谈谈理论的检验标准问题
发布时间：2018-08-24 09:20
【摘要】：社会科学研究成果究竟如何判断其真伪,亦即理论的检验标准问题,是社会科学研究的一个前提性问题。在社会科学研究中,实践标准是"最高标准",具有最高权威,是理论真理性的最终"判决者"。但实践检验毕竟滞后于理论本身,逻辑证明、文本检验、经验证实是社会科学研究中常用的标准,是初步判定其科学性的一种辅助方式,在检验理论真理性的过程中起着重要的作用,但它们不能与实践标准并列,更不能代替实践标准。时间标准、有用标准、权力标准以及学术争论则是完全错误的标准,不具有任何的合理性。
[Abstract]:How to judge the truth and falsity of social science research, that is, the test standard of theory, is a leading problem in social science research. In the social science research, the practice standard is the highest standard, has the highest authority, is the theory truth final "adjudicator". But the practice test lags behind the theory itself after all. Logical proof, text test and experience confirmation are the commonly used standards in social science research, and are an auxiliary way to preliminarily judge its scientific nature. They play an important role in the process of testing the truth of theory, but they can not be parallel with the standard of practice, let alone replace the standard of practice. Time standards, useful standards, power standards and academic arguments are completely wrong standards and have no rationality.
【作者单位】： 武汉大学马克思主义学院;
【基金】：国家社科基金项目“直面生活本身——马克思人学存在论革命研究”(批准号:10FZX001),“马克思主义中国化时代化大众化的理论与历史研究”(批准号:11FKS002)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：C0
本文编号：2200357
[Abstract]:How to judge the truth and falsity of social science research, that is, the test standard of theory, is a leading problem in social science research. In the social science research, the practice standard is the highest standard, has the highest authority, is the theory truth final "adjudicator". But the practice test lags behind the theory itself after all. Logical proof, text test and experience confirmation are the commonly used standards in social science research, and are an auxiliary way to preliminarily judge its scientific nature. They play an important role in the process of testing the truth of theory, but they can not be parallel with the standard of practice, let alone replace the standard of practice. Time standards, useful standards, power standards and academic arguments are completely wrong standards and have no rationality.
【作者单位】： 武汉大学马克思主义学院;
【基金】：国家社科基金项目“直面生活本身——马克思人学存在论革命研究”(批准号:10FZX001),“马克思主义中国化时代化大众化的理论与历史研究”(批准号:11FKS002)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：C0
【相似文献】
相关会议论文 前1条
1 张金才;;当前我国功利主义社会思潮简析[A];中国现代社会心理和社会思潮学术研讨会论文集[C];2004年
，本文编号：2200357
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/shekelunwen/shgj/2200357.html
教材专著
