The most important property of systematical thinking is its construction by explicit concepts. It is clear that reasoning by concepts not overlapping in distinct minds would be resultless. The aim of philosophical discussions is to execute a problem transparently. Explicit concepts would help to make easier reaching a result. Philosophy is interested in “what science is” instead of “what problems of science are”. In each area related with philosophy, there is a need for linguistic analysis. Since language is a tool for communication of minds, every problem necessarily turns into a problem of explicating concepts. Explicated concepts are the leading templates of understanding in mind. Hence, explicating the concepts of true-false would be possible by just this way. Since 17th century in which natural science have drawn away social sciences, it is seen that the search for “certain knowledge” transforms to the criterion of “being scientific” in natural sciences. In the context of objectivity and certainty, social sciences could not struggle with natural sciences and “being scientific” have been attributed to natural sciences until today. Although hermeneutics philosophers had suggestions and reasonings on the superiority of humanities, these suggestions are not practical. Being scientific means “experienceable constant reality” and it is closer to natural sciences. Therefore, the term of “relativity” is often used in social sciences. In this study, the criterion of being scientific is analyzed and it is discussed whether using these criteria in social sciences is possible. Then, it is argued that if it is not possible, what kind of criterion we need in social sciences.
being scientific, experiment, reality, demarcation, conflict, law.
|Author :||Ahmet KAVLAK|
|Number of pages:||160-173|