Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T20:13:29.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Historical-Philosophical Basis for Uniting Social Science with Social Problem-Solving

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Leonard Goodwin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Social scientific development has been greatly influenced by Galilean-Newtonian thought which emphasized formulation of abstract hypotheses valid throughout all time and space and independent of human characteristics. This influence has resulted in an artificial hiatus between social science and social problem-solving. Dissolution of certain Galilean-Newtonian assumptions has opened the way for integrating aspects of another stream of thought, the Hegelian-Marxian one, into the social scientific endeavor. Hegelian-Marxian thought emphasizes the individual becoming self-conscious of, and involved in, the social-historical process. The uniting of certain aspects of Galilean-Newtonian and Hegelian-Marxian thought provides a genuinely experimental social science in which abstract hypothesis-testing is united with social action that is based on persons’ awareness of relevant hypotheses viewed in historical perspective.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , October 1962 , pp. 377 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1962

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] Veatch, Henry, “Aristoteleanism,” in A History of Philosophical Systems, ed. Ferm, V. (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), 108.Google Scholar
[2] Aristotle, “On the Heavens,” in The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. McKeon, R. (New York: Random House, 1941), 460.Google Scholar
[3] Aristotle, “Nicomachean Ethics,” Ibid., 1104.Google Scholar
[4] Galilei, Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, trans. Crew and Salvio (New York: Macmillan, 1933), 174.Google Scholar
[5] Koyre, Alexander, “Galileo and Plato,” in The Roots of Scientific Thought, eds. Wiener, and Noland, (New York: Basic Books, 1957), 150.Google Scholar
[6] Burtt, E. A., The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science (2nd ed.; New York: Doubleday, 1954), 90.Google Scholar
[7] Koyre, op. cit., 166.Google Scholar
[8] Koyre, op. cit., 170.Google Scholar
[9] Newton, Isaac, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, rev. trans. Cajori, F. (Berkley, California: University of California Press, 1946).Google Scholar
[10] Kant, Immanuel, “Idea for a Universal History with Cosmopolitan Intent,” in The Philosophy of Kant, ed. Friedrich, S. J. (New York: Modern Library, 1949), 116.Google Scholar
[11] Ibid.Google Scholar
[12] Ibid., 117.Google Scholar
[13] Ibid., 118.Google Scholar
[14] Comte, Auguste, Positive Philosophy, trans. and condensed by Martineau, H. (London: G. Bell, 1913), Vol. I, 194.Google Scholar
[15] Comte, Auguste, System of Positive Polity, trans. Beesly, E. et. al. (London: Longmans, 1876), Vol. III, 23.Google Scholar
[16] Ibid., 52, 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17] Durkheim, Emile, The Rules of Sociological Method, trans. Solvay, S. and Meuller, J., ed. Catlin, G. (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1938), 18.Google Scholar
[18] Durkheim, Emile, “The Determination of Moral Facts,” in Sociology and Philosophy, trans. Pocock, D. (London: Cohen and West, 1953), 63.Google Scholar
[19] Durkheim, Emile, Suicide, trans. Spaulding, and Simpson, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1952).Google Scholar
[20] Merton, Robert K., Social Theory and Social Structure, Revised edition, (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957), 129.Google Scholar
[21] Foote, Nelson and Cottrell, Leonard, Identity and Interpersonal Competence, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955), 217.Google Scholar
[22] Heisenberg, Werner, Physics and Philosophy (New York: Harper, 1958), 198.Google Scholar
[23] Ibid., 199.Google Scholar
[24] Hegel, G. W. F., The Phenomenology of Mind, trans. Bailie, J. (2nd ed., New York: Macmillan, 1949), 103.Google Scholar
[25] Ibid., 105.Google Scholar
[26] Hegel, G. W. F., The Philosophy of History, trans. Sibree, J. (New York: Dover Publications, 1956), 76.Google Scholar
[27] Stace, W. T., The Philosophy of Hegel (New York: Dover Publications, 1955), 25.Google Scholar
[28] Marcuse, Herbert, Reason and Revolution (2nd ed., New York: Humanities Press, 1954), 112–113.Google Scholar
[29] Marx, Karl, Capital, Ed. Engels, F. (New York: Modern Library), 25.Google Scholar
[30] Marx, Karl, “Theses on Feuerbach,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Language Publishing House, 1955), vol. II, 403.Google Scholar
[31] Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick, “Communist Manifesto,” Ibid., vol. I, 22ff.Google Scholar
[32] Mannheim, Karl, Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction, trans. Shils, E. (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1940), 15.Google Scholar
[33] Ibid., 190.Google Scholar
[34] Mannheim, Karl, Ideology and Utopia, trans. Wirth, L. and Shils, E. (New York: Harcourt, Brace), 188–191.Google Scholar
[35] Randall, John H., Nature and Historical Experience (New York: Columbia University Press, 1958), 168–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[36] Lewin, Kurt, Resolving Social Conflicts (New York: Harper, 1948), 202–203.Google Scholar
[37] Lippitt, Ronald, et al., The Dynamics of Planned Change (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1958).Google Scholar
[38] Holmberg, Alan, “The Research and Development Approach to the Study of Change,” Human Organization, 17 (1958), 14–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar