Search

While no one denies that science depends on epistemic values, many philosophers of science have wrestled with the appropriate role of non-epistemic values, such as social, ethical, and political values. Recently, philosophers of science have overwhelmingly accepted that non-epistemic values should play a legitimate role in science. The recent philosophical debate has shifted from the value-free ideal in science to questions about how science should incorporate non-epistemic values. This article engages with such questions through an exploration of the environmental sciences. These sciences are a mosaic of diverse fields characterized by interdisciplinarity, problem-orientation, policy-directedness, and ubiquitous non-epistemic values. This article addresses a frequently voiced concern about many environmental science practices: that they ‘crowd out’ or displace significant non-epistemic values by either (1) entailing some non-epistemic values, rather than others, or by (2) obscuring discussion of non-epistemic values altogether. With three detailed case studies – monetizing nature, nature-society dualism, and ecosystem health – we show that the alleged problem of crowding out emerges from active debates within the environmental sciences. In each case, critics charge that the scientific practice in question displaces non-epistemic values in at least one of the two senses distinguished above. We show that crowding out is neither necessary nor always harmful when it occurs. However, we do see these putative objections to the application of environmental science as teaching valuable lessons about what matters for successful environmental science, all things considered. Given the significant role that many environmental scientists see for non-epistemic values in their fields, we argue that these cases motivate lessons about the importance of value-flexibility (that practices can accommodate a plurality of non-epistemic values), transparency about value-based decisions that inform practice, and environmental pragmatism.

The leitmotif of Mario Bunge’s work was that the philosophy of science should be informed by a comprehensive scientific philosophy, and vice versa; with both firmly rooted in realism and materialism. Now Bunge left such a big oeuvre, comprising more than 70 books and hundreds of articles, that it is impossible to review it in its entirety. In addition to biographical remarks, this obituary will therefore restrict itself to some select issues of his philosophy: his scientific metaphysics, his philosophy of physics, his concept of mechanismic explanation, his philosophy of social science and technology, and his approach to the demarcation problem. The final section will explore why Bunge, despite the extent and depth of his work, has not achieved a more prominent status in the philosophical community.

A dialectical conception of justification helps conciliationists about peer disagreement establish the symmetry considerations on which their account is premised. On this conception, appeals to personal or hidden forms of evidence fail to provide a symmetry breaker that would allow one to dismiss a conflicting peer opinion. Furthermore, the act of citing the same evidence repetitively tends to illegitimately beg the question against the peer, no matter how accurate one’s own overall assessment of this evidence. However, the dialectical conception of justification does not automatically vindicate conciliationism. In many of the most interesting cases of peer disagreement there are vast bodies of dialectically sharable evidence that can ultimately provide enough non-question-begging epistemic resources to settle the dispute, even if appealing to those resources violates the independence requirement—a further premise of conciliationism. Absent modifications to the independence requirement, it would therefore be premature to embrace conciliationism.

This paper seeks to show ways in which analytic eclecticism can be strengthened to encourage hybrid theorizing capable of yielding more practically useful principles for foreign policy decision-makers. The paper also seeks to show that some of the advantages of analytic eclecticism are overstated, notably the ability to sidestep difficult questions in the philosophy of social science. Nevertheless, with a proper deepening of their discussion of pragmatism, the core of the practical consequences of analytic eclecticism can be advanced with greater force and with a strengthened methodological rationale.

A political epistemology that enables us to determine if political actors are likely to know what they need to know must be rooted in an ontology of the actors and of the human objects of their kno...

The article responds to Richard Lauer’s (2019) “Is Social Ontology Prior to Social Scientific Methodology?” The article concurs that “social ontology matters” for the conduct of research and theory in social science. It argues, however, that neither of the interpretations of the status of social ontology offered by Lauer is satisfactory (either apriori philosophical realism or pragmatist anti-realism). The article argues for a naturalized, fallibilist, and realist interpretation of the claims of social ontology and presents the field of social ontology as the most abstract edge of social-science theorizing, subject to broad empirical constraints. The approach taken is anti-foundationalist in both epistemology and metaphysics. Ontological theorizing is part of the extended scientific enterprise of understanding the social world. Claims about the nature of the social world are not different in kind from more specific sociological claims about social class or individual rationality, to be justified ultimately by the coherence and explanatory success of the theories they help to create. At the same time, it is justified to treat the claims of social ontology as provisionally true, which supports a realist interpretation of the findings of social ontology.

Generalization from a case study is a perennial issue in the methodology of the social sciences. The case study is one of the most important research designs in many social scientific fields, but no shared understanding exists of the epistemic import of case studies. This article suggests that the idea of mechanism-based theorizing provides a fruitful basis for understanding how case studies contribute to a general understanding of social phenomena. This approach is illustrated with a reconstruction of Espeland and Sauder's case study of the effects of rankings on US legal education. On the basis of the reconstruction, it is argued that, at least with respect to sociology, the idea of mechanism-based theorizing captures many of the generalizable elements of case studies.

Due to its systemic approach, structural realism (or neorealism) can be subsumed under methodological holism, which takes social phenomena to be wholes that cannot be reduced to their parts. The wholes posited by structural realism are the state and the international structure. Recent developments in the philosophy of social science suggest that methodological holism ought to be limited to causal explanation and complemented by ontological individualism, which requires an account of how social wholes derive from individuals. Structural realism lacks such an account because it takes the state as an empirical given, mistaking for a fact what is really a concept in need of deductive derivation from individuals. To bring the theory methodologically up to date, this essay undertakes such a derivation of the state from individuals, proceeding in the deductive manner of political theory. It thus provides structural realism with a methodologically valid ontology, which, in turn, enables the theory to better defend itself against liberal and constructivist critics who reduce the state to a transient phenomenon.

Modern epistomology has been dominated by an empiricist theory of knowledge that assumes a direct individualistic relationship between the knowing subject and the object of knowledge. Truth is held to be universal, and non-individualistic social and cultural factors are considered sources of distortion of true knowledge. Since the late 1950s, this view has been challenged by a cognitive relativism asserting that what is true is socially conditioned. This volume examines the far-reaching implications of this development for the social sciences. Recently, cognitive relativism has become a key issue of debate in anthropology, philosophy, and sociology. In anthropology this is illustrated by a growing awareness of the similarity of all systems of knowledge. In philosophy it is exemplified by the realization that traditional monolithic and absolutist concepts of truth have increasingly lost any power to make sense and to convince. In sociology it is visible in a renewal of interest in a general sociology of knowledge. Yet, in spite of this convergence of interests, practitioners of these three disciplines have on the whole shown no inclination to reach a consensus on the terms of reference that could facilitate an interdisciplinary approach. "Cognitive Relativism and Social Science "aims to do just this. It is a working assumption of this volume that, as far as the subject of cognitive relativism is concerned, anthropologists, philosophers, and sociologists should join forces rather than try to deal with the challenges of cognitive relativism within strictly imposed boundaries that normally separate academic disciplines. Only when they work together will it be possible to treat the problems posed by cognitive relativism in an adequate way. This volume provides the results of attempts to communicate on cognitve relativism across disciplinary boundaries. This is must reading in the philosophy of social science and in social research theory.

Concepts of decision, choice, decision-maker, and decision-making are common practical tools in both social science and natural science, on which scientific knowledge, policy implications, and moral recommendations are based. In this article I address three questions. First, I look into how present-day social scientists and natural scientists use decision/choice concepts. What are they used for? Second, scientists may differ in the application of decision/choice to X, and they may explicitly disagree about the applicability of decision/choice to X. Where exactly do these disagreements lie? Third, I ask how scientists should use decision/choice concepts. What are they correctly and incorrectly used for? I argue that scientists must responsibly attend to a methodological demand: you have to have a principled, non-ad hoc, well-argued-for way of telling where decision/choice applicability ends. Thus, I aim to minimize the risk of conceptual stretching and foster responsible conceptual practices in a large body of scientific work.

This essay draws on Antonio Gramsci’s theoretical and philosophical insights to provide an alternative approach to mainstream Latino politics research that also introduces students to Gramsci. It c...

Understanding Institutions offers a theory that is able to unify the two dominant approaches in the scientific and philosophical literature on institutions. Moreover, using the ‘rules-in-equilibrium’ theory, it tackles several ancient puzzles in the philosophy of social science.

This paper takes recent sociological debate about “transdisciplinarity” (Carroll 2012; Puddephatt and McLaughlin 2015; Mišina 2015) as a springboard for elaborating on the sociological relevance of meta-theoretical engagement, particularly with critical realism. Sociologists need to more forcefully acknowledge the importance of engaging with metatheory if they are to think more productively and creatively about how the philosophical assumptions that have shaped the production of theories, research design, research practice, and the organisation of our field facilitate and delimit the production of insights about the multifaceted nature of sociological objects and practice. As meta-theorising promotes the neglected procedure of conceptualisation (as opposed to operationalisation) and because it is transdisciplinary (promoting the shedding of disciplinary boundary maintenance while remaining rigorous and methodical), it should be routinely engaged by social scientists to yield conceptual synthesis and fuller, more adequate forms of explanation of their particular objects of investigation.

The category of anarchy is conventionally associated with the emergence of an autonomous discipline of International Relations (IR). Recently, Donnelly has argued that anarchy has never been central to IR (hierarchy is more weighty). His criticism targets not just concepts of anarchy but theories of anarchy and thereby expresses an anti-theory ethos tacitly accepted in the discipline. As a form of conceptual atomism, this ethos is hostile to structuralist and normative theories. This article aims to reinstate theoretical holism against conceptual atomism and to defend the enduring relevance of theories of international anarchy for IR. This is done by revisiting two classic, structuralist accounts of international anarchy articulated in Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics (scientific structuralism) and Hedley Bull’s Anarchical Society (normative structuralism). It will be shown that both represent coherent theoretical ‘wholes’ which reveal a more complex relationship between anarchy and hierarchy than supposed by critics and which recognise the important connection between the structure of international anarchy (whose key players are states) and the value of freedom. The conclusion examines the prospects of normative theories of international anarchy and ‘anarchical’ freedom in a globalising world where state agency is being challenged.

I try to return the focus of the philosophy of history to the nature of understanding, with a particular emphasis on Louis Mink's project of exploring how historical understanding compares to the understanding we find in the natural sciences. On the whole, I come to a conclusion that Mink almost certainly would not have liked: that the understanding offered by history has a very similar epistemic profile to the understanding offered by the sciences, a similarity that stems from the fact that both are concerned with grasping how the objects of their study are structured, or how the various elements of the things they study depend upon and relate to one another. At the same time, however, I claim that historical inquiry naturally puts us in a position to acquire further epistemic goods, including the old-fashioned epistemic good of wisdom, which is plausibly constituted by knowledge of how to live well. This is something the natural sciences cannot offer, and it is part of the reason why history is such an important form of inquiry.

Must a good general theory of law incorporate what is good for persons in general? This question has been at the center of methodological debates in general jurisprudence for decades. Answering “no,” Julie Dickson’s book Evaluation and Legal Theory offered both a clear and concise conspectus of positivist methodology, as well as a response to the longstanding objection that such an approach has to evaluate the data it studies rather than simply describe facts about legal systems. She agreed that legal positivism must evaluate. At the same time, she argued, it is possible to offer an evaluative theory of the nature of law that identifies law’s essential features, takes the views of its participants seriously, and prescinds from moral judgment. Twenty years on, the debate on this question persists and, despite increasing insight and sophistication, some wonder whether we have reached a dead end. To understand this dispute, and general jurisprudence’s methodological cul-de-sac, we need to broaden the range of questions and tools we bring to those arguments. To this end, this Review offers a mixture of the old and the new--demonstrating the usefulness of its approach by exploring the promise and limits of Dickson's work. In terms of the old, it argues that moralized approaches to general jurisprudence, especially the classical natural law tradition of legal theorizing, can better deliver on positivism's promise to offer theories of law that are both general and take seriously the point of view of participants. In terms of the new, it seeks to ground this approach in a broader philosophy of social science that avoids both reductive naturalism and relativistic particularity in its explanations. Law is intertwined with morality, but it is also a social fact: a practice and institution. Any general theory of jurisprudence, like any general theory of human practices and institutions, must reckon with the relationship between law's moral life and its factual existence. This Review begins the work of developing and rendering explicit such a social theory for a jurisprudence that takes both dimensions seriously.

Should the norms of honor cultures be classified as a variety of morality? In this paper, we address this question by considering various empirical bases on which norms can be taxonomically organised. This question is of interest both as an exercise in philosophy of social science, and for its potential implications in meta-ethical debates. Using recent data from anthropology and evolutionary game theory, we argue that the most productive classification emphasizes the strategic role that moral norms play in generating assurance and stabilizing cooperation. Because honor norms have a similar functional role, this account entails honor norms are indeed a variety of moral norm. We also propose an explanation of why honor norms occur in a relatively unified, phenotypically distinctive cluster, thereby explaining why it is tempting to regard them as taxonomically distinct.

Sartre’s intention in the Critique of Dialectical Reason is to establish the heuristic value of the dialectical method when applied to the social sciences. Toward this end, he furnishes an account of how, on the basis of natural needs, rational choices, burgeoning social ensembles, natural and social contingencies and unintended consequences, human beings make their history. I shall argue that his dialectical method, especially when modified, opens up interesting possibilities for clarifying the two most important and enduring meta-issues in the philosophy of social science: (1) whether social phenomena should be explained in terms of the beliefs, desires and actions of individuals or the rules and practices of social institutions (“Methodological Individualism” or “Methodological Holism”) and (2) whether social phenomena should be explained in terms of causes, as in the natural sciences, or in terms of what they mean in their social contexts, as in hermeneutics and other interpretive approaches (...

This article evaluates the idea of the modularity of mind and domain specificity. This concept has penetrated the behavioral disciplines, and in the case of some of these—for example, the cognitive study of religion—has even formed their foundation. Although the theoretical debate relating to the idea of modularity is ongoing, this debate has not been reflected in the use of modularity in behavioral research. The idea of domain specificity or modularity of mind is not without its controversies, and there is no consensus regarding its acceptance. Many neuroscientists, as well as several evolutionary psychologists and philosophers, have raised a number of objections that cannot remain overlooked. I will show the areas in which the idea is problematic, what attempts have been made to preserve it, and how social scientific research can move beyond post-Fodorian modularity without losing any valuable insights.

This article addresses Michael Burawoy’s call for a public sociology. While it takes a critical view of Burawoy’s proposition, it accepts the basic idea of conceptualizing sociology as a discipline inherently engaged with the public. To this end, it draws on the philosophy of Hans-Georg Gadamer formulated in his Truth and Method. While Burawoy understands public sociology as a distinct type of sociological work complementary to traditional professional sociology, using Gadamer’s philosophy I attempt to avoid this division and to conceptualize sociology on the basis of the intersection between professional and public sociology. I understand sociology not as a research field formulating theories that describe society, but as a distinct interpretative tradition that participates in contemporary discussions seeking answers to the social-related questions posed by the public.

The philosophy of Richard Rorty provides a useful justification for accepting epistemological diversity in sociology. In his view, intradisciplinary debates about what constitutes sociological knowledge are irresolvable because, at root, they are cultural disputes. But Rorty’s philosophy offers more than an elaborate justification for the status quo. He also provides a compelling rationale for sociologists to write passionately. Beyond simply improving our prose, passionate language may imbue sociological research with moral relevance, at least in Rorty’s terms.

This is a book that is needed, especially by doctoral students and early career researchers. Its motto could be ‘the philosophy of social science is not optional’. Nor should it be inserted once th...

Grand theorizing and empirical (quantitative or qualitative) research are often separately conducted. In this paper, the separation in question is traced from scholars' differential observance of the yardsticks of the philosophical, scientific and literary/historical methods respectively. The philosophical method relies on deduction and develops into grand theorizing by adding assumptions stemming from life experience, leading to conceptual fluidity. Contrarily, the scientific method relies on experiments, which produce more determinable outcomes as asserted by Popper's (1959) falsificationism. The literary/historical method shares this commitment to determinacy by providing in-depth understanding of space time-specific events/meanings. The roles of grand theorizing and empirical research are reviewed: grand theorizing provides categorical schemes, organizes assumptions into perspectives, uncovers hidden assumptions and generates arguments, while empirical research facilitates contextualized comparisons and generates theory. The other side of the story is then presented with the Central Dogma of Social Science, which limits the scope and determinacy of any social understanding with an inverse relationship. The central dogma constrains the possibility of social knowledge and, through institutionalized practice such as the acceptance of journal articles or staff promotion, academic development. For grand theorizing to 'survive', it needs to identify and reembrace its yardstick, which could then lead to confident communication with results generated by other methods.

Critical realism is a philosophy of social science that analyses and aims to remedy current problems and gaps. Basic tenets of positivist and quantitative research tend to contradict those of qualitative and interpretive research, and critical realism proposes ways to resolve the contradictions. Vital themes in childhood research that are reviewed in this article include a comparison with feminist research, critical realism, being and thought, transitive and intransitive, theory/practice consistency, agency and structure, closed and open systems, micro and macro in the global/local nexus, four planar social being, facts and values, and transformative change through the four-stage MELD dialectic. Critical realism aims to understand the world in order to be able move from coercion towards creative liberating power.

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to present a general scientific methodology on tenets from Mario Bunge’s philosophy.Design/methodology/approach– Systemic thinking and conceptual generalisation.Findings– A general scientific methodology based on tenets from Mario Bunge’s philosophy of social science.Research limitations/implications– Using quantitative methods to conduct a research to test Asplunds motivation theory and North’s action theory.Practical implications– How to conduct a research based on a systemic perspective.Social implications– An advantage of linking a systemic perspective to organisational psychology studies is that it may result in new ways of looking at old problems and bring new perspectives to the methods used. One explanation may be the fact that while researchers within various organisational psychology subject fields are largely specialists, the systemic perspective is oriented towards general scientific methodology.Originality/value– The authors have not seen anybody who have tried to apply systemic thinking as a general methodology for research.

Using David Easton's theory of the political system, this paper shows exactly how to measure the goodness of any political system. The theory of the political system has five specific parts -- inputs, conversion (to), outputs, feedback loop, political environment. Using this as the standard, by comparing it to the empirical facts constituting a particular political system, the goodness of that actual political system can be measured with mathematical precision.

This chapter argues that the concept of retroduction, as distinct from induction and deduction, can be developed to frame the methodological implications of anti-essentialist approaches to social science research. Although prominent in debates over how best to understand the production of theories in the natural sciences, the concept of retroduction is also relevant to a set of debates in the philosophy of social science. In particular, we argue that it can support a post-positivist picture of the study of social and political phenomena. Drawing on Reichenbach’s distinction between ‘context of discovery’ and ‘context of justification’, the chapter develops the idea of a ‘retroductive cycle’ as a meta-methodological logic within which to understand the research process in poststructuralist discourse analysis and critical empirical research more generally.

Critical realism emerged from the philosophical writings of Roy Bhaskar, and has evolved into a philosophy of social science research using the model of “dialectical critical realism” (DCR) which begins with the researcher’s assumptions that the structures being researched have a real, ontological grounding which is independent of the researcher. This approach has proved fruitful in British and European social science research, but has had less influence in North America. We outline DCR’s four level model for understanding society and its changing social structures through “the pulse of freedom”. DCR has been used by Marxists, Muslims, Catholics and secular scholars who engage fruitfully in morphogenic dialogues leading to a critical realist understanding of society and social research, which transcends positivist and social constructionist models. Examples of DCR’s application in the fields of childhood research, child abuse, education, and research on organisations are outlined to illustrate the working of this new research paradigm. We are enthusiastic in our advocacy of DCR as a model of qualitative research, and for constructing models of positive social change, and are particularly impressed by the substantive and theoretical expositions of DCR by Priscilla Anderson, Matthew Wilkinson and Margaret Archer, whose work we document and review.

Election prediction by means of opinion polling is a rare empirical success story for social science, but one not previously considered by philosophers. I examine the details of a prominent case, namely the 2012 US presidential election, and draw two lessons of more general interest:\ud 1) Methodology over metaphysics. Traditional metaphysical criteria were not a useful guide to whether successful prediction would be possible; instead, the crucial thing was selecting an effective methodology.\ud 2) Which methodology? Success required sophisticated use of case-specific evidence from opinion polling. The pursuit of explanations via general theory or causal mechanisms, by contrast, turned out to be precisely the wrong path – contrary to much recent philosophy of social science.

Stein Rokkan (1921–1979) left behind him an unfinished, ambitious macro-historical research project aiming to explain mobilization sequences, democratic resilience, and party systems in 16 Western European countries. This article explicates the comparative methodology behind this project with reference to a philosophy of social science framework. The main features of the methodology are a series of intermediate, substantive, methodological elements in between formal theory (paradigms) and empirical observations. Each element is presented in detail: lists of variables, regional grid, typological-topological maps, and comparative case reconstructions. Problems due to under-specification of variables and ambiguities in Rokkan’s ideas about parsimonious systematizations are discussed, and two possible ways of revising the methodology are sketched. Among these, the contextualist option seems the most promising one.

This paper is a reply to the discussions of Ruth Groff, Dave Elder-Vass, Daniel Little, and Petri Ylikoski of Tuukka Kaidesoja (2013): Naturalizing Critical Realist Social Ontology (London: Routledge).