gradually reduce the effect of various forces on the body - friction, air resistance, etc. - and make sure that the path traveled by the body will increase accordingly. In the limit, one can exclude all such forces and come to the conclusion that the body under such ideal conditions will move uniformly and rectilinearly indefinitely or remain at rest.

Galileo's greatest achievements, however, were associated with setting up real experiments and mathematical processing of their results. He achieved outstanding results with experimental study free fall of bodies In his wonderful book “Conversations and Mathematical Proofs...” Galileo describes in detail how he came to his discovery of the law of constancy of acceleration of freely falling bodies. At first, he, like his predecessors - Leonardo da Vinci, Benedetti and others, believed that the speed of a body's fall is proportional to the distance traveled. However, Galileo subsequently abandoned this assumption, since it leads to consequences that are not confirmed by experiment 1. Therefore, he decided to test another hypothesis: the speed of a freely falling body is proportional to the time of fall. From it followed the corollary that the path traveled by the body is proportional to half the square of the falling time, which was confirmed in a specially constructed experiment. Since there were serious difficulties in measuring time at that time, Galileo decided to slow down the fall process. To do this, he rolled a bronze ball down an inclined chute with well-polished walls. By measuring the time it took the ball to travel along various sections of the path, he was able to verify the correctness of his assumption about the constancy of the acceleration of freely falling bodies.

With his enormous achievements modern science owes precisely to experiment, since with its help it was possible to organically connect thought and experience, theory and practice. In essence, the experiment is a question addressed to nature. Scientists are convinced that nature answers the questions they correctly pose. Therefore, since the time of Galileo, experiment has become the most important means of dialogue between man and nature, a way of penetrating its deep secrets and a means of discovering the laws that govern the phenomena observed in the experiment.

• Prigozhy I., Stengers I. Order out of chaos. - M., 1986. - P. 44.
• Some famous historians of science, including P. Duhem, A. Crombie, D. Randell, claim that the occurrence experimental science happened back in the Middle Ages. To confirm their thesis, they refer to the fact that such experiments were carried out in the 13th-14th centuries. in Paris, and in the 16th century. in Padua.
• Galileo G. Selected works: In 2 volumes. Volume 1. - M.: Nauka, 1964. - P. 241-242.
• See: Lipson G. Great experiments in physics. - M., 1972. - P. 12.

It is generally accepted that the defining property of observation is its non-intervention into the processes being studied, in contrast to the active implementation into the area under study that is carried out during experimentation. In general, this statement is correct. However, upon closer examination, it needs to be clarified: after all, observation is also active to a certain extent. There are also situations when observation itself will be impossible without intervention in the object being studied. For example, in histology, without preliminary dissection and staining of living tissue, there will simply be nothing to observe.

The intervention of the researcher during observation is aimed at achieving optimal conditions for the same observations. The observer's task is to obtain a set of primary data about the object. Of course, in this totality, certain dependencies of data groups on each other, some regularities and trends are often already visible. Preliminary guesses and assumptions about important connections may arise in the researcher during the observation itself. However, the researcher does not change the structure this data does not interfere with the data recorded by it relationship between phenomena.

So, if the phenomena A And IN accompany each other throughout the entire series of observations, then the researcher only records their coexistence (without trying, say, to cause the phenomenon A Without IN). This means that empirical material during observation increases extensive by - by expanding observations and accumulating data. We repeat a series of observations, increase the duration and detail of perception, study new aspects of the original phenomenon, etc.

In an experiment, the researcher takes a different position. Here, active intervention is carried out in the area under study in order to isolate various kinds of connections in it. Unlike observation, in an experimental research situation the experimental material grows intense way. The scientist is not interested in accumulating more and more new data, but allocation in the empirical material there are some significant dependencies. Using various controlling influences, the researcher tries to discard everything unimportant and penetrate into the very interconnections of the area under study. An experiment is an intensification of experience, its detailing and deepening.

In general, the relationship between the experimental and observational components is complex, depending each time on the specific circumstances of the study. It should be understood that in their “pure form” observation and experiment are, rather, idealized strategies. In various situations, as a rule, the methodological strategy of either observation or experiment prevails. It is by this predominance that we qualify this or that research situation. We, of course, call the study of distant space objects observation. And conducting an experimental laboratory intervention with predetermined objectives (say, testing a working hypothesis) and clearly defined dependent and independent variables comes close to the ideal of a “pure experiment.”

Thus, observation and experiment are idealized strategies actions in real research situations. The activity of the researcher during observation is aimed at the extensification of empirical data., and during experimentation - to deepen them, intensification.

Observation and experiment - two research method, which each of us used, regardless of involvement in science. Remember how exciting it is sometimes to watch your pets or how the frost draws patterns on the glass. Essentially, we learn about this world through daily observation. Experiments, by the way, also occur in everyday life more often than it might seem. When I, as a schoolgirl, set fire to plasticine to see how it transformed, this was an experiment. What is the difference between these concepts? Why do scientists differentiate them so clearly? Let me tell you the answers to these questions!

Observation and experiment: reality and assumptions

Imagine an anthill. It is very interesting to watch how its inhabitants go about their everyday affairs: moving around, carrying small objects, digging minks. Contemplating this process, we are dealing with observation. This method allows us to draw a conclusion about how work is divided between insects, where they crawl out for prey, and much more. Bring a drop of honey from home and put it in the anthill. How will the ants behave? Do they eat honey? Will they try to move a valuable gift? This will be an experiment that will confirm or refute the guesses, and maybe bring with it completely new discoveries. It turns out that observation differs from experiment in that in the first case it is sufficient connect your senses and record the results, and in the second - create and change conditions, actively participate in what is happening.

How else does observation differ from experiment?

The fact is that theory always precedes experiment. This means that before you start, you ask yourself general or specific questions. It is logical that such a research method opens up more space for thought and research, and its results can be the most unexpected.

Moreover, observation is usually does not require additional equipment, except for devices that enhance the functioning of the senses. They may be:

• microscopes
• magnifying glasses;
• telescopes;
• binoculars;
• cameras.

In case of experiment, you most likely you will need a number of items to artificially create certain conditions. What kind of equipment this will be depends only on the subject of the study.

Experiment, observe, study! Let the world be open to you!