and Keywords 3 International Journal of Social Economics 16,4 8The Americans have a saying, "there is nothing new under the sun". The truth is that with all the immense amount of knowledge and information acquired in this century, there still is very much under the sun (in the physical universe as well as in modern societies), which we do not know. There is, of course, imperfection in Nature and the classical thinkers lacked adequate tools of observation and analysis that might have enabled them to perceive this imperfection properly and completely. The modern thinkers, on the other hand, have no excuse for not properly using the imperfection they discovered in the classical heritage. There is ample evidence that the modern thinkers failed to develop an adequate, more comprehensive methodology to do full justice, not only to their own results but also to classical science. We did not learn the right lesson from the classical laws which refer to a more perfect but nevertheless not 100 per cent harmonious order in the physical universe, as conceived by Newton and other classics. An imperfection of the human mind seems to be more significant than the imperfection of Mother Nature. It is one thing to discover an imperfection and another thing to develop the proper method of evaluation.Let us now take a look at how much we learned and how much we did not learn by using both the classical and modern methodology. In order to be able to perceive how much we did not learn and still need to know, a new research programme of a simultaneous equilibrium versus disequilibrium approach will be used. The reader must be aware of the fact that the author is an economist by profession and yet strongly believes that if economics, sociology and other social studies can be called a science, then we must provide a most comprehensive methodology that in principle is applicable in both natural and social sciences and, of course, taking into consideration the specifics of each field.In this spirit, this investigation should not be interpreted as an intrusion by an economist into a different field of knowledge but rather as an invitation for cooperation between social and natural scientists in order to develop a more Comprehensive Methodology which, in principle, is applicable to all sciences. Afte all, the term "science" cannot be properly used for social and economic studies unless such a common methodology is adopted and respected in application. This is the main message of this contribution, addressed to all scientists who are interested not only to perpetuate the prevailing view but also to advance new, better ideas.

Pantaleoni used to say that there are two categories of economists—those who can, in the sense of being able to produce original work, and those who cannot. A more meaningful and more useful distinction can be made between those who reason about the given problems in terms of stable equilibrium (most of them classicists) and those who do their thinking in terms of unstable equilibrium (actually stable disequilibrium) and sheer disequilibrium (most of them modern and contemporary scientists).

The first Principia Mathematica (1686) by Sir Isaac Newton with reference to natural philosophy and his system of the world has largely contributed to the first revolution in scientific thinking in modern times. It has created the conceptual basis of modern science in the classical tradition by providing the tools of analysis and the technique of reasoning in terms of stability—from—within or, as we would say today, the model of stable equilibrium conditions.

In this monograph the author discusses the problems in constructing a logical and ethical‐empirical foundation so that relevant social values may be studied by the scientific method. Part One is concerned with the difficulties posed by the prevailing methodology. Part Two presents a new research programme based on the simultaneous equilibrium versus disequilibrium approach in conjunction with Wittgenstein's logic and the current research in ethics.

The inclination toward truth which is innate in our mind is not only a psychological and epistemological datum; it is also an ethical principle, a moral requirement. We have the duty of seeking truth and, insofar as we can, of respecting it and conforming our activity to it (Giorgio del Vecchio).What I mean to say is that we only then understand a proposition if we know both what would be the case if it was false and what if it was true (Ludwig Wittgenstein). InternationalJournal of Social Economics 25,5 782 of reasoning. Classical science, arts and letters from the beginning, were oriented to the ideal of perfection. Using the language of today, the classics concentrated in searching the truth and beauty in a model of ideal conditions of stable equilibrium or perfect harmony. In essence the result was the discovery and formulation of natural laws, derived from the nature of things in their ideal form and in conjunction with a deterministic, rationalistic interpretation or vision of the world. This was the first revolution in modern thinking provided by the classics.Other thinkers later, and in particular in this century, observed a serious weakness in the classical heritage. The classics failed to study with the same diligence deviations from the model of ideal conditions of stable equilibrium, specifically disequilibrium phenomena which could be easily observed in nature and even more in human societies. Through the new investigation of disequilibrium phenomena modern science has gained valuable new knowledge. This was the second revolution which brought about in this century a new, indeterministic, relativistic or probabilistic interpretation or vision of the world.The cultural and scientific course of events in our time would have been, so to say, on the right track if modern thinkers had specifically pointed out that the new results were valid for deviations from the classical laws, i.e. for disequilibrium phenomena. Unfortunately the new results were dramatically presented and interpreted as a refutation of, or as a better substitute for, classical science. Granted, the classics committed an error in presenting their results as if that was the last word or the only aspect of human knowledge which might be called science. But that does not change the nature of the argument raised here.The fundamental question of logic and methodology of science is this: can the results obtained from the study of a model of disequilibrium be used in theory to invalidate the results from another model of stable equilibrium? If it were one and the same model viewed in both revolutions, then the matter logically would be simple and clear: the results in one case would be right and in the other wrong. But this is not the real situation in the argument under consideration.