class 2 Flashcards
ontology
+ epistemology
+ methodology
ontology = what is the nature of the social world?
e.g. is there an objective and/or subjective reality
epistemology = what can we know about the social world?
methodology = how do we gain/obtain knowledge
positivism
= search for the truth through systematic collection of observable facts
developed by French Philosopher August Comte
sociology as scientific study of the social world
different positions:
- classical positivism
- logical positivism -> makes it more useful (can analyse directly)
- falsification (Popper)
Classical positivism
- basic tenets (4)
- *naturalism**: social science = natural sciences
- empiricism: knowledge of the world is limited to what can be observed and measured (sensory experience)
-
laws: social world is subject to regular and systematic processes; laws are explanatory and predictive (!means there are no exceptions)
!can be established through induction (observation->theory)
cause-and-effect relationships = observable constant conjunction (Hume) - science is objective and value-free
Logical positivism
- basic tenets
-
empiricism + logical reasoning: idea that it’s not just observation, there must be logical reasoning that can justify causality etc.
emphasis on deduction (theory->observation)
verification to establish truth claim (finding support for theories)
2.
retroduction
observation<->theory
often observation -> theory -> deduction
induction and deduction and retroduction
induction = exploratory analysis (observation) -> theory building through inducing/generalizing
deduction = deriving hypotheses from theory / theory testing-> causal analysis / observation (USES NEW DATA, no circular reasoning) through deduction / hypothesis testing)
retroduction = circular process starting with inducting, testing it with deduction, making new observations and inductively revising theory
!see the slide, positivism and scientific realism follow this
critique of Logical Positivism
Karl Popper (1902-1994)
he rejects induction and verification as a way of creating or testing a theory, because:
- particular experience/observation can never establish general knowledge about how the world works
- one counter-observation -> a law is falsified (e.g. swans are white, you observe one black swan)
rejects verifiability, introduces falsification
- we don’t look for supporting observations, we look for evidence that proves our theory is incorrect
a theory is good when it has not been falsified
Deductive-Nomological Model (the laws)
Carl Gustav (1905-1997)
an observed phenomenon is explained if it can be deduced fro a universal, law-like generalization
start with laws, then deduce
laws expresses necessary connections/relationships, accidental generalization does not
Hypothetico-Deductive Model (the testing of the laws)
Carl Gustav (1905-1997)
test ability of law to predict events
law -> hypothesis (if/then) -> explicit predictions
- prediction correct -> hypothesis corroborated/supported
- prediction incorrect -> hypothesis is falsified/not supported
!proff discourages speaking of ‘‘correct’’ and ‘‘incorrect’’, as we never have absolute certainty
scientific realism (challenge 1 to positivism)
- ## similarities to positivism (2)
similarities to positivism =
- social and natural worlds/sciences are similar
- realism: objective reality exists
key difference =
- reality can consist of unobservable elements as well, e.g. structural relationships, emotions
- assessment by observable consequences (of unobservable causes, is based on theoretical assumptions and hypotheses of what will be observed as consequence of the unobservable cause)
- causal mechanisms instead of law-like generalizations (=diff. with classical positivism) = allows for exceptions (if.., its more likely that …)
- best theory is the one that explains phenomena the best = it allows for competing theories
challenge: how do we measure
3 examples from the textbook
- Charles Tilly
Charles Tilly: unobservable causal mechanisms social world
- environmental factors: externally generated influences on conditions affecting social life (contextual factors influence how political actors behave) = often not directly visible as causing decisions (they are at the back of politicians minds)
- cognitive factors: operate through alterations of individual and collective perceptions (e.g. protestant ethic created mindset open for capitalist values (more than catholic), ethnic stereotypes’ role in conflict)
- relational factors: alter connections among people, groups, and interpersonal networks (the way political systems are set up, how they make decisions etc. provide a setting to resolve conflicts, some mechanisms are hard to observe (influence on individual decision making), but they probs have a powerful effect)
3 examples from the textbook
- individualism vs holism
individualism (micro-level explanations) = focus on individuals (if you want to understand what happens in politics, you must look at individuals)
- ontology = basic unit of society are individuals, aggregation of the indivdual leads to knowledge about the whole of social phenomena
- mehtodology = explanations of social phenomena must be reducible to the characteristics of individuals
holism (macro-level explanations) =
- ontology = the whole is distinct from and no directly explicable in terms of its parts (social facts have to have social causes that are irreducible to facts about individuals)
- methodologically = properties of a system as a whole can’t be deduced by the properties of its components alone. the system as a whole determines behavior of parts, each social entity has a distinct totality)
3 examples from the book
- Coleman’s Bathtub
e.g. protestant countries facilitated dev. of capitalism (macro-condition -> macro-outcome) = doubtful
macro-condition -> micro-condition -> micro-outcome -> macro-outcome
general explanations -> micro-level mechanisms -> aggregating individual to a macro-outcome
another example is democratic peace theory (democratic countries don’t go to war with each other)
- macro-condition = liberal values
- micro-condition = personal principles
- micro-outcome = individual politicians/diplomats etc. act liberally
- macro-condition = states act mac
!! in practice: there are different types of theories, one is not better than another: some focus only on macro, some only on micro, some combine it (is promising/interesting)
