Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:31:40.085Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Sciences: Truthful or Useful?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2008

Pieter J. D. Drenth
Pieter J. D. Drenth*
Affiliation:
VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and All European Academies (ALLEA); KNAW, Trippenhuis, Kloveniersburgwal 19021, NL-1011 JV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The theme of the 2006 IAP Conference, held at Alexandria, from 1–3 December 2006, was ‘The Unity of Science’. Let me explain how I interpret this interesting motto. For me, this does not mean that there is one regina scientiarum that rules over the other fields of science and learning; a role that was allotted to theology in olden times, and that nowadays – in a more secular vein – is claimed by physics. In my view, the notion ‘unity of science’ rather refers to ‘communality within diversity’. Disciplines vary in content, issues and methods. But there are also quite some common objectives, interests and concerns, the most important of which may be the common goal of searching for testable truth with objective and independent evidence. The communalities render it possible, or even imperative, to communicate and to cooperate. The diversity implies complementariness and calls for interdisciplinarity in the study of today’s numerous and complex phenomena in science and society.

Type
Articles
Information
European Review , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 39 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.SWR (Sociaal Wetenschappelijke Raad) (2006) Naar een effectieve kennissamenleving (Amsterdam: KNAW).Google Scholar
2. European Commission, DG Research (2005) Commission proposal for the 7th Research Framework Programme, Brussels, COM(2005) 119 final.Google Scholar
3.Dawkins, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker (London: Longmans).Google Scholar
4. Dilthey (1883) Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften.Google Scholar
5.Snow, C. P. (1959) The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (New York: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
6.Lepenies, W. (1985) Die drei Kulturen; Sociologie zwischen Literatur und Wissenschaft (München: Hauser Verlag).Google Scholar
7.Jardine, L. and Silverthorne, M. (eds) (2000) Francis Bacon: The New Organon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
8.Schönpflug, W. (1992) Applied psychology; newcomer with a long tradition. Applied Psychology; an International Review, 42, 5–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. European Commission, DG Research (2005) Frontier Research: the European challenge. Brussels: Office SDME 01/38.Google Scholar
10.ALLEA (2005) Investing in Knowledge in Europe; Reflections of All European Academies on the Proposals for the Seventh Framework Programme 2007–2013 of the European Commission (Amsterdam: KNAW/ALLEA).Google Scholar
11. P. J. D. Drenth (1996) The relevance of social and behavioural science for sustainable growth. Workshop ESTA, Promoting Competitive and Sustainable Growth, Brussels, 8–9 October 1996.Google Scholar
12. European Commission, DG Research (2005) Social Sciences and Humanities in the 6th FP. Brussels, November 2005.Google Scholar
13.European Commission, DG Research (2005) The Social Sciences and the Humanities in the 7th Framework Programme (EURAB) (Brussels: EUR 22004).Google Scholar
14.Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R. I. (2006) Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-truths & Total Nonsense: Profiting From Evidence-based Management (Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing).Google Scholar
15.Drenth, P. J. D. (2003) Growing anti-intellectualism in Europe: a menace to science. Studia Psychologica, 45, 5–12. Also in: P. J. D. Drenth (2006) Walks in the Garden of Science (Amsterdam: ALLEA/KNAW), pp. 45–56.Google Scholar
16.Taverne, D. (2005) The March of Unreason (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
17.Dawes, R. M. (2001) Everyday Irrationality: How Pseudo-scientists, Lunatics, and the Rest of us Systematically Fail to Think Rationally (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).Google Scholar
18.Schacter, D. L. (2001) The Seven Sins of Memory (Boston: Houghton Mifflin).Google ScholarPubMed
19. Eurobarometer reports (2005), http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/index_en.htm.Google Scholar
20.Drenth, P. J. D. (2006) Usage, non-usage ou mauvais usage de la psychologie du travail. In: Levy-Leboyer, C., Huteau, M., Louche, C. and Rolland, J.-P. (eds) Ressources Humaines, les apports de la psychologie du travail. 2 Management des Organisations, 3rd edn (Paris: Editions d’Organisation), pp. 483–492.Google Scholar
21.Drenth, P. J. D. and Heller, F. A. (2004) The dangers of research myopia in work and organizational psychology: a plea for broadening and integration. Applied Psychology, an International Review, 53(4), 599–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.European Science Foundation (2003) Science Communication in Europe (Strasbourg: ESF Briefing).Google Scholar
23.Drenth, P. J. D. (2006) Responsible conducts in science: the role of Academies of Sciences. In: Drenth, P. J. D.Walks in the Garden of Science (Amsterdam: ALLEA/KNAW), pp. 150–170.Google Scholar