KONSILIJENCIJA U DRUŠTVENIM NAUKAMA: MOGUĆNOSTI I OGRANIČENJA
Scindeks Asistent Scindeks Asistent — sistem za ozbiljne časopise i one koji to žele da postanu
PDF

Sažetak

U 20. veku, termin „konsilijencija” popularizovao je Edvard Vilson (Wilson 1998), smatrajući da je moguće pomiriti tri grane znanja: prirodne nauke, društvene nauke i humanističke discipline. Konsilijentno objašnjenje zasniva se na pretpostavci o mogućnosti unifikacije naučnog znanja sa ciljem postizanja epistemološkog kontinuiteta. U prirodnim naukama, pitanje epistemološkog kontinuiteta daleko je manje kontroverzno nego u društvenim, te se često govori o kontinuitetu između fizike, hemije i biologije. Postoje i društveni i epistemološki razlozi iz kojih se on najčešće zanemaruje u društvenim naukama. Današnja popularnost postmodernizma, poststrukturalizma i sličnih relativističkih orijentacija svedoči o nedostatku želje društvenih naučnika da tragaju za vezama među naukama, te samo mali broj naučnika želi da napravi analognu vezu između biologije, psihologije i antropologije/sociologije. S druge strane, postoje i ideje i strahovi da nije ni poželjno uspostaviti ovaj intelektualni kontinuitet, zato što podseća na redukcionizam koji se najčešće kritikuje u sferi društvenih nauka. I konačno, nije mali broj autora koji smatraju da ga zbog prirode znanja društvenih nauka nije ni moguće postići. U ovom radu zastupa se teza da je makar umerena konsilijencija moguća i u društvenim naukama. Ona zahteva sintezu saznanja iz različitih nauka i naučnih disciplina koje se bave istim problemom radi formiranja koherentnih zaključaka o datoj pojavi. Cilj ovog rada jeste da ukaže na važnost kooperacije sociologije i drugih nauka koje proučavaju različite nivoe analize fenomena, pogotovo kod pitanja gde se ti nivoi preklapaju. U tom smislu moguća perspektiva jeste evolucioni pristup koji ima veliki potencijal za unifikaciju sa drugim naukama.

Ključne reči

Array
Array
Array
Array
Array
DOI: 10.5937/politeia0-36505

Reference

Alexander, R. (1974). The evolution of social behavior. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5: 325–383.

 

Andrews, S. (1872). The Basic Outline of Universology. New York: Dion Thomas.

 

Apostel, L. et al. (eds) (1972). Interdisciplinarity Teaching and Research Problems in the Universities. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.

 

Aristotle. (2016). Metaphysics. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.

 

Bacon, F. (1620/1898). Novum organum. London: George Bell and Sons.

 

Bateson, P. & K. Laland (2013). Tinbergen's four questions: an appreciation and an update. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 28 (12): 712‒718.

 

Bechtel, W. & Hamilton, A. (2007). Reduction, integration, and the unity of science: Natural, behavioral, and social sciences and the humanities. In T. Kuipers (ed.). General Philosophy of Science: Focal Issues, pp. 477‒430. North Holland: Elsevier.

 

Boas, F. (1928). Anthropology and modern life. New York: Norton & Company.

 

Brown G. et al. (2011). Evolutionary accounts of human behavioural diversity. Philosophical Transactions od the Royal Society B 366 (1563): 313–324.

 

Brown, G. & P. Richerson (2014). Applying evolutionary theory to human behaviour: past differences and current debates. Journal of Bioeconomics 16: 105–128.

 

Carnap, R. (1934/1995). The Unity of Science. Bristol: Thoemmes Press.

 

Comte, A. (1830–42/1974). The Positive Philosophy. New York: AMS Press.

 

Crippen, T. (2006). Principles of ethology and sociological analysis. Evolution and Sociology 3 (2): 3‒6.

 

Dafermos, M. (2014) Reductionism. In: T. Teo (ed.). Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology, pp. 1651‒1653. New York: Springer.

 

De Man, P. (1982). The resistance to theory. Yale French Studies 63: 3–20. 

 

Derrida, J. (1976). Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

 

Dokins, R. (1976/2008). Sebični gen. Smederevo: Heliks.

 

Douglas, G. & Torrey, N. (1947). The Censoring of Diderot’s Encyclopédie and the Reestablished Text. New York: Columbia University Press.

 

Dupre, J. (1983). The Disunity of Science. Mind 92 (367): 321–346. 

 

Dupre, J. (1996). The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

 

Durkheim, E. (1987/2005). Suicide: A Study in Sociology. London: Routledge.

 

Elder-Vass, D. (2012). Top-down causation and social structures. Interface focus 2 (1): 82–90.

 

Ellis, L. (1977). The decline and fall of sociology, 1975‒2000. The American Sociologist 12 (2) 56‒66.

 

Ellis, L. (1996). A discipline in peril: Sociology's future hinges on curing its biophobia. The American Sociologist 27 (2): 21‒41.

 

Ellis, L. & A. Hoskin (2015). Criminality and the 2D:4D Ratio: Testing the prenatal androgen hypothesis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 59 (3): 295‒312.

 

Emmeche, C., S. Koppe & F. Stjernfelt (2000). Levels, emergence, and three versions of downward causation. In: P. Andersen et al. (eds.), Downward Causation. Minds, Bodies and Matter, pp. 13‒34. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

 

Falkenburg, B. (2020). On method: The fact of science and the distinction between natural science and the humanities. Kant Yearbook 12 (1): 1–31.

 

Fodor, J. (1974). Special sciences (Or: The sisunity of science as a working hypothesis). Synthese 28 (2): 97‒115.

 

Franks, D. (2010). Neurosociology: The nexus Between Neuroscience and Social Psychology. New York: Springer.

 

Friedman, M. (ed.) (2004). Kant: Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Galison, P. (1996). Introduction: The context of disunity. In: P. Galison & D. Stump (eds.), The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

 

Gambarotto, A. (2017). Lorenz Oken (1779–1851): Naturphilosophie and the reform of natural history. British Society for the History of Science 50 (2): 329‒340.

 

Gould, S. (2003). The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox: Mending the Gap between Science and the Humanities. New York: Random House-Harmony Books.

 

Hage, J. (2013). Three kinds of coherentism. In: M. Araszkiewicz and J. Šavelka (eds.), Coherence: Insights from Philosophy, Jurisprudence and Artificial Intelligence. Law and Philosophy Library, pp 1‒32. Dordrecht: Springer.

 

Hamilton, W. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7 (1): 1–16.

 

Hartmann, E. (2017). Violence: Constructing an emerging field of sociology. International Journal of Conflict and Violence 11: 1‒9.

 

Hopcroft, R. (2019). Sociology: A Biosocial Introduction. New York: Routledge.

 

Iggers, G. (1959). Further remarks about early uses of the term "Social Science". Journal of the History of Ideas 20 (3): 433.

 

Jung, H. (2007) Edward O. Wilson's theory of consilience: A hermeneutical critique, International Journal of Public Administration 25 (9‒10): 1171‒1197.

 

Kauffman, S. (1993). The Origins of Order. Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Keller, S., H. Longino & K. Waters (eds.) (2006). Scientific Pluralism. London: University of Minnesota Press.

 

King, M. (2013). Against consilience: Outsider scholarship and the Isthmus theory of knowledge domains. Integral Review: A Transdisciplinary and Transcultural Journal for New Thought, Research, and Praxis 9 (2): 123‒145.

 

Klein, J. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

 

Lejewski, C. (1965). The concept of matter in presocratic philosophy. In: E. McMullin (ed.), The Concept of Matter in Greek and Medieval Philosophy. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

 

Lenski, G. (2005). Ecological-Evolutionary Theory. Bolulder: Paradigm Publishers.

 

Lopreato, J. & T. Crippen (1999). Crisis in Sociology. The Need for Darwin. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

 

Maryanski, A., Machalek, R. & Turner, J. (2015). Handbook on Evolution and Society: Toward an Evolutionary Social Science. New York: Routledge.

 

Mazur, A. (1978). Biological explanation in sociology. The Sociological Quarterly 19 (4): 604–613.

 

Mazur, A. (2004). Biosociology of Dominance and Deference. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

 

McRae, R. (1957). The Unity of the sciences: Bacon, Descartes, and Leibniz. Journal of the History of Ideas 18 (1): 27‒48.

 

Mead, M. (1951). The School in American Culture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

 

Milošević, Z. (2006). Od socijalne fizike do sociologije. Zbornik Matice srpske 122: 221‒228.

 

Mitchell, S. (2003). Biological Complexity and Integrative Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Nagel, E. (1961). The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace

 

Nesse, R. (2019). Tinbergen’s four questions: Two proximate, two evolutionary. Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health 1 (2): 1‒2.

 

Neurath, O. (1944). Foundations of the social sciences. In: O. Neurath, R. Carnap & C. Morris (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Unified Science Vol II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

Neurath, O., R. Carnap & C. Morris (eds.) (1938/1955). International Encyclopedia of Unified Science Vol. I. Part 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

Oppenheim, P. & H. Putnam (1958). Unity of science as a working hypothesis. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 2: 3‒36.

 

Pascal, B. (1660/1982). Pensees. Paris: Editions du Cerf.

 

Roche, W. (2010). Coherentism, truth, and witness agreement. Acta Analytica 25: 243–257.

 

Sanderson, S. (1990). Social Evolutionism: A Critical History. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.

 

Santos, G. (2015). Upward and downward causation from a relational-horizontal ontological perspective. Axiomathes 25: 23–40.

 

Sarkar, S. (2015). Nagel on reduction. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 53: 43‒56.

 

Sayer, A (2010). Reductionism in social science. In: R. Lee (ed.). Questioning Nineteenth Century Assumptions About Knowledge, II: Reductionism, pp. 5‒39. New York: State University of New York Press.

 

Scheff, T. (2013). Getting unstuck: Interdisciplinarity as a new discipline. Sociological Forum 28 (1): 179‒185.

 

Sesardić, N. (1985). Filozofija nauke. Beograd: Nolit.

 

Shermer, M. (2005). The fossil fallacy. Scientific American. Preuzeto 17. 9. 2021. sa https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fossil-fallacy/

 

Simmel, G. (1908/1950). The triad. In: K. Wolf (ed.) The Sociology of Georg Simmel, pp. 145‒169. New York: The Free Press.

 

Škorić, M. (2009). Evolucioni program u sociologiji. Sociološki Pregled 43 (4): 413‒443

 

Škorić, M. & A. Kišjuhas (2015). Magic social numbers: On the social geometry of human groups. Anthropos 110 (2): 489‒501.

 

Slingerland, E. & Collard, M. (2012). Creating Consilience: Integrating the Sciences and Humanities. New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Takacs, K. (2018). Discounting of evolutionary explanations in sociology textbooks and curricula. Frontiers in Sociology 3 (24): 1‒4.

 

Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 20: 410–433

 

Tooby, J. & L. Cosmides (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In: J. Barkow, L. Cosmides & J. Tooby (eds.), The Adapted Mind. Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, pp. 137–159. New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Trivers, R. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology 46 (1): 35–57.

 

Turner, J. (2007). Human Emotions: A Sociological Theory. New York: Routledge.

 

Turner, J. & Machalek, R. (2018). The New Evolutionary Sociology. Recent and Revitalized Theoretical and Methodological Approaches. New York: Routledge.

 

Van Bouwel, J. (2014). Pluralists about pluralism? Different versions of explanatory pluralism in psychiatry. In: M. Galavotti et al. (eds.), New Directions in the Philosophy of Science, pp. 105–119. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

 

Van den Berghe, P. (1975). Man in Society: A Biosocial View. North Holland: Elsevier.

 

Varella, M. et al. (2013). Misunderstandings in applying evolution to human mind and behavior and its causes: a systematic review. The Journal of the Evolutionary Studies 5 (1): 81–107.

 

Von Bertalanaffy, L. (1951) General system theory; a new approach to unity of science. Human Biology 23 (4): 302‒312.

 

Walsh, A. (2014). Biosociology: Bridging the Biology-Sociology Divide. New York: Routledge.

 

Wessel, A. (2009). What is epigenesis? Or gene’s place in development. Human Ontogenetics 3 (2): 35‒37.

 

Whewell, W. (1840/2014). In The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences: Founded upon their History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: Or, Control and Communication in the Animal Machine. New York: Wiley.

 

Wilson, E. (1975/2000). Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

 

Wilson, E. (1978). On Human Nature. New York: Bantam Books.

 

Wilson, E. (1998). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Vintage.

 

Wilson, M. (2000). Aristotle's theory of the unity of science. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Autori koji objavljuju u ovom časopisu pristaju na sljedeće uslove:

    1. Autori zadržavaju autorska prava i pružaju časopisu pravo prvog objavljivanja rada i licenciraju ga "Creative Commons Attribution licencom" koja omogućava drugima da dijele rad, uz uslov navođenja autorstva i izvornog objavljivanja u ovom časopisu.

 

    1. Autori mogu izraditi zasebne, ugovorne aranžmane za neekskluzivnu distribuciju članka objavljenog u časopisu (npr. postavljanje u institucionalni repozitorijum ili objavljivanje u knjizi), uz navođenje da je članak izvorno objavljen u ovom časopisu.

 

  1. Autorima je dozvoljeno i podstiču se da postave objavljeni članak onlajn (npr. u institucionalni repozitorijum ili na svoju internet stranicu) prije ili tokom postupka prijave rukopisa, s obzirom da takav postupak može voditi produktivnoj razmjeni ideja i ranijoj i većoj citiranosti objavljenog članka (Vidi Efekti otvorenog pristupa).

Preuzimanja

Podaci o preuzimanju još nisu dostupni.