Authors:Alex Mesoudi, Djuke Veldhuis, and Robert A. Foley
At the inception of the social sciences in the late 19th century, early psychologists, anthropologists, archaeologists and sociologists frequently proposed evolutionary explanations for social phenomena. Yet by the mid-20th century Darwin's theory had virtually disappeared from the social sciences, and most social scientists continue to reject evolutionary approaches within their disciplines. This special issue of the Journal of Evolutionary Psychology contains six papers each of which addresses the question of why social scientists rejected evolution, and why they still do. Three broad reasons are identified by our contributors. First, many social scientists past and present hold distorted views of evolution leading to, in our view, an unfounded rejection of evolutionary theory. This distortion might be addressed by improved education and communication of evolutionary theory. Second, many past applications of evolutionary theory to social phenomena have been inadequate for explaining the kinds of phenomena that social scientists are most interested in, such as rapid cultural change and the emergence of large-scale cooperative institutions. This situation is changing as modern Darwinian approaches incorporate behavioural flexibility, group-level explanations and culture. Finally, certain strands of the social sciences have rejected the scientific method in general, instead adopting non-scientific perspectives such as social constructionism. While this is a broader epistemological issue, the application of evolutionary methods to social phenomena may provide the best and most direct support for the value of the scientific method.
Schubert, A.: The significance of subfield differences in scientometric analysis (with special regard to socialsciences and humanities). [A szakterületi különbségek jelentősége a tudománymetriai elemzésekben
Scientific achievements of humanities and socialsciences in complicated forms cannot create economic and social value instantly as natural sciences. When evaluating these achievements, some rules can be operated
Authors:Tim C. E. Engels, Truyken L. B. Ossenblok, and Eric H. J. Spruyt
SocialSciences and Humanities (SSH) publications in the WoS remains limited (Adams and Testa 2011 ; Archambault et al. 2006 ), the logic approach for the Flemish government was to instruct an independent body to map the SSH publications that are not
Introduction and background
A well-designed and comprehensive citation index for the SocialSciences and Humanities (SSH) has many potential uses, but has yet to be realised. A recent initiative in this direction is the so
Biology and the social sciences parted company at a time when evolution itself was poorly understood. As a result, the social sciences left with a rather impoverished view of evolution, and therefore failed to take note of the developments that emerged later. Among these have been an appreciation of Tinbergen's “Four Whys”, Hamilton's broadening of the concept of fitness into what he termed “neighbour modulated fitnesses” and multi-level selection (as distinct from group selection). I argue that a better appreciation of some of these developments might go some way towards facilitating a rapprochement between the social and evolutionary sciences.
theses of a domain. The data used in this study were based on the online database of the SocialScience Citation Index (SSCI) retrieved from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science, Philadelphia, USA. According to Journal Citation
Authors:Weina Hua, Shunbo Yuan, Miaomiao Yan, and Yu Li
contribution we focus on research in the humanities and socialsciences, such as political sciences, geography and economics.
Arctic research focusing on the humanities and socialsciences covers many disciplines. In
An examination of the relationships between journal impact factors and individual subscription prices of interdisciplinary social science journals revealed a very small and statistically nonsignificant negative association.