tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post8532101938037902649..comments2024-03-23T04:01:39.348-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: What makes a sociological theory compelling?Dan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-82090684255770216382010-01-10T21:48:39.857-05:002010-01-10T21:48:39.857-05:00Hi Daniel, all apologies for the delay in my reply...Hi Daniel, all apologies for the delay in my reply.<br /><br />To answer your question, yes, I think that committing oneself to logical rigour rules out some putative standards of explanation. Which does not mean Foucault and Quine would not be able to understand each other, and disagree. If they were to do so, they would probably attack each other's ontological foundations, which would be reasonable (and interesting to watch!).Fr.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00949205875058796064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-20128332063102173062009-12-22T18:17:39.504-05:002009-12-22T18:17:39.504-05:00Francois,
Thanks for your comment. You're ri...Francois,<br /><br />Thanks for your comment. You're right, of course, to notice that "best explanation" is only a beginning; I may prefer parsimony and you may prefer ethnographic richness in an explanation. The point you make about "scope" is also entirely correct. So there are many dimensions in which one explanation might be rated as better than another. I think that works to further enhance the point that sociological theories and explanations are underdetermined by the evidence; there are multiple rational reconstructions we can offer for a "good explanation," and there will be similarly different rankings of theories based on the different explanatory desiderata.<br /><br />Do you think that the requirement of logical rigor rules out some putative standards of explanation? Or is it possible that a Foucault and a Quine would be equally committed to a principle of non-contradiction, but still disagree quite a bit about what a good explanation of fascism ought to include?Dan Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-32794286866661538192009-12-21T21:12:27.282-05:002009-12-21T21:12:27.282-05:00I believe your last lines to be the closest match ...I believe your last lines to be the closest match I have ever read to what I personally think about the social sciences as a science. <br /><br />I would add that "inference to the <i>best</i> explanation" leaves some ground for competing theories due to different definitions of what makes a better explanation.<br /><br />Some of my friends and colleagues seem to think, for instance, that "best" means "seems to explain phenomena over long periods of time or large spatial areas". Which is why they admire Foucault or Elias so much.<br /><br />My own position is less romantic: I believe the best explanation is the one that maintains the highest level of logic, for which there is no absolute due to, schematically, the limits of human language (Wittgenstein, Quine, and so on).<br /><br />Perhaps these positions reflect the two opposite styles identified by Mannheim in his essays on the sociology of science.Fr.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00949205875058796064noreply@blogger.com