Philosophy of Science and Epistemological Discussions on the Nature of Social Science

Epistemology

Philosophy of Science and Epistemological Discussions on the nature of social science.

(Weber, Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Schutz, Winch, Foucault, Merton, Bloor, Barnes, Latour)

a list of some of the main thinkers in epistemology and philosophy of science in social sciences:

  • Auguste Comte: A French philosopher and sociologist who is considered to be the founder of positivism. He argued that social science should be based on the same principles as the natural sciences.

  • Émile Durkheim: A French sociologist who developed the concept of social facts. He argued that social facts are external to individuals and have a coercive influence on their behavior.

  • Max Weber: A German sociologist who developed the concept of verstehen. He argued that social scientists need to understand the subjective meanings that people attach to their actions.

  • Ernst Mach: An Austrian physicist and philosopher who developed the principle of economy of thought, which argues that scientific theories should be as simple as possible.

  • Wilhelm Dilthey: A German philosopher and sociologist who developed the distinction between nomothetic (causal) and idiographic (interpretive) approaches to social science.

  • Clifford Geertz: An American anthropologist who developed the concept of thick description, which argues that social phenomena should be understood in their cultural context.

  • Thomas Kuhn: An American philosopher of science who developed the concept of paradigm shifts, which argues that scientific revolutions occur when new paradigms emerge.

  • Paul Feyerabend: An Austrian-born American philosopher of science who argued against the idea of a unified methodology for science.

  • Bruno Latour: A French sociologist of science who developed the concept of actor-network theory, which argues that social and scientific objects are not simply passive entities, but are actively involved in shaping scientific knowledge.

  • Pierre Bourdieu: A French sociologist who developed the concept of habitus, which argues that social structures are internalized by individuals in the form of dispositions or habits.

  • Anthony Giddens: A British sociologist who developed the concept of structuration theory, which argues that social structures and human agency are mutually constitutive.

Philosophy of science is the branch of philosophy that investigates the nature of science, the methods of scientific inquiry, and the relationship between science and reality. In the context of social sciences, Philosophy of science addresses the unique challenges of studying human behavior, society, and culture.

Key questions addressed by Philosophy of science in social sciences include:

  1. What is the nature of social facts? Social facts are aspects of society that exist independently of individuals, such as norms, values, and institutions. How can we study and understand these phenomena scientifically?

  2. How can we reconcile the subjective nature of human experience with the objective goals of science? Social science often involves understanding the subjective meanings and interpretations of people’s actions and experiences. How can we make sense of these subjective experiences using objective scientific methods?

  3. How can we balance the demand forgeneralizability with the need to understand the unique context of social phenomena? Social science research often aims to make generalizations about human behavior and society. However, social phenomena are also shaped by specific historical, cultural, and geographical contexts. How can we strike a balance between these two important goals?

Main schools of thought in Philosophy of science in social sciences include:

  1. Positivism: Positivists believe that social science can be studied using the same methods as natural sciences. They emphasize the use of quantitative data, statistical analysis, and controlled experiments.

  2. Interpretivism: Interpretivists believe that social science requires a different approach than natural sciences. They emphasize the use of qualitative data, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and they focus on understanding the subjective meanings and interpretations of participants.

  3. Critical theory: Critical theorists argue that social science should be used to critique and challenge existing power structures and social inequalities. They emphasize the importance of social justice and the role of social science in advocating for positive social change.

Current debates and issues in Philosophy of science in social sciences include:

  1. The role of values in social science research: Can social scientists conduct objective research without being influenced by their own values and biases?

  2. The relationship between social science and policy making: Can social science research provide reliable guidance for making policy decisions?

  3. The ethics of social science research: How can social scientists protect the privacy and well-being of their research participants?

The most prominent thoughts in the epistemological discussions on the nature of social science:

  1. The relationship between social science and natural science: Is social science fundamentally different from natural science, or can it be studied using the same scientific methods?

  2. The nature of social facts: Do social facts exist independently of individuals, or are they simply the product of human interpretation?

  3. The role of language and meaning in social science: How do language and meaning shape our understanding of the social world?

  4. The role of values and subjectivity in social science: Can social scientists avoid bias and subjectivity in their research?

  5. The relationship between social science and policy: Can social science research be used to inform public policy?

Here is a summary of the different perspectives on these issues:

  • Positivists: Positivists believe that social science can be studied using the same methods as natural science. They emphasize the use of quantitative data, statistical analysis, and controlled experiments. They believe that social facts exist independently of individuals, and that social science research can be objective and value-free.

  • Interpretivists: Interpretivists believe that social science requires a different approach than natural sciences. They emphasize the use of qualitative data, such as interviews, observations, and documents. They focus on understanding the subjective meanings and interpretations of participants. They believe that social facts are created through social interaction, and that social science research is always subjective and value-laden.

  • Critical theorists: Critical theorists argue that social science should be used to critique and challenge existing power structures and social inequalities. They emphasize the importance of social justice and the role of social science in advocating for positive social change. They believe that social science should be used to empower marginalized groups and to promote social change.

Max Weber

  • Science as a Vocation 1918
  • The main purpose of science is keeping and  civilization and culture
  • Science does not provide answers to fundamental questions
  • How to live their lives
  • What to value

Indoctrination

  • A role of a teacher – impart knowledge
  • Never preach their personal political views
  • Separates fact from the value in politics
  • The personality of a scientist:
  • Allowing them to be wholly devoted to his work

Science as Impressum

  • Weber shows the inequity of the system 
  • Not the best people are promoted or recognized
  • Great teacher vs great leader
  • Great teachers are forgotten
  • Students are impressed by performance – a great leader has a big impact

Practical Purpose

  • The Past – the only purpose of social sciences 
  • Was creating evaluation judgement about 
  • Economic or politic provisions by state.
  • Science can not teach anyone “what to do”
  • But only what he/she CAN do in certain conditions
  • And also what he/she wants to do

Objectivism

  • The main assumption:
  • Possibility to recognize “objective rules” 
  • It would imply – the prediction of future states of the society in an objective way
  • Vs…. WEBER – emphasises particularity of knowledge

About knowledge

  • Knowledge about human reality by ephemeral human mind (Geist)
  • → only a part of the reality
  •  – often – we consider our knowledge as complete reality
  • Our knowledge is always particular and selective
  • We cannot recognize all the coincidences in 
  • A static or dynamic way

Recognition vs evaluation

  • Analysis of empirical reality
    • Vs
  • Demonstration practical opinion
  • “values” – would create “polytheism of values”
  • A battle defined by John Stuart Mill 
  • Values are relative – always is the relationship to conditions – they aren’t determined by objects

Prediction of future

  • It is a mutual thing for Social and Natural Sc
  • Example: smashing a stone 
  • Impossible to predict in which directions all the crumbles will fall
  • Unpredictable – the same as the behaviour of any social group

Cognitive vs evaluative

  • The theory is not a set of instructions – no recipes
  • Not to blend empirical and theoretical fields – different approaches
  •  Natural sciences can answer what to do and how to manage our lives technically

Beliefs vs science

  • Positive expert sciences – has no impact to the beliefs and opinions – should be non-evaluative
  • Human beings need to believe – some “gods” are excluded and some are served – More salient than science 

Cognition of reality

Rationality, causality, methodological individualism, value neutrality, understanding and “ideal types”

Rational behaviour

  • Instrumentally rational 
    • Ideal instruments for attaining goals set by the mind
  • Valuative  rational
    • Ideal instruments for fulfilling an actor’s values or beliefs
  • Affective rational
    • Instruments for fulfilling goals on an emotional base
  • Traditionally rational
    • Sustaining traditions which lost their purpose

What is important?

  • Connection with our values and interests
  • Causality – the probability of change
  • A previous occurrence + or – probability 
  • Metodological individualism:
    • The causal process is not set by a group but personal motivation of individual actors of the group

Ideal types

a defined type of concept in social theory

Example: 

ideal types of authority

  • traditional
  • rational
  • charismatic

Karl Popper

  • Falsifiability is the first criterion
    • Science vs non-science
  • The task of the scientific discovery
  • To give a logical analysis of the processes (hypothesis and testing)
  • Inductive logic – does not always work
    • We can not always make a generalization
  • Induction – must come from theory (not single empirical issues)

Scientific discovery

  • Inductive knowledge – confusion of psycho problems with epistemological
  • Psychologism – ideas derived from creative intuition – irrational element
  • Psychology of knowledge vs the logic of knowledge
  • Empirical facts vs the logic of relations

Falsifiability

  • Theories are not empirically verifiable
  • Falsiability should be taken as a criterion for demarcation
  • The game of science is without end
  • A hypothesis proposed and tested – 
  • Not be allowed to drop out without “good reason”

 

Thomas Kuhn

  • The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
  • Normal science
    • Research – attempt to force nature into conceptual boxes
  • Shift – subverts existing tradition
  • Paradigms = attract people from competing modes of scientific activity + open-ended research

Paradigms

  • Create avenues of inquiry
  • Formulate questions
  • Select methods with which examine questions
  • Define areas of relevance
  • Establish or create meaning

Paradigm changes

  • 1) result of discovery – the novelty of facts
  • 2) result of invention – the novelty of theory
  • professionalization leads to the restriction of scientists’ vision

Emergence of theories

  • The theory is not able to solve the problems stated by this theory
  • => establishing new rules
    • possible cause by the changes in the social climate
    • no surprise- the change takes a long time to be recognized

Three results of the crisis

  • Back to normal
    • Science proves ability to handle the crisis
  • The problem resists and is labelled
    • Resulting in failure to possess the necessary tools
  • A new candidate for the paradigm emerges
    • Paradigm wars

Progress

The old paradigm is declined 

1) Theory is rejected when outcomes predicted

2) No theories can solve all the puzzles 

3) one failure is not enough to reject the theory

4) imperfection of the data theory fit 

Normal science

Paul Feyrabend

  • Against method 1975
  • Science in a free society 1978
  • Anarchistic view of science
  • Rejection of the existence of a universal method
  • Sociology of scientific knowledge

Science – anarchy

  • Anarchism is more human – add more to progress than order
  • The only principle which doesn’t restrain is:
    • Anything goes
  • Possible to use hypotheses which are in contradiction with proven theories or empirical results

New or old ideas

  • The condition requiring a new hypothesis to agree with an old theory – goes nowhere
  • The quantity of theories is profitable for science – uniformity weakens the critical force
  • Every idea can enrich our knowledge – no idea is too obsolete or absurd

Theory vs data

  • No theory ever agrees with all the facts – some of them were aquired in the time of the former theory
  • Neither science nor rationality is not universally superior to other types of knowledge
  • Science is neither a single tradition nor the best tradition – except for people who have become accustomed to its presence, benefits and disadvantages. 

 

Michel Foucault

  • Power and knowledge are co-constituting
  • Dyadic concept
  • Words and things 1966
  • Archaeology of knowledge 1969
  • Modern vs classic epistémé

From Structure to Time

  • Typology of knowledge
  • Not possible to derive the new one from the previous one
  • “discourse”
  • Movement from archaeology to genealogy

Robert K Merton

  • Sociology is not developed as natural sciences
  • No option to create a “big theory”
  • The alternative is to derive the “middle range theory” from the empirical data

Middle range theory

Functions:

  • Generalization, systemization, explanation
  • Generate presumptions for following “big theory”
  • Conceptual support for empirical research

 

Bruno Latour

  • Actor-network-theory
  • The doubted inevitability of a border between 
    • nature and society
  • A concept of “hybrid actors”
  • Material objects can acquire “human qualities”

Non-human actors

Each actor is shaped by the “heterogeneous network” which consists of other actors