Forms of explanation in social science
6 December, 2012 at 21:05 | Posted in Theory of Science & Methodology | 2 Comments
For all scholars seriously interested in questions on what makes up a good scientific explanation, Alan Garfinkel‘s Forms of Explanation (Yale University Press 1990) is a must read. A lot of recent work done within different realist schools in theory of science – e.g. Roy Bhaskar, Andrew Collier, Richard W Miller and Tony Lawson – issue not so little from questions and problems posed by Garfinkel. Especially his advocacy of contrast explanations and critique of methodological individualism and other forms of reductionism are still unsurpassed.
Given this it is almost scandalous that this modern classic is not reprinted. I was lucky to get a copy from an antiquarian, but of course this is a book that should have been reprinted long ago!
2 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
Wad on Lars E O Svensson om penningpo… Dwayne Woods on Wicksell on market fundamental… Dwayne Woods on Wicksell on market fundamental… Dave Holden on Flawed macroeconomic mode… Dave Holden on Flawed macroeconomic mode… Jan Milch on Further suggestions for Krugma… Jan Milch on Further suggestions for Krugma… Jerry Brown on Further suggestions for Krugma… Lars P Syll on Macroeconomics without as… Jan Milch on Macroeconomics without as… Reading List
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
What Popper called “the situational analysis” is the dialectical process of “objective knowledge” where the “scientific knowledge” or “scientific interpretation” is bothly synthetic and analytic: the concept or the ideal-type is an invention and also an ideology.
Precisely , the three world theory whose Popper make use in his opus “objective knowledge ” is related to Schutz article “On multiple realities”(1945) where Schutz outlined his “three world theory” from the basis of William James’s theory.
The terms used by Popper are exactly the same as those used by Schutz in his article.
For example Schutz offered us a very theory of “hysteresis” wich could be related to what Ulrich Beck called “zombie concept”: the hysteresis of the concept wich is remain central in the Schutz article “Don Quichotte and the problem of reality”.
“Zombie concept” refers to Marx concept of spectre or Hayek concept of “mirage” (of social justice).
Popper employs hegelian terms because Schutz offered to him and to Hayek the paramount systematic hegelian theory.
The phenomenology of the social world (1932) describes the process of constitution or the construction of reality: the constitution process is the very hegelian dialectic.
I claim that Popper was thorouhly nurtured by Schutz through Kauffman who were bothly close to Schutz and Popper.
The situational analysis(logic) is a “reconstruction process” that is to say a dialectical intersubjective process where the observer endorsed the actor’s standpoint: from the master slave dialectic applied to epistemology emerges interpretation as an objective knowledge bothly synthetic and analytic.
Popper terms this process “reconstruction” because Schutz called it reconstruction in his article “Common sense and scientific interpretation” where scientific interpretation emerges from a “reconstruction” process”.
Popper himself acknowledged the central role wich “intersubjectibity” takes up in the emergence of objectivity.
Therefore Objectivity expresses a dominant standpoint: concepts and theory
This is why the renewed interest for Marx’s theory of standpoint in feminist standpoint theory could be traced back from Alfred Schutz’s sociology.
Alfred Schutz influenced also Hayek whom could be called “Marx bourgeois” , Hayek whole theory is a class struggle theory from the capitalist standpoint.(this is why Marx first task was epistemological in order to criticize the “bourgeois political economy”: that is to say political economy from the bougeois standpoint)
Even more, we should reconsider Weber’s theory of capitalism where “ethos” (sittlichkeit, Hegel) is the ideology of capitalism and protestantism ethics is “myth” or an invention”.
Indoubtedly,Popper was deeply influenced by Schutz: construction process and intersubjective process are bothly a dialectical one .
Popper proposed thanks to Schutz a Marxian theory of knowledge(from a different standpoint) : ideology (interpretation) and utopia (conjectures and refutations), Popper quoted the marxian eleventh thesis of Feuerbach in his “objective knowledge”.
The idea of conjectures and refutations was borrowed from Schutz “relevant knowledge” theory.
Comment by nadir— 7 December, 2012 #
Hello ,
Sorry for this awful written english
Im a french doctoral student,
Im working on neoliberal capitalism theory of Hayek and how his theory was deeply influenced by Alfred Schutz’s sociology.
The rebirth or the revival of neoliberalism in the mid 1970′s must be closely related to the reception of Alfred Schutz’s sociology by the interactionnism and the sociology of deviance (Goffman).
Therefore, the question of power and discipline is closely related to neoliberal capitalism(this is also why Foucault work focused in the 1970′s on topics as disciplinary process neoliberalism and so forth).
Alfred Schutz’s sociology could be termed in the following way : an hegelian or a marxian sociology, merely because the “construction”,”the constitution”(dialectical process) of reality or the phenomenology of the social world might be designed by “the dialectical reality”.
Therefore Hayek may appears to us as a “Marx Bourgeois” : a theory of class struggle from the capitalists standpoint (Marx began his critical analysis of capitalism by epistemology where he denounced the “bourgeois ” standpoint political economy).
Hence intersubjective relations describes the Hegel’s master slave dialectic: the concept of market bothly synthetic(invention) and analytic (ideology) is a term from the dominant standpoint to design a “class struggle” (coordinated means “forced”).
Objective knowledge emerges from an intersubjective dialectical process called “reconstruction”(Schutz’s master slave dialectic applied to epistemology) where the observer endorses the actor’s standpoint: the pure concept or the pure theory are bothly “synthetic” (“an invention” or “a discovery” in Popper’s terms to design the speculative moment of science: the logic of scientific discovery is the dialectical process of science) and “analytic” that is to say without relation with empirical reality (ideology).
For instance in the case of Max Weber’s spirit of capitalism book this is quite obvious that Weber endorsed the “capitalist” “or entrepreneur point of view” where the spirit or the capitalist’s habitus to accumulate capital becomes the “protestant ethos” of capitalism that is to say the protestantism as the ideology of capitalism: we are conscious that capitalist does indeed accumulate capital but we are forced to consider this in terms of religious ascetism.
Once more, im attempting to make clear how useful is alfred schutz’s sociology to describe by wich process a concept or a pure theory emerges as an invention or an ideology: this is the case for “the invention of identity” or “the ideology of identity” as well as for “the pure concept of “market” in economics or “the pure concept or theory of law” in jurisprudence.
Schutz carry Weber’s statements to their ultimate conclusion by using the constitution process or dialectic process .
What Hayek used to call competition as discovery process may be understood as competition as a dialectical process (master slave dialectic).
Pure concepts are bothly speculative and analytic resulting from a masterslave dialectic between the observer or the scientist and the actor : the observer endorsing the actors standpoint(there is no empathy as Weber’s said but ruling relations).
Then, objective knowledge emerges as an invention without relations with reality: synthetic and analytic.
Im demonstrating that “pure concepts” or pure theories as “identity” are inventions or “ideologies” bothly synthetic and analytic.
Im insisting strongly again on the prominent role of the austrian sociologist Alfred Schutz in the shape of Hayek and Popper’s epistemology.
Yet, the question to be raised now is the place that Schutz took up in the Popper’s epistemology.
My recent analysis of “scientism and social sciences: the counter revolution of the social sciences”(1952)” confirms the schutzian ground of Hayeks work.
Hayek designs his method for social sciences as “synthetic” (or compositive”) or “speculative”.
He distinguishes the “constitutive” ideas of phenomena and the ideas as concepts or theories of social sciences.
The “phenomenology of the social world” must be translated in the following terms : “the constitution ” or “the dialectic of reality” : that is to say the dialectical materialism.(This is why my main assertion is to give a marxian or hegelian feature to Popper’s epistemology: Popper recognize him self the marxian character by using the eleventh thesis on Feuerbach about interpretation and transformation , Popper wrote a short paper about dialectic untitled: what is dialectic).
“Constitutive” (or motivational ideas) are “typical ” schutzian words for “subjective meaning” and concepts are what schutz called objective meaning of the observer (objective knowledge).
Therefore , the explanations of social sciences concepts and theories are “speculatives” (Hayek’s own words): they are the result of dialectic process between the actor and the observer.(it is not about “empathy” but about intersubjective process as “a ruling relations” process between the observer endorsing the actor standpoint: the masterslave dialectic or intersubjective relations).
More over, concepts and theories are the “last moment”, “the unity of the synthetis” or “the speculative moment”, of the dialectic process between the actor and the observer.
This “dialectic process of the science” is called by Popper “the logic of discovery of science” where science concepts or scientific explanations are “the speculative moment of the logic of discovery of science”.
“Discovery” is defining “speculative” moment of science or “objective knowledge” theory and concepts.
Schutz influenced popper in the dialectical feature of his epistemology, this is why
Schutz nurtured Popper in his “objective knowledge theory ” , Schutz as well formulated
” the three world theory” in the famous paper “On multiple realities”(1945).
This thesis of the three world is enounciated by Popper himself in his opus “objective knowledge”.
I would be available after my thesis dissertation.
Merci beaucoup .
Djefaflia Nadir.
Comment by nadir— 7 December, 2012 #