class 2

Question 1

ontology
+ epistemology
+ methodology

Answer 1

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

Question 2

positivism

Answer 2

= 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)

Question 2

Classical positivism

• basic tenets (4)

Answer 2

1. *naturalism**: social science = natural sciences
2. empiricism: knowledge of the world is limited to what can be observed and measured (sensory experience)
3. 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)
4. science is objective and value-free

Question 3

Logical positivism

• basic tenets

Answer 3

1. 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.

Question 4

retroduction

Answer 4

observation<->theory

often observation -> theory -> deduction

Question 5

induction and deduction and retroduction

Answer 5

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

Question 6

critique of Logical Positivism

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Deductive-Nomological Model (the laws)

Answer 7

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

Question 8

Hypothetico-Deductive Model (the testing of the laws)

Answer 8

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

Question 9

scientific realism (challenge 1 to positivism)

• ## similarities to positivism (2)

Answer 9

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

Question 10

3 examples from the textbook

• Charles Tilly

Answer 10

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)

Question 11

3 examples from the textbook

• individualism vs holism

Answer 11

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)

Question 12

3 examples from the book

• Coleman’s Bathtub

Answer 12

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)