Suchergebnisse

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.

This article presents figures reffering to woman in criminology, as discusses its repercussions in the Brazilian penal code. Identified in positive criminology the figure of the nate criminal related to prostitution, masculine woman and atavistic; as well as the victim, is her a criminal dependent of a man, or is it by the necessity of protection from the Government. These figures have in common serve to social control of woman. In opposition, in feminist criminology it is identified the figure of the emancipated woman that does not search in penal law the solution of conflicts related socially, economically and politically. ; Este artigo apresenta figuras referentes à mulher junto às criminologias, bem como discute suas repercussões no código penal brasileiro. É identificada na criminologia positivista a figura da criminosa nata relacionada à prostituição, à mulher masculinizada e à atávica; bem como da vítima, seja ela criminosa por dependência do homem, seja pela necessidade de proteção do Estado. Estas figuras têm em comum o fato de servirem ao controle social da mulher. Em oposição, na criminologia feminista se verifica a figura da mulher emancipada, que não busca no direito penal a solução de conflitos que são de ordem social, econômica e política.

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 STS movement, which emerged in embryonic in the middle of last century and made over the decades, remains relevant to the society we live in. Thus, it is recurrent the need for a participation of this society in the direction given to the scientific and technological activity, demanding more democratic decisions. In this sense the research is based on the questionings: what is the characterization of educational practices carried out in STS field in Basic Education and in teacher training?; And, as has been the participation of society in scientific and technological development? As objectives, we seek: (i) identify which subjects have participated in decision-making on scientific and technological development, and how; (ii) analyze data referrals in respect of educational practices STS; (iii) to investigate whether the STS assumptions are advancing the Academy to implement educational practices; (iv) to point out horizons for Science Education in the perspective of curricular settings guided by the constitution of a culture of participation. It is a bibliographical research whose methodology was the Discursive Textual Analysis, composed of unitarization, categorization and communication. The corpus of analysis emerged four categories: 1) Limitations practices STS implemented; 2) Methodological aspects of practicas STS; 3) Social participation in the development of ST in classrooms; 4) Justifications for insertion of STS practices.

This article continues the investigation on the relationships between science and social engineering. We inquire and critically analyze the ideas of P. Feyerabend on the social possibilities of science, political role of scientific experts and social engineers. The objective of the article is the reconstruction of Feyerabend's reception of science and its socio-political role, then, the presentation of Feyerabend's counter-arguments against Popper's rationalism and the project of social engineering. According to Feyerabend, an open and free society is the society where every (cultural, religious, epistemological etc.) tradition is provided with equal rights and equal possibilities. Any attempt to impose the standards of one tradition on the others rejects the idea of freedom and liberty. Science is only one epistemological traditions among others, therefore, in a free society scientific standard cannot dominate over the standards of the other traditions. Thus, Feyerabend interprets Popper's idea of scientifically grounded social engineering as politically harmful, misleading and incompatible with the requirements of a free society.

This article continues the investigation on the relationships between science and social engineering. We inquire and critically analyze the ideas of P. Feyerabend on the social possibilities of science, political role of scientific experts and social engineers. The objective of the article is the reconstruction of Feyerabend's reception of science and its socio-political role, then, the presentation of Feyerabend's counter-arguments against Popper's rationalism and the project of social engineering. According to Feyerabend, an open and free society is the society where every (cultural, religious, epistemological etc.) tradition is provided with equal rights and equal possibilities. Any attempt to impose the standards of one tradition on the others rejects the idea of freedom and liberty. Science is only one epistemological traditions among others, therefore, in a free society scientific standard cannot dominate over the standards of the other traditions. Thus, Feyerabend interprets Popper's idea of scientifically grounded social engineering as politically harmful, misleading and incompatible with the requirements of a free society.

This article continues the investigation on the relationships between science and social engineering. We inquire and critically analyze the ideas of P. Feyerabend on the social possibilities of science, political role of scientific experts and social engineers. The objective of the article is the reconstruction of Feyerabend's reception of science and its socio-political role, then, the presentation of Feyerabend's counter-arguments against Popper's rationalism and the project of social engineering. According to Feyerabend, an open and free society is the society where every (cultural, religious, epistemological etc.) tradition is provided with equal rights and equal possibilities. Any attempt to impose the standards of one tradition on the others rejects the idea of freedom and liberty. Science is only one epistemological traditions among others, therefore, in a free society scientific standard cannot dominate over the standards of the other traditions. Thus, Feyerabend interprets Popper's idea of scientifically grounded social engineering as politically harmful, misleading and incompatible with the requirements of a free society.

This article continues the investigation on the relationships between science and social engineering. We inquire and critically analyze the ideas of P. Feyerabend on the social possibilities of science, political role of scientific experts and social engineers. The objective of the article is the reconstruction of Feyerabend's reception of science and its socio-political role, then, the presentation of Feyerabend's counter-arguments against Popper's rationalism and the project of social engineering. According to Feyerabend, an open and free society is the society where every (cultural, religious, epistemological etc.) tradition is provided with equal rights and equal possibilities. Any attempt to impose the standards of one tradition on the others rejects the idea of freedom and liberty. Science is only one epistemological traditions among others, therefore, in a free society scientific standard cannot dominate over the standards of the other traditions. Thus, Feyerabend interprets Popper's idea of scientifically grounded social engineering as politically harmful, misleading and incompatible with the requirements of a free society.

A intelectualidade vivencia uma ruptura com os padrões de consagração vigentes na Primeira República. A partir da tomada do poder por Getúlio Vargas e a Revolução de 1930, tem-se início um novo cenário político. Devido à queda do preço do café, o modelo agroexportador encontrava-se em processo de decadência, pois já não era mais possível manter artificialmente o valor deste produto. Somam-se a este fator as restrições provocadas pela crise financeira de 1929, o que implicou na queda da demanda externa e no surgimento de novos competidores. Neste contexto, os intelectuais estão subordinados de um modo mais intenso à conjuntura política do que propriamente às questões culturais. A função e atuação dos intelectuais ultrapassam, desta maneira, o campo estritamente intelectual e adentram o do político. Assim, o presente trabalho tem como objetivo demonstrar a relação entre a modernização brasileira e o desenvolvimento institucional e intelectual das Ciências Sociais no Brasil. ; La intelectualidad experimenta una ruptura con los estándares de consagración vigentes en la Primera República. A partir de la toma del poder por Getúlio Vargas y la Revolución de 1930, comenzó un nuevo escenario político. Debido a la caída en el precio del café, el modelo de agroexportación estaba en proceso de descomposición, ya que no era posible mantener artificialmente el valor de este producto. A este factor se suman las restricciones causadas por la crisis financiera de 1929, que implicó una caída de la demanda externa y la aparición de nuevos competidores. En este contexto, los intelectuales están más fuertemente subordinados a la situación política que a los asuntos culturales. La función y el desempeño de los intelectuales, de esta manera, van más allá del campo estrictamente intelectual y entran en el de lo político. Así, el presente trabajo tiene como objetivo demostrar la relación entre la modernización brasileña y el desarrollo institucional e intelectual de las Ciencias Sociales en Brasil. ; Intellectuality experiences a rupture with the standards of consecration in force in the First Republic. From the seizure of power by Getúlio Vargas and the 1930 Revolution, a new political scenario began. Due to the drop in the price of coffee, the agro-export model was in a process of decay, as it was no longer possible to artificially maintain the value of this product. Added to this factor are the restrictions caused by the financial crisis of 1929, which implied a drop in external demand and the emergence of new competitors. In this context, intellectuals are more intensely subordinated to the political situation than to cultural issues. The function and performance of intellectuals, in this way, go beyond the strictly intellectual field and enter that of the political. Thus, the present work aims to demonstrate the relationship between Brazilian modernization and the institutional and intellectual development of Social Sciences in Brazil.