tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post6074966437608093722..comments2024-03-23T04:01:39.348-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: Recent thinking about scientific explanationDan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-48635499047018556682012-01-13T06:06:43.051-05:002012-01-13T06:06:43.051-05:00Stegmüller?Stegmüller?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-10121433147352466422012-01-11T20:44:07.611-05:002012-01-11T20:44:07.611-05:00I have found your posts on causality and explanati...I have found your posts on causality and explanation VERY USEFUL in understanding this terrain, and as guides to some of the literature. The technical articles by philosophers of science can be difficult for many of us to follow, and your posts are very helpful. It doesn't hurt that I find your approach to social science explanation very congenial. Keep it up.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-46314032706362549672012-01-11T06:39:36.678-05:002012-01-11T06:39:36.678-05:00I have to disagree with hydroxide.
Popper (in the...I have to disagree with hydroxide.<br /><br />Popper (in the popular image of him, anyway) was mainly concerned with ideas of predictive power. To him a theory that had not yet been falsified was tentatively accepted. Popper was relatively quiet on the precise methods by which a theory could be said to 'explain' something.<br /><br />Kuhn, likewise, was not really interested in methods of explanation themselves, but in the idea that a new explanatory framework (theory) can't be understood in terms of the concepts used by the old, and moreover explains different things. <br /><br />It seems that Faye is coming close to a discourse-based view of explanation, with his talk of "speech acts". <br /><br />In this regard Feyerabend probably deserves a mention more than does Kuhn or Popper, with his argument that what mattered most was the consensus among scientists, not the content of the explanation.<br /><br />I enjoyed my undergrad philosophy of science paper, nigh on thirty years ago, but I was profoundly dissatisfied with Hempel's theory of explanation. It's good to see that progress is being made.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11939046017258198038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-41419905143590715962012-01-10T13:12:52.757-05:002012-01-10T13:12:52.757-05:00I have to agree with Max West that the article suf...I have to agree with Max West that the article suffers from on the one hand stating that a lot has happened over the course of the 20the century, but people such as Kuhn and Popper being sorely missing from the article. This is all the more jarring since the particularism that seems to speak out of the closing sentences seems to suggest that people are moving away from their ideas of fundamental principles common to all disciplines. This is a dangerous path to tread, since at its end, everyone simply makes up for himself what a credible explanation is. That there are differences in how solidly an explanation can be based is notwithstanding - but one should be self-aware on how stable the ground is one is treading on rather than declaring quicksand solid because there is nothing better to tread on. And in the end, the answers that people want in the various disciplines are not that different - they can largely be reduced to answering "Why?" and "How?", the rest being simple parameters by the observation one would like an explanation for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-939834245341219792012-01-10T13:05:35.839-05:002012-01-10T13:05:35.839-05:00Mr Violet,
The inductive part just refers to the ...Mr Violet,<br /><br />The inductive part just refers to the fact that the argument is probabilistic rather than deductive. Therefore the conslusion doesn't follow from the premises but is simply made probable to a given degree.<br /><br />Max,<br /><br />I don't think of Kuhn as offering a theory of explanation, but rather a theory of how research and theory formation proceed. Do you disagree?Dan Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-47421240772337359202012-01-10T12:59:18.571-05:002012-01-10T12:59:18.571-05:00oh, discovered this blog by Mark Thoma.
Interestin...oh, discovered this blog by Mark Thoma.<br />Interesting post.<br /><br />Unfortunately during my life, about epistemology I was able to read only Karl Popper's works...<br />and now I have neither enough money nor enough time left for reading all the books you mentioned. So I am sorry not been up to debate in fully fledged way.<br />But I am curious anyway, in particular about the IS model, why they reintroduced induction? Wasn't its refusal one of the most important achievements?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14377623855540455028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-23875138783331476622012-01-09T22:18:46.243-05:002012-01-09T22:18:46.243-05:00The answer remains Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of S...The answer remains Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Your article is incomplete without the inclusion of his work. It remains seminal and still entirely valid.Max Westhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17556686705293542885noreply@blogger.com