A Non-Naturalised Methodology for Social Sciences

At the rise of the twentieth century, armed with the success of natural sciences, the school of naturalism argued that the appropriate methodology for all disciplines, including social sciences, is that of natural science. The paper argued that social sciences cannot be naturalised and has its own appropriate methodology. The paper examined the arguments for naturalism and non-naturalism of the method of philosophy of social sciences. The paper employed both primary and secondary sources of data. Data collected were subjected to critical analysis and philosophical argumentation. The results showed that the nature of social sciences is such that it cannot be subjected to only scientific methods. The paper concludes that there is a need for a methodology that understands the subject matter of social sciences to address issues in social sciences. The paper addressed some key issues in philosophy of social sciences. Keywords: Methodology, Natural sciences, Naturalism, Social sciences.

Morphogenetic social theory: more questions than answers

Introduction and the aim of the study. The paper analyzes the place and role of morphogenetic theory within a framework of contemporary socialtheoretical discourse. M. Archer’s morphogenetic theory and P. Donati’s relational conception are considered as two examples of this discourse. Methods. The authors use analytical methods (analysis, synthesis, etc.), applied in contemporary philosophy of social sciences. Scientific novelty. The key idea of the paper is analyzing morphogenetic social theory in terms of analytical scholasticism as a deviant way of contemporary social theory development. Results. Morphogenetic theory is rather a sociological theory than interdisciplinary social theory; the sophisticated language of “morphogenists” mat seem difficult for other scholars to understand; morphogenetic theory demonstrates indefinite perspectives concerning interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary discourse in the context of contemporary stage of social-humanitarian knowledge development. Conclusions. The status of “morphogenetic theory” among other directions of social theory is by far “peripheral”.

Social Sciences as a subject of philosophical and sociological discourse

The monograph deals with the subject of social Sciences, as well as selected problems of philosophy of social Sciences, sociology of social Sciences and social theory in its relation to social spiders. It is intended for bachelors, masters and postgraduates studying philosophy, sociology, social theory, as well as other courses related to philosophical and methodological problems of social Sciences and Humanities. Work is executed at financial support of PFUR; research initiative № 100114-0-000 "Man and society in the context of modernity".

Theories of Knowledge: A Critical Examination of the Validity of Different Kinds of Explanations

The theories of knowledge are the most important areas of knowledge. The major issue in “Theories of knowledge”, is the real source of obtaining the knowledge. In the field of philosophy of social sciences, the theories of knowledge and its different kinds of explanations provides basis for conducting research. Regarding the theories of knowledge, Rationalism and Empiricism are the two main sources of acquiring knowledge. The followers of rationalism believe that logics are the primary source of knowledge for conducting research and the followers of empiricism believe that experience is the primary source of knowledge. In this regard, the paper has described that how the theory of induction and deduction works. The research paper has critically discussed the observations of followers of these two schools of thoughts and has examined the validity of different kinds of explanations i.e Scientific Explanations and Social Explanations. The research paper has thoroughly discussed the theories and models of explanation and attempted to answer the following questions; what are the problems with the theories of knowledge? What is the nature of different kinds of explanation? What is the validity of different kinds of explanations?. In the end, the paper has presented conclusion from the critical discussion in the paper.