Suchergebnisse

International audience ; Based on the French translation of a book by Peter Winch, this article reassesses the tendency in political science – and, more broadly, in the social sciences – to adopt the naturalistic view that the phenomena those sciences explore exist independently of the viewpoints of members of society involved in their production. In this sense, the contrasting positions taken by Bruno Latour and Pierre Favre, published in issues 58 (4) and (5) of the RFSP, turn out to be similar : both posit that what is and is not political can be determined without reference to specific practices. ; À partir de la publication de la traduction française d'un ouvrage de Peter Winch, l'article revient sur la tendance de la science politique et, plus largement, des sciences sociales à adopter le point de vue naturaliste selon lequel les phénomènes dont elles traitent existeraient indépendamment du point de vue des membres de la société engagés dans leur production. En ce sens, les positions opposées de Bruno Latour et de Pierre Favre, publiées dans les numéros 58 (4) et (5) de la RFSP, s'avèrent semblables : elles postulent que l'on peut déterminer ce qui est et n'est pas politique de manière externe à des pratiques précises.

International audience ; Based on the French translation of a book by Peter Winch, this article reassesses the tendency in political science – and, more broadly, in the social sciences – to adopt the naturalistic view that the phenomena those sciences explore exist independently of the viewpoints of members of society involved in their production. In this sense, the contrasting positions taken by Bruno Latour and Pierre Favre, published in issues 58 (4) and (5) of the RFSP, turn out to be similar : both posit that what is and is not political can be determined without reference to specific practices. ; À partir de la publication de la traduction française d'un ouvrage de Peter Winch, l'article revient sur la tendance de la science politique et, plus largement, des sciences sociales à adopter le point de vue naturaliste selon lequel les phénomènes dont elles traitent existeraient indépendamment du point de vue des membres de la société engagés dans leur production. En ce sens, les positions opposées de Bruno Latour et de Pierre Favre, publiées dans les numéros 58 (4) et (5) de la RFSP, s'avèrent semblables : elles postulent que l'on peut déterminer ce qui est et n'est pas politique de manière externe à des pratiques précises.

International audience ; Based on the French translation of a book by Peter Winch, this article reassesses the tendency in political science – and, more broadly, in the social sciences – to adopt the naturalistic view that the phenomena those sciences explore exist independently of the viewpoints of members of society involved in their production. In this sense, the contrasting positions taken by Bruno Latour and Pierre Favre, published in issues 58 (4) and (5) of the RFSP, turn out to be similar : both posit that what is and is not political can be determined without reference to specific practices. ; À partir de la publication de la traduction française d'un ouvrage de Peter Winch, l'article revient sur la tendance de la science politique et, plus largement, des sciences sociales à adopter le point de vue naturaliste selon lequel les phénomènes dont elles traitent existeraient indépendamment du point de vue des membres de la société engagés dans leur production. En ce sens, les positions opposées de Bruno Latour et de Pierre Favre, publiées dans les numéros 58 (4) et (5) de la RFSP, s'avèrent semblables : elles postulent que l'on peut déterminer ce qui est et n'est pas politique de manière externe à des pratiques précises.

Intro -- HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT SOCIAL SCIENCE PERSPECTIVES -- HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT SOCIAL SCIENCE PERSPECTIVES -- CONTENTS -- PREFACE -- INTRODUCTION -- ETERNAL QUESTIONS AND PRESENT CONCERNS -- ENGAGEMENT OF SOCIAL SCIENTISTS WITH THE TOPICS OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT -- HEALTH -- ENVIRONMENT -- TRACING LINKAGES -- THE SUSTAINABILITY PARADOX -- CHARITY PARADOX -- STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK -- REFERENCES -- PART I. PROBLEM-FRAMING AND DEBATES -- Chapter 1 SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC ENGAGEMENT WITH HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT DEBATES: CLASSICAL ROOTS AND CONTEMPORARY SUB DISCIPLINES -- ABSTRACT -- CLASSICAL THEORIES AND CONTEMPORARY INTERPRETATIONS -- Thomas Malthus -- Karl Marx -- Durkheim and Weber -- CHANGES IN THE WORLD SINCE THE "CLASSICISTS" -- Health and Environment in the Context of Globalization -- Population Growth -- Health Issues in the Recent Decades -- Environmental Issues in the Recent Decades -- FROM CLASSICAL SCHOLARS TO MODERN ACADEMIC SUBDISCIPLINES -- Environmental Sociology -- Ecology of Health -- Ecological Sociology -- Environmental Health -- Medical Anthropology -- REFERENCES -- Chapter 2 WHY IS SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION ON SERIOUS ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH PROBLEMS NOT EASILY RECOGNIZED IN OUR SOCIETY? -- ABSTRACT -- INTRODUCTION -- 1. ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH SCIENCE -- Current Environment and Health Problems -- Scientific Proof -- Paralysis by Traditional Analysis -- Physical Chemical Hygiene -- 2. SCIENCE AND SOCIETY -- Trial and Retribution -- To Investigate or Not to Investigate: The Mysterious Case of Dendermonde -- To Know and Not to Act -- Mercedes or Health -- 3. THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH -- Biased Expertise -- Smokescreen Evidence: Science and Industry -- The Politics of Expert Judgement: Industry Involvement in the IARC -- Huff J. (2002) -- Alignment according to Huff -- I Rest my Case (at Home).

Anthology in Law and the Social Sciences: While this book does not purport or pretend to have all the answers to the many social challenges that we face in life, it certainly does raise some thought-provoking questions for us to think through. I hasten to add, however, that the book is not a work of fiction. Neither is it about motivation like many motivational books that are on the bookshelves today. Rather, it is an example of public intellectualism in Law and the Social Sciences. The book distills complex ideas that are often confined to the academic world into more easily discernible ideas by everyone, including the laity. Such is a cardinal objective of the book \2013 to provoke some critical thinking across a broad spectrum of society on certain topical themes pertaining to Law and the Social Sciences. With an inter- and multi-disciplinary focus, the book cuts across many contemporary themes in the Law and Social Science discourse

W roku 2011, na mocy decyzji administracyjnej, dokonano korekty podziału polskiej nauki na dziedziny i dyscypliny naukowe. W rezultacie takiego procesu zmieniła się przynależność dziedzinowa m.in. nauk o polityce. Do 30 września 2011 r. dyscyplina ta zaliczana była do dziedziny nauk humanistycznych, a po tej dacie włączono ją do nowej dziedziny nauk społecznych, która została wyodrębniona w wyniku podziału tej pierwszej. Ponieważ zmiana ta wywołała trwającą do dziś dyskusję na temat celowości dokonanej reformy także wśród politologów, ważnym zadaniem podjętych badań była próba potwierdzenia tezy, wg której decyzja taka była uzasadniona merytorycznie. Założono bowiem, że dyscyplina nauki o polityce, w porównaniu z dyscyplinami nauk humanistycznych, ma więcej cech wspólnych z innymi dyscyplinami zaliczonymi do dziedziny nauk społecznych. Ponadto, poprzez ustalenie nowego wykazu dziedzin i dyscyplin naukowych, administracyjne podziały w polskiej nauce zostały w znacznym stopniu dostosowane do klasyfikacji dziedzin i dyscyplin wypracowanych na forum OECD, UNESCO i EUROSTAT, co ułatwi internacjonalizację współpracy naukowej. Na forach tych organizacji i instytucji, a co za tym idzie także w wielu ich państwach członkowskich, już wcześniej podzielono nauki humanistyczne – kiedyś zamiennie nazywane naukami społecznymi – na dwie dziedziny: nauk społecznych i nauk humanistycznych. W celu potwierdzenia słuszności ww. tezy w toku rozważań konieczne było: ustalenie współczesnego pojmowania istoty specjalności naukowej, dyscypliny naukowej i dziedziny nauki; wskazanie najważniejszych podziałów w nauce; podjęcie próby określenia specyfiki dziedziny nauk humanistycznych oraz dziedziny nauk społecznych, a także ukazanie relacji nauk o polityce z tymi dziedzinami nauk. Ocena intensywności takich relacji umożliwiła potwierdzenie słuszności przyjętej tezy. ; By virtue of an administrative decision, the division of Polish academia into fields and disciplines was verified in 2011. It is owing to this process that political science, among others, was reassigned in Poland. Before September 30, 2011, political science was classified as one of the humanities, but later on it was included in the new field of the social sciences, created as a result of the division of the humanities. This decision started an ongoing discussion, also in the circles of political scientists, on the issue of how advisable this change is, and it has become an important task to confirm the thesis that this decision was substantially justified. It is assumed that political science as a discipline has more in common with other disciplines assigned to the social sciences than the humanities. Additionally, by way of developing a new register of academic fields and disciplines, the administrative divisions in Polish academia were to a large extent aligned with the classification of fields and disciplines adopted by the OECD, UNESCO and EUROSTAT, which will facilitate the internationalization of academic collaboration. The above organizations and institutions, and – consequently – some of their member states, have already divided the humanities, which used to be alternatively named social sciences, into two separate fields: the social sciences and the humanities. In order to justify the above-mentioned thesis it was necessary to determine how academic specialization, discipline and field of science are perceived today; to indicate the essential divisions in academia; to attempt to define the specific nature of the humanities versus social sciences; and to present the relations of political science to the latter category. The assessment of how intensive these relations are, made it possible to confirm that the above-mentioned thesis is justified.

It is argued that the impacts of computer technology on society are an extraordinarily important area for rigorous social scientific research. However, there is currently only a modest amount of empirical research & a dearth of cumulative findings on this subject, & the conceptual & theoretical approaches informing the research are weak. After specifying the primary sources of the understandings about the social impacts of computing, a taxonomy of impacts & a conceptual framework that might guide social scientific research on this subject are suggested. Finally, eight broad generalizations that can be derived from the existing empirical research on the social impacts of computing are summarized. 1 Table, 1 Figure, 80 References. HA