Abstract
First part of the paper describes various attempts and methodological justifications for the reducing cognitive factors to the social ones. Bloor s and Bantes “Strong program in the sociology of knowledge” is one of the recent programs with such an aim. The critics of the “strong programmers”, however, have so far treated the strong program as a theory, and the result was more or less devastating (the adherents of the “strong program”, on the other side, have developed their own modes of speech very similar to the strong program, as to avoid attacks directed to Bloor and Barnes). Such an identification, leaning on ambiguities between the notions of “program” and “theory”, it is claimed, is higly misleading. In spite of often unjustified criticisms, among scientitists (philosophers excluded) there is a growing tedency to observe the ample range of social influences in science as constitutive traits in scientific activity. (One of the reasons is the failure to give an adequate demaraction criterion, which was essential to the rationalists). The strong program has all the features of Lakatosian research programmes, so according to the normes raised by “slrong programmers” opponents, even if it fails to meet some of the methodological norms, the core of the program would still be vindicated. So far (without a historical distance and without a better competitor), we may, at least, justifiably say that it is not degenerating.
Highlights
Današnji kritičari Bloorovog i Barnesovog sociologizma, nisu se obazirali na činjenicu da je “strogi program u sociologiji spoznaje” metodološki program, što znači da se na temelju ili u okvirima tog programa mogu postaviti različite socijalne teorije
Međutim, da društvo ima utjecaja na formiranje znanstvenih teorija ili racionalnih kriterija, dopustit ćemo da strogi program ponovo postane podobno
(without a historical distance and without a better competitor), we may, at least, justifiably say that it is not degenerating
Summary
Današnji kritičari Bloorovog i Barnesovog sociologizma (pokušaja teoretske redukcije objašnjenja sadržaja vjerovanja na njihove socijalne uzroke), nisu se obazirali na činjenicu da je “strogi program u sociologiji spoznaje” metodološki program, što znači da se na temelju ili u okvirima tog programa mogu postaviti različite socijalne teorije. Biologističko načelo o svođenju društvenog života na prirodni vrlo lako može uklopiti u fizikalistički program, koji tvrdi da se i sami zakoni biologije, temelj redukcije za društvene pojave, mogu objasniti zakonima fizike. Sociologizam se za razliku od fizikalizma, psihologizma i biologizma, koji složenost pojavi ontički višeg reda pokušavaju objasniti jednostavnijim načelima i zakonima što primarno važe za ontički niži red, ne može uklopiti u takav ontološki smjer redukcije. On tvrdi da složena stvarnost nije izgrađena od jednostavnih elemenata, već da spoznaja te jednostavnosti ne bi bila moguća bez složenih (psihičkih i društvenih) stanja, tako da objašnjenje ontološke jednostavnosti nije moguće bez razumijevanja zakonitosti koji važe za ontološki složena stanja. Antireducionistički stav poziva se na princip složenosti koji tvrdi da jedinstveni tip objašnjenja za sve pojave nije dostatan za objašnjenje raznolikosti pojavnog svijeta, odnosno u navedenom primjeru, da su mnogi oblici prirodnog i duhovnog života nesvodivi na fiziku. Za to opravdanje poslužit ćemo se jednim novijim sociologističkim pokušajem poznatim pod imenom “strogi program u sociologiji spoznaje”
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Papers on Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology and Pedagogy
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
