This article explores the explanation of incommensurable theories as alternative conceptual schemes based on different categorical or taxonomic structures. The concept of incommensurability, which is a cornerstone of the late philosophy of Thomas Kuhn, is elucidated, reflecting his approach to avoid assessing the history of science in terms of the truth and falsity of scientific paradigms. It is shown how Kuhn has combined Frege – Russell’s descriptivist semantics and the causal theory of reference by Hilary Putnam and Saul Kripke. His (...) version of semantics consists in redefinition of natural kinds in terms of neuropsychology, in substantiating mentalist and internalist perspective on language. Kuhn’s philosophical position is identified as post-Darwinian Kantianism. It is expressed not in a priori nature of knowledge, but in its determination by conceptual schemes and sociocultural relativity. Despite the fact that the incommensurable terms seem to occur in the history of knowledge, incommensurability remains not the clearest and most consistent way of thinking on the history of science. Kuhn repeatedly refined his views on incommensurability, ultimately aligning it more closely with alternative classifications of objects serving as a framework for subsequent theories. Natural kind concepts, like taxonomic units, distribute the perceived objects into hierarchies reflecting structures of external world. On the one hand, kinds differentiate objectively existing objects into groups. On the other hand, kind terms are both mental modules and cultural constructs that are used to organize the experience of language speakers, identify objects, and provide the basis for group beliefs. Kuhn posits that the development of scientific theories constitutes an evolution of conceptual schemes characterized by disparities and incommensurability. (shrink)

This text is devoted to the question of using mixed methods in social sciences. The attention is paid to the positions of leaders in the field, articulated by the uplevel “Journal of Mixed Methods Research”. The main results and discussions on the journal’s pages will be outlined briefly. As scholars note, mixed methods provide an integrative methodology in social sciences and a third paradigm beyond quantitative and qualitative approaches within social research. The third methodological paradigm is distinguished by pluralism and (...) pragmatism, openness and flexibility of principles. Quantitative and qualitative methods in social cognition are well complemented by digital tools. In many methodological works one can find descriptions of software products by which mixed research is commonly produced. The purpose of the article is to review the important results and discussions published in JMMR, describe the philosophical and methodological principles that shape the basis for integrative research, and compare them with other traditions of reflection on methodology of social cognition. In conclusion, it is said that there is a continuum of different scientific studies, where quantitative and qualitative methodologies may be treated only as the basic types of design. A review helps to validate one more conclusion: there is no radical opposition between social and nomological sciences grounded in the nature of their methods, as philosophers presuppose. Finally, mixed methods research is highly relevant to philosophy, where qualitative analysis has always prevailed. (shrink)