نشریه عیار پژوهش در علوم انسانی
پیاپی 2 (پاییز و زمستان 1388)

By new thinking, we mean rethinking on thoughts and views of others to achieve new opinions in the realm of religion and religious knowledge. It is both possible and necessary: it is possible because there are uncertain and variable doctrines in religion; it is necessary because of the necessity of impunity against religious petrifaction. Religious rethinking is, however, as any other intellectual realm and due to its special importance and sensitivity, in need of proper devices and methods more than any other subjects. Here, after presenting a definition of religious rethinking and stating its nature and extension, prerequisites, strategic conditions and rules, and in other words, the methodology of new religious thinking has been discussed and explored.

Methodology as a science of second-rate has various levels: methods of study, practical methodology, fundamental methodology and general methodology or general way of thinking; what has been analyzed here is the fundamental methodology. In this article, we have answered the question of how one can produce a theory based on general ideas derived from religious doctrines, with a specific methodology. Generally speaking, theories related to sciences dealing with special subjects are not formed in vacuum; rather, they are formulated based on a set of positive principles and particular sources. Recognition of that philosophy and framework is necessary for recognizing theories. It seems that, based on epistemological ideas of revelation, reason, tradition, experience and sense, one can have a particular method of his own for producing scientific theories.

The present article is aiming at an investigation of the features of Aristotle's method for solving problems compared to methods of Socrates and Plato. To do so, firstly a description of Socrate's method and that of Plato in solving philosophical problems is presented here. Then Aristotle's critiques on these methods have been stated, and focusing on Aristotle's method, the features of his method has been mentioned. Aristotle starts his philosophical method by criticizing Plato's philosophical method, i.e. dialectics. For him, dialectics would not lead us to truth; rather, its usage is helping us in a better understanding. One of the difficulties resulted from dialectics and Aristotle's method in solving it has been stated in detail here. He poses the following question: "Does the discussion on the principles of reasoning belong to one discipline or various disciplines?" As for these principles, there are two opposing possibilities: a) "the discussion on the principles of reasoning belongs to one discipline"; b) "this discussion belongs to several disciplines". For Aristotle, investigating the principles of sciences – in particular, the principle of 'no contradiction' as the most basic one – is a duty of one science, i.e. the prime philosophy; this is because these principles are valid for all beings. In addition to these principles, research is also considered a principle in every science.

Teaching research skills in our scientific society in seminary and university is accompanied by numerous impairments. Those involved in research often agree on the number of the necessary skills in this area and the order of teaching them. Educational packs relating to quality and quantity of teaching these skills, formulated in some research centers, have practically faced with expertise difficulties. Lack of authentic and responsive sources in this regard opens way to exercising various personal tastes.The present study, aiming at presenting an insightful expertise view, proves and analyzes, in the form of an educational plan, three critical principles of methodology for gaining more efficiency in teachings. These are: 1) teaching the skills should be sufficient; 2) the skills should be analyzed while teaching them; 3) in teaching the skills, logical order should be observed. These three principles are based on three realities: a) the research skills are numerous; b) the skills are always synthetic and integrated; c) the skills are in order and may not be arbitrarily prioritized or postponed. Neglecting these three principles would impede the efficiency of teaching the research.

Functional method is among the methods used by many religious scholars. This paper aims at distinguishing between the functional method of religious scholars and sociologists, for both of them use the same method while the results are different and even opposing. The use of functional method by sociologists results in secularization of religion by losing its functionality or by becoming specific to an age. The use of the functional method by religious scholars, however, results in rigidity and permanence of religion. What has created such a difference is a limited reading of functionality by functionalists. They have interpreted the functions of religion from religious perspective, restricting it to specifically worldly functions. Accordingly, due to fulfillment of this function through other ways, they have claimed there is no need to religion anymore. On the contrary, for the religious scholars, the realm of functionality is much poader. This reading has its roots in the very religious teachings. In principle, for religious scholars, the main function of religion is fulfilling those needs which human beings are unable to fulfill in any other ways. The changeable functions meant by sociologists are accidental functions of religion, not its principal purpose. As a result, religion will always be present as far as functionality is concerned.

The present paper uses an analytical and theoretical approach to piefly explain the role of piety in research. It seeks to show that the researcher's doctrinal and value system influences not only the research issues and subjects, causing certain issues to be more important to him/ her and some others to be unimportant and without research value, but also plays a considerable role in the process and the results obtained from his/ her research. Piety and chastity cause a researcher to understand and discover the realities of the universe better and more precisely, even in the realm of empirical sciences.

The economy of research, in view of the mutual relation between economy and research, deals with investigation and pathology of research activities using the analytical device of economy-known as the analytical device of market. In this study, a competitive market for production and presentation of scientific products is considered in which the attempts by individuals to maximize the desirability of their works cause the wrong ideas to be replaced by correct thoughts. Based on this analysis, creating a strong atmosphere of competition in a scientific system with severe structural deficiencies can ping about moral harms such as theft, defrauding, and scientific pretentions. In contrast, if this competitive market is not involved in minimalism and monopoly, it can – in long term – lead to demarcation between scientific researches and superficial researches, making the research market more efficient.