WG 1 info Flashcards
Realism vs. anti-realism
Recall = it’s disputed whether correlational studies and survey methodologies provide causal
explanations.
This is because:
- Unlike natural sciences, social sciences aren’t nicely “carved at the joints”.
- Aggression example indicates that theoretical entities can be difficult to study
directly.
- It’s not evident that the “factors”, “latent variables” and “constructs”, represent
anything real.
➔ This is the problem of construct validity.
Dealing with construct validity (realism and anti-realism)
Realism:
- Takes the goal of science to be the discovery of truths, including mechanisms and
entities that are not directly observable.
- So, the realist holds that a valid construct is one that measures what it purports to
measure.
Anti-realism:
- Denies that the goal of science could be the discovery of truths or theoryindependent facts
- So, the anti-realist holds that a valid construct is one that simplifies and systematizes
our past observations and permits accurate predictions of the future
(instrumentalism)
How does the aggression example relate to realism/anti-realism distinction?
Realist:
- An ‘aggressive personality’ is a real feature of social reality. There are personality
types, and one type is an aggressive type.
- Our best social scientific theories can measure the aggressiveness of one’s
personality, hence it is a valid construct.
Anti-realist:
- It doesn’t matter whether the ‘aggressive personality’ construct is real or not.
- The construct ‘aggressive personality’ is useful to the degree that it helps predict or
explain phenomena of interest. In other words, the construct is instrumentally
useful.
Instrumentalism does not require the object of study to be real (real in the sense in which
natural sciences treat objects as real).
Each of the ‘debated constructs’ has scientific value independently of whether or not it is
taken to be a real object. They have instrumental value insofar as they help to
predict/explain phenomena.
- One might say, the instrumentalist is not bothered by metaphysical worries.
Interpretivism In astrophysics and social psychology
Astrophysics:
- Research does not change nature
- Makes it possible to replicate research
- Empirical regularities (laws) are testable and falsifiable
Social psychology:
- Research often changes social reality
- Can make replication of research difficult
- Is it possible to speak about ‘empirical regularities?
Interpretation of social scientific research:
➔ The objects of social science research are subjects (they think for themselves)
➔ What does the subject think about, e.g., ‘aggression’, ‘intelligence’, etc.?
➔ The subjects shape the research depending on how they interpret it.
➔ Social scientists must decide (a) how to present information and (b)interpret the data
/ results.
Weber’s Ideal types
- An ideal type is a methodology for forming constructs in sociological research.
- The concept is formed by abstracting characteristics of the phenomenon of interest
from a variety of observations; but it is not meant to correspond to all ofthe
characteristics of any one case. E.g., aggression / aggressive behaviour - The concept needs to identify the typical feelings, beliefs, and social meanings that
stand behind the behaviour →‘intent to cause harm’ - The goal of constructing, using ideal types is to provide researchers a systematic way
of studying what are ultimately subjective phenomena. - But it’s not just an idealization: it is subject to revision and improvement with new
evidence
Q: How is the everyday’ attitude different from the ‘scientific’ attitude?
Alfred Schütz, there are two levels (to social reality):
1. Common-sense thinking (of the subjects at group level)
2. Social scientific models of motivations, feelings, meanings
For Schütz, these levels must be consistent / brought together.
Postulate of adequacy: social actors must understand the concepts constructed by social
scientists (related to the perspective of the ‘stranger’).
Risjord: this ‘postulate’ is simultaneously too weak and too strong
- Argumentation Theory
You have all be exposed to basic argument forms and fallacies in the tutorial.
- Modus ponens, modus tollens, disjunctive syllogism, hypothetical syllogism
- Appeal to popularity, appeal to authority, ad hominem, argument from ignorance, tu
quoque
In Murphy (excerpt), you covered 4 concepts:
1. Claim = what is being asserted or inferred.
2. Ground = what motivates or entails the assertion/inference.
3. Warrant = the evidence, law, or argument which establishes the ground-claim connection.
4. Backing = additional or underlying support for the warrant.
Modus ponens
If P, then Q. P. Therefore Q.
Als ik honger heb, eet ik een banaan. Ik eet een banaan, dus ik heb honger.
Modus tollens
If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore not P.
Als de lucht blauw is, schijnt de zon. Als de zon niet schijnt, is de lucht niet blauw.
Disjunctive syllogism
A or B. Not A. Therefore B.
Aanwezig of afwezig. Johan is niet aanwezig, dus hij is afwezig.
Hypothetical syllogism
syllogism If P, then Q. If Q, then R. Therefore: if P, then R.
Als ik niet wakker word, dan kan ik niet naar werk. Als ik niet naar werk kan gaan, dan krijg ik niet betaald, DUS als ik niet wakker word krijg ik niet betaald.
Drogredenen: Ad populum: an appeal to commonplace
(1) Everyone knows that P is true
(2) Therefore: P
Algemene kennis, iedereen weet dat p waar is. Iedereen weet dat autorijden slecht voor het milieu is. Dus het is zo.
Drogreden Ad hominem: personal attack
(1) Opponents of P are stupid
(2) Therefore: P
Persoonlijke aanval: Antivaxxers zijn wappies
Drogreden Tu quoque: appeal to hypocrisy
(1) You also accept P
(2) Therefore: P
Je drijft iemand naar een ander standpunt toe (beticht hem of haar van hypocrisie). “Je zegt duurzaam te leve, maar je vliegt jaarlijks. Dus ben je wel zo duurzaam eigenlijk?”
