Globalization and evolving knowledge society are the major fundamental challenge to the social science. Diversification of social life on the all levels of reality - individual, family, community, state, mankind - opens new opportunities and give birth to the new threats. To grasp these two - positive and negative - sides of our life the more precise, relevant cognitive means are needed. Better conceptualized, free of ideological and political influences.
Globalization and evolving knowledge society are the major fundamental challenge to the social science. Diversification of social life on the all levels of reality - individual, family, community, state, mankind - opens new opportunities and give birth to the new threats. To grasp these two - positive and negative - sides of our life the more precise, relevant cognitive means are needed. Better conceptualized, free of ideological and political influences.
Globalization and evolving knowledge society are the major fundamental challenge to the social science. Diversification of social life on the all levels of reality - individual, family, community, state, mankind - opens new opportunities and give birth to the new threats. To grasp these two - positive and negative - sides of our life the more precise, relevant cognitive means are needed. Better conceptualized, free of ideological and political influences.
Globalization and evolving knowledge society are the major fundamental challenge to the social science. Diversification of social life on the all levels of reality - individual, family, community, state, mankind - opens new opportunities and give birth to the new threats. To grasp these two - positive and negative - sides of our life the more precise, relevant cognitive means are needed. Better conceptualized, free of ideological and political influences.
The article discusses Jean-Francois Lyotard's views on the relations between science and politics, and his analysis of the influence of science upon social life. This discussion centres on following topics: in what ways, according to Lyotard, modern science is thretening social life; then, what is the message of an alternative view of postmodern science and its sociopolitical role proposed by Lyoard? Finally, the Lyotard's and Habermas' positions are compared.
The article discusses Jean-Francois Lyotard's views on the relations between science and politics, and his analysis of the influence of science upon social life. This discussion centres on following topics: in what ways, according to Lyotard, modern science is thretening social life; then, what is the message of an alternative view of postmodern science and its sociopolitical role proposed by Lyoard? Finally, the Lyotard's and Habermas' positions are compared.
The article discusses Jean-Francois Lyotard's views on the relations between science and politics, and his analysis of the influence of science upon social life. This discussion centres on following topics: in what ways, according to Lyotard, modern science is thretening social life; then, what is the message of an alternative view of postmodern science and its sociopolitical role proposed by Lyoard? Finally, the Lyotard's and Habermas' positions are compared.
The article discusses Jean-Francois Lyotard's views on the relations between science and politics, and his analysis of the influence of science upon social life. This discussion centres on following topics: in what ways, according to Lyotard, modern science is thretening social life; then, what is the message of an alternative view of postmodern science and its sociopolitical role proposed by Lyoard? Finally, the Lyotard's and Habermas' positions are compared.
The study examines the development of higher-order thinking skills of grade 4 students in the context of social and natural science and real-life. The review of scientific literature has defined what context-based learning is and highlighted the conditions for developing a higher order thinking skills. In the empirical part, according to the criteria selected in the course of the analysis of the scientific literature, the national achievement tasks of the social and natural science for grade 4 were analyzed. It has been determined that the context of the analyzed tasks is related to real-life situations. Tasks are close to the child with their content, and their context is brought closer to the child's living environment. There were no tasks that would involve a more global life context: political issues, international relationship, environmental issues, etc. It has been investigated that most of the students in grade 4 are required to analyze the situation and draw conclusions about it. More rarely applied argumentation skills and answers to complex quastions. There were no tasks focused on creating graphs, models or redefining submitted models.
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 can not 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 can not win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules.
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 can not 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 can not win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules.
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 can not 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 can not win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules.
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 can not 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 can not win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules.
However, this concept was problematic because sooner or later it should have been realized that humans cannot comprehend God's perfection. Therefore, the concept of God is equal to the concept of nonexistence and such type of metaphysical entity could not give a purpose to the world. Furthermore, after the fall of finalistic worldview it was impossible to prove the old political order and, hence, new search for the meaning of life in the political order began. Essential role by trying to reunite meaning of life and politics was performed by scientific worldview. Science enabled the reconstruction of meaning of life by 2 aspects: firstly, it changed the finalistic understanding of the world by causal and, therefore, it granted a possibility by manipulating cause and effect to recreate every social and natural order. Secondly, after theologians established God as nonbeing, scientists gave a way to provide a frame to the world. Moreover, some of them even envisaged the trend of progress in historical processes which paved a way to fulfil the ultimate purposes of humanity, therefore, meaning of life not in another but in this world. This created conditions for the idea that society should be permanently improved and the ultimate goal of such improvement is the salvation of every individual in this world. Although supporters of liberalism and socialism have a different understanding of this final stage of human development, both of them aim not at preparing individual for the salvation in another reality but they think that ideas of the heaven should be established in this world.
However, this concept was problematic because sooner or later it should have been realized that humans cannot comprehend God's perfection. Therefore, the concept of God is equal to the concept of nonexistence and such type of metaphysical entity could not give a purpose to the world. Furthermore, after the fall of finalistic worldview it was impossible to prove the old political order and, hence, new search for the meaning of life in the political order began. Essential role by trying to reunite meaning of life and politics was performed by scientific worldview. Science enabled the reconstruction of meaning of life by 2 aspects: firstly, it changed the finalistic understanding of the world by causal and, therefore, it granted a possibility by manipulating cause and effect to recreate every social and natural order. Secondly, after theologians established God as nonbeing, scientists gave a way to provide a frame to the world. Moreover, some of them even envisaged the trend of progress in historical processes which paved a way to fulfil the ultimate purposes of humanity, therefore, meaning of life not in another but in this world. This created conditions for the idea that society should be permanently improved and the ultimate goal of such improvement is the salvation of every individual in this world. Although supporters of liberalism and socialism have a different understanding of this final stage of human development, both of them aim not at preparing individual for the salvation in another reality but they think that ideas of the heaven should be established in this world.
