Consilience in the social sciences: Opportunities and constrains

Author:

Pejković Kristina

Abstract

In the 20th century, the term 'consilience' was popularized by Edward Wilson, who believed that it was possible to reconcile three major branches of knowledge: the sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities. The consilient explanation is based on the assumption of the possibility of unification of scientific knowledge and epistemological continuity. In the sciences, the problem of epistemological continuity is far less controversial than in the social sciences, and most scientists believe that there is a continuity between physics, chemistry, and biology. There are social and epistemological reasons why that problem is most often neglected in the social sciences. Today's popularity of postmodernism, poststructuralism, and similar relativistic orientations testifies to the lack of desire of social scientists to search for connections between sciences, and only a small number of scientists want to make an analogous connection between the fields. On the other hand, there are ideas and fears that it is not even desirable to establish this intellectual continuity because it reminds us of the reductionism that is most often criticized in the field of social sciences. And, finally, there is a significant number of authors who believe that it is not possible to achieve it due to the nature of knowledge of the social sciences. The thesis of this paper is that, at least, moderate consilience is possible in the social sciences as well. It requires the synthesis of knowledge from different scientific disciplines that explore the same problem to form coherent conclusions about the given phenomenon. This paper aims to point out the importance of cooperation between sociology and other scientific disciplines that study different levels of analysis of phenomena, especially when it comes to the question of where these levels overlap. In this sense, a possible perspective is an evolutionary approach, which has great potential for unification with other sciences.

Publisher

Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES)

Subject

General Medicine,General Medicine

Reference89 articles.

1. Alexander, R. (1974). The evolution of social behavior. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5: 325-383.;

2. Andrews, S. (1872). The Basic Outline of Universology. New York: Dion Thomas.;

3. Apostel, L. et al. (eds) (1972). Interdisciplinarity Teaching and Research Problems in the Universities. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.;

4. Aristotle. (2016). Metaphysics. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.;

5. Bacon, F. (1620/1898). Novum organum. London: George Bell and Sons.;

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3