Lecture notes, week 2-6
Application of Theories (SOBA202B)
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Aanbevolen voor jou
Reacties
Preview tekst
Application of theories Explanation and Prediction
Week 2
You formulate why-questions when you seek to explain something.
Will there questions These questions are related to predictions.
We need an indication why a certain phenomenon caused the protests. To this end, researchers develop theories theories are general statements, (laws, or “law-like”) which are not restricted to certain objects, or certain dates or places
The covering law model (or deductive nomological model , D-N model, subsumption theory, Hempel’s mode) general method of explaining and predicting
Question: Why did many people participate in the protest?
Answer:
In general, if many people are dissatisfied with the living conditions, then they will protest
In Leipzig 1989, many people were dissatisfied with the living conditions
In Leipzig 1989, many people protested.
Line indicates that explanandum follows from explanans
Explanandum:
- statement p that we seek to explain
- singular statement
Explananans :
- statements that explain p
- consists of at least one general statement (L1) and at least one auxiliary assumption
- The latter is also a singularstatement.
Law: it is true for all x : if Dx, then Px Singular statement: Da
Singular statement Pa
Explanans
Explanandum p follows from explanans, if the two statements are true than explanadum must be true logic
Conditions of adequacy (Hempel and Oppenheim)
These (minimal) conditions need to be met. Otherwise the explanation is not “sound”.
- Condition 1: the explanandum must be logical consequence of the explanans if all
statements in the explananas are true, then the explanandum must be true too.
- Condition 2: the explanans must contain at least one general law and at least one singular
statement
- Condition 3: the explanans must have empirical content the explanans must inform about
reality. In other words, it must be testable.
The law “if there is anomie in a society, then there will be movement” is not testable because the concepts “anomie and “movement” are not defined (yet)
- Condition 4: all statements of the explanans must be true.
This condition is debated a lot theories are abstract and therefore always wrong, Milton Friedman: explanans can be wrong, what count is the prediction. But we don’t we strive for explanations, and not for predictions.
Problems of the covering law model
1. Assymetry problem there will always be an execption on the law
Solution: inductive approach many singular cases problem : covering law
model based on deduction
A single counter example falsifies a general statement. Especially, in the social sciences there
is no law without an exception.
Thus, do we have laws that we can use?
This is a problem, and there is no solution to it. The only thing we can do is to explain why
certain cases contradict the theory and try to develop more general theories.
• Asymmetry problem:
The barometer is falling rapidly.
Whenever the barometer is falling rapidly, a storm is approaching
A storm is approaching
The explanandum follows logically correct from the explananas. Nevertheless, a falling
barometer does not cause a storm.
you will always find an exception on the law certain cases are different
Is there a better method? Many social scientists argue that an inductive approach is better you observe something, and something and something g many singular cases you induce a statement from that Solution: inductive approach many singular cases
Problem Discoverd by David Humes the covering law model is based on the deduction
principle. It tells us that if all statements of the explanans are true than the explanadum must be true
as well. The deduction principle is a general statement (a law) which is always true.
There is, however, no induction principle. To arrive at one, one would need to use induction
(=infer the general principle from several single cases). Therefore, however, you need an
induction principle. To get this, in turn, you need an induction principle.....
Induction implies an infinite regress. This makes it problematic.
Inductive reasoning means that one generalizes from a set of singular observations to general
laws.
Why do we insist on the covering law model?
You need a law to defend your hypothesis. Without the law, you cannot explain to someone
WHY your hypothesis makes sense.
Plus, earlier tests of the law will support your argument.
Hempel and Oppenheim discuss arguments against usage of the coving law model in the
social sciences:
• Human behavior is unique and irrepeatable
• In humans, behavior does not only depend on present conditions but also on the past.
• Human behavior differs from the behavior of physical entities in that humans have motives.
• Understanding human action requires empathic understanding of their personalities
Predictions
The shoe-thrower’s index allemaal gegevens over een land, die voorspellen een bepaalde gebeurtenissen klopt niet there’s no law iets wat van toepassing is op het ene en op het andere.
Predictions are very similar to explanations, but they are not the same.
Example of an explanation:
In general, if many people are dissatisfied with the living conditions, then they will protest.
In Leipzig 1989, many people were dissatisfied with the living conditions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Leipzig 1989, many people protested. We know this
Example of a prediction:
In general, if many people are dissatisfied with the living conditions, then they will protest.
Due to an embargo in Iran, many people’s satisfaction with living conditions will be low.
There will be protest in Iran
Prediction we have a theory and we want to predict the future.
Problems with predictions (testing at wrong moment, ceteris paribus, infinite regress)
- Most laws do not specify how long one has to wait until the prediction will become
true and for how long one can one can observe it (remember Levitt’s theory of last
week). Thus, the prediction might be correct, but when we test it at the wrong moment,
we might not notice.
- Predictions often implicitly assume that all other conditions will not change (ceteris
paribus). This may be wrong. For instance, the government of Iran might increase
repression.
- Often, the singular statements (conditions) need to be predicted as well (e. There
will be an embargo). This can lead to an infinite regress.
- Self-fulfilling (e. bank run) and self-killing (e. “Tsipras will win the elections”)
prophecies. Sociological predictions about reality affect reality (reactiveness).
-
Check list when developing an explanation or a prediction, take care of the following things:
- Try to include in the explananas only statements (=assumptions) which have been tested
empirically or which are at least plausible. This is key if the prediction of the theory depends - very much on this assumption. ( but they still can be true)
- Use one word to describe a concept. Avoid synonyms, or at least define them
explicitly. Never describe more than one phenomenon with one concept.
- Formulate the laws as general as possible
e. all students need to eat, all humans need to eat, all mammals need to eat, however sometimes generalization does not make sense: all students follow the lecture, all mammals follow the lecture
- if the explanandum is complex break it down to subproblems and tackle them one-by-one (e. revolution, protest)
We want to find this
We want to find this
We know this
With the help of logic you can find out whether a statement (conclusion) is true if you know whether other statements (premises) are true. hoeft niet correct zijn
Basic propostional logic
Propositions are statements, for instance,
- The members of group x are integrated
- The citizens of Leipzig protest
- People who hold similar opinions tend to form friendship
Propositions are statements which are either true of false ( not valid of invalid)
Hence, statements which are not true or false are not considered proposition, for instance Shut up (commands), This is a bad song
Propositional language and truth tables
Propositions are translated into so called, ‘wff’ s” ( pronounce as woof as in wood). Wff stands for ‘well formed formula’
Generalizing and specifying of concepts
Week 4 - How to criticize a theory/explanation?
What is a good explanation?
A good explanation is an explanation where all conditions of adequacy are met
- Condition 1: The explanandum must be a logical consequence of the explanans.
- Condition 2: The explanans must contain at least one general law and at least one
singular statement.
- Condition 3: The explanans must have empirical content.
- Condition 4: All statements of the explanans must be true.
Problem 1: how to define a concept? ( the concept is not defined properly) a definition is passage that explains the meaning of a concept which is obscure ( called definiendum), by the use of terms with a clear meaning ( called definiens).
Two kind of definitions: Intensional definitions, extensional definition
Problems with definitions:
- circular definitions e.: define the concept sociologist a sociologist is a scientist who
study sociology” define concept sociology : sociology is what sociologist do.
- Definiens is obscure: a sociologist is a scientist who studies social facts, what are social facts.
- Definition based on examples of counter examples: scientist like emile Durkheim are
sociologist. Durkheim was male, French and well dressed the inspector from pink panther is sociologist too.
Example:
All individuals (I) enhance (=maintain) their self-image (=concept=esteem) (C).
all I is C
One way how individuals enhance their self-image (C) is to enhance their social identity (S).
some C is S
All Individuals (I) enhance their social identity (S)
all I is S
Problem 2: the concept is latent
Implications vs. Equities – what is more informative?
Equity if p, and only if p, than q
Equities are more informative than implications more possible states more empirical content
Example:
A: if a person is frustated or hurt then she will be aggressive
B: if a person is frustated and hurt then she will be aggressive
If we have an or , or an and
Or three possible states where the if-part of A is true
And only one possible state where the if-part of B is true
You want the if part to be big so it is A
Example:
C: if a person is frustated then she will be aggressive or sad disjunction
Only 1 zero only is p en q are false there is only one option
D: if a person is frustated then she will be aggressive and sad conjunction
Three possible states where it is false
WHEN THERE IS AN AND IN THE IF-PART THAN IT IS EASIER TO FORCIFY is more precise
Conclusion: The empirical content of an implication is higher when the ifpart contains a
disjunction and when the then-part contains a conjunction.
Lecture notes, week 2-6
Vak: Application of Theories (SOBA202B)
Universiteit: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
- Ontdek meer van:
