فصلنامه روش شناسی علوم انسانی
پیاپی 74-75 (بهار و تابستان 1392)

In the field of science studies, explaining the philosophical approach to science, which was first started in the late nineteenth century and was led to raise positivism, Popper’s falsification, and Lakatos’s research programs in the twentieth century. In the second half of the twentieth century, Sociology of scientific knowledge proposed social explanations for science. In the latter approach, science is not simply a set of propositions but a social activity, such as society of physicists, chemists, etc. They saw the social characteristics have an important impact on the emergence of scientific theories. From 70s, a new trend in science studies emerged. In contrast to SSK which discriminates science from society, this new approach defines science as a form of life that should consequently be reflected on by anthropological methods. This reflection is neither philosophical nor social, but tried to provide a naturalistic descriptive approach. Such approach to science is based on certain philosophical assumptions. This article tries to both illustrate the anthropology of science approach as well as its philosophical constitutions based on Wittgenstein’s philosophical views.

Anthropology in a sense other than the discipline of Anthropology is a kind of knowledge that the paradigms of social sciences are depended on it, in their structure and methods. August Comte as leader of positivism constructed positivism and sociology upon Anthropology. He depicted humane in a way that social life and consequently Social physics can be derived out of it. This process is a testimony for the framework of science which is not neutral about ontological and Anthropological propositions. And scientific knowledge in social sciences is depended on nonobservable propositions that science not only does not talk about it but also has not sufficient tools for scrutinizing it. Finding August Comte's Anthropological propositions and drawing their relation with different parts of the social science can show us that the approaches of Humanity in some layers of a priori knowledge are firstly incommensurable and secondly by altering Anthropological foundation of an approach, new kind of scientific knowledge can be arise.

Peter Winch, contrary to Mill, argues that social and natural phenomena are two different kinds. He believes that social phenomena are»intellectual things«, which exist only in a social context, but existence of natural phenomena is independent from their conceptual formwork. We analyze and illustrate this claim, and in Kantian_ Darwinian framework of Thomas Kuhn’s thought, show that everything that Winch attributes to social phenomena as intellectual things, Kuhn can attribute to natural phenomena. From this, we conclude that natural phenomena are also intellectual things, and the line drawn by Winch between social and natural phenomena disappears. Nevertheless this does not mean returning to traditional Mill’s position.

While it is supposed that scholarly articles that are published in academic journals contain the newest data or findings in related fields, in fact most of them, especially in humanities, lack this feature and have nothing new to say. In fact, these articles in spite of following the required rules, such as writing abstracts, keywords, and hypotheses, are worthless, time-wasting, and we should not bother ourselves by reading them. This article tries to analyze this kind of articles and show what is wrong with them. After reading many of these articles carefully, the writer's findings show that instead of having specific aims or problems to solve, they are some sort of collage-writing, deceiving, and non-scholarly articles in disguise.

Philosophy is located in the higher order than the science and proves their postulates. This knowledge is interacting whit medicine in variety of ways and affect on it. In one side philosophy is proving the bases of medicine and in the other side medicine’s subject is the human body and philosophy is discussioning about relation between souls and body and philosophers achievement about souls can be used as a base of empirical studies. Avicenna's medicine is affected by principles of his philosophy. Discussion of elements, forces, Temper, Nature, Humors of the body, Souls and philosophy’s principles and foundations as: Principle of Causality, Principle of cognation, limitation of body forces, Finiteness of constraint, Teleological approach, Noumenalism, Gradational attitude, Qualitative approach, The general attitude to the man, Believing that System of The world Being wise, Connection with spirituality, Make up the superemprical defaults of Avicenna's medicine that are analyzed and examined in this study.

Psychology of Religion is One of the branches of Study of religion that looking for the Psychological Study of Religion and Believers. This research with study of trends, approaches, methods and tools in Psychology of compares modern view of the psychology of religion with the traditional psychological view Ghazali toward religion and the religious. Our approach in this study is Comparison and matching Ghazali's methodology with the methodologies existing in psychology. Ghazali's methodologies can be Matched and compared with qualitative methods in Psychology of Religion. Ghazali's methodologies in The area of the psychology of religion were: Personal introspection, Analysis of religious behavior, Studying Impact religious concepts and religious thoughts on believers, Epistemological explanations of religion and religious phenomena, Interpretative phenomenology, And interpretation In the face with the Scriptures.

The concept of right is the subject of philosophy of rights. This concept is applied as a noun in the rights discourses. This concept is a universal idea and a secondary philosophical intelligible which is abstracted by attending to the relevant relation after comparing two things: an existent and its desirable aim or its suitable destination. The intellect calls the existent ‘rights holder’ and the aim or destination ‘rights subject’. According to this new plan of justifying the structure of the right in the rights discourse, God is the only source of every right. Consequently, social rules should not be the opposite of valid divine laws. The laws in pure Islam are the most reliable divine laws which are grounded either on the certain reasonable principles or on the valid religious edicts. This writing is of an introduction, two parts and a conclusion. The first part analyses the structure of the concept of right. The second part articulates the requirements of understanding this structure.