Author: Michał R. Węsierski
Institution: Warsaw University of Life Sciences (Poland)
Year of publication: 2020
Source: Show
Pages: 183-203
DOI Address:
PDF: ppsy/49-4/ppsy2020411.pdf

Applying external scientific knowledge - i.e. knowledge achieved in the field of disciplines and sub-disciplines related to political science - in fulfiling such methodological functions as explanation and prevision (forecasting) is frequently approached in meta-scientific and meta-theoretical considerations as conducted on the ground of the family of scientific disciplines constituted by the sciences of politics. These functions can be ascribed to the purely epistemological aspect of scientific activity, not its institutional and organizational aspects. The dispute regarding the explanatory autonomy of political science is fallacious. From the logical and methodological point of view, the institutional “affiliation” of object knowledge, which constitutes a premise in complex inferences, does not play a role in the fulfilment of the assumed cognitive tasks; what is important instead is its epistemological credibility, as well as the goals of the research strategy selected by a given scholar.


  • Ajdukiewicz, K. (1974). Pragmatic Logic. Dordrecht-Warszawa: D. Reidel & PWN.
  • Ajdukiewicz, K. (1985). “Konwencjonalne pierwiastki w nauce”. In K. Ajdukiewicz (Ed.), Język i poznanie, vol. II (34-44). Warszawa: PWN.
  • Amsterdamski, S. (1992). Between History and Method: Disputes about the Rationality of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Åqvist, L. (1975). A New Approach to the Logical Theory of Interrogatives: Analysis and Formalization. Tübingen: Verlag Gunter Narr.
  • Belnap Jr, N.D., Steel, Th.B. (1976). The Logic of Questions and Answers. New Haven-London: Yale University Press.
  • Blondiaux, L., Déloye, Y. (2007). “The Current State of Political Science: Report on the Situation in France”. In H.-D. Klingemann, (Ed.), The State of Political Science in Western Europe (137-162). OpladenFarmington Hills: Barbara Budrich Publishers.
  • Box-Steffensmeier, J.M., Brady, H.E., Collier, D. (2008). “Political Science Methodology”. In J.M. BoxSteffensmeier, H.E. Brady, D. Collier (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology (3-31). Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Bromberger, S. (1966). “Why-Questions”. In ed. R. Colodny (Ed.), Mind and Cosmos (86-111). Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
  • Brożek, A. (2011). Theory of Questions. Erotetics Through the Prism of Its Philosophical Background and Practical Applications. Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi.
  • Catlin, G.E.G. (1964). The Science and Method of Politics. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books. Autarchy of Political Science and the Methodological Functions of Object Knowledge 201
  • Clarke, K.A., Primo, D.M. (2012). A Model Discipline: Political Science and the Logic of Representations. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Dąmbska, I. (1975). O konwencjach i konwencjonalizmie. Wrocław: Ossolineum.
  • Doroszewski, J. (2015). “The Term ‘Problem’ in Science and Practice”. Studia Semiotyczne - English Supplement, XXIII, 112-133.
  • Dryzek, J. S. (2006). “Revolutions Without Enemies: Key Transformations in Political Science”. American Political Science Review, 100(4), 487-492.
  • Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Farr, J. (2007). “The Historical Science(s) of Politics: The Principles, Association, and Fate of an American Discipline”. In R. Adcock, M. Bevir, S.C. Stimson (Eds.), Modern Political Science: Anglo-American
  • Exchanges Since 1880 (66-96). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Fraassen, B.C. van. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Geddes, B. (2003). Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics. Ann Arbor, Mi.: University of Michigan Press.
  • Goertz, G. (2006). Social Science Concepts: User’s Guide. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
  • Goertz, G., Mahoney, J. (2012). A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
  • Govier, T. (1985). A Practical Study of Argument. Belmont: Wadsworth Pub. Co.
  • Grant, W. (2010). The Development of a Discipline. The History of the Political Studies Association. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Grobler, A., Wiśniewski, A. (2002). “Explanation and Theory-Evaluation”. In R. Festa, J. Aliseda, J. Peijnenburg (Eds.), Cognitive Structures in Scientific Inquiry (299-310). Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi.
  • Harrah, D. (1966). “Questions Generators”. The Journal of Philosophy, 63(20), 606-608.
  • Harrah, D. (1984). “The Logic of Questions”. In D. Gabbay, F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of Philosophical
  • Logic. Vol II: “Extensions of Classical Logic” (715-764). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
  • Hempel, C.G., Oppenheim, P. (1948). “Studies in the Logic of Explanation”. Philosophy of Science, 15(2), 135-175.
  • Hintikka, J. (1974). “Questions about Questions”. In M.K. Munitz, P.K. Unger (Eds.), Semantics and Philosophy (103-158). New York: New York University Press.
  • Hintikka, J. (1978). “Answers to Questions”. In H. Hiż (Ed.), Questions (279-300). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
  • Hyneman, Ch.S. (1959). The Study of Politics: The Present State of American Political Science. Urbana, Il.: University of Illinois Press.
  • Johnson, J.B., Reynolds, H.T., Mycoff, J.D. (2019). Political Science Research Methods. Los Angeles: SAGE and CQ Press.
  • Kamiński, S. (1981). Pojęcie nauki i klasyfikacja nauk. Lublin: TN KUL.
  • Kapiszewski, D., MacLean, L., Read, B.L. (2015). Field Research in Political Science: Practices and Principles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Katznelson, I., Milner, H.V. (1993). “American Political Science: the Discipline’s State and the State of the
  • Discipline”. In I. Katznelson, H.V. Milner (Eds.), Political Science: State of the Discipline II (1-32). New York-London-Washington, DC: W. W. Norton, APSA.
  • Kellstedt, P.M., Whitten, G.D. (2018). The Fundamentals of Political Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • King, G. Keohane, R.O., Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Kirsh, D. (2009). “Problem Solving and Situated Cognition”. In Ph. Robbins, M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition (264-306). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kitcher, P. (1993). Advancement of Science: Science Without Legend, Objectivity Without Illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Kleiner, S. (1988). “Erotetic Logic and Scientific Inquiry”. Synthese, 74, 19-46.
  • Klementewicz, T. (1991). Spór o model metodologiczny nauki o polityce. Warszawa: ISP PAN.
  • Klementewicz, T. (2017). Understanding Politics: Theory, Procedures, Narratives. Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang.
  • Klementewicz, T., Ryszka, F. (1989). “Spór o status metodologiczny nowej-starej dyscypliny. Nauka o polityce a „nauki polityczne””. In T. Klementewicz (Ed.), Wielkie tematy myśli politycznej i politologicznej (75-93). Warszawa: COM SNP.
  • Kmita, J. (1988). Problems in Historical Epistemology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
  • Kmita, J. (1990). Essays in the Theory of Scientific Cognition. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
  • Knor Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  • Kubiński, T. (1980). An Outline of the Logical Theory of Questions. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
  • Kuhn, T.S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago- London: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Kuipers, T.A.F., Wiśniewski, A. (1994). “An Erotetic Approach to Explanation by Specification”. Erkenntnis, 40(3), 377-402.
  • Lakatos, I. (1978). “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes”. In I. Lakatos (Ed.), The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers Volume 1 (8-93). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and Its Problems. Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. London-Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  • Lipton, P. (1991). Inference to the Best Explanation. London-New York: Routledge.
  • Mantzavions, C. (2016). Explanatory Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Merriam, Ch.E. (1921). “The Present State in the Study of Politics”. American Political Science Review, XV(2), 173-185.
  • Moses, J.W., Knutsen, T.L. (2012). Ways of Knowing: Competing Methodologies in Social and Political Research. London: Macmillan.
  • Nikitin, E. (1975). Wyjaśnianie jako funkcja nauki. Trans. from Russian. Warszawa: PWN.
  • Niżnik, J. (1979). Przedmiot poznania w naukach społecznych. Warszawa: PWN.
  • Nowak, L. (1992). “The Idealization Approach to Science: A Survey”. In J. Brzeziński, L. Nowak (Eds.), The
  • Idealization III: Approximation and Truth (10-49). Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi.
  • Okada, T., Simon, H.A. (1997). “Collaborative Discovery in a Scientific Domain”. Cognitive Science, 21(1), 129-173.
  • Parenti, M. (2006). “Patricians, Professionals, and Political Science”. American Political Science Review, 100(4), 499-505.
  • Popprer, K.R. (1972). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Ragin, Ch.C. (2014). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Rainko, S. (2011). Dwa paradygmaty. Esej z teorii wiedzy. Warszawa: PIW.
  • Ryle, G. (2009). The Concept of Mind. London-New York: Routledge.
  • Sady, W. (1990). Racjonalna rekonstrukcja odkryć naukowych. Lublin: WN UMCS. Autarchy of Political Science and the Methodological Functions of Object Knowledge 203
  • Salmon, W. (1990). Four Decades of Scientific Explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Salmon, W. (1984). Scientific Explanation and Causal Structure of the Word. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Shrum, W., Genuth, J., Chompalov, I. (2007). Structure of Scientific Collaboration. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
  • Simon, H.A. (1966). “Scientific Discovery and the Psychology of Problem Solving”. In R. Colodny (Ed.),
  • Mind and Cosmos (22-40). Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
  • Simon, H.A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge-London: The MIT Press.
  • Simon, H.A. (1992). “Scientific Discovery as Problem Solving: Reply to Critics”. International Studies in Philosophy of Science, 6(1), 1-14.
  • Simon, H.A., Langley, P.W., Bradshaw, G.L. (1981). “Scientific Discovery as Problem Solving”. Synthese, 47 (4), pp. 1-27.
  • Sola Pierce, D. de, Beaver, D. (1966). “Collaboration in an Invisible College”. American Psychologist, 21(1), 1011-1018.
  • Szaniawski, K. (1981). “Science as an Information-Seeking Process”. Postępy Cybernetyki, 3(4), 23-31.
  • Thomas, S.N. (1986). Practical Reasoning in Natural Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Toulmin, S. (2003). Uses of Argument. Cambridge: University Press.
  • Waldo, D. (1975). “Political Science: Tradition, Discipline, Profession, Science, Enterprise”. In F.I. Greenstein, N.W. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of Political Science, vol. 1 (1-130), Reading, Mass. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
  • Wiśniewski, A. (1995). The Posing of Questions: Logical Foundations of Erotetic Inferences. DordrechtBoston-London: Kluwer.
  • Wiśniewski, A. (2013). Questions, Inferences, and Scenarios. London: College Publications.
  • Woleński, J. (1981). “Dyscyplina naukowa a teoria naukowa”. Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa, XVII (1-2), pp. 4-12.
  • Woleński, J. (1975). “Spór o status metodologiczny nauki o polityce”. In K. Opałek (Ed.), Metodologiczne
  • i teo retyczne problemy nauk politycznych (32-57). Warszawa: PWN.
  • Znaniecki, F. (1925). “Przedmiot i zadania nauki o wiedzy”. Nauka Polska, 5, pp. 1-78.

Wiadomość do:



© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart