Philosophy of Physical Science in Relation to Social Science
-
Upload
william-molnar -
Category
Documents
-
view
782 -
download
8
Transcript of Philosophy of Physical Science in Relation to Social Science
1William Molnar
1. Pick one of the following concepts derived from philosophy of the physical
sciences and discuss how the relevant assumptions/mechanisms would play
out differently in the philosophy of social science.
-Causation
-Necessity
-Essentialism
-Deductivism
I chose deductivism as the concept that I would like to discuss. Before
discussing Sayer’s take on deductivism, a definition should be stated here. In
simple terms, deductivism states that since induction is logically invalid,
science should dispense with it in favor of deduction. Deductivism is theories
that are deductively tested against data. In deductivism, the theories are not
built from the bottom-up. Deductive theories are catching the world; to explain,
rationalize and master it. There is a demarcation criterion that lies within
deductivism and that is falsifability. Hypothetical and theoretical situations
have to fulfill certain conditions to establish deductive testing is using
applicable procedures. These conditions set boundaries between hypotheses
and others. Hypotheses can be subjected to scientific testing but to be
considered a scientific hypothesis, it does not need to be subjected to these
testings. In inductivism as a contrast to deductivism, there is a rule that has
control within the process and this rule of the hypothesis is not constrained so
long as the hypothesis is falsifiable.
2William Molnar
Logical deduction is the main tool for testing a scientific hypothesis. Specific sentences
can be deduced from this general hypothesis and can be compared to empirical data.
Science invented falsifiable hypotheses and science does not attempt to confirm these
hypotheses, just falsify them. In Karl Popper’s book Conjectures and Refutations
published in 1963, he states that science tries to be unbiased and tests proposals as
rigorously as possible. Karl Popper was a leading advocate of deductivism which was
developed in the 20th century. Many social scientists took a strong hold on his proposal.
P. Hoyningen-Huene (2007) states that the problem with deductivism is in its lack of
principle. He states that if deductivism does not stop testing of hypotheses, it will never
move forward to application. There has been many logical limitations in the area of
positivism and empiricism that has helped the development of theories of knowledge.
the two most influent alternatives Karl Popper’s review was in the area of inductivism
and the formation of hypothetico-deductivism. Popper knew that a group of observations
could never give augment the statement that ‘a follows b’. Nevertheless , there are time
that we observe a following b, but there is no proof that in the next study it will happen
again. It is possible that the following observation could differ. Popper finds a dilema
with this induction. Popper was also not satisfied that a lot of theories provided many
observation and provided many observations and ascribing to these observations as
proof of the claims of the theory in question. Popper states there is no scientific theory
that would be convincing and established. To avoid these situations, Popper To
circumvent these problems, Popper planned that scientific research should rely on
deduction and falsification. This is exactly what Popper’s hypothetico-deductive method
3William Molnar
does. Rejecting the theory or holding on to it for a certain amount of time is the goal of
the research which is accomplished by putting the theory’s claims to a test. Instead of
seeking for proof that proves a claim of the theory to be true, falsification is looked for
through hypothetico-deductivism. By doing this, the researcher will be able to decide
which claims are not ture and move closer to the truth.
In an article by Anthony Ferrucci entitled “Inductivism, Hypothetico-Deductivism,
Falsificationism and Kuhnian Reconciliation” he states that “Hypothetico-deductivism
rejects the context of discovery so crucial to the inductivist” (p 35). Those that believe in
inductivism place their senses and observation to a higher standard and gains facts
from perception. The hypthetico-deductivism contradicts this notion and states that not
all facts are observable. A person who believes in hypothetical-deductivism will state
that many things scientists develop begin by accident or through a preexisting theory,
not by observation. Ferrucci states that it is of importance that the nature of scientific
discovery is discussed along with how it would be interpreted by hypothetico-
deductivism. For example, there exists what is known as “the Raven’s Paradox”. Stating
“all ravens are black” is a hypothetico-deductive statement and is established when a
black raven is discovered. The problem lies in its equivalent- “all non-black things are
non-ravens”; the issue with this paradox is there lies the potential that there exist
objects that are non-black and non-raven.
In Sayer’s reading, he states that “the doctrine that science progresses not by verifying
hypotheses, which is held to be impossible, but by falsifying them” (p 169). Sayer states
that Popper, a logicist philosopher in the social sciences, treats theory and the laws of
4William Molnar
science as empirical regularities. Sayer makes it clear that “Popper acknowledges that
observation is theory-laden, but weakens the point by treating theory as a logical
ordering framework “(p 169). Science is deductive, not inductive. Popper feels that
deduction is a form of inference. Popper coined the term hypothetico-deductive as a
procedure where scientists can proceed with hypotheses in which testable statements
and opinions can be deduced. Affirming a deductive argument DOES NOT prove a
premise to be correct. In inductive arguments, this does not exist. Sayer uses an
example from the natural sciences to make his point although Popper believes that
social and natural science consist of similar methods of explanation. In Sayer’s
example, he states the premise that all metals conduct electricity and that copper is a
metal. The conclusion would then be that copper conducts electricity. In his second
premise, Sayer states that all metals conduct electricity and aluminum is a metal,
therefore, aluminum conducts electricity. These are deductive arguments but the
second example is falsified. Since aluminum is a metal and the statement that all metals
conduct electricity has to be false. Because one metal conducts electricity does not
mean that all metals will conduct electricity. Sayer states that no compliance is sufficient
to prove claims that were made in the foundation of such arguments, and only one
atypical instance is necessary to cause a false claim. Popper felt that if the vulnerability
of sequences of events is contingent to the problem of induction, then what is falsified
today can be corroborated tomorrow. From the results of Sayer’s experiment, repeating
the test would not create more falsifications. Sayer indicates that it is in presupposition
that falsified relations are necessary and a long lasting theoretical significance can
result (p 171).
5William Molnar
Popper’s view of science has been advocated as an ideal form of explanation and
became known as the ‘deductive-nomological’ (D-N). In D-N, the event that is to be
explained is deduced from universal law. Popper explains that form can be used to
answer the question about why does copper conduct electricity? The first part of his
equation is the Explanans which states that all metal conduct electricity (Law) and
copper is a metal (the initial condition). The explanandum is that copper conducts
electricity. Some believe that this still doesn’t explain the explanation. The model only
gives some ground for allowing the explanandum to occur or just allows a path to derive
the explanandum statement from other statements. Sayer comments on Poppers
explanations and states that “we cannot afford to neglect the question of the content of
explanations and the need for a causal explanation to cite the mechanism responsible
for the event “(p 172). There is a reason why copper conducts electricity and other
metals can’t. It is due to the free ions in its structure. This is an acceptable explanation. .
Now the equation can be stated more clearly by saying that all metals with free ions
conduct electricity, copper is a metal with free ions, therefore, copper conducts
electricity. “The deductive-nomological model of explanation fails and bears witness to
the poverty of logicism and its confusion on the grounds-particularly pertaining to the
logical relations among statements-for expecting things to occur, with the real structures
and mechanisms responsible for their occurrence” (p 173). Sayer makes mention of the
economist R. G. Lipsey who wrote a textbook that stated that the hypothetico-deductive
approach allowing for falsifications would be adopted. But if the relationships were
treated as regularities and vulnerable to falsification, then there would be no theory left.
Later on, Lipsey changed the introduction by suggesting the impossible testing of
6William Molnar
statistical laws and discovering the measurement of inductive support that can be
noticed. This is something that Popper would not have approved.
Goarke in 1992 and Gerritsen in 1994 objected to deductivism. The first objection is that
“deductivism does not allow for differing degrees of evidential support between
premises and conclusions”. The second objection is that “deductivism either fails to
provide an account of fallacies or provides an incorrect account of fallacies” and the
third objection is that “deductivism does not provide a defensible interpretive strategy for
describing the structure of natural language arguments” (p 3). Godden states that the
one standard that deductivism upholds is validity. In order to have a valid argument a
false conclusion cannot be possible. Guessing that the conclusion is false is
inconsistent with assumingl all premises are true.
2. What are the challenges of "borrowing" theories and research methods from the
physical and biological sciences? What are the benefits?
One of the challenges is that in deductivism, the emphasis lies in the fact that the
theories come before the observations. Deductivists view inductism as invalid because
scientific theories cannot be proven from observations, but they can be disproved. The
theories can be tested through experiments, but the results will only bring about
approximations. Most scientist support the inductivist view which is the process of
observing and collecting facts, using these facts to form a hypothesis and then creating
further experiments, which if fitted in, would approve a hypothesis so that it can be
stated as theory. Science is always moving forward. No theory exists that can be
improved upon.
7William Molnar
Another challenge is the fact the many theories accommodate observations. These
theories in turn, can interpret the observations as proof of the claim of the theory.
Scientific theory could not be decisively established causing issues. This is where the
benefits come in. Popper proposed that scientific research should rely on deduction and
falsification instead of induction and verification. The hypothetico-deductive method of
Popper does just that. “Theories are tested by deriving hypotheses from them that can
then be tested in practice, by experiment or observation”. The research goal is to place
the assertion of the theory through tests and decide either to reject it or keep it. Instead
of seeking for proof that would support a claim, hypothetico-deductivism looks for
falsification. By doing this, the researcher can discover through the process of
elimination of claims, which claims are not true and can then move closer to the truth.
Popper believes that borrowing theories and research would help knowledge grow,
slowly but in a continuous fashion. Borrowing from the physical science to the social
science helps the researcher examine societal activities amongst a collection of
individual behavior. Rigorous methods are conducted through the social sciences.
Empirical means are used by social scientist as well as natural scientists to understand
relationships in and about society.
Reference
Gorski, P.S. (2004). The poverty of deductivism: A consgtructive realist model of sociological explanation. Sociological methodology, 34 (1), 1-33.
Gerritsen,S. (1994). A defense of deductivism in reconstructing unexpressed premises. In van Emeren, F.H., & Grootendorst, R. (eds.), Studies in pragma-dialectics. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
8William Molnar
Popper, K. (1957). The poverty of historicism. New York: Harper.
Popper, K. (1965). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper.
Popper, K. (1983). Realism and the aim of science. London: Hutchinson.
Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach. London & New York: Routledge.
Willig, C. (2005) Introducing qualitative research in psychology adventures in theory and method. Retrieved from www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/openup/chapters/033520535
www.cupr.org/V13/Ferrucci-V13.pdf
www.davidgodden.ca/docs-conf
www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/openup/chapters/9780335221158.pdf
www.loyno.edu/~folse/HypDeduc5.html
www.loyno.edu/~folse/HypDeduc.html
www.studymore.org.uk/science.htm
www.philosophyprofessor.com/philopies/deductivism.php
www.faqs.org/theories/Cu-De/Deductivism.html
http://creationwiki.org/Science