More From This User
Related Docuements
11
From Rayees Chalil
Copier Reps Sound Off as an Ex-Rep Confesses all the Dirty Little S...
In his self-published, easy-to-skim book, Hustlewise: An Insider Exposes the ...
From fazahm
©©
22000055--22000088QQuuaalliittaattii v v eeSSoocciioolloog g y y R R ee v v iiee w w V V oolluummeeII V V IIssssuuee11
w w w w w w
..
q q uuaalliittaattii v v eessoocciioolloog g y y rree v v iiee w w
..
oorrg g
220055
Q Qu u a a l l i i t t a a t t i i v v e e S S ooc c i i ool l oo g g y y R R e e v v i i e e w w
Volume IV, Issue 1 – April 2008
Lucija Mulej
Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts,Slovenia
Construction of Scientific Facts – Why is Relativism Essential inBypassing Incommensurable Gaps in Humanities.Case of Personal Involvement – Biased Scientific Facts
Abstract
This paper addresses the theory of knowledge in relativistic terms ofPaul Feyerabend, stressing the importance of personal involvement in theresearch and theorizing. Since the topic is a constant and widely acceptedpremise the author is insisting that it has been actually ignored in thesociology and philosophy of science. It is apparent in discursive form,neglected in actual consequences for science in general. Defending thethesis of relativism had remained unacknowledged by the general scientificcommunity. Biographies of mavericks and their struggle and exclusion fromscientific community etc. had been constant in the history of science. Isscience nowadays able to accept criticism and implement arguments ofknowledge beyond the institutionalized standards?Throughout this article we argue that personal involvement createsbiased scientific facts; acknowledging and applying tacit knowledge wemove beyond personal involvement and create appropriate interpretationsof facts and phenomena under investigation, where we reconsider theconstruction of facts and personal beliefs, knowing that our fields ofexpertise are incommensurable.
Keywords
Comparative methods; Interdisciplinary research; Paradigm (gestalt) shift;Relativism; Incommensurability; Psychoanalysis; Interpretative gaps;Epistemology; Logical inconsistency; Logic
Incommensurability – Reality Gaps In The Case Of Human Affairs
The main divide between hard core (natural sciences) and soft (humanistic)science is the mode of thinking that results in a conundrum of outcomes andpresumptions. Obviously, two researchers, investigating the same topic, shouldarrive at different conclusions, taking into consideration the specific paradigm one issubjugated to
i
. The facts that induce us to agree (Boudon 1997) are a foundation ofthe epistemological framework, in which we perceive and interpret, were explained invarious manners: from the Greek philosophers to modern postmodernist classics.The discrepancy of interpretations, given by the subjects of investigation, is aconstant, indispensable variable, yielding an affluent reservoir of realities, perceived
©©
22000055--22000088QQuuaalliittaattii v v eeSSoocciioolloog g y y R R ee v v iiee w w V V oolluummeeII V V IIssssuuee11
w w w w w w
..
q q uuaalliittaattii v v eessoocciioolloog g y y rree v v iiee w w
..
oorrg g
220066
by a human mind. A contemporary example of interpretations, grounded in twoopposite paradigms, is the dichotomy in sociology of science, the dichotomy betweenpositivism vs. relativism
ii
. Here, the two studies of prostitution are presented as ashow case of paradigm-grounding, e.g. Heyl (1977) vs. Pines and Silbert (1983).While the former studies prostitution (positivistic perspective) from the view-point ofoccupational and client - management skills (Heyl 1977), the latter (relativisticperspective) concentrates on how victims of incest are more likely to becomeprostitutes. This leads us to the question, which of the two studies is a sufficientanalysis of the cause of prostitution? (Marvasti 2004) Certainly, there are multileveledcauses, within theoretical frameworks presented as causes of milieus one iscommitted to. The question of which study is “true” or “real”, irrelevant as these twoapproaches reflect different realities, e.g. two “truths”, emerging from two differenttheoretical perspectives, with two different agendas, represents the show case ofincommensurable core presumptions, creating primordial sets of theoreticalsuppositions and beliefs. As Bachelard says, the formation of scientific mind is apsychoanalytical fact of objective knowledge acquisition (Bachelard 2002).Also, many arguments are convincing, even though their structure bears noresemblance to that of a line of reasoning which logic would regard as valid. Isvalidity of argumentation coherent to the logical recognition of facts andinterpretations regarded as legitimate and valid? Not necessary. Surely people oftenhave good reasons to believe in dubious or false ideas. As Boudon (and Bachelard)show, explicit line of argument is contaminated by hidden a priori notions: “For thisreason, this process seems to be an essential theme in the sociology of knowledge.It suggests in fact that collective belief in weak, dubious or false ideas can sometimesbecome established simply because the ideas are legitimated by reasoning whichthere is no reason not to regard as valid” (Boudon 1997:XI). Also Polanyi implies thatinformed guesses, hunches and imaginings that are part of explanatory acts, aremotivated by passions. Since there are many types of a priori statements(epistemological, linguistic, ontological type etc.), we shall focus on epistemologicalas well as ontological a priori, combined with Polanyi’s idea of tacit knowledge,understood as knowledge, comprised of a range of conceptual and sensoryinformation and images, that can be brought in an attempt to make sense ofsomething, despite the fact that this something is senseless.In this paper, psychoanalytical fact of objective knowledge acquisition isperceived from two standpoints: firstly, from ontological Lebenswelt reality (Husserl),with ready made pictures unquestioned in everyday life (black is black and white iswhite
iii
, a cat is a cat, and a dog is a dog), where the focus of this paper is on secondreality, which is constructed reality. Epistemological reality is constructed through theprocesses of science legitimization and creation of scientific community: socialconstruction of reality has been investigated by sociological classics (Berger &Luckmann 1991) as well as anthropologists, philosophers and historians. Socialsciences were legitimized through the methodological standards and regulations ofphysical science, where the aim is to uncover universal laws, e.g. causes and effectsexplanations for “human affairs”, e.g. behaviour and characteristics that hold trueacross time and place. On the other side, relativism often reflects notions ofconstructionism and questions of how human interactions help to create
iv
socialreality. Moreover, constructionists believe that as human beings we do not find ordiscover knowledge as much as we construct it. (Bachelard 2002; Hacking 1999;Dilley et all 1999; Feyerabend 1992)Constructionism is an umbrella term, covering different specialized fields ofparadigms, such as interpretive sociology, political science (symbolic interactionism,
©©
22000055--22000088QQuuaalliittaattii v v eeSSoocciioolloog g y y R R ee v v iiee w w V V oolluummeeII V V IIssssuuee11
w w w w w w
..
q q uuaalliittaattii v v eessoocciioolloog g y y rree v v iiee w w
..
oorrg g
220077
interpretivism etc.) and anthropology in general.
Constructionists are more interestedin what goes into creating the social world and less in its causes (Marvasti 2004)Differences between these two approaches, sometimes profound, often subtle,derive from the epistemological division between form and substance. Relativismsuggests that social “reality” is subjective, situational, culturally varied andideologically biased, while objectivism (positivism) suggests the opposite. Thedifference between these two aspects is demonstrated (Table 1; Marvasti 2004:12) inthe table below:
Table 1
POSITIVISM CONSTRUCTIONISM COMMON THEMESTHEORETICALSTANCE ON SOCIALREALITYHow can we useobjective researchmethods to capture theessence of socialreality?How “reality” is sociallyconstructed? IMPORTANCE OFEMPIRICAL DATAGOAL OF RESEARCH What are universallaws that explain thecauses of humanbehaviour?How do situational andcultural variationsshape “reality”?PRODUCTION OFKNOWLEDGEENDURINGQUESTIONHow can we improvethe standardized andneutral language usedto report researchfindings?What are theideological andpracticalconsequences ofwriting and research?INTERNALVARIATIONS ANDLOGICALINCONSISTENCES
With the objectivistic approach we neglect a number of important questions;namely, not just why (motives, social and psychological causes), but how (i.e.technicalities, options in different types of societies) does one become a prostitute forexample? Do prostitutes believe that their actions are criminal, and moreover, isprostitution universally regarded as a criminal act (legality vs. legitimacy)?Consequently, we might ask, should wives, who use sex as a way of gaining financialleverage in a marriage, be defined as prostitutes?
v
As we can see, prostitution is afield that penetrates social morality and is a good example of how emotional distancewould be difficult to obtain for any researcher and layman. The problem ofstigmatization, social labelling and moral standpoint, reflecting a specific time, placeor culture, will also create a bias that will colour the approach of any study. It can besaid that “moral positions typically do not require empirical support” (Marvasti 2004:4)In fact, a strictly moral agenda requires constant rethinking of what we know.Constant rethinking of what we know is a domain of relativism as well as ofconstructionism. To scrutinize the problem of construction, interdisciplinary researchand constant rethinking of what is known is an essential constituent of every sanescience.One group of thinkers, who refuse to admit that the reason for a belief can everbe the cause of that belief, are called the “strong programme” in sociology of science.One of the psychoanalytical facts of objective knowledge acquisition is a belief,created in a mind of an investigator. Belief as precedent to a conviction or aconsequence of cognitive processes, suggests different types of models, e.g. modesof reflecting, feeling, interpreting and thinking, showing that the dynamic between theresearcher and the subject investigated is entangled and intertwined. The cause of a“belief” can be either reasonable or affective, as Boudon suggests: “Causes are
of 00
Mulej -Construction of Scientific Facts
694 Reads
Info and Rating
| Category: | Uncategorized. |
| Rating: | |
| Upload Date: | 03/30/2009 |
| Copyright: | Attribution Non-commercial |
| Tags: |
Leave a Comment