Natural science, social science, and democratic practice: Some political implications of the distinction between the natural and the human sciences
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of the Social Sciences 22 (3):337-356 (1992)
This article examines some of the contributions to the contemporary debate over the question of whether there is an important distinction to be made between the natural and the human sciences. In particular, the article looks at the arguments that Charles Taylor has put forward for the recognition of a radical discontinuity between these forms of science and then examines Richard Rorty's objections to Taylor's distinction and argues that Rorty misunderstands the reasons for this distinction and thereby misses the political implications of failing to make such a distinction. In this regard, some arguments made by Anthony Giddens and John O'Neill, respectively, around Alfred Schutz's "postulate of adequacy" are used to show how the social sciences must be conceived so as to avoid consequences inimical to the reproduction and maintenance of participatory, democratic institutions. Additionally, the article uses O'Neill's argument that the Schutzian conceptualization of interpretive sciences can be critical in a way that Giddens and Jürgen Habermas require, while including a translation and accountability principle, to demonstrate how we ought to respect participatory, democratic forms
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Brian Fay (2006). For Science in the Social Sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 36 (2):227-240.
Joseph Becker (1993). The Essential Nature of the Method of the Natural Sciences: Response to A. T. Nuyen's "Truth, Method, and Objectivity: Husserl and Gadamer on Scientific Method". Philosophy of the Social Sciences 23 (1):73-76.
Sterling Lynch (2007). Romantic Longings, Moral Ideals, and Democratic Priorities: On Richard Rorty's Use of the Distinction Between the Private and the Public. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 15 (1):97 – 120.
Donald McIntosh (1997). Husserl, Weber, Freud, and the Method of the Human Sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 27 (3):328-353.
Karsten R. Stueber (2012). Understanding Versus Explanation? How to Think About the Distinction Between the Human and the Natural Sciences. Inquiry 55 (1):17 - 32.
Geoff Stokes (1997). Karl Popper's Political Philosophy of Social Science. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 27 (1):56-79.
Matthew Clayton (2001). Rawls and Natural Aristocracy. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 1 (3):239-259.
María Laura Martínez (2009). Ian Hacking's Proposal for the Distinction Between Natural and Social Sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 39 (2):212-234.
Leonard Krimerman (2001). Participatory Action Research: Should Social Inquiry Be Conducted Democratically? Philosophy of the Social Sciences 31 (1):60-82.
H. L. Dreyfus (2011). Medicine as Combining Natural and Human Science. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36 (4):335-341.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads12 ( #280,480 of 1,793,264 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #463,804 of 1,793,264 )
How can I increase my downloads?