Předpoklady sociologické metateorie a filosofie vědy

M. Petrusek
{"title":"Předpoklady sociologické metateorie a filosofie vědy","authors":"M. Petrusek","doi":"10.46938/tv.2007.451","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As a challenge to those who do not give much credit to reflecting on sociology as a science, this essay stresses the import of metatheoretical considerations. Aft er all, what is known as postmodern discourse is scarcely a little more than metatheorizing and the phenomenon of the so-called “crisis of sociology” cannot be comprehended without some metatheoretical premises. Knowledge about knowledge should therefore form a special field of inquiry and enjoy its relative autonomy. In this article, the place for metasociology is delimitated by the account of the development of the general science of science. While the prefi x “meta-” originally came from linguistics as a way to differentiate a proposition about an object of science from a proposition about science itself, the history of metatheorizing can be traced back to ancient philosophy. Hence, the most important sources of inspiration for this intellectual activity are epistemology and the philosophy of science. A crucial moment in their development was the so-called “crisis in physics” that carried over to social sciences and spawned many contemporary trends such as the multicultural approach to sociology and the radical stance of methodological anarchism. The major philosophical orientations that have most directly addressed the questions about the scientific knowledge have been neopositivism and analytical philosophy on one hand, and phenomenology on the other one. No claims about metasociology can be made without being acquainted with at least the elementary positions in this exchange of ideas that took place in the philosophy of science. Metasociology, itself divided into metatheory and metamethodology (or general methodology), makes up an integral part of the science of science.","PeriodicalId":349992,"journal":{"name":"Teorie vědy / Theory of Science","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teorie vědy / Theory of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46938/tv.2007.451","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As a challenge to those who do not give much credit to reflecting on sociology as a science, this essay stresses the import of metatheoretical considerations. Aft er all, what is known as postmodern discourse is scarcely a little more than metatheorizing and the phenomenon of the so-called “crisis of sociology” cannot be comprehended without some metatheoretical premises. Knowledge about knowledge should therefore form a special field of inquiry and enjoy its relative autonomy. In this article, the place for metasociology is delimitated by the account of the development of the general science of science. While the prefi x “meta-” originally came from linguistics as a way to differentiate a proposition about an object of science from a proposition about science itself, the history of metatheorizing can be traced back to ancient philosophy. Hence, the most important sources of inspiration for this intellectual activity are epistemology and the philosophy of science. A crucial moment in their development was the so-called “crisis in physics” that carried over to social sciences and spawned many contemporary trends such as the multicultural approach to sociology and the radical stance of methodological anarchism. The major philosophical orientations that have most directly addressed the questions about the scientific knowledge have been neopositivism and analytical philosophy on one hand, and phenomenology on the other one. No claims about metasociology can be made without being acquainted with at least the elementary positions in this exchange of ideas that took place in the philosophy of science. Metasociology, itself divided into metatheory and metamethodology (or general methodology), makes up an integral part of the science of science.
作为对那些不太重视将社会学作为一门科学进行反思的人的挑战,本文强调了元理论考虑的重要性。毕竟,所谓的后现代话语只不过是一种元理论化,而所谓的“社会学危机”现象,如果没有一些元理论的前提,是无法理解的。因此,关于知识的知识应该形成一个特殊的研究领域,并享有相对的自主权。在本文中,元社会学的地位是由一般科学的发展来界定的。虽然前缀“meta-”最初来自语言学,是为了区分关于科学对象的命题和关于科学本身的命题,但元理论化的历史可以追溯到古代哲学。因此,这种智力活动的最重要的灵感来源是认识论和科学哲学。他们发展的一个关键时刻是所谓的“物理学危机”,它延续到社会科学,并催生了许多当代趋势,如社会学的多元文化方法和方法论无政府主义的激进立场。最直接探讨科学知识问题的主要哲学取向一方面是新实证主义和分析哲学,另一方面是现象学。如果不了解发生在科学哲学中的这种思想交流中的至少基本立场,就不能提出关于元社会学的主张。元社会学本身分为元理论和元方法论(或一般方法论),构成了科学的科学的一个组成部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信