A Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences by Bert F. Hoselitz; Ethics and the Social Sciences byLeo R. WardReview by: Thomas C. CochranThe American Historical Review, Vol. 65, No. 4 (Jul., 1960), pp. 863-865Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1849411 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 00:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Oxford University Press and American Historical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to The American Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.25 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:09:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Social Sciences 863 tion with principles derived from the analysis of the concepts and procedures of natural science. Gardiner puts it this way: "I have been largely concerned to show how the development of approaches and methods, which have proved fruitful in other areas of philosophical inquiry, have affected the treatment of problems raised by the theoretical examination of history." Some historians may not be happy to see history reduced in this way to a special case of science, albeit an anomolous one. Any who are familiar with the work that has been done recently in the great German historiographical tradition will find the lack of representa- tive selections later than Dilthey a serious omission. The Anglo-American theorist of history might well learn from his German counterparts-from Nicolai Hart- mann, Troeltsch, Meinecke, Walther Hofer, and others-that the principles he is looking for are to be discovered in history itself; they cannot be brought into history from science or anywhere else without doing violence to history's distinctive character.

Had Gardiner been looking for selections illustrative of the German tradition he might have found a typical one, though not a distinguished one, in the second of the books reviewed here. Hans-Joachim Schoeps has undertaken to define, describe, and even to prescribe a new discipline, Geistesgeschichte. American his- torians are likely to experience some difficulty understanding just what is signified by the term Geistesgeschichte. When they note that it seems much concerned with alterations of the Zeitgeist, they are likely to suspect in it a reappearance of Hegel's Weltgeist and to flee for refuge all the way to Gardiner's ghost-quelling naturalism. Schoeps does little to allay American fears of threatening German metaphysics, though he does specifically reject all metaphysical connotations of the Zeitgeist. His purpose is rather to elucidate and to justify a historical discipline that has arisen largely as a result of the continuing influence of Wilhelm Dilthey. This discipline has undertaken both the task of studying the totality of that which in any age is shared by individuals and makes of them recognizable members of their age and of tracing identifiable elements of this totality through a succession of ages or generations. Schoeps's interest and indeed his competence tend more to the prac- tical than to the theoretical. Possibly the most informative section of his book is that which discusses the sources of Geistesgeschichte-sermons, tracts, encyclopedias, lexicons, biographies, autobiographies, journals, letters, and so on. But Geistes- geschichte is too large a subject to discuss in a review. Indeed it is too large to discuss intelligibly in a small book like that of Schoeps.

University of Oregon LLOYD R. SORENSON

A READER'S GUIDE TO THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. Edited by Bert F. Hoselitz. (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press. c. 1959. Pp. 256. Cloth $6.oo, paper $2.95.)

ETHICS AND THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. Edited by Leo R. Ward, C.S.C.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.25 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:09:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

864 Reviews of Books (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press. I959. PP. Xiii, 127.

$3.25.)

THE time when an adequately explanatory survey of the ideas and writings of social scientists could be contained in one small volume is long since past, but A Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences, written primarily to inform librarians, should be useful to all scholars. While the reader seldom achieves a satisfying grasp of a new concept or theory the various authors are able to indicate the importance of certain ideas, their place in the science, historically as well as currently, and the best sources for more information.

Of the eight essays, three, including a history of the social sciences over the last two hundred years, are by the editor. These involve a truly remarkable display of erudition in both English and European literature. When he reaches the present, Mr. Hoselitz seems too optimistic about the theoretical solidity of the social sci- ences. On page twenty, for example, he says: "There is to-day little dispute about basic theory either in economics or psychology," whereas Walter R. Reitman on the concluding page of his survey of psychology says: "The net effect is a litera- ture which in many important areas is almost totally confused, congested and non- additive. The proverbial wheels of progress spin, but the gears don't mesh." In the social sciences, as in medicine, there still seems room for disagreement as to what is fundamental.

Historians presumably will not need to refer as often to Hoselitz' essay on their subject as to the discussions of other social sciences. For the period to 1930 the chapter provides a good survey of historical writing in the Western world, although American historians may object to dismissing Turner in nine lines and omitting discussion of Beard's influence. From a world view these are minor matters. But in failing to explore the issues or achievements of the last thirty years in American historiography the essay does not parallel the explanations of recent American development contained in the remaining chapters.

While specialists in each discipline will probably take exception to some parts of these essays, just as I have in the case of history, the chapters on the other social sciences, including geography, seem uniformly good. On economics, for example, Hoselitz is broadly informed and penetrating. A specialist in comparative eco- nomic development, he notes that even in the case of cultures as similar as those of America and Britain, "the entire form of argument, exposition and validation of propositions in these [economic]works is contingent upon the value structure generally acknowledged in these countries."

Relation of the value structure to social science theory and practice is the main theme of Ethics and the Social Sciences, comprised of six papers prepared in 1957 for a conference at the University of Notre Dame. The essays, by four Catholics and two Protestants, range widely over pure and applied social science. As might be expected, the authors differ regarding the place of dogmatic theology.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.25 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:09:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Hutll: History and Philosophy of Science 865 In the opening paper Francis G. Wilson attacks "liberal" or "behavioral" social

scientists for failure to find a place for the values of Thomnistic philosophy in their methods and for assisting Communism by joining in the United Front of the I930's, by "campaigning against the Dies Committee .. . and, finally, in 'breaking' Senator McCarthy. . .." Throughout the chapter the reader feels that Wilson is disturbed by and fearful of the effects of empirically oriented social science. But neither Christopher Dawson nor Herbert Johnson see any necessary conflict be- tween the social sciences and Catholic theology. "Moral philosophy" should estab- lish the social end to be pursued, the social sciences supply the facts and hypotheses that will serve as means.

David Bidney and Kenneth Boulding both discuss the place left for values in their schemes of social science analysis. Bidney posits a metacultural reality, but his supracultural values are based on "their consequences for human well being," for helping man to realize "his highest potentialities." Boulding explains his own psychological concept of "image," a term that he uses to cover a wide range of psychic processes. His discussion of the "value image" is on a theoretical level that does not involve particular theologies.

From experience in discussions at the Wesleyan University Institute of Ethics and Politics James R. Brown defines the issues involved in an ethical approach to political and other practical social issues. His discussion emphasizes by its omission a key problem not dealt with in any of the essays: in the history of Western Europe and the United States the verbal conflicts of social scientists or the bloodier struggles of armed forces have seldom been between upholders of religion and ethics on the one side and atheistic materialists on the other, but usually between religious men with different backgrounds and interests. For their own inner good men need consciously held values, but firm values neither insure, nor perhaps even encourage, harmonious conduct.

University of Pennsylvania THOMAS C. COCHIRAN

HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE: AN INTRODUCTION. By L. W. H. Hull. (New York: Longmans, Green and Company. I959,. Pp. xi, 340- $5.oo.)

DESCRIBED as an attempt "to bridge the gap between science and the humanities by considering scientific ideas in a context of history and philosophy," this is a very old-fashioned book. The point of view and the general level of the author's information correspond to the late Victorian period. The result is that the book as a whole is of questionable value for the history student or the scientist and is worthless for historians of science.

The presentation of "early science" exemplifies the level of scholarly informa- tion. Ignoring a half century of astonishingly fruitful research, the author repeats all the ancient errors, as that the Egyptians knew that the three-four-five triangle

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.25 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:09:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions