Reviews for Social theory as science

The average rating for Social theory as science based on 2 reviews is 2.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2020-12-12 00:00:00 Andres Bermudez 4 1/2 stars. An amazing amount of ground is covered in this work. All the major social sciences are touched upon, both basic and applied. Bunge is universally critical of just about everything in the social sciences, but always constructively so. He repeatedly exposes faulty presuppositions vital to entire perspectives, ideological dogmas falsely presented as scientifically well-founded truths, and empty pseudo-quantification attempting to beget legitimacy (most notably in economics). To put it briefly, his reoccurring advice is to make the social sciences more scientific and get rid of the irrational and "postmodern" social studies. I found the first half to be much more interesting, and Bunge seems to have had more of substance to say regarding basic social science, but there's still some worthwhile points to be considered in the applied social science section. And, as I'm finding typical of Bunge, he presents his views in a very matter-of-fact kind of way, and he tends to brush over some controversial points without giving due consideration to the opposition. Still, if social scientists took to heart what this work has to say, the discipline as a whole could only get better.

Review # 2 was written on 2018-05-27 00:00:00 Steve Mclaughlin Although certain sections of this book seem to tie together ideas of philosophy in the sciences and the following social science applications of that philosophy particularly well, there are times it fails completely to explain entire sections of philosophical investigation. On the influences of Marx, the book often fails to justify exactly how Marx applies, and is particularly sparse in clarifying the feminist positions of epistemology. If anything, it has made me more confused on these topics than when I started on these points rather than more directed in where I can gain understanding. Perhaps this book should have been two: Philosophy and History of Empiricism of Social Science and Philosophy and History of Rationalism and Realism of Social Science.