فصلنامه روش شناسی علوم انسانی
پیاپی 78 (بهار 1393)

Complexity theory refers to study of adaptive complex systems. We cannot explain and understanding of theses system by contemporary paradigms that based on linear equations. The current methods in social science have not power of researching any kind of these systems. We can study public policy as a complexes system for complexity science. in this paper, we exploring adaptive complex systems, their characteristics and justify implications of these systems for public policy making

The gold of this research is a knowledge more about the conflict of the viewpoints about Iranian cooperation and non-cooperation, by the methodological view. The method is qualitative (an inductive approach) and documentary. Over a half century, there have been some conflicted claims about cooperation and non-cooperation and all emphasize their selves are right. The principle problem is study on conflicted views about Iranian cooperation and non-cooperation, by the methodological view. The population includes all researches about cooperation state in Iran. Although differentiation in views, according to Marx, Manheim, Trigg and…, are may related to scientists’ economic-social statues and benefits, we only concentrate on scientists’ books and articles, reflections of their benefits on them and how they have done research and found their views and results. The results show two theoretical prepositions as principal effects that explain the conflicts, by methodological: “weakness in method” and “lack of critical scientific society”.

It is generally agreed that if the semantic reference of a common name has been successfully fixed in a baptism then the term will refer to the same reference in all possible worlds. But in recent years, Garry Ebbs presented evidence against the idea of sameness of extension across time. According to him, the usage of a common name will not stay stable in future. If it is so then the semantic reference of these terms may be related to accidental events in future. Joseph LaPorte and Henry Jackman independently tried to examine the case and make it compatible with the received view of semantic references. In this essay an alternative approach shall be offered which other approaches can be interpreted as its different manifestations. For this purpose firstly we describe the problem, secondly we summarize the philosophers’ accounts and finally a new solution is offered

Every economic is based upon a specific ontology. Every ontological framework has its own causal mechanism to justify socio-economic changes and give the proper recommendation. The article at first based on the multi-level approach and the recent developments in the complexity theory is going to judge and reconcile between the Orthodox and Heterodox economics about the nature of the socio-economic transitions. In the next step the research has improved the current approaches and made them suitable to undertake in the new-born concept of Resistance Economy, based upon the famous Islamic Shiite scholar's teachings concerning movement, change and evolution of the socio-economic systems and of the mega-history. The article has a comparative, analytical and adhocracy approach. As a result it examines the sufficiency of the recently found ontological view to justify appropriately the external reality by Presentation of a historical case study

Using psychometric concepts and methods for measuring religious cognitions, emotions, behaviors, experiences and phenomena is a common trend in academic disciplines that are assumed to study religion scientifically such as psychology and sociology of religion. This trend is based on an unstated and more or less, unverified pre-assumption that psychological attributes and spiritual attributes, both belong to the same category and do not differ from each other. Some evidences against this pre-assumption were discussed and the basic thesis of the main research, which this article is a report of its first section, was introduced: the quantification of religiosity can not be viewed conceptually as a valid scientific endeavor unless it overcome two fundamental challenges, the mind-body challenge and the spirit-mind one, by assuming four ontological/epistemological stances. The basic challenge for measuring psychological attributes is to filling the gap between two ontologically different entities, i.e. body and mind. This challenge has its roots in the long-standing body-mind problem and its most influential formulation was known as Cartesian dualism that somehow entered the scene of debates on psychological measurement in late 19th century as the Quantity Objection. This basic challenge, i.e. the transition from body to mind, was the main focus of discussion in this article.