tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post6828716322159829601..comments2024-03-23T04:01:39.348-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: MicrofoundationalismDan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-16724727918451243222011-07-10T07:26:03.228-04:002011-07-10T07:26:03.228-04:00Mike, I think it depends on what you mean by emerg...Mike, I think it depends on what you mean by emergent. Strong sense: phenomena at level T have their own causal dynamics that do not depend on properties at level L. Weak sense: phenomena at level T have causal dynamics that cannot be mathematically derived from the properties at level L on which they depend. Pragmatic sense: phenomena at level T have their own causal dynamics that do not need to be derived from properties at level L. The microfoundations thesis denies the strong sense of emergent but is consistent with the other two views. Example: weather phenomena are fixed by the temperature, pressure, velocity, humidity of the micro-cells of the atmosphere, but we still can't model weather with precision on this basis because of the complexity of causal interdependency dynamics at the micro level. Microfoundations doesn't require reductionism.Dan Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-46742711958033110672011-07-09T21:21:01.648-04:002011-07-09T21:21:01.648-04:00I don't understand how there can be microfound...I don't understand how there can be microfoundations. As soon as you can get feedback loops, you have all sorts of emergent behaviors.<br /><br />I could accept the idea of microconstraints: the underlying limits of the interacting entities. But that's not nearly as interesting for understanding as the promise of microfoundations.<br /><br />Don't emergent phenomena have to be studied at their own level?Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-42039645515762396502011-06-29T17:45:12.795-04:002011-06-29T17:45:12.795-04:00S- Thanks for your comment. To clarify -- you are ...S- Thanks for your comment. To clarify -- you are right; I misspoke. I did in fact intend to say that I prefer the weak requirement (the second) rather than the strong requirement (the first). I've now corrected the language in the posting.Dan Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-39432117090711781522011-06-29T16:14:52.216-04:002011-06-29T16:14:52.216-04:00Hi Dan, thanks for that. Perhaps i still need a li...Hi Dan, thanks for that. Perhaps i still need a little clarification on why the first requirement ("a full specification of the microfoundations in every case") would be considered weaker than the second ("a sketch of the way that a given social-level process might readily be embodied in individual-level activities"). Maybe it's a language/discipline thing but to me specification > sketch. your help appreciated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-60614463020097487482011-06-29T12:51:57.980-04:002011-06-29T12:51:57.980-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Dan Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-55357760712200899342011-06-29T05:32:29.463-04:002011-06-29T05:32:29.463-04:00Hi Dan, great post, thanks. (minor point - in par...Hi Dan, great post, thanks. (minor point - in paragraph beginning "Much turns, however, on what precisely we mean to require of a satisfactory explanation" - do the 'first' and 'second' cases get referred to the wrong way about in the subsequent passage?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com