Chapter 6 Section 25

1
Chapter 6Section 2-5

• PHL 472
• Spring 2004

2
Interpretivism

• (a) The purpose of the social sciences is to
  understand others and their behavior
• (b) To understand the meaning of their behavior
  is to understand them in their own terms

3
Causality

• Fay wants to show in this section that claim (a)
  of Interpretivism is not correct (and to
  implicate (b) as well)
• In other words, he wants to show that the social
  sciences must do more than just understand the
  meanings of a cultures beliefs, actions, etc.

4
Causality

• Conjunction vs. Causation
• To say that C caused E is different from saying
  that C happened and then E happened
• In other words, just because two things happen
  next to each other on a time line does not mean
  that the first caused the second
• The Fallacy of False Cause

5
Causality

• C caused E means that C is a necessary or
  sufficient condition for E
• If C were to happen, then E would happen
  (sufficient)
• If C were not to have happened, then E would not
  have happened (necessary)

6
Causality

• The difference between causation and conjunction
  cannot be determined merely by observation
• What is needed to support a causal statement of
  the form C caused E is a theory of causation (a
  theory that posits laws which explain the
  connection between C and E)

7
Causality

• Social scientists must ask more than just what a
  cultures actions or beliefs mean
• They must also ask
• Why does a society have its particular worldview?
• Why has the worldview evolved as it has?
• Why does the society reinforce some parts and not
  others?
• Why do some people support the worldview more
  ardently than others?

8
Causality

• In other words, social scientists must attempt to
  uncover the causes of the beliefs and actions
  they are attempting to understand
• This does not mean that Interpretivists were
  wrong to insist on understanding the meaning of
  actions, beliefs, etc. Their mistake is in
  claiming that this is all we need to do.

9
Causality

• Given that social scientists must attempt to
  explain the causes of these things, it follows
  that they must go beyond the concepts of those
  being studied (thus implicating claim (b))

10
Causality

• 3 kinds of causal relations relevant to the
  social sciences
• (1) Unintended Consequences
• Example the paradox of savings

11
Causality

• 3 kinds of causal relations relevant to the
  social sciences
• (2) Structural-Functional Explanation
  explanation in which some structure is explained
  in terms of the function that the structure plays
  in society (function is non-conscious)
• Example The Cunning of History

12
Causality

• 3 kinds of causal relations relevant to the
  social sciences
• (3) Non-subjective theory of power (Foucalt)
• Power relations affect what is possible and not
  possible in a society
• However, many of these relations are
  non-subjective
• Example raised speaking platform

13
Causality

• Summing up
• Part of what is needed in the social sciences are
  explanations of how a society came to be as it is
• Causal explanations can go beyond the concepts of
  the members of society being studied

14
Competence

• The normative nature of intentional action
• Intentional actions are
• 1. Rule-following and
• 2. Rational
• Thus, we can always act, how well did he act?

15
Competence

• Performance vs. Competence
• A persons competence is determined by how well a
  person can act (how closely can she follow the
  rules, how rational can she be?)
• A persons performance is how they actually
  acted. It is a function of her competence and
  various other factors of the situation.

16
Competence

• Competence theory an attempt to model that
  capacities and processes of idealized agents who
  are perfectly rational and have perfectly
  mastered the rules
• Example Rational choice theory and maximin
• These theories are needed in order to measure the
  competence of an actual person

17
Competence

• Performance Theories a theory that attempts to
  explain actual actions (partly in terms of
  competence)
• Why did she do that? Because she was rational
  (i.e. mimicked the actions of the idealized
  person as described in competence theory)

18
Competence

• Competence theories describe an ideally rational
  person, and this conception can help to explain
  actions
• However, no one in a society is ideally rational
• So these theories go beyond the language and
  concepts of the people in a society

19
Summing Up

• Two positions
• Social sciences should seek to understand others
  by uncovering the meanings of their actions and
  products
• Social sciences should seek to explain a society
  by uncovering the causes that led them to be
  where they are

20
Summing Up

• Fays position
• Both sides are correct. To focus exclusively on
  one or the other is wrong.