lecture 2 - philosophy Flashcards
names we need to know
- Comte = positivism
- Kuhn = paradigms
- Lakatos = scientific research programs
- Carl Gustav Hempel = deductive-nomological and hypothetico-deductive model)
ontology + epistemology + methodology
- what is the nature of the social world?
- what can we know about the social world?
- how do we gain/obtain knowledge?
positivism
+ different positions
= search for the truth through systematic collection of observable facts
- dev. by August Comte (sociology as scientific study of the social world)
different positions:
- classical positivism
- logical positivism
- falsification
classical positivism 4 basic tenets
- naturalism
- empiricism
- laws (-> induction + no exceptions)
- science is objective and value-free
logical positivism
empiricism + logical reasoning: idea that it’s not just observation, there must be logical reasoning that can justify causality etc.
- emphasis on deduction and verification
so: classical positivism + logical reasoning
induction, deduction and retroduction
retroduction = circular process starting with inducting, testing it with deduction, making new observations and inductively revising theory
induction = explanatory analysis (observation) -> theory building through generalizing
deduction = deriving hypotheses from theory -> causal analysis/observation (uses new data, no circular reasoning) through deduction / hypothesis testing
- classical positivism = induction
- logical positivism = retroduction
- Popper = only deduction
Popper critique of posititivism
particular experience/observation can never establish general knowledge about how the world works: one counter observation -> falsification
rejects verifiability and induction + introduces falsification (we look for evidence that proves our theory wrong)
Carl Gustav Hempel
2 models:
- deductive-nomological model (the laws) = an observed phenomenon is explained if it can be deduced from a universal, law-like generalization (when it is shown to be a member of a more general class of things)
- hypothetico-deductive model (the testing of laws) = law-> deduction hypothesis -> explicit predictions -> corrobaration or falsification of the law
scientific realism
- reality consists out of unobservable elements
- which we can assess by looking at observable consequences
- causal mechanisms instead of law-like generalizations (allows for exceptions)
- allows for competing theories: best theory is the one that explains phenomena the best
similar to positivism:
- realism: objective reality exists
- social and natural worlds/sciences are similar
interpretivism
- social world and natural world are fundamentally different
- social world is subjectively created, what matters is how it is interpreted
examples of approaches:
- hermeneutics: interpreting texts from readers perspective
- critical theory/realism: starts with assumptions about structure of society -> interpret what you observe: how assumptions manifest themselves (recognizes that the observer is not value neutral)
- constructivism
individualism vs holism
- individualism = micro-level explanations = focus on individuals as basic unit of society
aggregation of the individual to knowledge about the whole - holism = macro-level explanations = whole is distinct from and not directly explicable in terms of its parts
coleman’s bathtub
macro-condition -> micro-condition -> micro-outcome -> macro-outcome
agency = micro-condition -> micro-outcome
structure = macro-condition ..> macro-outcome
e.g. Weber: protestant ethics facilitated dev. capitalism
e.g. demo. peace theory:
- macro-condition = liberal values
- micro-condition = personal principles
- micro-outcome = individual politicians/diplomats etc. act liberally
- macro-condition = states act
objectivity and values
- positivism = researchers can be objective (diff. between objective empirical theory and subjective normative theory)
- critical theory = we can’t be objective -> we can’t establish objective causality
- Robert Cox (interpretivism) = all theories are normative: there is no objective evaluation/observation
- Max Weber = we can distinguish between objectivity and values, but values can’t be ignored
solving this problem:
transparancy = self-disclosure V critical examination by scientific community
(Hawthorne effect)
being studied influences how you behave
Thomas Kuhn
(the structure of scientific revolutions)
science is a social institution, the scientific community subscribes to a common view/paradigm/conceptual scheme (defines objects, norms, methods) = normal science
-> truth is based on consensus
scientific progress = human enterprise of consensus and belief, not a small cumulative progress
paradigm shifts / revolutionary changes:
- pre-science (-> paradigm is established)
- normal science (-> anomalies build)
- crisis (competition among contending candidates for a successor)
- revolution (one contender gains ascendancy over the others)
- new paradigm + new normal science
