Suchergebnisse

In this article the author shows how the exploding role of biology in William Thomas's sociology and social psychology has changed. Since the beginning of his career, this researcher addressed numerous topics that involved both biological and social factors – he commented on the nature of gender, race, instincts, prejudice and evolution. His departure point was biologism, which proclaimed that innate predispositions are a variable independent of social processes. In the following years, Thomas changed his beliefs, recognising that it was culture and society that left its mark on physiological and psychological development. The changes in Thomas's reasoning are described by the author against the background of past and present views on the relationship between society and the brain, claiming that his late views could resonate with today's approaches.

There is a common opinion that a researcher cannot be entirely objective. Although they can keep a semantic neutrality, their identity and social environment make it impossible to maintain this neutrality in the practice. The author tries to prove that this neutrality is impossible as well because every scientist chooses their own philosophy of language. The author shows examples of certain statements of sociology of religion confronted with three positivist requirements and ways in which the choice can influence the interpretation. We can translate the statements to become compatible with the requirements of the language but every translation is subject to risk of losing the depth, the root of thinker's intention. Since there are many opposite views on philosophy of language a need arises to develop a sociological thought concerning thisaspect of their work.