Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

I. Introduction II. On the doubt III. The observation IV. The theory V. Conclusion I.

Introduction What has marked the great difference between the natural sciences and the social sciences is that this last one contains facts that are not included in the firs t one, since the causes that take to the individuals' certain behaviors, it is d etermined by factors that you/they go from the education received in the place a nd the educational institutions until the social standards still preset before t heir conception. In the second chapter, we will see as the sociologist he/she will think about li ke step primigenio is to carry out questions that will be base of its investigat ion to try to define in the way it more guessed right possible the why of the in dividual's specific behaviors and its environment as influence for the same ones . The third chapter, we will analyze how important it is the observation on the pa rt of the social investigator for recabar the biggest possible information that allows him to stand out the most outstanding aspects in their thesis based on co ncrete facts. In the fourth chapter, we will see that once carried out based the above-mention ed the knowledge of the big philosophers of the sociology, the method will take form to generate knowledge and it guides for those that look for to contribute t o the study of the societies whose evolution is on the other hand constant. II. On the doubt Once the sociologist has determined the problem that will analyze he/she should begin to think about all the questions possible envelope the same one, since it is from this point of him which will leave to arrive to his final objective anal ysis. Some authors criticize the fact that in the basic theoretical analyses the quant ity of serious proposals is very limited since the way in that you/they were cho sen for its position and delimitation of certain problem causes serious conseque nces to the final product for what should be offered that the same ones incorpor ate the biggest quantity in scientific wealth of knowledge it is available at th e present time. (Luhmann, 1982) Should you then leave of the principle zero, since general questions as it will contribute a world crisis to the unemployment of what way? It will be surrounded of external factors and inside the individuals whose principle of rationality w ill be modified before by those mentioned. (Durkheim, 1895) The doubt, he/she should take into account questions implicit certain society wh ich leaves to analyze; could an unconscious question be why poor and hungry peop le from the India don't eat up to the cows that stroll freely for the streets fr om the populations to the long and wide of the country? Obviously because this i s part of their religious formation that considers this animal a deity. However, we must forget that the cultures are not ignored some of other, even ar riving to take borrowed some customs or ideas from time to time, but for not dis appearing, some aspects should remain in certain intact way some regarding the o ther ones; this way it should be managed the ethnocentrism like the desire of ea ch culture of resisting to the cultures that it surrounds it, trying to be thems elves. The above-mentioned should be very taken since into account in our positions in many occasions the individual it is emancipated of the rationalism and intelectu alismo of the science to be able to exist in community with the divine things an d all this in turn is something that cannot be demonstrated scientifically. (Web er, 1998) It is for this reason that it is important, the social investigator's academic f ormation before leaving to the field to carry out its study since a knowledge of the diverse social thinkers and the tutorship of its academics will guide it fo r paths more sustained to achieve its end asking more concise questions and you

specify of the topic of its interest. III. The observation Once we have defined the questions to solve our study, we proceed to the followi ng phase in this case it is the individual's observation and their interaction w ith the society of which can be served or to undergo. The human being has looked for the road to live in a world that is he more pleas ant favorable basing this his activities through his life and in the way of look ing for a better world, the biggest advance that him same he has made at the pre sent time it is the human or representative language, since this he opened step toward the critic giving this way an exchange of ideas that before they were cap tured by means of the observation and they were kept for itself. This observation comes to supplement that seen the previous chapter since taking its character of scientific work to the being a generating of problems which wi ll enrich the theory or deductive system as an explanation intent or solution in tent in this sense (Popper K. R., 1992) The observer to discard those sensitive data that can be too personal for the sa me one, with the only end that exclusively those are retained that present for t hemselves objectivity in a grade more than enough. (Popper K. R., 1995) A the above-mentioned example is the way in that doctor carries out the substitu tion of impressions vagrants taken place by the electricity or temperature recei ved through the visual representation by means of the oscillation of the electrmet ro or thermometer. We should be conscious, that the action of observing on the part of the investig ator cannot be considered pure since the same one contains a theoretical compone nt, this is that the same one interprets the facts based on an or another theory , included that of the same sociologist. (Popper K. R., 1997) To the action of observing is defined as the appointment of that distinguished t his it is, everything to distinguish, be true or non truth is the observer's ach ievement, this operation is not also able to be distinguished itself that when t he observer manages the distingos of true and false, parallelly he cannot make t he distinction that that operation is in if true or false; the discussion in the way in that he/she is distinguished the sentences "to it is" and "it is true th at to it is" it is only carried out by means of an observation of the operation of the knowledge, so by means of an observation of observing, in the one that th e observation number one is "to it is", he/she is distinguished of the other one s; then we should make a distinction of if the observation action of observing i s directed toward that that the observed observer observes, this is with what he is in charge of, or if this action is directed toward what he cannot observe or what is the same thing its own distinction. It can be observed then that when the latency is included the observation, the f act that another observer makes invisible his own paradoxes, exemplifying that o f his own binary code; for what we should understand that it is not a psychoanal ytical infection or a game of ideological critic of the sociology when the theor y of the knowledge is introduced in the observation of the observer's blind poin t. Stressing the above-mentioned the investigator cannot observe the principle and the end of their to observe unless he/she makes use of another distinction diffe rent to which used at the beginning of their work and be different to the one th at is using once concluded the same one, this is all session of ends and objecti ves and all projection they require that all repellent observation is constitute d since in episode this he/she gives us the possibility its time not to the elim ination of the paradoxes but yes to the temporary and social award to different operations. Many times the latency faces the problem in how the question is centered of what way the distinctions can be observed that an observer uses to indicate somethin g cause for which cannot be observables to the moment to use them in an operativ e way; many systems are so complex that they cannot be understood and to observe the less ones the causal processes can be simulated that integrate them for tha t that their behavior even when it is certain it cannot be predictable. Many of the times leave of the idea that all the systems cognocentes are real an

d that they are however systems that are in a real environment, the question the systems can obtain knowledge in certain environment of how, it can be substitut ed by another: "how you desacoplar a system of their environment? " Or "how is i t possible to make a lock by means of inclusion? ". That sociologist that observes a system that closes to itself with the only end of achieving knowledge, will realize that in there is it very precise limits, an d that of course only if this system is able to produce its own operations in th e italic net of the reproduction of its anticipations and own repercussions. Lvi-Strauss, focuses the way of observing as if we were in boxcars of the train: trains that you/they run next to ours and similar addresses and to speeds not ve ry different to ours, they are at least we visible when we look at them from our compartments, but those trains that you/they go for an oblique or parallel road and they circulate in opposed address they are not it, we only perceive a vague image, a, hardly identifiable usually a blurred contour in our visual field tha t doesn't provide us any information on itself and it only irritates us because it interrupts our serene view of the landscape that serves from backdrop to our ensoacin. Therefore, when the facts observed as they are or in the way that you/they have been always, we are with which all education is an effort that continually impos es (for example to a boy) ways to see, of working and of feeling that they had n ot been acquired in a spontaneous way by the individual, the education it focuse s its objective to make to the social being, this; it can be seen from the persp ective of how the same one has been constituted in the history. Spencer, mentions that the object of the sciences is the societies and not the h umanity, outlining an evident proposition that the societies only exist when the cooperation and the juxtaposition unite against, since this way (and only of th is) an union of individuals becomes a properly this society; creating the princi ple that the essential thing in the social life is the cooperation, on the other hand for Stuart Mill, the social fact is only produced exclusive and mainly wit h the purpose of acquiring wealth It is this way that if he/she wants himself to be able to judge in a competent w ay, like it should be, it is needed to end up being also able to see in a compet ent way, for what simply is not enough what one has already seen (the interior o f our boxcar, the splendid historical facts of our countries, our movements and our churches) still inside the preponderant thing that it can be it one and the dazzle that it causes the other thing. IV. The theory The sociologist should be conscious that once it combines his doubts with his ob servation for his analysis and later thesis exhibition will be exposed to the fo llowing considerations: 1. all deductive system or theory doesn't pass of being simply an intent to expl ain, therefore it is an intent of giving solution to a scientific conflict. 2. all theory or deductive system can be criticized in a rational way by the con sequences of the same one. 3. it is therefore a provisional solution that can be criticized rationally. (Po pper K. R., 1992) A premise on the knowledge is that this doesn't exist without a rational critic, this is a critic to the service of the search of the truth, the knowledge of th e animals doesn't make this sense even when they know all type of things as the dog he/she knows its master, but of that that we denominate knowledge the most i mportant it is the rational critic's dependent scientific knowledge that in turn depends of the invention of having enunciated false or true. And it is that provisionally, it is excluded for not scientific a solution rehea rsal that cannot be object of objective critic, and it is that in the critical d iscussion they are distinguished questions like the truth a proposition, their r elevance, interest and meaning with everything that that has to do with the prob lems that interest the sociologist; question of relevance, criticized interest r elated with diverse problems of scientific extra nature as that of the human wel l-being, national defense, aggressive national politics, expansion of the indust


ry or personal enrichment. It is impossible the separation of the scientific work of the evaluations explan ations this scientists, the scientific critic has like one of its tasks (as well as the scientific function) of fighting in particular against the confusion, of valuations this scientists really included in the environment of the questions and the confusion of environments of value, something that won't be granted by o rdinance, once and for all for all and it will continue being permanent task in the reciprocal scientific critic. The theories as a rule are marked by the characteristics of their time, an examp le of they are it Marx's philosophies historicistas and Hegel, carried out in a time of social changes; on the other hand Plato's philosophies and Herclito, as we ll as those of Darwin, Lamarck and Comte, are philosophies of change that give t estimony of an impression that is without a doubt terrifying and tremendous sinc e it is generated in a half social of constant change in the minds of those who have to live in that environment. (Durkheim, 1895) Without a doubt all knowledge goes however after the truth in base of explanator y theories that have objective truths, all human knowledge it can fail and there fore to be uncertain; does this take us to the "old and famous question" as the flame Kant, "what is the truth? " To what one should respond that "everything en unciated formulated without ambiguity is true or false; and if it is false, thei r negation is true . (Popper K. R., 1992) He/she should not forget that the scientific knowledge is an example of practica l problem of importance, this is the way in that the medical science fights agai nst the avoidable suffering, the same one consists on finding truly satisfactory solutions of the same one through the knowledge of which consists objectively o n the search of the truth based on explanatory theories true, without looking fo r the certainty. On the other hand the sentence "to wander is human" it not only means that the s ocial investigator must constantly fight against the error but also that when it has put the maximum care he won't be able to be completely sure of not having m ade it, since in the science to make a mistake or error means in essence that is considered as true a theory that is not it, at the end it is the task of the sc ientific activity whose objective as soon as scientific he/she refers it is the true objective, more truth, more truth interesting and more truth intelegible. However some philosophers relativistas were of agreement with the social investi gator if this says: my declaration is true, because I understand for truth somethin g different to the correspondence with the facts" this fact that the relativism is considered one of the many crimes that have been made by the intellectuals so me of which end up understanding to the truth when having been sworn like someth ing objective of the certainty a question gives subjective appreciation. As modern sociologist he/she should understand each other that giving an individ ualistic focus to the social phenomena can be considered by some sociological ci rcles, as him to break up with the essential principles is taken root in the soc iological tradition; although for some the individualistic paradigm constitutes an important marrow of this tradition according to the parents founders of the m odern sociology, still when this it is considered to have an opposed foundation to the individualistic models that are practiced of common way and notable in th e economy. (Jeffrey C. Alexander, 1995) And it is that according to the methodological individualistic paradigm, the exp lanation of social phenomena is made based on the products of behaviors or actio ns on the part of the individual, of course that these actions will necessarily have to become comprehensible, based on the social context that surrounds the ac tors, the same social context should also be explained. Synthesizing, let us make the supposition that M is the phenomenon that should b e explained, applying the individualistic paradigm, to explain to M means that w e will make it a product of the group of actions of m represented in a complete formula it would be in the following way: M = M{m[S(P)]} Explaining the previous formula, we have that M is a consequence of the actions, which are a consequence of the social atmosphere of the actors, being this last

one a consequence of macro-sociological variables. Clifford Geertz, was against what called "texts multivocales" for him it was bet ter to say: This is my point of view on what is happening and, if he/she has some c omplaint, direct it to me and nobody more, so the critics, some of them, are wel l received and they should be responded the point of view could seem radical and in dividualistic, but it should not be left aside on the part of the social investi gator. V. Conclusion As a rule, a scientific investigation is centered in certain group of phenomena whose answer is guided to respond oneself definition, therefore of the sociologi st it should before anything to give a definition to the things that it tries wi th the purpose of that is known (and also know the) which the problem is. The theory like primary condition should be controlled so through the recognitio n of the facts that should give bill of her, this initial definition you restitu tion the same object of the science, and according to the form in that it is thi s definition he/she will become or he/she won't become a thing. To achieve subjectivity it should express the phenomena according to the propert ies that are he inherent and not in function to spiritual ideas, they should be characterized by an integrative one elementary of their nature and not according to a notion that is more or less ideal. In the beginnings of the investigation, when the facts have not been elaborated in way some, the only characters that will be been able to reach of the same one will be those of characteristic enough exterior of the makes you visible in an immediate way, however those are located in the depths of the same one they are the most essential without place to doubts; and that explanatory value you highe r torn but they arrive to be ignored in this stage of the science without being on ly able to be premature substituting the reality for spiritual concepts. We should remember that the man has not waited the arrival of the social science s to be formed ideas on what is the state, the family, the morals, the right and the same society requires something necessary to be able to live, these pervers ions are mainly in state of domain of the spirit and substitution of the things such sociology and as Bacon it expressed it. Indeed, the facts happened in the society are only carried out by the men, they are a product of the activities the human beings, this is not another thing that to put into practice ideas that you/they can be innate of the individuals takes inside yes, and the way in that you/they apply them therefore in the diverse ci rcumstances that can happen in the relationships, this way to see overflows for all their sides details from the social life to the conscience, which cannot per ceive enough of her to feel its reality. The sociology, until our days has not been in a regular way of things but of con cepts, others as Comte, however; it proclaims of the social phenomena they are m ade natural that are subjected to the laws of the nature, but once they are left aside their generalities of the philosophy, when trying to apply their principl e and to get the emergence of the science it contained, these ideas are taken as study objects. The idea that the mankind evolves continually, it consists on a relationship the y are more complete of the human nature, and problem than they should think abou t it is the way in that should be the order to this evolution, supposing that th is exists that reality that cannot be established but once the science has been created, it is so it should not be taken as the same object of the investigation if I don't eat a conception of the spirit, I don't eat a thing. The form in that the sociologist classifies the facts doesn't depend on him neit her of the particular formation his spirit, but of the nature of the things, in each problem the particular or general object will consider it according to this same principle, this way it will put the feet in the reality.