Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-h6jzd Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-02-14T12:21:21.752Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Kinds of Theory in the Social Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Paul G. Morrison
Paul G. Morrison*
Affiliation:
State University College, Brockport, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In one sense, not every science of social phenomena qualifies as a social science, but only one which investigates the structure of one or more entire societies or cultures. It is within this context, perhaps, that historical linguistics, despite its central concern with an important variety of socially transmitted behavior and its largely deductive character, is less often classified with the social sciences than with the humanities.

From a broader standpoint, however, one may construe as a social science any science which investigates a complex of human behavior, attitude and belief that is transmitted, maintained, modified or discontinued through interpersonal influence. If the social sciences are understood in this broad sense, it is possible to distinguish two kinds of theory at work in them. On one hand, we may discern theories of social phenomena which function in deductive-nomothetic explanation. A typical example is the theory of the evolution of the Indo-European languages.

Type
Contributed Papers
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1970 , 1970 , pp. 565 - 572
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 Cf. Scheffler, Israel, ‘Explanation, Prediction, and Abstraction’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 7 (1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Reprinted in Philosophy of Science (ed. by Danto, and Morgenbesser, ), Meridian, New York, 1960, pp. 274-87Google Scholar. See especially Danto and Morgenbesser, p. 285.

2 Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., The Andaman Islanders, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1922, p. 229nGoogle Scholar.

3 Lidz, Theodore, The Person: His Development Throughout the Life Cycle, Basic Books, New York, 1968, p. 33nGoogle Scholar.

4 Cf. Benedict, Ruth, Patterns of Culture, Penguin Books, New York, 1946, pp. 42–43Google Scholar.

5 Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., op. cit., p. 327.

6 Benedict, Ruth, op. cit., pp. 42-43.

7 ibid., p. 43.

8 Mandelbaum, Maurice, ‘Functionalism in Social Anthropology’, in Philosophy, Science and Method: Essays in Honor of Ernest Nagel (ed. by Morgenbesser, Suppes, and White), St. Martin's Press, New York, 1969, p. 319Google Scholar.

9 Benedict, Ruth, op. cit., p. 43.

10 Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., op. cit., Preface.

11 Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., Structure and Function in Primitive Society, Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois, 1952, p. 43Google Scholar.

12 Shoben, Edward J., ‘Psychological Theory Construction and the Psychologist’, Journal of General Psychology 52 (1955) 181-88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.