Since World War II, social theory has generated two major critical analyses of science as a social phenomenon: that of the Frankfurt School, and of Science and Technology Studies. These academic efforts grew out of a broader movement in western societies, in the decades following the war, to reach a better accommodation between science and society, motivated by deep-seated popular anxieties about the challenges posed by the advance of science and technology. In this paper, I first examine the overlooked parallels between these two academic efforts, and go on to explain why they would in the end prove fruitless, indeed somewhat self-defeating. The explanation points to the instrumentalist and constructivist conception of science shared by the two schools which would eventually play into the hands of the “entrepreneurial university” and the commodification of science.

The principle of complementarity articulated Niels Bohr applied to atomic physics, has general philosophical significance, moreover, it helps to overcome the objectivity/subjectivity in the social sciences. In accordance with principle of complementarity social reality appears more vividly and stereoscopy. The principle of complementarity in social science is valuable, especially if we try to analyze the constant, institutionalized and changing social structure.

An emerging approach to research is gaining ground with the aim to produce usable knowledge, able to support adaptation decisions, provide straightforward estimates of uncertainty, and meet the needs of climate sensitive sectors. An approach that implies collaboration among researchers, stakeholders and outreach specialists, gathered to develop not only a scientific contribution, but to offer a renewed appreciation of the relationships between knowledge, nature and society. What are the epistemic features of this new approach to knowledge production? How can philosophy of science help to conceptualize these new trends of research practices now emerging and consolidating, a trend where social scientists are not only invited to participate but to play an essential role? This presentation distinguishes two main senses of the concept of co-production, both playing an important elucidative function in current philosophical accounts and revisions of the relationships between science and society, human and natural systems, triggered by these new trends. One focusing on the articulation of talents, perspectives and values needed to produce new types of knowledge, the other on the intertwined transformations of identities, institutions, languages and discourses that characterize the workings of science and technology within society.

A specific problem of progress in social science is the failure of certain cognitive achievements to garner substantial support to the detriment of less efficient research practices. The phenomenon can be conceptualized as a failure of diffusion of innovation, but because of the specific context, here the term of non-incorporation is preferred. The analysis of three concrete cases (the constructivist approach to ethnicity, a typology of intra-state conflicts, and the consequentiality of inequality for inter-group relations) shows that resistance from opposing paradigms cannot fully explain the neglect of these proposals. They rather seem to have fallen victim to an epistemology that places more premium on parsimony than on adequacy. In a final analysis, however, the value of simplicity has been boosted by three strong, influential paradigms, each fostering an emphatic self-consciousness of parsimony: the free-marketeer economics, rational choice theory, and (neo) realism in inter-national relations. Because of their concerted pressure toward simplifying, the simple warnings that deter abuse of Occam’s Razor in natural sciences are inefficient in some social science domains. Here, stronger measures are needed to assure fair chances to complex solutions, such as a serious appreciation of adequacy (accuracy and completeness) versus parsimony, and/or moral penalty on simplification.

The significant scientific advances made in recent decades in fields such as cognitive science, neuroscience, developmental psychology and biology oblige us to reconsider some of the basic assumptions of social science. However, the task of recategorization is a particularly difficult one as it calls into question some of the central metaconceptions on which our scientific and cultural tradition is based. Moreover, there are certain powerful metacategories that limit our ability to conceive of more realistic and more precise explanations. The systematic recategorization carried out over the last 150 years in disciplines such as physics, geology, biology or paleoanthropology provides an excellent philosophical and methodological starting point from which to undertake the necessary review of the historical, institutional, cognitive and developmental foundations of contemporary social science.

Sustainable development expresses a qualitatively new type of development present both in man’s understanding and action. This is the very type of development that is formed consciously on the basis of the grasp of objective and necessary laws of nature, in which man and human society are inseparable parts. Sustainable development resolves harmonically relationships between man and man (the relationship between the present and future generations).In Vietnam has talked about sustainable development since the 1980s of the last century and sustainable development has become the strategic objective in Vietnam. The contents of the concept of sustainable development has been changed, supplemented and renovated. Vietnam has intended to build and implement the strategy of fast and sustainable development, which should be suitable for the concrete conditions of Vietnam. The strategy of fast and sustainable development has been affirmed officially in the Documents of the Party’s 9th Congress and supplemented and further developed in the Documents of the Party’s 10th and 11th Congress. In the practice of Vietnam, the strategy of fast and sustainable development is the effective way to guarantee country’s socialistic-oriented development aiming at the goal of “wealthy people, strong country, just, democratic and civilized society”.

Historical legitimacy of hermeneutics has not exclusively depended on the encouragement made by philosophers. In accordance with its hope of universality, philosophical hermeneutics has spread its influence over other research fields, with which the dialogical principle that characterizes it has realized itself as praxis of comprehension. In a wide sense, with the development of hermeneutics, Human and Social Sciences have rethought their cognitive frameworks and their role in society. An example of this expansion can be found in the sociology developed by Zygmunt Bauman. The purpose of this paper is to present the fundamental features of the sociological realization of hermeneutics in the work of this contemporary society’s analyst. We will mainly focus on the following: sociology as critical mediation of the present, which means to understand, in moral and political perspectives, the operation of the consumer society, as well as the human consequences (biographical and collective) of the consumption-based way of life. In short, this means to understand the challenges that human condition faces nowadays.

I would like to examine three approaches to methodological status of the social sciences and humanities. The specificative approach continues a tradition inherent in philosophy of W. Dilthey, W. Windelband, and H. Rickert, who focused attention on the studying of the specific features of the humanities. The unificative, or unificatory, approach was developed under the influence of positivism. It aims at justifying of the humanities methodology due to working out general scientific standards based on the priority of empirical methods. In this respect, unification of the methodology of science consequently should re-sult in the social sciences and humanities assimilation to the natural sciences. The works of L. Wittgenstein, C. G. Hempel, P. Oppenheim, R. Carnap, E. Nagel contributed to the strengthening of this approach. Nowadays several factors and drivers promote the integrative approach. It seems essential to emphasize the possibility and necessity to combine the methods of various disciplines in trans- and cross-disciplinary research. It is argued that the integrative approach reveals intrinsic potential of the social sciences and humanities for complementing the natural sciences and enriching the scientific methodology.

As two important fields of the human academic activities, the humanities and social science are both different and inherently unified. The differences between the humanities and social science mainly include the following three aspects: first, the objectives of the humanities and social science are different. Second, the thinking orientations of humanities and social science are different. Third, humanities and social science are thinking in different ways. For the unity of the humanities and social science, we can understand it from the following three aspects: first of all, humanities and social science are internally correlated in the research object. Secondly, humanities and social science restrict and guide each other in the process and results of exploration. Furthermore, humanities and social science dialectically complement each other in the spiritual ethos.

Uno de los mitos bastante difundido en nuestra época es la separación de las ciencias y la tecnología respecto a otras dimensiones de la cultura. Cabe señalar, sin embargo, que dicha presunción podemos rastrearla en muchos testimonios históricos, ya desde la misma antigüedad griega. Ahora bien, ¿cuáles son las razones que apoyarían a cada una de estas afirmaciones? ¿Son los desarrollos científico/tecnológicos los que con el tiempo nos proveerán de los recursos suficientes para subsanar los efectos indeseables del crecimiento desigual entre naciones, o bien la resolución del problema es de otra índole, ya que dependerá de decisiones político/económicas que se tomarán a nivel mundial y en la que lo científico/tecnológico ocupa el papel de mero instrumento? ¿Desde qué lugar se deberían discutir las intrincadas implicancias de un problema de estas características? Para indagar alrededor de este asunto me serviré de algunos desarrollos teóricos llevados a cabo por pensadores como Serres, Descola y en especial los de Latour, en relación a su concepto de humanidades científicas.

El presente trabajo se propone reflexionar acerca del modo en que algunas corrientes de pensamiento latinoamericano, más allá de sus matices y diferencias, se han replanteado tempranamente sus posturas epistemológicas a la luz de la articulación de los aportes de la fenomenología, la hermenéutica y la teoría crítica, desafiando con ello la lógica bipolar que opone “comprensión del sujeto social” a “transformación del mundo social”. En esta alternativa integradora, cuyos antecedentes se remontan a los años 70, ha tenido vital importancia la capacidad y la creatividad para articular dos categorías acuñadas como antagónicas en el marco de la Teoría Social: “Agencia” y “Emancipación”, entendiendo el primero como el énfasis en la capacidad de los sujetos para conocer y decidir sobre su vida social, y el último como la conciencia de que esos mismos sujetos requieren, para su desarrollo, de la construcción de una identidad aliviada de coacciones. Aun cuando este modelo epistemológico presenta aun desafíos a superar, al menos en tres frentes: Institucional, económico y político, invita en la actualidad a la reflexión científica tanto del rol de los científicos sociales como de los sujetos, en el proceso participado y recursivo de construcción del conocimiento social.

1. Рассмотренная в рамках социокультурного подхода, миграция предстает как инструмент и процесс формирования новой социокультурной реальности, характеризируемой постоянным «столкновением культур». 2. Используемые в современном обществе модели социокультурной интеграции поликультурного иммигрантского общества либо не адекватны демократическому обществу (унификация этнокультурного пространства), либо не эффективны, разрушают этнокультурный баланс, способствуют этнокультурному разобщению (мультикультурализм). 3. Мультикультурализм не является образцовой моделью интеграции для изначально полиэтнического российского общества. 4. Специфика миграционной ситуации южнороссийского региона определяется его изначальной полиэтничностью, локализацией основных перемещений в рамках региона, высоким потенциалом конфликтности. 5. Эмпирические исследования показали усиление интеграционного компонента этнических культур народов Северного Кавказа, который проявляется в стремлении к преодолению социальных и культурных дистанций, усилению межэтнического взаимодействия. 6. Изоляционный компонент этнических культур проявляется в акцентированной противоположности этнических авто- и гетеростереотипов, формировании этно- и мигрантофобий. 7. Формирование региональной идентичности и различные компоненты кросскультурных новообразований являются показателями складывающейся сложнокультурной общности. Механизм этнокультурной интеграции проявляется в формировании элементов кросскультурного регулирования сложнокультурного общества. 8. Содействие интеграции иммигрантского или поликультурного общества, образованного внутренними миграциями, представляет собой один из важнейших компонентов миграционной политики. Процессы интеграции, рассмотренные в рамках социокультурного подхода, позволяют обосновать изменении вектора политики этнокультурной интеграции: от проектирования состояния общества, толерантного многим культурам, к организации пространства этнокультурного, и шире, социокультурного, социального, политического диалогов.

Οι σχέσεις φιλοσοφίας και κοινωνιολογίας συνδέονται με τις διαφορές του αντικειμένου και της μεθόδου, οι οποίες καθορίζονται κατ’ ανάγκην από τις θεωρήσεις των κοινωνιολόγων. Συνεπώς η μόνη οδός για να προσδιορισθούν οι σχέσεις τους είναι η κατάρτιση μιας τυπολογίας με βάση την σχηματική ταξινόμηση των κοινωνιολογικών θεωρήσεων, ατομικών ή συλλογικών (σχολών). Λόγω της τεράστιας ποικιλίας των τελευταίων, μόνον ως απόπειρα μιας μερικής τυπολογίας μπορεί να νοηθεί η παρούσα εισήγηση. Με αυτό το δεδομένο μπορούν ενδεικτικά να κατηγοριοποιηθούν οι σχέσεις σε πέντε ομάδες: 1) σύμπτωση (συνύπαρξη) κοινωνιολογίας και φιλοσοφίας στο ίδιο πρόσωπο (G. Simmel, σχολή της Φρανκφούρτης), 2) αβαθής φιλοσοφική βάση στην πρώιμη εξελικτική κοινωνιολογία (A. Comte, H. Spencer), 3) συγκεκριμένες αλλά διαφοροποιημένες επιδράσεις της φιλοσοφίας στην κοινωνιολογία (επιλεκτική αναφορά: F. Tönnies, M. Weber), 4) επαμφοτερίζουσα και προβληματική σχέση του θετικιστικού εμπειρισμού με τη φιλοσοφία· εν προκειμένω μπορούν να διακριθούν σχηματικά οι εξής εκφάνσεις: α) αίτημα ανεξαρτησίας από τη φιλοσοφία (E. Durkheim, V. Pareto), β) απόπειρα σύνθεσης των αντιθετικών κατευθύνσεων, ιδεαλιστικής–θετικιστικής (T. Parsons), γ) πραγματιστικές και ψυχολογικές καταβολές του αμερικανικού συμπεριφορισμού – και συναφώς του δομολειτουργισμού – και ακραίος εμπειρισμός (κοινωνιολογισμός), τέλος 5) η κατά βάση νιτσεϊκής επίδρασης άρνηση της κοινωνιολογίας στο μεταμοντερνισμό (J. F. Lyotard, J. Baudrillard, κ.ά.).