Moral Man and Immoral Science?
Is the human being dehumanized when studied “scientifically”? Prominent sociologists and psychologists have charged that any “natural science” of persons either must, or usually does, “depersonalize” or “reify” the subject of study. Specificesues have been raised about the image or concept of the hu...
| Authors: | ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
[publisher not identified]
1974
|
| In: |
Sociological analysis
Year: 1974, Volume: 35, Issue: 4, Pages: 240-250 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Is the human being dehumanized when studied “scientifically”? Prominent sociologists and psychologists have charged that any “natural science” of persons either must, or usually does, “depersonalize” or “reify” the subject of study. Specificesues have been raised about the image or concept of the human being (“deterined” “free” etc.) and about the appropriateness of applying a natural scence perspective to the study of persons. The charges are serious and dese ve concerned attention. However, we attribute the dangers, not to characteristics inherent in the scientific perspective and method, but either to poor science or to poor morals. The argument covers three areas: the concept to be applied to the human being, both as subject and as scientist; the epistemological assumptions of current natural science; and the plural roles involved in research, including “scientist” and “moral man/woman.” We conclude that a natural science of human behavior is possible without inevitable harm to subject or scientist. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2325-7873 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Sociological analysis
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.2307/3710608 |