Концептуальная бесплодность социальных наук

Олейников Юрий Васильевич

doi:10.7256/2454-0757.2016.9.19957


	Journal Menu > Issues > Rubrics > About journal > Authors > About the Journal > Requirements for publication > Editorial board > Peer-review process > Policy of publication. Aims & Scope. > Article retraction > Ethics > Online First Pre-Publication > Copyright & Licensing Policy > Digital archiving policy > Open Access Policy > Article Processing Charge > Article Identification Policy > Plagiarism check policy > Editorial collegium


	Journals in science databases


	About the Journal

MAIN PAGE > Back to contents

Philosophy and Culture

Reference:

Oleinikov Y.V. The conceptual fruitlessness of social sciences // Philosophy and Culture. 2016. № 9. P. 1253-1261. DOI: 10.7256/2454-0757.2016.9.19957 URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=19957

Концептуальная бесплодность социальных наук

Oleinikov Yurii Vasilevich

Doctor of Philosophy

leading researcher at Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences

542500, Russia, Moscow Region, Pavlovsky Posad, str. Karpovskaya, 5/A ap. 7

mgcupp@mail.ru

Other publications by this author

Article was published in rubric "The new paradigm of science"

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0757.2016.9.19957

Received:

02-08-2016

Published:

24-10-2016

Abstract: At the present stage, when the development of material means of transformation of the surrounding world substantiates the possibilities of the antithetical scenarios of evolution of the planetary socio-natural Universe, the extreme relevance gain the forecasting and practical functions of social sciences, which are called to adequately reflect the changes that take place in society, as well as aim at the positive solution of the new drastically new issues arising before them. The modern social sciences, remaining in the grip of the old-fashioned worldview paradigm, are unable to handle this task. Determination of the conceptual fruitlessness of social sciences should encourage the overcoming of their stagnation. The scientific, historical-philosophical, and specific-historical methods of analysis of conception and development of the Russian philosophy and social sciences in Russia, as well as methodology of paradigm shift of Thomas Kuhn, allow defining the actual reasons of the conceptual fruitlessness of socio-humanitarian sciences that take their roots in the uncritical borrowing of the Western theories of social development, organization of the Russian science and education, and their ideological bias and niche specialization of the social scientists. The sensory-visual change of the human place and role in being of the planetary socio-natural Universe justifies the crucial need for the drastic transformation of the dominant worldview paradigm, which will inevitably lead to the qualitative reformation of the entire combination of the paradigm concepts of social sciences, as well as contribute into their development in a completely new direction for the purpose of achieving the practical goal of the limitless development of a human in space and time.

Keywords:

philosophy, worldview, paradigm, science, education, creativity, development, ideology, expertise, denial

References

1. Kara-Murza S.G. Krizisnoe obshchestvovedenie. V 2-kh chastyakh. – M.: Nauchnyi ekspert, 2012. Ch.1 – 464 s., Ch.2 – 384 s.
2. Vuds A., Grant T. Buntuyushchii razum: Marksistskaya filosofiya i sovremennaya nauka /Per. s angl. Yu.V. Zhulii. – M.: «Kanon+» ROOI «Reabilitatsiya», 2015. – S. 491.
3. Shpet G.G. Ocherk razvitiya russkoi filosofii //Shpet G.G. Sochineniya. – M.: Izd-vo «Pravda», 1989 . – S. 48-52.
4. Monten' M. Opaty. Izbrannye glavy. – M.: Pravda, 1991. – S. 106.
5. Kamyu A. Zapiski buntarya. – M.: Astrel', 2011. – S. 98.
6. Boyarintsev V.I. AntiEinshtein. Glavnyi mif XX veka. – M.: Yauza, 2005.-320 s.
7. Krylova I.A. Nuzhno li reformirovat' RAN – «mozgovoi tsentr strany» /Filosofskie nauki. 2015. №4. – S. 21-31.
8. K. Marks, F. Engel's Sobr. soch. v 50 t. T. 1.-M., 1954.-S. 77.
9. Feierabend P. Nauka v svobodnom obshchestve. – M.: AST, 2010. – S. 128, 198.
10. Il'enkov E. V., Korovikov V. Strasti po tezisam o predmete filosofii (1954 — 1955) /Avt.-sost. E.Illesh.-M.: «Kanon +» ROOI «Reabilitatsiya», 2016.-272 s.
11. Pozdnyakov E.A. Priroda i sushchnost' cheloveka (mysli mizantropa i obskuranta). – M.: Boslen. 2011. – S. 583.
12. Feierabend P. Kak zashchitit' obshchestvo ot nauki //Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki. T. 3. № 1. 2015. – S. 219.
13. Fromm E. Velichie i ogranichennost' teorii Freida /Per. s angl. A.V. Aleksandrovoi. – M.: AST: Astrel': Poligrafizdat, 2012. – S. 9-10.
14. Klyagin N.V. Sovremennaya antropologiya. – M.: Logos, 2014. – S. 188, 51.
15. Leotar Zh.-F. Sostoyanie postmoderna /Per. s frants. N.A. Shmatko. – SPb: Aleteiya, 1998. – S. 146.
16. Feierabend P. Izbrannye trudy po metodologii nauki /Per. s ang. i nem. A.L. Nikiforova /obshch. red. I.S. Narskogo. – M.: Progress, 1986. – S. 499.
17. Ivin A.A. Vvedenie v filosofiyu istorii. – M.: Gumanist. Izd. Tsentr VLADOS, 1997. – S. 68, 113, 139, 192;
18. Karpov A.O. Obrazovatel'nyi institut, vlast' i obshchestvo v epokhu rosta kul'tury znanii. – SPb.: Aleteiya, 2013. – S. 132.
19. Kasavin I.T. Sotsial'naya epistemologiya. Fundamental'nye i prikladnye problemy. – M.: Al'fa-M, 2013. – S. 467.
20. Atsyukovskii V.A., Burkovich D.A. Nauku spasut diletanty. – M.: Izd-vo «Petit», 2007. – 267 s.
21. Gegel' G.V.F. Filosofiya prava /Per. s nem. Red. i sost. D.A. Kerimov i V.S. Narsesyants. – M.: Mysl', 1990. – S. 56.
22. Panchin A. Summa biotekhnologii. Rukovodstvo po bor'be s mifami o geneticheskoi modifikatsii rastenii, zhivotnykh i lyudei. – M.: Izd-vo AST: CORPUS, 2016. – 432 s.
23. Oleinikov Yu.V., Borzova T.V. Ekologicheskoe vzaimodeistvie obshchestva s prirodoi (filosofskii analiz). – M.: Izd-vo RGSU. – 460 s.
24. Oleinikov Yu.V. Stanovlenie novoi mirovozzrencheskoi paradigmy //Filosofskie nauki, 2015. № 10. – S. 53-60.

Link to this article

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.