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

Lubomir Savov Popov; Ivan Mihailov Chompalov

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ss.20150403.11

| Peer-Reviewed

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

Lubomir Savov Popov, Ivan Mihailov Chompalov

Published in Social Sciences (Volume 4, Issue 3)

Received: 3 April 2015 Accepted: 12 April 2015 Published: 23 April 2015

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

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.

Published in	Social Sciences (Volume 4, Issue 3)
DOI	10.11648/j.ss.20150403.11
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), 2015. 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.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

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://article.sciencepublishinggroup.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

Author Information

Lubomir Savov Popov

School of Family and Consumer Sciences, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, U.S.A.
Ivan Mihailov Chompalov

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

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

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://article.sciencepublishinggroup.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