A Contribution to the Interpretation of the Dispute Over Method in Social Sciences (original) (raw)
Related papers
ANTINOMIES OF RESEARCH METHODS IN SOCIAL SCIENCES: METHODENSTREIT
2017
The central issue of this paper is the so-called dispute over methods (Methodenstreit), which is based on the essential difference between natural and social phenomena. Methodological problems in sociology are related to the determination of its subject matter, and the history of the science has showed that these problems have represented the main point of disagreement between theoreticians. The debates on the issues of natural and social phenomena and, thus related, manners of their examination, began as early as in the times of ancient philosophy-starting with Aristotle, and continued through the so-called Galilean tradition that would find its peak in the positivist movement and the historistic school as its opposition. The paper draws attention to the theoretical-methodological positions of both sides in this dispute, the reaffirmation of hermeneutics, as well as the ideological background. Furthermore, certain opinions that formed through the integration of these two methodological approaches are also discussed here. The time of the Methodenstreit is the time when sociology was constituted, thus the concluding remarks emphasize the importance of this dispute for the constitution of sociology as a science, with a particular reflection on the influence of historism on German sociologists. Key words: positivism, historism, hermeneutics, romanticism, sociology.
The Philosophy of Social Sciences
The Philosophy of Social Sciences, 2023
After reviewing the arguments in pro of a specific philosophy of the social sciences, which are found unsustainable. This book argues that the social sciences’ difference with natural sciences is one of degree and not of quality. Therefore, the scientific method studied by the philosophy of science for natural sciences is also applicable for social sciences. And there is no need for a specific philosophy of social sciences. The book further proposes a “disentanglement methodology” to isolate, as much as possible, the solid scientific discoveries from their ideological content. And it argues that this methodology is particularly relevant for social sciences, given their higher ideological content. As an example, the disentanglement methodology is applied to psychology and economics.
THE METHODOLOGY OF THE Social Sciences
2 Recently publIshed by Talcott" Parsom und~r the title Th. Theory of Social and Economu: OtganUa&lon \London \941) tJ Cf. b.lB contribution. to the. dlllCUSS1Qn an "Dle PtoduktLVitit del: V()\.ks... Wlruchaft" at the m~tJ.ng of the: Vercin fUr Sonalpohtlk in 1909 (relmnUd ttL GC'.sa:JnmcUe A.u.fsa.U:.e Z:1lT SOLt.ologu u.nd Son((.l~ol"(lk) and "Ule Gret.U.\l.tz... lehre und du psychophY9lsche Grundgesetz" (1908) (reprInted III G,.rammdte tlu,(situ it,.,.. Wuuft.SchafCslchfC) VI FOREWORD hundred pages One of the most important of his methodological essays -"Roscher und Kmes und dIe 10glSchen Problems der Imtenschen National okonoffile" has not been Included in the present collection, whIle another important sectIon of the Gennan editlOn--"Methodlsche Grundlagen der SozlOlogJe" -has already been pubhshed in EngllSh 4 Yet except for the analysIs of the procedure involved in the vcrstehende explanation of behavIOur whIch 1s contained In the latter essay and in an earlier and les.s elaborate version, In the essay uUber elmge Kategonen der verstehenden SOZlologle,"5 Ii the mam propositions of Weber's methodology are fully con tamed here.
The Postivists' Conception of the Social Sciences: A Critique
Scholarly Journal of Science Research and Essay, 2021
In the classification of disciplines and methods to be adopted by each in the study of their subject matters, that of the social sciences is still a matter of debate. Philosophers and social scientists alike have made attempts to unify the social sciences with the physical science. Particularly, with overt emphasis on the adoption of a single method (the scientific method), this is quintessentially the hallmark of positivism. Herein,we shall investigate and present the positivists' (Particularly, Comte, J. S. Mill and Durkheim) conception of the social sciences. Finally, in the critical appraisal, we acknowledge the intellectual currents and events which prompted the positivists' conception of the social sciences. However, we argue that in principle, the objectivity of the method of the physical sciences is desirable for the social sciences. But the adoption of the methods of the physical sciences for social inquiry is not only inadequate as a method, but a methodological misfit for the social sciences given the nature of its subject matter-human behavior in group. Thus, we maintain that the Positivists conception of the social sciences is not justified.
heibooks, 2017
This monograph contains a critical evaluation of the present state of research within political methodology and a classification of the current discussion into a methodological development that has been ongoing for two millennia. It furthermore offers some suggestions for the future development of political methodology. The focus of the work lies on the dispute known as the “Methodenstreit”. Its beginnings date back to the 19th century, and at the start of the 21st century it erupted into what can justifiably be called a “methodological war”. Firstly, an ad fontes reconstruction of naturalism, positivism and scientism is undertaken by means of methodical books and classical literature, demonstrating that the issue lies not with the mainstream but with the establishment. Then, the opposite view is presented, using the example of the phronetic perestroikans, who undertook the latest great rebellion against the establishment. The limits of applied methodologies are identified, both of the scientistic (normative rational choice theory) and of the phronetic kind (applied phronesis). Furthermore, a case is made for the need for a genuinely practical (normative, pragmatic and technical) methodology that is complementary to an empirical (descriptive, explanatory and prognostic) one.