Reading 2: ch.2&3 (philosophy of social science) Flashcards
positivism
- movement to establish a sound basis for social scientific inquiry = 1950s and 1960s (behavioural revolution)
- maintains that researchers can arrive at factual, reliable and objective answers to questions about the social world by employing the methods used in the natural sciences
- claims (just like scientific realism) that the social world is no different than the natural world
(positive political theory)
assumes that rational self-interest motivates behavior
NOT attitudes
behavioral revolution changed the field:
- new discussions and debate about desirability and possibility of using scientific methods to attain reliable, empirical, causal knowledge
- broadening the domain of political research (by drawing on theories from other disciplines)
- emphasis on research based on empirical observation (falsifiable)
- importance of replication
classical positivism
- tenets
- about causality
4 basic tenets:
- naturalism (no difference social and natural sciences/world)
- empiricism (what we know of the world is limited to that what we can see)
- goal of social science is to explain and predict by means of laws, which can be established based on induction
- it is possible to distinguish between facts and values + to obtain value-free knowledge
causality conceptualization of Hume (causality constituted by empirical regularities among observable variables, this leads to a psychological expectation of causality, but we cannot see it therefore not know it) -> seeks empirical regularities rather than to discover causal mechanisms
logical positivism
- early 20th century as movement within philosophy
contributes to positivist thought:
- wants to combine induction (empiricism) and deduction (logic): argues that logical reasoning and mathematics should also be treated as sources of knowledge in addition to empiricism
- establishes verification as criterion for establishing truth claims + science (rather than metaphysics)
*some argue that its greatest contribution to positivism is that it inspired critique from Popper
deduction vs induction
+ retroduction
induction = particular observations/cases -> generalizations
- observation -> pattern - tentative hypothesis -> theory
deduction = broad generalizations/theories -> specific observations and meanings/implications
- theory -> hypothesis -> observation -> confirmation
in practice research is often retroduction: interaction of induction and deduction in an evolving, dynamic process of discovery and hypothesis formation
Popper
against (logical positivist) principle of verification: we cannot deductively establish general statements of scientific knowledge
- induction is bad: no matter how many observations confirm a theory, only one observation is necessary to falsify it
we shouldn’t try to verify a hypothesis, we should try to falsify it
falsification = demarcation science and pseudo-science/metaphysics
science/theory doesn’t start with observation, observation is used to test and falsify theory
criticism to Popper
- he distinguishes between fact and theory (he claims that our observations/facts can be established independently of the theory that they mean to test)
- Popper’s notion of falsifiability is at odds with how scientists work in practice (they don’t really seek to falsify their theories)
classical positivism vs logical positivism vs Popper’s critique
classical positivism: science through induction
logical positivism: induction + deduction can be used to discover laws
Popper: only deduction to establish laws of social life as a basis for explanation
deductive-nomological model
Hempel
something is explained when it is shown to be a member of a more general class of things, when it is deduced from a law or a set of laws
when is something a law rather than it appears to be a law but is accidental?
law expresses a necessary connection between properties, accidental generalization doesn’t + laws can be tested based on their predictions
we confirm that a generalization is a law by treating it as a hypothesis (hypothetico-deductive model)
hypothetico-deductive model
Hempel
according to this model we confirm that a generalization is a law by treating it as a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis by deducing it from predictions of further phenomena that should be observable as a consequence of the hypothesis
*we look at multiple hypotheses to see which has the most explanatory value (look which hypothesis makes the most accurate predictions)
scientific realism
- naturalist ontology (social world and natural world are the same) = same as positivism
- what is objectively real is not just observable elements, also unobservable elements (we can see its effects) = breaks with positivism
- explanation can be based on observable regularity AND unobservable causal mechanisms that link cause and effect
- ## scientific goal = describe and explain observable and nonobservable aspects of the world
conception of causality = observable regularities + unobservable causal mechanisms that generate the regularities
Charles Tilly - 3 causal mechanisms in the social world
*mentioned with scientific realism
- environmental (external influences on conditions effecting social life)
- cognitive (operates through alterations of individual and collective perception)
- relational (alter connections among people, groups and interpersonal networks)
debate about the scientific status of unobservable entities
- 3 main questions
- What is the ontological status of macro-social mechanisms used to explain social outcomes? = What are the basic entities that make up the social world?
- (methodological) individualism (social phenomena are made up of combined results of individual action)
- (methodological) holism (social facts have social causes that are irreducible to facts about individuals: the whole is not directly explicable in term of its parts) - How do we explain macro-social phenomena?
- methodological individualism vs methodological holism (problem = reification -> not enough focus on agency) vs ‘micro-foundations (combination individualism and holism: intentional states that motivate individual action) - How do macro-social ‘social mechanisms’ produce social outcomes? Providing explanations of macro-social phenomena with micro-foundations
- James Coleman: diagram (Coleman’s Bathtub/boat): causal relations flow downwards from macro phenomena (e.g. institutions) shape the conditions of individual actions + conditions give rise to individual actions + individual actions aggregate up to macro outcomes
- he argues for a combination of micro-macro linkages (see p. 45)
reification
tendency to treat macro-social structural entities as if they had a concrete, material existence; to treat them as analytically indepe3ndent of their constituent elements; inert, unchanging and unmediated by human agency
*problem with methodological holism
e.g. globalization as result of capitalism and market thinking
critical realism
- reality consists of observable and unobservable elements (knowable through their effects) = same as scientific realism
- is critical: sees opportunity to change the world
- rejects that there is a reality separate from our perception or observation of it (perception is a function of the human mind -> we can only get knowledge of the external world through critical reflection on perception: we need to look into the way we interpret + become aware )= breaks with positivism and scientific realism
structure-agency debate
- ontological: do agents or structures come first?
- methodological: should explanations of social phenomena be expressed in terms of individuals and relations between them: or can they also invoke social phenomena
interpretivism
- social world an natural world are fundamentally different: it is subjectively created
- hermeneutic method: rather than seeking to explain/predict by means of laws, the goal is to achieve an understanding of behaviour through interpreting the meanings, beliefs and ideas that give people reasons for acting (as these form behaviour)
- social world doesn’t exist independent of our knowledge of it -> we can’t explain/understand using objective causal laws
- rejects empirical scientific methods: it’s merely brute data (Taylor): looks at behaviour that has a clear physical endstate, not at the meaning of political behaviour for the actor themselves
- emphasizes understanding the meaning that social behaviour has for actors
- see individuals as unique
hermeneutics
hermeneutic method: rather than seeking to explain/predict by means of laws, the goal is to achieve an understanding of behaviour through interpreting the meanings, beliefs and ideas that give people reasons for acting (as these form behaviour)
- hermeneutics = theories and methods used to interpret texts of all kinds (any object that can be treated as a text (i.e. interpretable). e.g. human beings)
Taylor: any field of study can be the object of hermeneutics if it: contains a field of objects that is a text or text-analogue + is in some way unclear
(brute data)
- Taylor
data whose validity cannot be questioned y offering another interpretation or reading, data whose credibility cannot be founded or undermined by further reasoning
e.g. voting results: people that raise their hands vote
brute data captures subjective meanings, but not non-subjective meanings such as:
- intersubjective meanings: meanings that do not exist only in the minds of agents, but are rooted in and constitutive of social relations and practices (e.g. paying taxes and voting)
- common meanings: involve recognition or consciousness of shared beliefs, aspirations, goals, values, and common reference point for public life of a society
Taylor: we need to study non-subjective meanings to comprehend political issues + for comparative politics (otherwise study of own categories)
political participation positivism vs interpretivism
- positivism sees political participation as objective, and often as voting
- interpretivism argues it is subjective and not necessarily (just) voting
interpretivism + positivism as two grand traditions
- exagerrated?
is exagerrated: don’t differ e.g in methodological conventions:
- clear differentiation of premises and conclusions
- acknowledgement that sampling strategies matter
- recognition that some standards of validation must be established for the sources of evidence used
= differentiation of causes from correlations
etc.
internal vs external explanation and evidence
- external = often positivist research
correlations or deductions on the basis of ascribed reasons
(evidence based on empirical evidence) - internal = often interpretivist research
concerned with the world of meanings inhabited by the actor and with detaild interpretive work on specific cultures
(based on interpretive evidence)
example/case - the analysis of ethnic conflict: a positivist/RC, interpretivist/constructivist and critical realist approach
ethnic conflict Yugoslavia 1990s -> collapse of the country
research seeks to find an alternative to the ‘ancient hatred’ explanation, as this seemed wrong: they lived together peacefully for 60 years before a rapid polarization
positivist / Rational Choice = strategic self-interested calculation
- James Fearon: ethnic conflict because SU collapse lead to a commitment problem (lack of powerful third party/state) that can guarantee agreements between the two communities (minority feared their rights would not be protected)
- this follows the hypothetico-deductive method: set of initial determining conditions (no third party + group anticipates that its ability to make or witdraw from agreements will decline + fighting is preferable for this group over the worst scenario that could arise due to the decline) +key mechanisms/general laws (change in relative military power, relative size of ethnic minority, costs for fighting, possibility to establish institutions that protect minorities) (are hypotheses that make ethnic war more or less likely)
- Fearson = generizable over other cases + shows there is a fit between deductions of theory and observed behavioural outcomes
interpretivist / constructivism (social constructed + identity not fixed) = looks at cognitive features (e.g. norms, intersubjective understanding)
- Somer: public discourse forms identity + influences perceptions of ethnic identity. change in dominant picture (ethnic entrepreneurs) -> change in individual behaviour -> change dominant picture = cascade process that is hard to stop
- Somer: public discourse promoted by the state discouraged people from openly expressing their ethnic prejudices (preference falsification: motivating people to publicly falsify their private believe) -> concealed the private importance of the divisive image + there was upward ethnic preference falsification (exaggeration of public support for the divisive picture)
- evidence: survey research + public expression of the divisive picture (public discourse was more intolerant and divisive than private attitudes were)
critical realist = more focus on structure (agents and structure are interconnected)
- VP Gagnon: violent conflict along ethnic cleavages is provoked by elites to create a political context where ethnicity is the only politically relevant identity + such strategies are responses by ruling elites to shifts in the structure of domestic and economic + by constructing individual interest in terms of the threat to the group, endangered elites can fend off domestic challengers who seek to mobilize the population against the status quo, and can better position themselves to deal with future challenges
- structures that provided these conditions for elites: secondary economies (poor functioning planned economy) + constitutional reforms 1974 (Republicanizarion) => corruption