1. Introduction to philosophy of (social) science
Objectivity
● Objectivity presupposes a distinction between objective and subjective claims /
points of view.
○ Prerequisite: clear construction of concepts
○ wat is een claim: een beroep doen dat iets waar is
○ wat is een assumptie: veronderstelling / medicijnen testen op een steekproef
en dan zeggen het werkt voor iedereen. je wordt iedere ochtend wakker na
het slapen
○ verschil fallacy drogreden en een valide argument: fundament waar je je
argument op baseert, is er genoeg grond
● Absence of vagueness and ambiguity
○ Shift from everyday language to scientific language
○ Ideal: establishes clarity / avoids equivocality
● Concepts need to be precise, specified, measurable, and free from personal bias.
○ Ideal: personal convictions and values should play no role
What can be concluded from the ‘sloppy science’ case?
● Gives reasons to look critically at scientific research.
● First thought:
○ Eliminate sloppy science
○ Enforce the ideals of objective science.
■ Make publication of negative results more accepted
■ Require more replication studies
■ Improve quantitative / qualitative methods
■ Promote ethical research standards
● Q: If that succeeds, does this mean science is "objective" after all?
Discussion questions:
● Does the claim ‘science is not objective’ entail the claim ‘science is no more than an
opinion’?
● If it is true that ‘science is fallible’ is it still possible to speak about ‘reliable scientific
results’?
From natural science to social science:
● Since the 16th / 17th century: successful natural sciences (Galileo / Newton)
● Since the 19th century: society has become the object of research
○ How to study the society?
● Q: How/can we make use of the methods of the natural sciences…
○ Is society characterized by causal relations, explanations and theories?
, ○ Is society (a complex entity) reducible to the individuals (simple entities) that
live in it?
○ Are ‘subjects’ (researchers) standing apart from the ‘objects of research’?
Smith on the insider vs. outsider perspective in social research:
● Schutz: The I/O problem is ‘the most persistent methodological issue in the study of
religion’.
● Theorem 1: “To be a good scientist, and to be able to describe the deepest levels of
religious experiences, you have to be a member of the religious community under
scrutiny.”
○ Opposition to the insider perspective:
■ ‘biased’ descriptions
■ ‘apologetic’ (defensive, protective) descriptions
● Theorem 2: “It is obvious that a scholar of the study of religion is allowed to be a
member of a religious community or to have all kinds of beliefs, but this membership
and these beliefs are irrelevant to the results of her scientific research.”
○ Opposition to the outsider perspective:
■ too much emphasis on explanations
■ false reduction of insider perspective
● Best known ‘solutions’:
○ ‘Neutral stance’ (methodological agnosticism)
○ ‘Reflexive stance’ (critical towards one’s own assumptions)
○ Schütz → take the perspective of ‘the stranger
Review:
● ‘Sloppy’ science is a threat to the common-sense ideal of science.
● ‘Sloppy’ science shows: reflecting on science is necessary.
● Reflection on science makes clear that the common-sense concept of science is
problematic.
● Scientific research is a social activity and therefore not perfect.
● Q: What are the most important questions / problems for social science research?
Philosophy of social science
● Is research ‘independent’?
○ How do deal with power and interests, views and ideals?
● Is a ‘detached view’ necessary to do scientific research? Is there one right way to do
research?
○ What is the role / importance of situatedness and diversity?
● Do group commitments and intentions exist or are they exclusively related to
individuals?
○ Can and should social research be reductive?
, ● How to describe and present research?
○ What is the proper mode of representation and communication?
● In which way should science be practiced?
○ What is the ethics of social science research?
Central themes of philosophy of social science:
● Naturalism: the problem of understanding and explanation in the social sciences.
○ is it possible to use concepts such as ‘causality’ and ‘explanation’ when we
speak about society?
○ Sociale werkelijkheid komt overeen met de natuurwetenschappelijke
werkelijkheid; causaliteit. Zo functioneren mensen ook. Minder begrijpen
maar meer verklaren.
● Reductionism: the problem of the relation between holism and individualism in the
social sciences.
○ is it possible to reduce social institutes to their individual members?
○ Alles is op klein niveau uit te leggen, reduceren; van het ene niveau naar een
lager niveau. Sociale wetenschap: individuen met bepaalde belangen.
Bijvoorbeeld een democratie: zijn dat allemaal individuen bij elkaar, of nog
iets extra’s. Manier van samenleven, eigen dynamiek is meer een holistisch
beeld.
● Normativity: the function of norms, values and rules in the social sciences.
○ are ‘subjects’ (researchers) and ‘objects of research’ living in different
worlds?
○ Eigen mening onderzoeker komt naar voren. Normen en waarden, zijn er
aannames van de onderzoeker, hoe worden zaken gedefinieerd. Onderzoek
binnen de sociale wetenschap, bijvoorbeeld over democratie maar als je in
een democratie leeft kan je anders denken dan iemand die in een dictatuur
leeft. Een term heeft definities met implicaties.
Philosophy of social science: three themes and a table
, Analyzing the four quadrants:
● Systems: Marx
○ The system determines the actions of individuals
○ It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the
contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.
● Agents: Mill
○ The actions of individuals constitute the system
○ Social science is grounded in the laws of nature of individual man
● Practices: Wittgenstein
○ Social reality is determined by the ‘rules of the game’
○ Games absorb players
○ The social role is decisive
● Actors: Elster
○ Players construct the game of social life
○ The actor takes on the role
○ Understanding social institutions by looking at how they are shaped by
meaningful actions of individuals
How does this relate to Schütz’s perspective of the stranger?
● This perspective is the bridge between the quadrants
2. “The standard image, Popper, and values”
The empirical-analytical method
● Empirical: scientific research based on systematic observation (observation)
Objectivity
● Objectivity presupposes a distinction between objective and subjective claims /
points of view.
○ Prerequisite: clear construction of concepts
○ wat is een claim: een beroep doen dat iets waar is
○ wat is een assumptie: veronderstelling / medicijnen testen op een steekproef
en dan zeggen het werkt voor iedereen. je wordt iedere ochtend wakker na
het slapen
○ verschil fallacy drogreden en een valide argument: fundament waar je je
argument op baseert, is er genoeg grond
● Absence of vagueness and ambiguity
○ Shift from everyday language to scientific language
○ Ideal: establishes clarity / avoids equivocality
● Concepts need to be precise, specified, measurable, and free from personal bias.
○ Ideal: personal convictions and values should play no role
What can be concluded from the ‘sloppy science’ case?
● Gives reasons to look critically at scientific research.
● First thought:
○ Eliminate sloppy science
○ Enforce the ideals of objective science.
■ Make publication of negative results more accepted
■ Require more replication studies
■ Improve quantitative / qualitative methods
■ Promote ethical research standards
● Q: If that succeeds, does this mean science is "objective" after all?
Discussion questions:
● Does the claim ‘science is not objective’ entail the claim ‘science is no more than an
opinion’?
● If it is true that ‘science is fallible’ is it still possible to speak about ‘reliable scientific
results’?
From natural science to social science:
● Since the 16th / 17th century: successful natural sciences (Galileo / Newton)
● Since the 19th century: society has become the object of research
○ How to study the society?
● Q: How/can we make use of the methods of the natural sciences…
○ Is society characterized by causal relations, explanations and theories?
, ○ Is society (a complex entity) reducible to the individuals (simple entities) that
live in it?
○ Are ‘subjects’ (researchers) standing apart from the ‘objects of research’?
Smith on the insider vs. outsider perspective in social research:
● Schutz: The I/O problem is ‘the most persistent methodological issue in the study of
religion’.
● Theorem 1: “To be a good scientist, and to be able to describe the deepest levels of
religious experiences, you have to be a member of the religious community under
scrutiny.”
○ Opposition to the insider perspective:
■ ‘biased’ descriptions
■ ‘apologetic’ (defensive, protective) descriptions
● Theorem 2: “It is obvious that a scholar of the study of religion is allowed to be a
member of a religious community or to have all kinds of beliefs, but this membership
and these beliefs are irrelevant to the results of her scientific research.”
○ Opposition to the outsider perspective:
■ too much emphasis on explanations
■ false reduction of insider perspective
● Best known ‘solutions’:
○ ‘Neutral stance’ (methodological agnosticism)
○ ‘Reflexive stance’ (critical towards one’s own assumptions)
○ Schütz → take the perspective of ‘the stranger
Review:
● ‘Sloppy’ science is a threat to the common-sense ideal of science.
● ‘Sloppy’ science shows: reflecting on science is necessary.
● Reflection on science makes clear that the common-sense concept of science is
problematic.
● Scientific research is a social activity and therefore not perfect.
● Q: What are the most important questions / problems for social science research?
Philosophy of social science
● Is research ‘independent’?
○ How do deal with power and interests, views and ideals?
● Is a ‘detached view’ necessary to do scientific research? Is there one right way to do
research?
○ What is the role / importance of situatedness and diversity?
● Do group commitments and intentions exist or are they exclusively related to
individuals?
○ Can and should social research be reductive?
, ● How to describe and present research?
○ What is the proper mode of representation and communication?
● In which way should science be practiced?
○ What is the ethics of social science research?
Central themes of philosophy of social science:
● Naturalism: the problem of understanding and explanation in the social sciences.
○ is it possible to use concepts such as ‘causality’ and ‘explanation’ when we
speak about society?
○ Sociale werkelijkheid komt overeen met de natuurwetenschappelijke
werkelijkheid; causaliteit. Zo functioneren mensen ook. Minder begrijpen
maar meer verklaren.
● Reductionism: the problem of the relation between holism and individualism in the
social sciences.
○ is it possible to reduce social institutes to their individual members?
○ Alles is op klein niveau uit te leggen, reduceren; van het ene niveau naar een
lager niveau. Sociale wetenschap: individuen met bepaalde belangen.
Bijvoorbeeld een democratie: zijn dat allemaal individuen bij elkaar, of nog
iets extra’s. Manier van samenleven, eigen dynamiek is meer een holistisch
beeld.
● Normativity: the function of norms, values and rules in the social sciences.
○ are ‘subjects’ (researchers) and ‘objects of research’ living in different
worlds?
○ Eigen mening onderzoeker komt naar voren. Normen en waarden, zijn er
aannames van de onderzoeker, hoe worden zaken gedefinieerd. Onderzoek
binnen de sociale wetenschap, bijvoorbeeld over democratie maar als je in
een democratie leeft kan je anders denken dan iemand die in een dictatuur
leeft. Een term heeft definities met implicaties.
Philosophy of social science: three themes and a table
, Analyzing the four quadrants:
● Systems: Marx
○ The system determines the actions of individuals
○ It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the
contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.
● Agents: Mill
○ The actions of individuals constitute the system
○ Social science is grounded in the laws of nature of individual man
● Practices: Wittgenstein
○ Social reality is determined by the ‘rules of the game’
○ Games absorb players
○ The social role is decisive
● Actors: Elster
○ Players construct the game of social life
○ The actor takes on the role
○ Understanding social institutions by looking at how they are shaped by
meaningful actions of individuals
How does this relate to Schütz’s perspective of the stranger?
● This perspective is the bridge between the quadrants
2. “The standard image, Popper, and values”
The empirical-analytical method
● Empirical: scientific research based on systematic observation (observation)
