Samenvatting
Philosophy of social science Summary
- Instelling
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU)
Full summary with additional readings and lecture notes Final grade: 9
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 3 van de 17 pagina's
Voorbeeld 3 van de 17 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Gekoppeld boek
Titel boek:
Auteur(s):
- Uitgave:
- ISBN:
- Druk:
Verkoper
VolgenVoorbeeld van de inhoud
Philosophy of Social Science 2023Risjord Book + Articles
- Lawton - De Vries - Dooremalen
- Metcalf - Okasha - Longino
- Smith II - Smith III - Bilgrami
CH 1
What is it
- Normativity concerns the place of values in social scientific inquiry
Can social science be objective? social policy/ethics
- Naturalism relationship between the natural and the social sciences
Follow natural science or unique methods?
- Reductionism can social sciences be reduced to the sciences that make them
Social sciences psychology biology physics?
Democratic peace
- Kant elected government = people govern themselves war bad, people die
don’t go to war unless necessary democracies do not go to war against each
other
- Philosophical questions bring to scientific research to respond to those questions
Azande magic
- All humans have intellectual abilities we simply don’t understand it what is
rationality?
Free rider problem
- Everyone benefits if the system changes someone else can do it
Classic liberal view humans as autonomous choosers seeking best interest
community is only possible when group benefits are also individual why do
people follow norms against self-interest?
Communitarians humans as fundamentally social what force do social
norms have?
General philosophy
- Value theory source and justification of values, rules and norms
- Epistemology theory human knowledge seeks true knowledge
- Metaphysics questions on the fundamental characteristics of the world
Ontology philosophical domain of being what it is to be
Normativity
- Philosophical domain of the influence of norms and values
- The phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as
good, desirable, or permissible, and others as bad, undesirable, or impermissible
questions the role of values and fact in societies and how we conceptualize them
Value freedom ethical and political values influence scientific research
necessary?
Social scientists are influenced by rules, norms and values can we be
value free?
, Naturalism
- Whether and how do social sciences differ from natural sciences naturalism
believes that social sciences should be like natural sciences insider VS outsider
perspective
Anti-naturalists social sciences and natural sciences should be distinct in
method and theory natural world and social world is not comparable
- Epistemological naturalism concerns issues about theory, explanation and
method can be acquired in a similar manner as the natural world
Epistemological anti-naturalism qualitative research (never used) ≠
quantitative research
- Metaphysical naturalists humans are part of the world therefore they must be
understood in the terms of the same causes and mechanisms that animate all
other creatures
Metaphysical anti-naturalism humans and human societies are distinctive in
some deep way cannot be understood in the same way
Descartes considered the human mind of a non-physical substance
Reductionism
- Hierarchy of sciences reduction as a relationship between theories
- Epistemological reductionism theories at one level can be replace by theories at
a lower level
Methodological individualism the requirement that social theories must
explain social events in terms of the choices, beliefs, and attitudes of individual
people epistemologically reductionist thesis often a mix of metaphysical
and epistemological considerations
- Metaphysical reductionism things at one level are nothing but objects at another
minds don’t exist, only brains
Anti-reductionism accepted metaphysical reductionism but do not think that
theories of the social sciences could be replaced by psychology
All reductionists are naturalists metaphysical naturalists
Lawton
- Reality check all is not well with science
Fraud
Questionable research practices
Bias, sloppiness
Failing peer review
Replication crisis
Bad incentives for researchers
Metcalf/Klein – Polarization
, - Klein caused by innated instincts ingroup VS outgroup thinking causes
division
- Metcalf criticizes lack of focus on people’s beliefs and desires all about
unconscious tendencies that supposedly explain polarization
To explain human behavior we shouldn’t exclude agency and reasons people
actively polarize
Insider VS outsider perspective
Smith II (Lec 2)
Logical positivism
- 20th century Vienna group development of a strictly scientific worldview
describe the world as it is in itself
- Creation of an ideal scientific language no speculative philosophy
Strictly empirical
- Analytic VS synthetic statements
Analytic true just on the basis of the meaning of the words all bachelors
are single
Synthetic made true/false based on what the world is actually like needs
further investigation
Empirical sciences are concerned with synthetic statements
- Precise language of science
Gate-keeping statements that are firmly based on empirical observation
belong in the language of science
Verifiability criterion of meaning meaning of synthetic statement is in its
method of verification
- Inductive method from observations to general theories and empirical
regularities/laws let the data speak for itself
- Behaviorism how individuals respond to various stimuli or conditions in ways
that maximize rewards and minimize punishment
Exclusive focus on observable behavior nothing about internal cognition
unobservable and unverifiable
Thinking in terms of prediction and control
Popper (Lec 3)
- Fallibility and tentativeness of human knowledge dogmatic VS critical thinking
Critical thinking learning from mistakes
- Problem of induction reasoning from individual observations to general
conclusions is logically invalid
Induction can never completely support general scientific laws and theories
- Falsification rather than verification set of procedures for scrutinizing existing
knowledge claims
Focus on the refutation rather than the confirmation of the hypothesis
Science is about formulating theories/conjectures in such a way that they
can be falsified by empirical observations
Theories must then be tested rigorously attempted refutations
We accept those theories that have survived testing (so far)
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper margheritatoselli. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €8,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 83662 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen