Search results

The article explores positivism-postpositivism debate in social sciences that has been lasting already for many years. The author does not suppose this debate will end soon since it raises fundamental questions concerning the aims, tasks and methods of social sciences. Though representatives of these sciences differ significantly in views on these questions, the most of them and, in particular, evident majority of representatives of political science virtually holds positivist views. Such questions, which may be called conceptual, are essentially disputable, so they cannot be resolved by any empirical research. When examining positivism-postpositivism debate the author singles out, paying tribute to tradition, three aspects of debate: (1) ontological, (2) epistemological, and (3) methodological. Yet he presents the arguments to support his claim that because of its antimetaphysical character positivism can have no ontology at all. Therefore an ontological dispute between positivists and postpositivists is simply impossible. Postpositivists, in discussing epistemological questions, would be inclined to reject positivist viewpoint that our statements and theories about social life can be true (though according to modern positivists, we can never know it for sure). They also would reject the positivist distinction between facts and values, which likewise can be considered as epistemological. But the most serious dispute that is taking place in social sciences concerns methodological questions. The author, in analyzing it, pays most attention to two most influential forms of postpositivism, namely to critical theory and postmodernism. Having discussed genealogy and deconstruction which, though with serious reservations, may be considered as postpositivist methods, the author claims that postpositivism lacks the main part of methodology, i.e. rules of accepting scientific statements and theories. And that is why postpositivism cannot win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules. Adapted from the source document.

This article is an attempt to overview the recent state of European studies in Lithuania & some problems arising in this field of research. Because of the 'constructivist' essence of contemporary science, the social sciences, including European studies, are exposed to a threat of losing 'a sense of reality.' If this ever growing tendency gets stronger & becomes irreversible, the knowledge acquired in the course of those studies would become only 'doxical' knowledge reflecting daily realities & needs of short-term political conjuncture. One of possible ways to solve the problem of a loss of 'a sense of reality' in the field of European studies is to expand the research horizons by paying more attention to European history & especially to its religious & philosophical heritage. Adapted from the source document.

The article analyses the European studies in Lithuania since the reestablishment of independence in 1990. It discusses the main issues researched and their dynamics. First, what factors have been behind the changing subjects of European studies in Lithuania & how do they compare with the European studies in Western academia. Second, what have been the dominant subjects of European studies in Lithuania since 1990 & how do they relate to political developments between the EU and Lithuania as well as the nature of academic community in Lithuania. Third, taking into account the experience with European studies so far, to suggest possible future developments of this academic field in Lithuania, in such a way providing a map of potential subject of future research. Adapted from the source document.