Society and Unnatural Sciences

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The interaction of society with social sciences differs from its relations with natural sciences. After all, the development of the latter can produce information on the basis of which various technologies are created that improve the conditions and quality of life of large masses or individual groups of the population, while many of the results of modern social sciences benefit primarily those who are engaged in them. Of course, there are exceptions, but not always. The article discusses two main reasons for this: firstly, the widespread use of popular (naive, intuitive) social theories among all citizens, which often replace decision makers’ reliance on scientific results, and secondly, the opposition of objects studied by natural and social sciences, carried out by a number of social science methodologists, with an emphasis on the fact that in the latter it makes sense to conduct mainly qualitative research, which boils down to identifying subjective understanding of the reasons or meanings of why people behave this way and not otherwise, while identifying regularities is too difficult to do. In conclusion, it is discussed whether these reasons can be overcome.

About the authors

Vitaly L. Tambovtsev

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Email: vitalytambovtsev@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0667-3391
SPIN-code: 5938-6806
ResearcherId: U-4980-2017
Doctor of Economics, Professor Moscow, Russia

References

  1. Wallerstein I. World-systems analysis. In: Giddens A., Turner J. H., eds. Social theory today. Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press; 1987. P. 309–324.
  2. MacIver R. M., Page C. H. Society: An introductory analysis. London ; Basingstoke : The Macmillan Press LTD; 1950. xviii, 491 p.
  3. Osipov G. V., Naletova A. D. Society [Obshchestvo]. In: Russian sociological encyclopedia [Rossiiskaya sotsiologicheskaya entsiklopediya]. Moscow : Norma ; Infra-M; 1998. P. 330–331. (In Russ.).
  4. Osipova N. G. Conceptualization of the society category in the history of sociology: Key discussions. Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 18. Sociology and Political Science. 2020;26(2):7–34. (In Russ.). doi: 10.24290/1029-3736-2020-26-2-7-34.
  5. Sorokin P. A. The system of sociology [Sistema sotsiologii]. Moscow : Astrel; 2008. 1003 p. (In Russ.). ISBN 978-5-271-14765-4.
  6. Gerstenberg T., Tenenbaum J. B. Intuitive theories. In: Waldmann M. R., ed. The Oxford handbook of causal reasoning. New York : Oxford University Press; 2017. Р. 515–548. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199399550.013.28.
  7. Mahr J. B., Csibra G. A short history of theories of intuitive theories. In: Gervain J., Csibra G., Kovács K., eds. A life in cognition: Studies in cognitive science in honor of Csaba Pléh. Cham : Springer; 2022. P. 219–232. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-66175-5_16.
  8. Malle B. F. People’s folk theory of behavior. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. 1997;19:478–483.
  9. Rubin P. H. Folk Economics. Southern Economic Journal. 2003;70(1):157–171. doi: 10.2307/1061637.
  10. Boyer P., Petersen M. B. Folk-economic beliefs: An evolutionary cognitive model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2017;41:e158. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X17001960.
  11. Leiser D., Shemesh Y. Introduction: Folk-economic beliefs. In: Leiser D., Shemesh Y. How we misunderstand economics and why it matters: The psychology of bias, distortion and conspiracy. London : Routledge; 2018. P. 1–9.
  12. Odum H. W. Folk sociology as a subject field for the historical study of total human society and the empirical study of group behavior. Social Forces. 1953;31(3):193–223. doi: 10.2307/2574217.
  13. Churchland P. M. Folk psychology and the explanation of human behavior. Philosophical Perspectives. 1989;3:225–241. doi: 10.2307/2214269.
  14. Stich S., Nichols S. Folk psychology: Simulation or tacit theory? Mind & Language. 1992;7(1–2):35–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1992.tb00196.x.
  15. Srnicek N., Williams A. Inventing the future: Postcapitalism and a world without work. Revised and updated ed. London ; New York : Verso; 2016. vii, 263 p. ISBN 978-1-784-78-622-9.
  16. Drumm L. Folk pedagogies and pseudo-theories: How lecturers rationalise their digital teaching. Research in Learning Technology. 2019;27:1–17. doi: 10.25304/rlt.v27.2094.
  17. McCloskey M. Intuitive physics. Scientific American. 1983;248(4):122–131. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0483-122.
  18. Fragaszy D. M., Mangalam M. Folk physics in the twenty-first century: Understanding tooling as embodied. Animal Behavior and Cognition. 2020;7(3):457–473. doi: 10.26451/abc.07.03.12.2020.
  19. Au T. K. Developing an intuitive understanding of substance kinds. Cognitive Psychology. 1994;27(1):71–111. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1994.1012.
  20. Hunn E. Folk biology: A frontier of cognitive anthropology. Reviews in Anthropology. 1975;2(2):266–274. doi: 10.1080/00988157.1975.9977170.
  21. Waxman S., Medin D., Ross N. Folkbiological reasoning from a cross-cultural developmental perspective: Early essentialist notions are shaped by cultural beliefs. Developmental Psychology. 2007;43(2):294–308. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.2.294.
  22. Kitchener R. F. Folk epistemology: An introduction. New Ideas in Psychology. 2002;20(2–3):89–105. doi: 10.1016/S0732-118X(02)00003-X.
  23. Mercier H. The social origins of folk epistemology. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. 2010;1(4):499–514. doi: 10.1007/s13164-010-0021-4.
  24. Gerken M. On folk epistemology: How we think and talk about knowledge. Oxford : Oxford University Press; 2017. xv, 332 p. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198803454.001.0001.
  25. Haas P. When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy. 2004;11(4):569–592. doi: 10.1080/1350176042000248034.
  26. Newman J., Cherney A., Head B. W. Do policy makers use academic research? Reexamining the “two communities” theory of research utilization. Public Administration Review. 2015;76(1):24–32. doi: 10.1111/puar.12464.
  27. Nelson J. P., Lindsay S., Bozeman B. The last 20 years of empirical research on government utilization of academic social science research: A state-of-the-art literature review. Administration & Society. 2023;55(8):1479–1528. doi: 10.1177/00953997231172923.
  28. Kaplan A. The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco, CA : Chandler Publishing; 1964. xix, 428 p. ISBN 9780810201446.
  29. Diesing P. Patterns of discovery in the social sciences. Chicago, IL : Aldine ; New York : Atherton; 1971. x, 350 p. ISBN 0-202-30101-X.
  30. Yilmaz K. Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of Education. 2013;48(2):311–325. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12014.
  31. Newman I., Ridenour C. Qualitative-quantitative research: A false dichotomy. In: Newman I., Ridenour C. Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale, IL ; Edwardsville, IL : Southern Illinois University Press; 1998. P. 1–12.
  32. Bryman A. The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: A question of method or epistemology? The British Journal of Sociology. 1984;35(1):75–92. doi: 10.2307/590553.
  33. Tobin G. A., Begley C. M. Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework. The Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2004;48(4):388–396. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03207.x.
  34. Lanka E., Lanka S., Rostron A., Singh P. Why we need qualitative research in management studies. Revista de Administração Contemporânea. 2021;25(2):e200297. doi: 10.1590/1982-7849rac2021200297.en.
  35. Turk-Browne N. B., Jungé J. A., Scholl B. J. The automaticity of visual statistical learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2005;134(4):552–564. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.134.4.552.
  36. Zhao J., Al-Aidroos N., Turk-Browne N. B. Attention is spontaneously biased toward regularities. Psychological Science. 2013;24(5):667–677. doi: 10.1177/0956797612460407.
  37. Summerfield C., de Lange F. P. Expectation in perceptual decision making: Neural and computational mechanisms. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2014;15(11):745–756. doi: 10.1038/nrn3838.
  38. Stevens S. S. On the theory of scales of measurement. Science. 1946;103(2684):677–680. doi: 10.1126/science.103.2684.677.
  39. Suppes P., Zinnes J. Basic measurement theory. In: Luce R. D., Bush R. R., Galanter E., еds. Handbook of mathematical psychology. Chichester : John Wiley & Sons; 1963. Vol. 1. P. 1–76.
  40. Shiller R. J. Narratives about technology-induced job degradation then and now. Journal of Policy Modeling. 2019;41(3):477–488. doi: 10.1016/j.jpolmod.2019.03.015.
  41. Tambovtsev V. L., Valitova L. A. Subjective well-being as a unit for narrative analysis. Moscow University Economics Bulletin. 2025;60(1):60–81. (In Russ.). doi: 10.55959/MSU0130-0105-6-60-1-4.
  42. Stevens S. S. The operational definition of psychological concepts. Psychological Review. 1935;42(6):517–527. doi: 10.1037/h0056973.
  43. Lundberg G. A. Operational definitions in the social sciences. The American Journal of Sociology. 1942;47(5):727–743. doi: 10.1086/219004.
  44. Adler F. Operational definitions in sociology. The American Journal of Sociology. 1947;52(5):438–444. doi: 10.1086/220037.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).