A la fin du XIXe siècle, le progrès des sciences et des techniques parut ouvrir une ère de bonheur où l'homme, délivré des tâches serviles et de toutes les superstitions, serait enfin le maître de la nature et de son propre destin. Mais le XXe siècle ne tint pas ces promesses. Certes, le progrès des sciences a fait reculer la mortalité infantile et allonger l'espérance de vie. Les nouveaux moyens de communication ont permis la circulation rapide d'informations autour (...) du globe. Mais notre environnement est menacé par toutes sortes de déchets. La biologie a ouvert des voies effrayantes. l'automatisation a bouleversé le monde du travail. La nécessité de former des scientifiques pour créer et maîtriser ces nouveaux outils a fait reculer la culture classique. De tels changements ont obscurci les repères traditionnels, les esprits sont déroutés, le sens est en crise. A l'entrée du troisième millénaire, l'Académie d'Education et d'Etudes sociales ne pouvait laisser ces questions dans l'ombre : elles sont trop souvent l'objet de débats plus passionnés que fondés et raisonnés. La science menace-t-elle l'homme et son environnement? Pèse-t-elle sur la cohésion sociale et la démocratie? Quelle est sa place dans la culture, à côté de la philosophie? Comment le chrétien se situe-t-il dans ce monde scientifique et technique? Par une étude raisonnée de ces questions, l'AES souhaite délivrer un message d'espoir et de confiance, et contribuer à mettre le développement scientifique et technique au service de l'homme, suivant la parole de l'Ecclésiastique : " Le Très-Haut a donné à l'homme le savoir pour être glorifié dans ses merveilles " (17,8). (shrink)

In his paper the author establishes some arguments against the thesis of professor Walter Schweidler. The later defends the anti-representationalist claim that not every kind of knowledge is to evaluate on its truth and falsehood. The author maintains the opposite thesis that the all knowledge including the one about social premises of any kind of science may be evaluated (although not eventually proved) on their truth or falseness.

The central aim of this thesis is to confront the world-view of positivistic materialism with its nihilistic implications and to develop an alternative world-view based on process philosophy, showing how in terms of this, science and ethics can be reconciled. The thesis begins with an account of the rise of positivism and materialism, or ‘scientism’, to its dominant position in the culture of Western civilization and shows what effect this has had on the image of man and consequently on ethical (...) views. After having shown the basic weaknesses of this world-view, the positivist account of science is criticised and an alternative epistemology is developed in which the aim of disciplined inquiry is seen to be understanding. It is argued on the basis of this epistemology that science and metaphysics are indissociable, and that the materialist conception of being is open to challenge from a different ontology. Having reviewed the various conceptions of being which have been developed in the past, a version of process philosophy is outlined and it is argued that this promises to be far more effective than materialism as a foundation for the natural sciences. In particular it is shown how in terms of process philosophy it is possible to conceive of living, sentient organisms as having emerged from inanimate being. This provides the basis for the development of a conception of humanity as an emergent form of life. The human order is then seen as a process of becoming within nature with its own unique dynamics, irreducible to any other processes, involving both intentional and unintentional processes. It is shown how on the basis of this conception of humanity it is possible to develop an ethical theory and a critical social science, and in this way, to transcend the disjunction between science and ethics. -/- . (shrink)

Contemporary Russian philosophical traditions cannot be reduced to Marxist works and research in religious philosophy. Russian philosophers developed philosophy and methodology of social sciences and humanities as early as at the end of the nineteenth century and in the beginning of the twentieth century. In particular, S.N. Bulgakov’s social philosophy of science is closely related to European thinkers’ works and ideas. Problems of social determinism in scientific cognition are among them. These problems are topical now as seen in the (...) well-known discussion about the nature and meaning of various forms of determinism in which different stands are taken by R. Thomas, E. Morin and I. Prigogine. A new level of research of social determinism is presented in Russia in the second-half of the twentieth century. The identification of determination with causality is overcome. Necessary and contingent, dynamic and statistical determination, self-determination, and so on, come under examination. In the 1970s mechanistic and objectivistic determination is overcome and human factors, such as the will and systems of values, are taken into account. S.L. Frank turns to the methodology of social sciences in 1922 and continues his studies in 1930 in Europe. Frank creates a holistic, fully secular doctrine of social philosophy, sociology, philosophy of law and history. The changing situation in Russia at the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty first century allows us to re-evaluate ideas and works of Russian thinkers who studied mainly rationalist themes, including philosophy and methodology of science, its hermeneutic and semiotic aspects. Russian and European philosophies are used and essentially enriched. G.G. Shpet’s ideas are examined. Studying the sphere of language and meaning, recognizing the essential importance of hermeneutics for knowledge in the humanities, he brings forward a semiotic conception of ethnic psychology to precede, in particular, American anthropologist and ethnographer C. Geertz’s theory of culture. Russian philosophers are quite aware that any reconstruction of real cognition cannot limit itself to the transcendental epistemological agent or “consciousness in general”. It is necessary to change the level of abstraction of the subject matter of the non-classical—social, cultural and historical—epistemology to draw closer to the real manifestations of cognitive activity. (shrink)

Johann Michel’s Homo Interpretans aims at giving an account of the common ground to the question of interpretation, in a general sense covering ordinary as well as scholarly practices and conceptions, and to the question of philosophical anthropology. Important aspects of Ricoeur’s philosophy are also discussed throughout the book. The author’s thesis is that interpretation takes place whenever an understanding of the world is missing, be it on an ordinary way or in a more elaborate relationship to knowledge. This common (...) ground gives rise to an interpretive anthropology which rearticulates the connection between philosophical discourse, the human and social sciences, and hermeneutics. Finally, the universality of homo interpretans is discussed as it relates to this project of reformulating hermeneutics and the difference between the more ordinary, exploratory level of interpretation and the level of interpretations institutionalized in human and social sciences. (shrink)

In Queer Social Philosophy, Randall Halle analyzes key texts in the tradition of German critical theory from the perspective of contemporary queer theory, exposing gender and sexuality restrictions that undermine those texts' claims of universal truth. Addressing such figures as Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Adorno, and Habermas, Halle offers a unique contribution to contemporary debates about sexuality, civil society, and politics.

Philosophy of science as a scholarly discipline exists today side by side with other disciplines within an interdisciplinary framework of the history and philosophy of science or science and technology studies. The rationale for this “joint venture” is commonly seen in the division of labor. The history of science focuses on the rise and development of scientific theories in the past; the sociology of science deals with science as a social institution; the psychology of science investigates the mechanisms of creativity (...) and one’s personal impact upon scientific discoveries; and finally, the philosophy of science is responsible for the logical and methodological analysis of the structure and growth of the scientific knowledge, mostly within the context of justification. This allegedly fruitful division of labor presumes an independent existence of social, personal and cognitive domains, and the desired interdisciplinary communication between the correspondent disciplines aims to account for the complementary understanding of science. But in fact no sufficient exchange of meanings takes place for every discipline insists upon its independence and prior significance. Under these conditions, neither a consistent picture of science appears to be possible nor might science policy be construed and justified basing on this disintegrated conglomerate of knowledge. A way out of the situation is as follows: to acknowledge non-independent character of the philosophy of science; to learn more from social philosophy; to revisit the epistemological status of the natural sciences as the only cognitive ideal; to focus on the social and the human sciences in search of a new methodological experience; to cease considering concrete case studies as a new version of the “neutral language of observation”, which gives a “crucial justification” of a theory, and to view new philosophical interpretations a necessary feature of any case study. (shrink)

Eine soziale Wissenschaftstheorie schlägt einen Ausweg aus den aktuellen Kontroversen in der Wissenschaftsforschung vor, der erfordert: a) den nicht unabhängigen Charakter der Wissenschaftsphilosophie anzuerkennen; b) den erkenntnistheoretischen Status der Naturwissenschaften als einziges Erkenntnisideal zu überdenken; c) sich auf der Suche nach einer neuen methodischen Erfahrungauf die Sozial- und Geisteswissenschaften zu konzentrieren; d) aufzuhören, Fallstudien als Version der ‚neutralen Sprache der Beobachtung‘ oder als ‚entscheidende Rechtfertigung‘ einer Theorie zu betrachten; und e) die Erklärungskraft der lokalen Kontextualisierung mit der Projektion und Konstruktion (...) zukünftiger Wirkungskontexte wissenschaftlicher Ideen zu verbinden. Die Hinwendung zur Sozialität ordnet die Wissenschaftsforschung keiner Doktrin unter; sie ist vielmehr ein ökumenischer Appell zur Maximierung philosophischer Sensibilität und Offenheit. (shrink)

This article represents the review of the collective monograph “Social Philosophy of Science. Russian Prospects” (ed. by I. T. Kasavin). The article deals with the crisis in philosophy of science by the end of the XX century which has become prerequisite for the emergence of the project of social philosophy of science. The author analyzes this project and proves the necessity of its implementation in connection with the realities of the global world. The author also analyzes the structure of the (...) book and discusses a number of key issues (attitude of knowledge and sociality, role of science in society, methodological aspects of case-study, etc.). (shrink)

Alors que dans les Analytiques, Aristote se préoccupe des raisonnements concernant le vrai, et surtout le nécessaire, « la fonction de la rhétorique, ...

This is an expanded and thoroughly revised edition of the widely adopted introduction to the philosophical foundations of the human sciences. Ranging from cultural anthropology to mathematical economics, Alexander Rosenberg leads the reader through behaviorism, naturalism, interpretativism about human action, and macrosocial scientific perspectives, illuminating the motivation and strategy of each.Rewritten throughout to increase accessibility, this new edition retains the remarkable achievement of revealing the social sciences’ enduring relation to the fundamental problems of philosophy. It includes new discussions (...) of positivism, European philosophy of history, causation, statistical laws, quantitative models, and postempiricist social science, along with a completely updated literature guide that keys chapters to widely anthologized papers. (shrink)

The article is devoted to the problem of the demarcation of social sciences from social philosophy. The author proposes to model the relations between these two disciplines as a continuum instead of binary opposition - a continuum in which certain authors and concepts are located depending on the nature of their statements and the amount of empirical data involved. To illustrate a number of this continuum’s positions and features, the concept of the sacred is brought: emerging in Modern history (...) as a cultural idea, in the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries in the works of French sociologists it becomes an empirical model that describes both the effect of social solidarity and the particular forms of religious existence. However, later, in the College of Sociology and in the works of such thinkers as G. Bataille, R. Caillois, etc., the concept acquires value meanings and becomes socio-philosophical. The absence of a clear boundary between the two statement formats, it makes possible both the “drifting” from one to another over time and the ambiguity of any critics of social science from social philosophy’s position and vice versa. At the same time, the historical “load” of the concept could be discarded in order to use it within the framework of “pure” social science or philosophy. (shrink)

Alors que la philosophie s'est longtemps pensée comme mère de toutes les sciences", les nouveaux champs de savoirs de l'époque moderne, soucieux désormais d'assurer leur autonomie scientifique, n'ont eu de cesse de contester cette position. C'est encore vrai à l'époque contemporaine où les sciences sociales ont cherché à ravir la place jadis occupée par la philosophie. Tel est le conflit que Johann Michel explore dans cet ouvrage à la fois original et novateur, dont tout l'enjeu est de (...) mettre en lumière la manière dont, d'une part, les sciences sociales dérivent de courants fondateurs de la philosophie (positivisme, pragmatisme, phénoménologie...) et, d'autre part, les sciences sociales opposent leurs méthodes et leurs objets à ceux de la philosophie. Enfin, il s'agit d'éclairer la manière dont les sciences sociales et la philosophie peuvent chercher, sous certaines conditions, à se féconder mutuellement."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

This book argues that a realist analysis of the structures and processes which make up the social world can provide a way out of its present impasse.

Nearly a half century ago, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Stephen Toulmin, Norwood Russell Hanson, and others issued a challenge to us philosophers of science to make our field more relevant to actual science. That challenge, over time, has elicited a number of useful responses but very few efforts to situate science within its wider social context when philosophizing about science. The unit of analysis for philosophy of science has tended to remain science-in-a-vacuum. I consider the justifications we offer for this (...) failure, our resources for change, and our prospects if we do change. (shrink)

Si la différence épistémologique est d’abord une différence linguistique – à l’image des sciences de la nature qui parlent la langue mathématique – alors les sciences sociales, qui s’établissent nécessairement dans la langue naturelle, doivent s’appuyer sur la différence d’une langue de concepts. Et, partant, se tourner à nouveau vers la philosophie qui en est la première pourvoyeuse. Comme, de son côté, la philosophie, sollicitée par une crise historique du capitalisme, tend de plus en plus à faire (...) travailler ses concepts sur les objets du monde social-historique, il se pourrait que la longue histoire des rapports houleux de la philosophie et des sciences sociales, jusqu’ici faite de séparation fracassante et d’exaspérations mutuelles, connaisse un changement d’époque, pour expérimenter une nouvelle alliance. (shrink)

This is the first book in the new series, is a comprehensive introduction to philosophical problems in the social sciences, encompassing traditional and contemporary perspectives. It is readily accessible, with a firm emphasis on communicating difficult philosophical ideas clearly and effectively to those from outside this discipline. Ted Benton and Ian Craib move systematically through major topic areas, from positivism to post-structuralism, using a wide variety of examples and cases to illustrate key themes.

In the 21stcentury, there is a turn of thinking toward its reorientation first of all to the human as an author of thought and not to the nature, existing independently of us and of the process of scientific knowledge obtaining. It is possible to see the difference of these two types of thinking in the context of dialogue between W. Whewell’s philosophy and the scientific investigations after the scientific revolution in the beginning of the 20thcentury. In the philosophy of 21stcentury, (...) man is a social being and this is the basis of social philosophy. The artificial world around us is created by a human, it has its foundation in the laws of thinking but not the laws of nature. The foundations of both systems are quite different. In what way can we achieve mutual understanding between them? From both sides some aspects can be put forward, for instance, the concept of a mediator of a thought. This concept is studied actively by W. Whewell and by philosophers of our time, and this leads in both cases to some unexpected interpretation of the basic question of philosophy: the border between thing and thought is becoming less noticeable. We can come to the same result, going by different ways. Whewell finds common qualities for some group of things. Social philosophers are interested in what makes things different. Not one of these idealizations corresponds completely to the reality. Always something is not taken into consideration. A thinker chooses out of real world some of its characteristics that become a basis of a thought system, which explains everything but in its own way. The paper demonstrates the way of possible creation of a new type of thinking. (shrink)

Lambert Zuidervaart examines what is living and what is dead in the social philosophy of Theodor W. Adorno, the most important philosopher and social critic in Germany after World War II. When he died in 1969, Adorno's successors abandoned his critical-utopian passions. Habermas in particular, rejected or ignored Adorno's central insights on the negative effects of capitalism and new technologies upon nature and human life. Zuidervaart reclaims Adorno's insights from Habermasian neglect while taking up legitimate Habermasian criticisms. He also addresses (...) the prospects for radical and democratic transformations of an increasingly globalized world. The book proposes a provocative social philosophy 'after Adorno'. (shrink)

This book discusses problems of conceptual analysis as well as normative issues of vital contemporary concern.

A problem of tremendous import confronts the social scientists of our day. Having accumulated a vast amount of detailed data on human relations the social scientists are now being asked about the significance of their data. Two major aspects of this questioning are these: How can we synthesize all available scientific data on human relations so that this knowledge can be successfully applied to the solution of current social problems; and secondly, since some of the data accumulated so far has (...) been defined and organized in terms of concepts imitative of older physical concepts—the appropriateness of which to human relations as subject matter is questionable—should we not evaluate these basic concepts with a view to laying new conceptual foundations for our knowledge of human relations? Thus we shall open the way for new social research and at the same time develop a methodologically sounder basis for our knowledge of human relations. Briefly, our knowledge of human relations at present is at loose ends, and in this condition is not as applicable to the solution of pressing social problems as it would be if it were unified into a comprehensive and more flexible science of human behavior. Such a unification would demand not only a synthesis of the data of the social sciences but also the critical evaluation of many of the basic concepts of these sciences. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.This work is in the public domain in (...) the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

In this ground-breaking new text, Patrick Baert analyses the central perspectives in the philosophy of social science, critically investigating the work of Durkheim, Weber, Popper, critical realism, critical theory, and Rorty's neo pragmatism. Places key writers in their social and political contexts, helping to make their ideas meaningful to students. Shows how these authors’ views have practical uses in empirical research. Lively approach that makes complex ideas understandable to upper-level students, as well as having scholarly appeal.

Naturalism is still facing a strong opposition in the philosophy of social science from influential scholars who argue that philosophical analysis must be autonomous from scientific investigation. The opposition exploits philosophers’ traditional diffidence toward social science and fuels the ambition to provide new foundations for social research. A classic anti-naturalist strategy is to identify a feature of social reality that prevents scientific explanation and prediction. An all-time favorite is the dependence of social phenomena on human representation. This article examines two (...) prominent versions of the dependence thesis and concludes that they both fail. Contemporary social science is capable of accounting for the causal dependence of social reality on representation, and there is no reason to believe that social entities are ontologically dependent on the collective acceptance of a constitutive rule. (shrink)

"Voici porté un regard inaccoutumé sur la science sociale. Depuis son émergence au XIXe siècle, celle-ci nourrit une double ambition : édifier une connaissance objective de la société ; mettre en oeuvre cette connaissance pour remédier aux déficiences de la société. Souvent tenues pour complémentaires, ces deux aspirations se révèlent parfois difficiles à concilier. Quand l'empressement à refaire la société prend le pas sur le désir de la connaître, les théories académiques se muent en grandes visions du monde, au risque (...) de rompre le lien entre les faits avérés et les conjectures explicatives. Pour s'en convaincre il suffit de démonter les rouages méconnus de la plus puissante synthèse jamais constituée à l'origine de la science sociale et aujourd'hui encore revendiquée comme fondatrice : l'oeuvre d'Émile Durkheim. Confrontée aux données disponibles à l'époque et replacée surgi le fond des grands débats qui enflammaient alors les esprits, elle révèle son principal ressort : la promesse d'un salut séculier accompli par les seules ressources de la raison. C'est que la science sociale naissante emprunta au christianisme, par l'intermédiaire de la philosophie, ses deux idées directrices : la conviction que le monde humain est affecté par un mal qui altère l'ordre légitime des choses ; l'espoir que ce mai pourra être un jour abrogé. Quelles sont les contreparties de cette aspiration rédemptrice?"--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

In this article the author studies the place and the role of social philosophy in the architecture of the social sciences and humanities. The article focuses on the relationship between social philosophy, theory of society, theoretical sociology and social ethics. Based upon the application of the concept of paradigm in philosophy, the author shows key trends of the development of social sciences and humanities: the turn from the philosophy of conscience to the communication philosophy and the “rehabilitation of (...) the practical philosophy”. In line with these trends, practical discourse philosophy is now playing the central role in the structure of the social sciences and humanities, the author says. By making a distinction between normative and descriptive dimensions of the social sciences and humanities, the author emphasizes the issue of their normative foundation and their moral and ethical re-orientation. The article analyzes discourse as an argumentative practice of founding social norms and values and as a meta-institution legitimizing social institutions. According to this approach, the social philosophy is considered as a meta-theory of social sciences, which include general social theory and theories of social systems. In this context, practical dis- course philosophy is playing a fundamental role for legitimizing specific social institutions. Social ethics also plays an important role, as it complements individual ethics, creating a system of institutional ethics, i.e. of political ethics, economic ethics, ethics of science and technology, environmental ethics. In this architectonics, social responsibility gets a new meaning, incorporating individual responsibility. Social responsibility is not an anonymous responsibility that neglects the individual responsibility, but a common responsibility implemented according to certain rules and procedures and creating the possibility to solve current problems of the globalized humanity. (shrink)

This volume provides a lucid and distinct introduction to multiculturalism and the philosophy of social science.

Hermeneutic philosophies of social science offer an approach to the philosophy of social science foregrounding the human subject and including attention to history as well as a methodological reflection on the notion of reflection, including the intrusions of distortions and prejudice. Hermeneutic philosophies of social science offer an explicit orientation to and concern with the subject of the human and social sciences. Hermeneutic philosophies of the social science represented in the present collection of essays draw inspiration from Gadamer’s work (...) as well as from Paul Ricoeur in addition to Michel de Certeau and Michel Foucault among others. Special attention is given to Wilhelm Dilthey in addition to the broader phenomenological traditions of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger as well as the history of philosophy in Plato and Descartes. The volume is indispensible reading for students and scholars interested in epistemology, philosophy of science, social social studies of knowledge as well as social studies of technology. (shrink)