Social Sciences

| Peer-Reviewed |

The Comparative Study of the Structure of Theories in the Natural and in the Social Sciences: Old Conundrums and New Challenges

Received: 03 April 2015    Accepted: 12 April 2015    Published: 23 April 2015
Views:       Downloads:

Share This Article

Abstract

The paper proposes methodological bases for comparison of the structure of theories in the Natural, Life, Social, and Human Sciences. The idea is that in order to study this problem, the ontological and epistemological peculiarities of these four major classes of disciplines should be considered. The analysis of the nature of the object and the concept of science is a prerequisite for stating the problem of comparison correctly. The nature of the object and the concept of science in the Natural Sciences are fostering Rationalistic world view and a Mertonian approach to the structure of theory, while in the Human Sciences there are grounds for developing an interpretative orientation, and a metaphoric use of the term. Social scientists appear to be deeply divided about which way to go. This methodological "tragedy" is due to the dual nature of the objects of their science. While large-scale social phenomena, such as social institutions or social classes, may behave similarly to the “natural objects” and therefore lend themselves to a more rationalistic theoretical treatment, small-scale phenomena (small groups, neighborhood communities, individuals) require a different kind of approach to gain adequate understanding, namely the detailed analysis and interpretation of meaning construction and modification.

DOI 10.11648/j.ss.20150403.11
Published in Social Sciences (Volume 4, Issue 3, June 2015)
Page(s) 31-36
Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright

Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Theory, Natural and Social Sciences, Epistemology, Social Science Methodology

References
[1] V. Pratt, “The Philosophy of the Social Sciences,” London: Methuen, 1978.
[2] M. Foucault, “The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Science,” New York: Pantheon, 1970.
[3] H. Simon, “The Science of the Artificial,” Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1969.
[4] A. Kaplan, “The Conduct of inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Sciences,” San Francisco: Chandler Publ, 1964.
[5] P. Durbin, “Dictionary of Concepts in the Philosophy of Science,” New York: Greenwood Press, 1988.
[6] F. Suppe, “Theory Structure”. In P. Asqueth & H. Kyburg (Eds.), Current Research in Philosophy of Science (pp. 317-338), East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 1979.
[7] D. Walsh, (1972). “Sociology and the Social World.” In P. Filmer, M. Phillipson, D Silverman, & D Walsh, New Directions in Sociological Theory, London: Collier-Macmillan Pub, 1972.
[8] H. Putnam, “What Theories Are Not.” In E. Nagel et al. (Eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962.
[9] P. Reynolds, “A Primer in Theory Construction,” Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971.
[10] R. Merton, “The Sociology of Science,” Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.
[11] A. Tudor, “Beyond Empiricism: Philosophy of Science in Sociology”, London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1982.
[12] H.G. Gadamer, “Truth and Method,” New York: Seabury Press, 1975.
[13] P. Bourdieu,”Outline of a Theory of Praxis,” London: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
[14] E. Hilgard, “Psychology in America: A Historical Survey,” San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987.
[15] J. Habermas, “Theory and Practice,” Boston: Beacon, 1973.
Author Information
  • School of Family and Consumer Sciences, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, U.S.A.

  • Department of Sociology, Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, Edinboro, PA, U.S.A.

Cite This Article
  • APA Style

    Lubomir Savov Popov, Ivan Mihailov Chompalov. (2015). The Comparative Study of the Structure of Theories in the Natural and in the Social Sciences: Old Conundrums and New Challenges. Social Sciences, 4(3), 31-36. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20150403.11

    Copy | Download

    ACS Style

    Lubomir Savov Popov; Ivan Mihailov Chompalov. The Comparative Study of the Structure of Theories in the Natural and in the Social Sciences: Old Conundrums and New Challenges. Soc. Sci. 2015, 4(3), 31-36. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20150403.11

    Copy | Download

    AMA Style

    Lubomir Savov Popov, Ivan Mihailov Chompalov. The Comparative Study of the Structure of Theories in the Natural and in the Social Sciences: Old Conundrums and New Challenges. Soc Sci. 2015;4(3):31-36. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20150403.11

    Copy | Download

  • @article{10.11648/j.ss.20150403.11,
      author = {Lubomir Savov Popov and Ivan Mihailov Chompalov},
      title = {The Comparative Study of the Structure of Theories in the Natural and in the Social Sciences: Old Conundrums and New Challenges},
      journal = {Social Sciences},
      volume = {4},
      number = {3},
      pages = {31-36},
      doi = {10.11648/j.ss.20150403.11},
      url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20150403.11},
      eprint = {https://download.sciencepg.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ss.20150403.11},
      abstract = {The paper proposes methodological bases for comparison of the structure of theories in the Natural, Life, Social, and Human Sciences. The idea is that in order to study this problem, the ontological and epistemological peculiarities of these four major classes of disciplines should be considered. The analysis of the nature of the object and the concept of science is a prerequisite for stating the problem of comparison correctly. The nature of the object and the concept of science in the Natural Sciences are fostering Rationalistic world view and a Mertonian approach to the structure of theory, while in the Human Sciences there are grounds for developing an interpretative orientation, and a metaphoric use of the term. Social scientists appear to be deeply divided about which way to go. This methodological "tragedy" is due to the dual nature of the objects of their science. While large-scale social phenomena, such as social institutions or social classes, may behave similarly to the “natural objects” and therefore lend themselves to a more rationalistic theoretical treatment, small-scale phenomena (small groups, neighborhood communities, individuals) require a different kind of approach to gain adequate understanding, namely the detailed analysis and interpretation of meaning construction and modification.},
     year = {2015}
    }
    

    Copy | Download

  • TY  - JOUR
    T1  - The Comparative Study of the Structure of Theories in the Natural and in the Social Sciences: Old Conundrums and New Challenges
    AU  - Lubomir Savov Popov
    AU  - Ivan Mihailov Chompalov
    Y1  - 2015/04/23
    PY  - 2015
    N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20150403.11
    DO  - 10.11648/j.ss.20150403.11
    T2  - Social Sciences
    JF  - Social Sciences
    JO  - Social Sciences
    SP  - 31
    EP  - 36
    PB  - Science Publishing Group
    SN  - 2326-988X
    UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20150403.11
    AB  - The paper proposes methodological bases for comparison of the structure of theories in the Natural, Life, Social, and Human Sciences. The idea is that in order to study this problem, the ontological and epistemological peculiarities of these four major classes of disciplines should be considered. The analysis of the nature of the object and the concept of science is a prerequisite for stating the problem of comparison correctly. The nature of the object and the concept of science in the Natural Sciences are fostering Rationalistic world view and a Mertonian approach to the structure of theory, while in the Human Sciences there are grounds for developing an interpretative orientation, and a metaphoric use of the term. Social scientists appear to be deeply divided about which way to go. This methodological "tragedy" is due to the dual nature of the objects of their science. While large-scale social phenomena, such as social institutions or social classes, may behave similarly to the “natural objects” and therefore lend themselves to a more rationalistic theoretical treatment, small-scale phenomena (small groups, neighborhood communities, individuals) require a different kind of approach to gain adequate understanding, namely the detailed analysis and interpretation of meaning construction and modification.
    VL  - 4
    IS  - 3
    ER  - 

    Copy | Download

  • Sections