Φιλοσοφία των κοινωνικών επιστημών

by Alex Rosenberg, Γιώργος Μαραγκός (Translator)

Σε τι αποβλέπουν οι κοινωνικές επιστήμες – ανθρωπολογία, κοινωνιολογία, ψυχολογία, ιστορία, οικονομικά, πολιτική επιστήμη; Να προσφέρουν άραγε γνώση παρόμοια με εκείνη των φυσικών επιστημών; Να αποκαλύψουν κανονικότητες και νόμους για την πρόγνωση και την εξήγηση των κοινωνικών φαινομένων; Ή μήπως αναδεικνύουν εμφανή αλλά και λανθάνοντα νοήματα των πράξεων και συμβάλλουν στην ερμηνευτική κατανόηση των ανθρωπίνων πραγμάτων;
Οι κοινωνικές επιστήμες αντιμετωπίζουν πολλές προκλήσεις. Οι φυσικές επιστήμες –ενισχυμένες με τη δαρβινική θεωρία της εξέλιξης, τις νευροεπιστήμες, την εξελικτική ψυχολογία, τη θεωρία των παιγνίων– διεκδικούν το πρωτείο στη γνώση του ανθρώπου, την ίδια ώρα που ριζοσπαστικές φωνές αμφισβητούν τις κοινωνικές επιστήμες, τις στοχεύσεις και τις μεθόδους τους διότι, αγνοώντας τις γυναίκες και άλλες περιθωριοποιημένες ομάδες, διαιωνίζουν ανελεύθερες –έμφυλες, ταξικές, φυλετικές, εθνοτικές– δομές και πρακτικές.
Ο Alex Rosenberg μας εισάγει με σαφήνεια και γλαφυρότητα στον σύγχρονο προβληματισμό σχετικά με τις κοινωνικές επιστήμες. Εκθέτει τον εννοιολογικό και επιχειρηματολογικό πυρήνα, τα γνωσιολογικά θεμέλια και τις μεταφυσικές παραδοχές που υποβαστάζουν την κριτική θεωρία και τη φεμινιστική επιστημολογία, και μας παρουσιάζει το έργο στοχαστών όπως οι Μαρξ, Ντυρκέμ, Βέμπερ, Φρόυντ, Μπουρντιέ, Φουκώ, Χάμπερμας, Σερλ, Ρωλς, Σεν. Αναδεικνύει προβλήματα σχετικά με την ορθολογικότητα, την τελεολογία, τον λειτουργισμό, την ατομοκρατία, τον ολισμό, την επιστημονική πρόοδο, τις σχέσεις ανάμεσα στους επιστημονικούς κλάδους, την ερευνητική ηθική. Ελέγχει τις αξιώσεις των επιστημών για αντικειμενικότητα και αξιακή «ουδετερότητα». Δείχνει πώς «τεχνικές» παραδοχές ενέχουν ιδεολογικές μεροληψίες και επηρεάζουν κοινωνικές και οικονομικές πολιτικές.
Ο συγγραφέας καταδεικνύει ότι η μεταφυσική, η γνωσιολογία, η ηθική, η φιλοσοφία του νου, η φιλοσοφία της γλώσσας, η κοινωνική και πολιτική φιλοσοφία, η φιλοσοφία των επιστημών, έχουν καθοριστική συνάφεια με το επιστημονικό έργο. Αντιπαραθέτοντας την προεπιστημονική δημώδη ιδέα ότι η δράση είναι προϊόν πίστεων και επιθυμιών προς τις απόπειρες για επιστημονική πραγμάτευση του ανθρώπου, επιτρέπει να δούμε πώς και γιατί το έργο των κοινωνικών επιστημόνων συνδέεται άρρηκτα με το ύπατο ερώτημα: Τι είναι ο άνθρωπος;

Genres: Philosophy, Science, Sociology, Academic, Social Science, Psychology, Nonfiction

504 pages, Paperback

First published September 7, 1988

About the author

Alex Rosenberg's first novel, "The Girl From Krakow," is a thriller that explores how a young woman and her lover navigate the dangerous thirties, the firestorm of war in Europe, and how they make sense of their survival. Alex's second novel, "Autumn in Oxford" is a murder mystery set in Britain in the late 1950s. It takes the reader back to the second world war in the American south and England before D-day, France during the Liberation and New York in the late '40s. It will be published by Lake Union in August.

Before he became a novelist Alex wrote a large number of books about the philosophy of science, especially about economics and biology. These books were mainly addressed to other academics. But in 2011 Alex published a book that explores the answers that science gives to the big questions of philosophy that thinking people ask themselves--questions about the nature of reality, the meaning of life, moral values, free will, the relationship of the mind to the brain, and our human future. That book, "The Atheist's Guide to Reality," was widely reviewed and was quite controversial.

When he's not writing historical novels, Alex Rosenberg is a professor of philosophy at Duke University.

Reviews

[foteini_dl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Το βιβλίο αυτό είναι γενικά μια καλή εισαγωγή στη φιλοσοφία των κοινωνικών επιστημών (απ’ τα οικονομικά μέχρι την ψυχολογία) και καταφέρνει να δέσει με τις θετικές επιστήμες,επισημαίνοντας τις θεμελιώδεις διαφορές τους,αλλά και καταδεικνύοντας ότι πολλοί κοινωνικοί επιστήμονες καταφεύγουν σε μοντέλα των θετικών επιστημών.
Όμως,η δομή των κεφαλαίων δεν ήταν η πλέον κατάλληλη-για μένα,τουλάχιστον.Μέσα στο ίδιο κεφάλαιο,ο Rosenberg παρουσίαζε τις αντικρουόμενες απόψεις πάνω σε διάφορες θεωρίες και συχνά η μία άποψη μπλεκόταν με την αντικρουόμενη και αυτό κάνει την κατανόηση ιδεών,εννοιών κλπ δύσκολη.Ειδικά για κάποιον που δεν έχει μεγάλη επαφή με τις κοινωνικές επιστήμες (όπως εγώ).
Το βιβλίο αυτό,πάντως,υπήρχαν πολλά σημεία που με έκαναν να καταλάβω ότι δεν είναι τόσο για τον μορφωμένο πολίτη,αλλά για τους πιο μυημένους.Αυτό,βέβαια,παρατηρείται σε πολλά βιβλία των ΠΕΚ,που γενικά προσφέρουν βιβλία υψηλού επιπέδου.
Επίσης,με ξένισαν και κάποια τυπογραφικά λάθη (ευτυχώς,λίγα) που είδα στο μεταφρασμένο κείμενο.Ναι,και αλλού έχω συναντήσει,αλλά με πιάνει κάτι αν βλέπω σε επιστημονικά βιβλία τέτοια λάθη.
Όλα αυτά,όμως,δεν αναιρούν ότι είναι ένα ενδιαφέρον βιβλίο και ότι ένα μεγάλο του μέρος μπορεί να διαβαστεί,με λιγότερο ή περισσότερο κόπο,από πολύ κόσμο.

[Mz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Αριστούργημα. https://bookpress.gr/kritikes/idees/1...

[Aravena · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book’s comprehensive breakdown provided me with the opportunity to reflect on what it means to learn social science, a subject that I’m familiar with for most of my life, but rarely think so deeply and philosophically about. Alex Rosenberg started by delineating the fundamental differences between social and natural science, why the former is often perceived as the inferior science that comparatively lacks significant progress throughout history, and the general divide within the community of social scientists between the followers of naturalistic (who seek to improve the predictive power of human action) and interpretive (who seek for intelligibility of human action instead) approaches. There’s a discussion on how the four philosophical branches of epistemology, ethics, logic, and metaphysics apply to social science, as well as their influence to the practice and mindset of social scientists.

It’s pretty overwhelming to get into, especially when you’re not really an academia or a social scientist (I read this just for casual self-learning instead of having an academic/research purpose), the intended target audience of this book. Rosenberg attempted to cover as much ground as possible by listing off the relevant school of thoughts from individualism and holism to utilitarianism and deontology, giving general nods to the most influential figures in this realm while offering critique and counter-arguments to every single one of them. The early portion of the book is highly formalist, brimming with technical jargons and detailed explanation on how social science is constructed, but it gets increasingly accessible later on when it delved on practical purpose and application of social science in real life. Chapter 7 in particular, Social Psychology and the Construction of Society, is one that I was most invested in for its discussion on the hermeneutics of human action and how a lot of things in society are artificially manufactured conventions that should always be questioned and improved upon.

Reading the book, it made me realize that there are so many issues faced by social scientists. The fundamental idea that human behaviour and action are consistently unpredictable makes it hard to nail down a set of rules and laws that can be used as a guideline, while interpretationalists also have to articulate and improve their model of explanation in ways that can be productive and progressive to the science. Even if you come up with a methodology and research thesis that can work, there’s an ethical issue of having human beings as test subjects, not to mention the possibility that the outcome of a given social science research may actually harm the society more than it benefits them and/or be used to advance self-interested political agenda by people in power—a classic ‘well, we can, but should we?’ conundrum. Point is, there are just so many more obstacles faced by social science compared to natural science.

Obviously, the idea is to not just throw your hands up and make defeatist statements along the lines of “eh human can’t be predicted anyway so it’s pointless” or “eh the current social system works as it is, so why we have to change it”. In particular, Rosenberg pointed out that it’s easy to mistake scientific complacency as open-minded tolerance, by simply accepting that all contradicting approaches are equally valid in their own ways—while in philosophical terms, they demonstrably don’t. Social scientists have to directly address the many problems their subject face, and that includes choosing a stance and committing to it.

I believe that we’re currently in a very interesting and important era for social progress and change, with a noticeable paradigm shift happening at many places across the world for the noble purpose of ensuring social opportunities free from caste, race, or gender discrimination. Considering that, it’s worthwhile to study the basics and historical methodology of social science itself (even those that have been rendered obsolete), so you can support whatever social choice you make with cogent thought process. And, as I discovered throughout my life, philosophizing about anything should help in identifying what your actual goals are.

[Lukáš · Rating 2 out of 5]

For those who love discussing dead things, such as logical positivism, behavioralism, structural holism, some simplified biological arguments, moral arguments on the level of utilitarianism vs. deontology, peppered with some slightly over-simplified accounts of Hegel, Marx and Freud and so on. Rosenberg usually takes quite a correct (or at least, productive) take on these, pointing out to the open spaces that lie behind their constitutive arguments. But still, this whole thing feels like 1980s... what seems least convincing and most problematic is an insistence, even an ontological prioritizing of the concept of choice as something that underwrites philosophy. This is, in my view, simply a very pathetic essentialization of ontology that always makes for a clumsy point to start from.

[Haniva Zahra · Rating 3 out of 5]

jadi, buku ini yang menemani saya melewati satu semester dalam mata kuliah Filsafat Ilmu Pengetahuan. ah ya, saya syukurnya bisa melewati dengan baik. sayangnya, tidak bisa dibilang mampu memahami buku ini dengan sangat baik. buku ini baik, bagus untuk membuat berpikir dan merenung, mempertanyakan apa yang terlihat, mempraktikkan berfilsafat :) kalau kamu punya kesempatan membacanya, dan menikmatinya, saya akan beri kamu dua jempol :D

[Lawrence FitzGerald · Rating 5 out of 5]

My background is in the hard sciences and engineering. I have basically ignored the social sciences out of the conviction that they weren't really sciences at all.

Rosenberg, a philosopher of science, seems to agree, since he holds that the theories put forth for the social sciences have little predictive power. He details the reasons for this and, along the way, introduced me to many useful concepts: interpretative theories, folk psychology, evolution as the only law in biology, the relationship between language translation and common beliefs and desires, and more. He also presents a succinct critique of economics with its failure to develop theories with predictive power and its concomitant reluctance to move on from theories that have clearly failed.

I was especially impressed with the concept of folk psychology (basically the built in psychology that we use to assess others and make our way in the world) and its associated narratives. Folk psychology is faulty, but everything seems to begin there. It would seem a huge organizing principle in the study of just about anything - hard sciences, social sciences, history, literature, etc. For whatever reason and although Rosenberg references it many, many times in the text, he does not use it as an organizing principle.

Although Rosenberg seems to be well aware of probability theory and its applications in the hard sciences, he does not see how its application to social science and economics would resolve several of the significant problems he raises.

However, this is the third edition, published in 2007, and there is a fifth edition published in 2015.

Rosenberg holds the singular distinction of being the only philosopher I have read who is actually useful.

[Rick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sometimes I thought I was reading a book of psychology, sometimes a book of science, sometimes a book of philosophy, but really it didn't matter because it was all pretty good and inclusive of several disciplines. Can the study of social science be free of opinion, interpretation, and expectations as we expect natural science to be? Or can it be neutral as it probes the workings of the real world of social studies? The author looks into this and much more. The last two chapters were the best ones.

[Geoff Garnett · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is a while since I read a text book cover to cover. I thoroughly enjoyed this as both a quick primer of social science and a discussion of epistemology in social science. The main thesis is that one can either embrace naturalism in social science and testable predictions of causes, or aim at describing functions and purposes without causes, but the two are incompatible. I suspect that Chaos Theory, and Complexity build on evolution and natural selection may go some way to solving these problems.

[Steve Whitney · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book reads as an apologetic for folk psychology and spends way too much time on various subjects matters, such as rational choice theory, psychoanalysis and the origins of sociology and not enough time on the issues of the philosophy of social science. But what do I know, it is in its 5th edition. There has to be a more concise overview of the issues within the philosophy of social science.

[Xristos Papakonstantinou · Rating 4 out of 5]

Αρκετά επιστημονικοι όροι κάνοντας το βιβλίο δύσκολο για έναν απλό αναγνώστη. Κατά τα άλλα, καλό

[Buveur d'encre · Rating 3 out of 5]

Παρά πολλές επαναλήψεις και έμφαση στα οικονομικά.

[George · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite a good book. Certain parts could be much more brief, but the reader does not lose the essence.

[Keegan Landrigan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Particularly useful in starkly laying out the connection between the problem of naturalism vs. anti-naturalism in the social sciences with the problem of intentional psychology in philosophy of mind.

[Esi Naderi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well, it is really a good introductory book to philosophy of social science! Most fundamental concepts are comprehensively explained and rich discussions on each of them are presented. This book, or similar ones are a must read for those who work in social science areas in order to become clear in their minds!

However, the book is not fluent! In fact, the author preferred to run the discussions on contradictory ideas side by side. In a paragraph one reads an idea and all supporting reasons for that idea while in the next one, the opposite idea comes with supporting reasons! This finally gives a sense of exhaustion! It would be better to explain all similar ideas in one set of chapters and others in another set of chapters.

Another point is that the author spent much space on classic approaches for instance empiricism, behaviorism and holism. I think for a contemporary readers, it is necessary to b informed much more on approaches such as interpretivialism, deconstructionism and ideas of T. Kuhn! Unfortunately the book is not reach in regarding these concepts.

[Ghavami · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well, it is really a good introductory book to philosophy of social science! Most fundamental concepts are comprehensively explained and rich discussions on each of them are presented. This book, or similar ones are a must read for those who work in social science areas in order to become clear in their minds!

However, the book is not fluent! In fact, the author preferred to run the discussions on contradictory ideas side by side. In a paragraph one reads an idea and all supporting reasons for that idea while in the next one, the opposite idea comes with supporting reasons! This finally gives a sense of exhaustion! It would be better to explain all similar ideas in one set of chapters and others in another set of chapters.

Another point is that the author spent much space on classic approaches for instance empiricism, behaviorism and holism. I think for a contemporary readers, it is necessary to b informed much more on approaches such as interpretivialism, deconstructionism and ideas of T. Kuhn! Unfortunately the book is not reach in regarding these concepts.

[T · Rating 4 out of 5]

4 1/2 stars. Here's a fantastic work that outlines and examines the major problems facing the philosophy of social science. Although it's over 20 years old (I apparently bought a first edition), it's all still pretty relevant today (philosophy, of course, tends to be very slow-moving). It tries to be impartial regarding the various stances examined, and it almost succeeds in doing so, but I think Rosenberg does display a slight bias toward the individualistic perspective. My main criticism is that, although the problems it describes are done so clearly, anyone looking for answers to these problems--even any sort of rudimentary answers--will not find them here.

[Brett · Rating 4 out of 5]

A readable and informative introduction to the thought currents behind the social sciences. Rosenberg challenges the reader not only to understand the traditional cleavages in the social sciences, but to actively choose a side; he has little patience for the middle ground, though he declines to tip his hand in terms of where he falls in the empiricist/interpretivist/critical theorist debate.

Thought-provoking outline of these controversies and a fair treatment of the arguments on all sides. The kind of book you might like to read even it weren't assigned for a class.

[Ryan Lincoln · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good introduction. It has helped to clear up some concepts which were previously ambiguous to me, and has helped me parse a number of sociological theories.

And, it's very readable.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm brushing up on this subject since it seems that I've forgotten so much already!