{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02481121898597627, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002157497303128371, 'mean_word_length': 5.72463768115942, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Schutz, Seebohm, and Cultural Science

This chiefly comparative sketch relates to the general theory of the cultural sciences, which comprise not only the social sciences, but also the historical sciences, archaeology included. Alfred Schutz contributed a great deal concerning the former, but less concerning the historical sciences, 1 while Thomas Seebohm’s new book contributes a great deal concerning the philological-historical method. They both find Husserl’s constitutive phenomenology of the natural attitude sufficient for their philosophical purposes. 2 Moreover, their contributions confirm or substantially complement one another. The major similarities and differences in their results will accordingly be reviewed here, first with regard to the notion of ‘understanding’ and then with regard to questions of method, methodology, and theory of science. Finally, some remarks will be offered on their shared method.