On Interrelationships Between Natural and Social Laws

The author takes issue with those geographers who argue that a unified geography is ruled out by the fact that natural laws and social laws cannot be blended and there are no general laws operating in the geographical environment. He seeks to demonstrate in philosophical terms that laws of nature operate in society by speeding or slowing the rate of social development and that, on the other hand, social laws affect the end result of the operation of natural laws.     

On the Significance of Lenin's Ideas for Soviet Geography

The president of the Geographical Society USSR reviews the present state of Soviet geographic theory in the light of Leninist philosophy. The objective existence of natural regions with definite boundaries is affirmed. The approach of “social physics,” applying natural laws to social phenomena, is rejected. The use of mathematical techniques is welcomed, but not to the extent of giving rise to a separate discipline of “theoretical geography” that would deal with whatever is common to both physical and economic geography. The geographical environment is defined as that part of the earth's natural environment in which nature and society are in direct interaction. Both geographical determinism and social determinism (geographical nihilism) are rejected. The definition of geography as a system of scientific disciplines is affirmed, and a proposed redefinition of geography as dealing with the evolution and control of dynamic spatial systems is rejected.     

Geothermal Energy Concept and Problems

Abstract

Sudden changes of state occur at all levels of society, and have always done so, be they marriages ending in divorce, bankruptcies of industrial enterprises, or the collapse of empires. Can such social discontinuities, moving either from order to chaos – the more common event – or from disorder to stability, be compared with perhaps similar events in the natural sciences? Can a valid theory be established to cover the subject of social discontinuities? These questions are addressed after defining the subject, discussing the causes of discontinuities, illustrating various occurrences and stressing the urgency of an analysis of discontinuities, as many assume our present social–technological society is especially prone to collapse. It is concluded that the subject remains a challenge to the social scientist, primarily because the people who are affected by discontinuities constantly change their behaviour and thus affect the phenomenon. This distinguishes the social from the natural sciences.     

An Apologia for Theoretical History

Karl Popper's critique of theoretical history remains formidable but contains serious flaws. Popper held erroneous views about the practice of the natural sciences and created overly severe strictures for theoretical statements in the social sciences. General theory and general theoretical statements play a legitimate role in the social sciences. Merton has promoted middle-range theories and models and Lakatos multiple ontologies. One can answer Popper's criticisms of either the impossibility or triviality of long-term historical laws by searching for stable constellations of local or middle-range laws rather than a universal law. Moreover, the successful use in the social sciences of various types of scales of measurement rather than an absolute scale shows that quantitative analysis is possible in history. Investigators need to find the boundaries, the frameworks of feasibility, in which historical trends and laws operate. Popper's maximalism plays into the irrationalist trends that he himself deplored. If historical investigators and theoreticians set appropriate goals for theoretical history, they can practice their discipline responsibly and find meanings, if not a single meaning, in history.     

Straddling the Boundaries Between Sciences

The author reverts to the theme that, in addition to the particular disciplines in physical geography and in economic geography, there is a genuine need for a general geographic approach to study of the geographical environment and of the man-nature relationship. As a result of the growing social impact on the environment, the operation of natural laws and social laws becomes so closely intertwined that no single discipline operating with one particular set of laws is capable of understanding the complex processes and phenomena in the interplay between nature and society. The growing specialized differentiation of geography as a science does not eliminate it as a distinct field of human knowledge with a common object of study. However there is a danger that the process of differentiation may be going too far, with an increasing number of scholars from adjacent disciplines coming into geography. The trend is said to be evident in the advanced training of geographers in universities, where geography facilities are turning into collections of departments turning out, say, meteorologists with little general geographic background. And yet there is a growing need for broadly trained geographers, particularly in the entire field of long-range planning and pre-planning research, in which the author is engaged.     

Engineering as a Source of Scientific Ideas

Abstract

Engineering has discovered some laws of nature as limits to what can be done, from which have developed the sciences of thermodynamics, information theory and cybernetics. Considered as a science, engineering lies between physics and biology, because its machines have physical structures and properties but biological organizations and functions. The old idea of the living body as an engine retains its power in modern biology; and the reconsideration of various natural non-biological processes in terms of engineering and biological concept reveals inadequacies in modern physical theory.     

Some Results of the new Discussion about a “Unified” Geography

The president of the Soviet Geographical Society reviews the controversy that surrounded publication of V. A. Anuchin's book on theoretical problems in geography in 1960. Kalesnik finds that the supporters of the idea of a “unified” geography have given ground on a number of points, but are adamant on others. The key issues continue to revolve around the inclusion of society in the concept of the geographic environment, the “mixing” of natural and social laws, and the integration of the geographic sciences into a single science.     

Nature and Technology in History

This essay sketches an expanded theoretical conception of the roles of nature and technology in history, one that is based on a social ontology that does not separate nature and society. History has long been viewed as the realm of past human action. On this conception, nature is treated largely as an Other of history, and technology is construed chiefly as a means for human fulfillment. There is no history of nature, and the history of technology becomes the history of useful products. The essay discusses the changes wrought in these understandings by a social ontology that depicts social existence as inherently transpiring in nexuses of practices and material arrangements. The first implication is that the domain of history should be expanded from the realm and course of past human activity to the realm and course of past practice‐arrangement nexuses. In turn, this wider conception transforms the significance of nature and technology in history. Until recently, most accounts of the relationship between society/history and nature have presumed that society and history are separate from nature. On my account, by contrast, nature is part of society: a component of the practice—arrangement nexuses through which social life progresses. Human history, consequently, is a social—natural history that encompasses the varying presence and roles of nature in human coexistence. Technology, meanwhile, is not just useful products, and not just a mediator of society/history and nature. It also is (1) something through which humans manage social life and the nature that is part of it, largely by drawing nature into this site and thereby conjointly transforming society, technology, and nature in history; and (2) something that, over time, plays an increasingly central role in the nexuses where social life transpires. Through technology, in short, social—natural history takes form and advances.     

从自然主义到结构主义:地缘政治学方法论演变

本文透过地缘政治理论中各种具体的解释方法,对不同时期地缘政治学进行方法论特征的考察,发现地缘政治理论的发展经历了从自然主义模式、空间-权力关系模式到结构主义模式的演变。结构主义模式是当代地缘政治理论的重要方法论特征,与其它模式相比,表现出较好的解释能力。对地缘政治学方法论演变的历史考察,有助于我们思考未来地缘政治理论建设的趋向,其中以行为体为主体的新地缘政治结构理论建设是地缘政治理论方法论创新的重要选择。     

THE EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF CULTURE

In his thought‐provoking book, Alex Mesoudi argues for an evolutionary, unifying framework for the social sciences, which is based on the principles of Darwinian theory. Mesoudi maintains that cultural change can be illuminated by using the genotype‐phenotype distinction, and that it is sufficiently similar to biological change to warrant a theory of culture‐change based on evolutionary models. He describes examples of cultural microevolution, within‐population changes, and the biologically inspired population genetics models used to study them. He also shows that some aspects of large‐scale (macro‐evolutionary) cultural transformation can be studied by using ecological models and phylogenetic comparative techniques. We argue that although Mesoudi's evolution‐based perspective offers many useful insights, his ambition—the unification of the social sciences within a Darwinian framework through the use of the methods and models he describes—suffers from a major theoretical limitation. His reductive approach leads to overlooking culture as a system with emergent processes and features. Mesoudi therefore does not engage with any of the central past and present theories in sociology and anthropology for which the systems view of culture is central, and he does not analyze the emergent, high‐level properties of human cultural‐social systems. We suggest that a systems perspective, using some analogies and metaphors from developmental biology, can complement the evolutionary approach and is more in tune with a systems view of society. Such an approach, which stresses feedback and self‐sustaining interactions within social networks, and engages with the insights of sociological and anthropological theories, can contribute to the understanding of cultural systems by highlighting the evolution of processes of social cohesion, and by making use of the mathematical approaches of complexity theory.     

Surviving Between the Trenches: Planning Research,Methodology and Theory of Science

Planning research-understood as research aiming to improve the body of knowledge on which spatial planning is based-includes issues rooted both in the social sciences, natural science and the humanities. Spatial planners need knowledge about the likely consequences of different alternatives of action, as well as understanding of the role of plans and planning processes in the development of society. This is reflected in the two-fold focus of planning research on both substantive and procedural issues. Whereas research on the role of plans and planning processes takes place mainly within a non-positivist social science paradigm, the research aiming to provide planners with the knowledge needed in order to make good plans is often situated in the battlefield between opposing positions within theory of science. Because planning research has both society and the physical as its subject of inquiry, a reflective opinion about the interaction between the physical environment and human actions is crucial. Traditionally, many spatial planners have conceived of this in a quite näive way, assuming that human behaviour can to a high extent be shaped or controlled by manipulating the physical environment. During recent decades, this view has been sharply criticized by anti-positivist scholars, and some theorists point out the great uncertainty, close to impossibility, in predicting human actions, even at an aggregate scale. The latter position has dramatic implications to spatial planning, as it would then be impossible to assess whether a certain physical solution is likely to have positive or negative social and related environmental consequences, e.g. in terms of travelling distances and modal split. Our own position is that the physical environment, along with a number of individual and non-physical structural factors, influences human activities and quality of life. To some extent, this influence can be predicted at an aggregate scale, but not for a particular individual (except those actions rendered impossible by the laws of physics). How strong influence the physical environment exerts, is a question requiring empirical research in order to be answered.     

人地关系理论新探——区域政治、经济、社会系统观

人地关系理论是人文地理学的核心理论。由于人类和自然地理系统间的关系处于不断的变化之中,因而人地关系理论也处于不断变化与发展、完善之中。从而使无数学者为之不断探究。本文在人文地理学基本理论基础上,提出人地之间的"平台系统"观点,以此作为笔者对人地关系探究活动的一次参与。     

Does Culture Evolve?

The drive to describe cultural history as an evolutionary process has two sources. One from within social theory is part of the impetus to convert social studies into "social sciences" providing them with the status accorded to the natural sciences. The other comes from within biology and biological anthropology in the belief that the theory of evolution must be universal in its application to all functions of all living organisms. The social--scientific theory of cultura evolution is pre-Darwinian, employing a developmental model of unfolding characterized by intrinsic directionality, by definable stages that succeed each other, and by some criterion of progress. It is arbitrary in its definitions of progress, and has had the political problem that a diachronic claim of cultural progress implies a synchronic differential valuation of present-day cultures. The biological scheme creates an isomorphism between the Darwinian mechanism of evolution and cultural history, postulating rules of cultural "mutation," cultural inheritance and some mechanism of natural selection among cultural alternatives. It uses simplistic ad hoc notions of individual acculturation and of the differential survival and reproduction of cultural elements. It is unclear what useful work is done by substituting the metaphor of evolution for history.     

以循环经济促进和谐青海的构建

经济的发展与社会、自然的发展相协调是科学发展观的根本要求,也是构建和谐青海的重要内容。而发展循环经济可以通过对经济与社会、自然的整合发展来促进社会的全面进步,解决在发展和构建和谐青海过程中遇到的诸多问题。本文以循环经济理论和省情为依据,对青海省发展循环经济的总体思路和优先领域进行尝试性探讨。     

小平同志对发展哲学社会科学的殷切期望--纪念邓小平同志诞辰百周年

邓小平高度重视哲学社会科学的战略地位。邓小平认为 ,中国的哲学社会科学还存在许多不足 ,应该积极发展。邓小平认为 ,哲学社会科学必须坚持正确的发展方向 ,坚持马克思主义的指导 ,必须处理好对中国传统文化和外来文化的吸收借鉴与批判继承 ,还必须发扬理论联系实际的学风。邓小平主张尽快培养哲学社会科学人才 ,并营造良好的学术环境 ,建立良好的人才队伍管理体制。     

《天演论驳议》:科学与宗教视野中的进化论批判

进化论包含生物进化论与社会进化论,生物进化论主要源自达尔文。进化论在西方经由生物学界走向社会科学这一历程。就近代中国而言,进化论的社会反响远大于生物学界。严复译著《天演论》,将社会进化论本土化建构、诠释与救亡图存历史使命相契合,引起宗教界的反响。李问渔对《天演论》及进化论进行全面而深入地学理性批判。从"物理"层面来看,李问渔"辑译"《天演论驳议》,关注自然科学试验及考古发现,并与宗教神学结合起来,对进化论证伪。就"政理"层面而言,李问渔从先验的神学世界观出发,检视社会进化论。严复、李问渔对进化论证实或证伪,还涉及进化论与科学、宗教立场等的关系。在"西方学术中国化"的近代学术转型中,李问渔的影响远不及严复,李的反诘虽有些学理深度却未能在全国激起波浪,商榷的力度愈大,愈发增添社会进化论的思想魅力。     

"The Human Condition" as social ontology: Hannah Arendt on society, action and knowledge

Hannah Arendt is widely regarded as a political theorist who sought to rescue politics from "society," and political theory from the social sciences. This conventional view has had the effect of distracting attention from many of Arendt's most important insights concerning the constitution of "society" and the significance of the social sciences. In this article, I argue that Hannah Arendt's distinctions between labor, work, and action, as these are discussed in "The Human Condition" and elsewhere, are best understood as a set of claims about the fundamental structures of human societies. Understanding Arendt in this way introduces interesting parallels between Arendt's work and both classical and contemporary sociology. From this I draw a number of conclusions concerning Arendt's conception of "society," and extend these insights into two contemporary debates within contemporary theoretical sociology: the need for a differentiated ontology of the social world, and the changing role that novel forms of knowledge play in contemporary society as major sources of social change and order.     

Forgiveness and reconciliation in Hobbes’s natural law theory

Thomas Hobbes’s laws of nature dictate the making and keeping of the social contract. In addition, Hobbes’s natural law theory considers traditional moral virtues, such as mercy and gratitude, as being conducive to peace. Some Hobbes scholars have argued that these other natural laws call for ‘forgiveness’ and facilitate ‘reconciliation’. However, as this essay shows, Hobbes does not use these terms to mean the reparation of broken relationships between victims and perpetrators. Rather, Hobbesian reconciliation refers to efforts to propitiate enemies in order to win their favour, while forgiveness is a synonym for pardon, in the sense of punishment-forbearance. It is argued that neither of these requires true remorse and reparation of the wrong done. By contrasting Hobbes’s conception of anger with that of Aristotle, the article provides an explanation for why Hobbes maintains that the rage of enemies could be appeased by instrumental calculations of expected benefits, thus ignoring more deep-seated resentments caused by moral wrongs.