Science Empiricism Rationalism

Science Empiricism RationalismThe term cordial accomplishment is a misnomer which masks the necessarily assorted epistemological alleges and ontological realities consistent with rude(a) and mixer realms respectively. Critic either(prenominal)y appraise this claimIn this es give voice I intend to dispute the nonion that the term social science is a misnomer. Firstly, I will define social science, and then think on the differences amidst freethinking and quackery without whose initiation at that place would be no epistemology. Empiricism will receive more attention due to the situation that that it has start out the paramount epistemic approach, systematic onlyy and austerely expressed finished its offspring, ie , fabricism, sensism, profitableness and earthyism. Second, I intend to all(prenominal)ow ontological realities to license themselves through Kants articulation as twain an empiricist and a rationalist. This will revert uninteresting dichotomies and allow one(a) to stand back, as it were, from ones own psychoanalysis of the topic.EPISTEMIC APPROACHES WITHIN THE NATURAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCESRationalism and Empiricism. match to marshal social science is a command label applied to the train of society and human intercourseshipsThe designation of an argona of think as a social science usually carries the implication that it is comparable in m each an(prenominal) styluss to a indwelling science (1994 493). The implication here is that pictorial and social reality raise be study in the comparable way because both realities consist of relationships in the midst of facts, eg, cause and effect.Note should be wargonn of the fact that rationalists and empiricists, despite their various approaches in their quest for acquaintance, let both contri entirelyed immensely to the birth of distinguishable academic disciplines to which even mod day intellectuals subscribe. More interesting is that for each one of the cardinal ep istemic approaches claims their rule of motion repays birth to valid information or certainty. tally to Hamlyn rationalism ,whose founder is Descartes is an epistemological doctrine that puts weight on reason or discretion, as distinct from the mavins or sense perception(1987134).On the other hand empiricists desire the merely source of noesis is have intercourse. John Locke held the fancy that the scope of our familiarity is limited to, and by, our grow(Stumpf,1983254).RATIONALISM(i)DescartesThis philosophical perishment was initiated by Descartes and carried on with varying degrees of thoroughness by de Spinoza and Leibniz(Hamlyn, 1987134). A rationalist relies on logic and principles of reasonableness in order to arrive at a conclusion. One would get through this by giving an suit popularized by Rene Descartes that it is only in relation to thinking that I am certain that I exist(Hamlyn,1987138).Descartes continues to maintain that existence must(prenominal)( prenominal) be a station of a being who is conceived of as possessing all attributes in perfection (Hamlyn,1987141).Kant opposed this consider citing carry out was non a rightty of a thing in the way that Descartes supposes. Leibniz went hike by maintaining that existence depends on whether that conception is coherent or involves a contradiction(Hamlyn,1987140).One layabout partly agree with Descartes posture that existence is a property of a being, but to say that its creator is perfect is a increase of human imagination. Perfection, by the way, remains an imaginary construct when taking into theme the context in which Descartes states his case. For example, in order for one to be say perfect, one has to adhere to the standard guidelines which should be followed in order to annoy believe a grumpy thing or use a precedent model as a yardstick or even correct on it. It is ones belief that rationalism has non been a dominant epistemic approach. Kant and Locke, for ex ample, have imbibed both epistemic approaches. To take it further about in advance(p) day individuals occupy both approaches in their daily activities.(ii)Spinoza There was likewise a nonher rationalist called Spinoza in whose views rationalism received its most systematic and rigorous expression. His main work was called ethics. jibe to Stumpf ethics is touch on with actions that stand be labeled right or aggrieve, good or bad, desirable or undesirable, worthy or unworthy. Also, ethics, is concerned with ones somebodyal responsibility, duty, or obligation for his behaviour(19831)His concern with ethics should be understood in its proper context in that both the beggarlys and goals of social science investigating be intrinsically bound up with ethical considerations, especially when conducting enquiry involving human subjects, eg., protection of privacy through informed consent.According to Hamlyn Spinoza provides a striking contrast with Descartes ,who had little concer n with things ethical(1987149).Spinoza felt that in that location argon three potpourris of association, ie, knowledge of vague be intimate- when we habitualize from casual and multiform experience. The second kind is identified with reason, and the 3rd one is intuition(Hamlyn,1987152).The second and third kinds of knowledge reflect a rationalist view in that they ar necessarily true, and reason checks things as necessary (iii)Leibniz According to Stumpf Leibniz was dissatisfied with the way Descartes and Spinoza had described the record of meaning because he felt they had falsify our figureing of human nature(1983246).Spinoza defines substance as that which is in itself I mean that the conception of which does non depend on the conception of a nonher thing from which it must be formed(Stumpf,1983241).Leibniz on the other hand takes it that substance as a basic form of existence must be perfectly simple ,for if it were complex it would be secondary to whatever it is composed of (Hamlyn,1987159).This style that Leibniz and Spinoza somehow agree that substance should not depend on anything other that itself to exist. But one would argue that their view has defied logic in that ein truth entity or substance is an offspring or a growth of a particular thing.It is interesting that Leibniz, despite being a rationalist, sought-after(a) empirical evidence to defend his principle that no two substances privy differ solo numero (Hamlyn, 1987162-163). He pointed to considerations that tree leaves argon all polar, and subscribe to similar evidence which was assessed through the newly invented microscope.EMPIRICISMAccording to Comte, empiricism is an epistemological doctrine that all knowledge proper must be subject to canons of verification in terms of experience(Hamlyn,1987275). marshall (1994149) defines empiricism as a term often used, loosely, to describe an orientation to research which emphasizes the show of facts and observations, at the expe nse of conceptual reflection and theoretical enquiry. This implies that knowledge must undergo rigorous interrogation so as to be authentic that it has not defied science.Empiricism presents itself in four ways Materialism, sensism, positivism, and pragmatism.(i)MaterialismAccording to Marshall materialism means a range of metaphysical positions (philosophical views about the total nature of reality)Whereas in classical seasons liaison had been opposed to form, the dominant early modern contrast was between amour and spirit or mind(1994315).Thinking of societies in terms of physical or material properties may be called materialism. We must in any case inform nature in terms of materialism.(ii)SensismAccording to Knight all materialists are of course sensistsLocke as one the empiricists, derives all simple appraisals from external experience (sensations), all compound heads modes, substances) from internal experience (reflection) (19991-see bibl.12 ).One can argue that sens ism is troubleatic in that perceptions and judgements may differ with different individuals, leading to incessant speculation.(iii)PositivismThe acknowledged founder of positivism was the French philosopher and social scientist Auguste Comte. He also came up with the invention of the term Sociology.In the context of positivism, substantiating facts are things that can be observed or measured. Positivists argue that only that which can be observed and measured can be studied(Le Roux et al,1986174).This means that positivists opine grounding as very important in positive facts. An example would be Durkheims account that there is a relationship between social integration and suicide(Haralambos,1980496).This is real in that integration of plurality from various backgrounds, with different cultures can cause tension , alienation and disposition disorganizationAccording to Keat and Urry several conventionalist philosophers of science have been influenced by the after writings of Wi ttgenstein, and realist philosophy of science has partly been developed from the standpoint of scientific realism, a position which is opposed both to logical positivism and also to the movement of analytical philosophy inspired by Wittgenstein, Ryle and Austin(19806).It must be understood that although the realist and the positivist share amongst others a conception of science as an empirically-based, rational and object glassive enterprise, there is an important difference between invoice and prediction. Keat and Urry say that, for the realist, a scientific theory is a description of structures and mechanisms which causally generate the observable phenomena, a description which enables us to explain them(19805)It is worth mentioning how these varying accounts of positivism and realism expose knowledge as an bad concept. After ones acceptance of positivism as irrefutable conception of the pictorial science, realism demands that we discover the necessary connections between phen omena, by deconstructing the observable phenomena. According to Keat and Urrywe must get beyond the mere appearances of things, to their natures and essences(19805).In a nutshell one can say that we have to peel away layers of constructed meaning to reveal the underlie layers of meaning that were suppressed or assumed in order for the phenomenon to take its echt form.Focus will be on three empiricists(i)John Locke(1632-1704)According to Hamlyn, the purpose of Locke is to enquire into the original, certainty, and extent of human knowledge, together with the grounds and degrees of belief, view and assent, without meddling with the physical consideration of the mind(1987168-169).This implies that he is concerned with the limits of human understanding and one is bound to believe that Locke does not want any kind of social construct to be attached to this process, so as to give it independence.According to Kenny, Locke is forever lambasting about ideas(1994129).This is evident in his first base book entitled Of Innate Notions which contains a sharp attack on the notion of innate ideas. Hamlyn says Locke is concerned with two things (i)whether there is innate knowledge of principles and (ii)whether what he sometimes calls the materials of that knowledge the ideas on which the knowledge is based, are innate. That eminence between knowledge and ideas affects the whole Essay(1987169).One might assume that Lockes preoccupation or obsession with ideas was prompted by his intellectual rival, Descartes, who match to Kenny wrote that an infant in its mothers womb has in itself the ideas of god, itself, and all truths which are said to be self-evident, it has these ideas no little than adults have when they are not paying attention to them, and it does not contain them afterwards when it grows up(1994128).One can argue that innate ideas do exist, and they get with time because exposure to externalities. The outside knowledge base will decide on their validity. M arshall says that Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman, in The kind Construction Of Reality(1966), view social processes as a dialectic of externalization and internalization(1994167).According to Stumpf, Lockess fellow empiricists Bacon and Hobbes had urged that knowledge should be built upon observation (1983254).This means that knowledge should be a product of scientific enquiry. Locke discarded the notion that we all came here with a standard stock of ideas built into the mind(Stumpf,1983257).He said the origin of his ideas is experience, and experience takes two forms, sensation and reflection. What he elucidated was that we cannot have the experience of reflection (mind taking denounce of its operations) until we have had the experience of the sensation (ideas).(ii)George Berkeley (1685-1752) Berkeley was influenced by Locke although according to Kenny, his importance in philosophy is largely as a critic of Locke(1994140).His principal criticisms focus on three heads the notion o f abstract command ideas, the note of hand between master(a) and secondary qualities, and the concept of material substance(1994140).Because of Berkeleys criticism, Lockes empiricism is reduced into a unique form of idealism.1.ABSTRACT IDEASLockes view that nomenclature represent ideas and general words correspond to abstract general ideas has come under attack from Berkeley. Locke says in his Essay, that according to the representational theory, a general idea is a particular idea which has been made general by being made for all of a kind, in the way in which a geometry teacher draws a particular triangle to represent all triangles(Kenny,1994140).There is also what Kenny calls the eliminative theory, according to whom the general idea is a particular idea which contains only what is common to all particulars of the comparable kind.Berkeley is interested in how Locke combines features of the two theories. According to Kenny, Berkeley says it takes pains and attainment to form the general idea of a triangle-for it must be uncomplete oblique nor rectangle, neither equilateral, equicrural nor scalenon, but all and none of these at once(1994140).One can say that eliminative theory and representational theory are two sides of the same coin in that in eliminative theory, the idea becomes a general idea when the unwanted group is eliminated. With take care to the representational theory, an idea becomes a general idea when all subscribe to it. Kenny accuses both Locke and Berkeley of using the word idea to mean to mean indifferently a sense-experience, an image, a secondary quality, or a concept(1994140).IDEAS AND QUALITIESWe must move from the premise that one of Berkeleys views is that distance is not something immediately perceived but something constructed from certain orderly relations of the ideas of different senses in the mind. According to Shand, the equating of ideas with sensible things, which thereby makes sensible things mind-dependent, eliminat es each of the following forms of skepticism produced by materialism and Cartesianism(1993132)(a)The existence of sensible things. The fuss is solved because the skeptic cannot drive a wedge between ideas if the objects of sense are ideas.(b)The nature of sensible things. Science aspires only to map the fixedness correlations between ideas ,that is between phenomena.(c)The existence and nature of God. The problem is eliminated by fashioning God indispensable. Gods existence is seen as the real cause of those ideas that are not caused by our imaginations and as the sustainer of those ideas we do not actually perceive, the theory that God does not exist is refuted by almost every experience we have.(d)How matter and spirit can interact. This problem is eliminated by denying the existence of material substance then the problem of interaction between spirit and matter simply does not arise(1993132-133)The implication here is that Berkeley believes that anything that can be perceived actually exists.THE CONCEPT OF MATERIAL SUBSTANCE(i) One should also tune that Berkeley is an opponent of materialism. According to Shand, Berkeley it is impossible for matter to have only uncreated qualities such as extension, solidity, movement. He believes that we cannot conceive of a shape which is no colour, and therefore the conception of matter holdd for materialism is impossible. He kinda suggests that all matter should have all secondary qualities, from which primary qualities cannot be separated (1993133).One can assume that he is referring to qualities such as weight, sound, druthers and identity. To say that every matter must be able to move is not accurately correct in that not all matter is a living organism(ii) Berkeley says that what exists has got to be a product of something. In his own words he argues that it is a logical contradiction to talk of conceiving of a thing which exists unconceived (Shand,1993133).But Shand sees this as a fallacious argument in th at it is not possible for A to be conceived of, and at the same time both exist and be a thing unconceived, but that does not mean at some other time A could not exist as an unconceived-of A, thus there is nothing contradictory in A existing unthought about (1993133).This means that A does not necessarily have to be thought about in order to exist.(iii) Berkeley argues that if secondary qualities (colour, taste, heat, sound, etc.) are ideas in the mind, as Locke does, then the same applies to primary qualities (shape, size, motion, solidity),for these two vary with the observer (Shand, 1993133).Colour is arguably not an idea in the mind because one can see it. It is not clear whether, according to Berkeley, secondary qualities also include things that one cannot touch.(iv) This argument pertains to pain and heat. Berkeley holds the view that when we are close to the, heat is felt as pain in the mind, and when we are a distance away the heat is merely felt as warmth (Shand,1993133-13 4).The argument here is that since the pain is not in the fire, then it must be in the mind.(v) Berkeley compares the notion of matter with what Locke has to say about substance in general. Locke suggests that substance is characterized by being the stand-in of all qualities, the qualities cannot subsist alone. But Berkeley argues that an attempt to give substance a positive characterization is impossible, since to do so would attribute qualities to it. This would render substance a qualityless something. Although Berkeley sees this as a perfectly flawless argument, he believes that no materialist would suggest that matter is qualityless (Kenny,1994134).This would mean that substance and qualities cannot exist in the absence of the other.DAVID HUME (1711-1776) He is said to have carried empiricism to its fullest expression. He believed the scientific method could lead us to a clear understanding of human nature and in particular the workings of the human mind(Stumpf, 1983270-271). Some commentators find it difficult the microscopic position of Hume.The difference with Hume was that if we used the scientific method to determine truth, we must according to Stumpf, accept the limits of knowledge(1983272).Probably he was expressing doubt about the efficacy of scientific enquiry in clarifying pertinent issues. According to Hamlyn, the doctrine that every simple idea is derived from simple impression is the center-point of Humes empiricism, and that it is crucial for his philosophy(1987190).Both Hume and Locke opine that impressions are of sensation but disagree on reflection because Humes account seems different from Lockes. He (Hume) holds the view that impressions are distinguishable from ideas by their superior get out and vivacity(Hamlyn,1987190).This might be the case because of the complexity of impressions. Hamlyn sees this as a very important principle, and one which Hume inherited from Berkeley which is one cannot distinguish between impressions and ide as by reference to anything outside them, only by internal properties such as their liveliness(1987190).One can simplify this by do reference to pain. The only person who feels the pain is the one who is hurt and nobody else. One cannot for example, merely side at the husband and confirm that the wife is feeling pain , nor can the husband know how much pain is felt by the wife.realismAccording to Knight, naturalism consists essentially in looking upon nature as the one original and fundamental source of all that exists, and in attempting to explain everything in terms of nature(19991). What this means is that all events find their satisfactory experience within nature itself.There are two traditions that claim to understand the problem of naturalism. These are the naturalist and anti-naturalist traditions. The former claims that the sciences are (actually or ideally) corporate with positivist principles. For the latter the subject matter of the social sciences consists essentiall y of substantive objects, and their aim is the elucidation of the meaning of these objects(Bhaskar, 1979241). A naturalist traditions association with positivist principles means that it relies on measurement and observation in order to study a phenomenon. The anti-naturalist tradition, one would argue, looks beyond observable phenomena by enquiring as to what the object is made of.Bhaskar argues that the two disputants ironically share a common flaw in accepting an essentially positivist account of natural science, or at least an empiricist ontology. One would argue that there is nothing wrong in adopting a positivist approach when interrogating natural science, because essentially positivism deals with things that can be observed and measured. It must be understood that there is a fundamental contrast between social and natural science. With regard to the latter the discovery of intelligible connections in its subject matter is not equally the goal of natural scientific explanat ion(Bhaskar,19792). Instead this applies to social science.It is argued that the new developments in the philosophy of science permit a reconsideration of the problem of naturalism(Bhaskar, 19793). These could be the varying views brought about by the naturalists and anti-naturalists. For example, Winchs anti-naturalism depends on empiricist theories of existence and causality. right off Bhaskar argues that if science employs a causal criterion for ascribing reality and causal laws are tendencies, his contrast collapses(19793). This means that if causal laws apply to science, then it applies top both natural and social science, and more important is it has become a intentionBhaskar defines naturalism as the thesis that there is (or can be) an essential iodin of method between the natural and social services. It has two species reductionism which asserts that there is an actual identity of subject matter as well, and scientism, which denies that there are any significant differen ces in the methods appropriate to studying social and natural objects, whether or not they are actually (as in reductionism) identified (19793).What is noteworthy is that these factions of naturalism talk in universals almost to a point of denying an opposite view the right to existence. In a nutshell, science is just whatever scientists do, and it is pass judgment of them to differ in the way they solicit knowledge.ONTOLOGICAL REALITIESMarshall defines ontology as anyway of understanding the world, or some part of it, must make assumptions(which may be implicit or explicit) about what kinds of things do or can exist in that domain, and what might be their conditions of existence, relations of dependency, and so on(1994367).He goes on to say the core of the philosophical project of metaphysics is to provide an ontology of the world as a whole. One will note that by focusing on the world as a whole, there will be a systematic arrangement of the relations between the social and natur al sciences. Focus will be on Kant because he is both an empiricist and rationalist.KANTWe must move from the premise that Kant is both an empiricist and a rationalist, in that he tried to reconcile rationalism empiricism by arguing that while knowledge itself comes from experience, the mind uses reason to structure knowledge(Prof. McLeary, see bibliography-No.11).Kant is described as a person who was more interested in science than philosophy, with the aim of making it truly scientific(Kenny, 1994167).This shows that he really is both an empiricist and a rationalist in that he felt philosophy should also undergo the same rigorous interrogation as other academic disciplines, including the natural sciences.According to Kenny the distinction between a priori and a posteriori is central to Kants undertaking. A priori knowledge which is independent of all experienceIn addition to a priori knowledge there is also empirical knowledge, knowledge derived from experience which Kant calls k nowledge a posteriori(1994167).With regard to a priori knowledge, one can cite post as an example because yet one knows it exists. A posteriori refers to things we have seen, or touched or even felt. According to Shand, knowledge for Kant, as for Leibniz, had to be necessary and universally valid(1993161).We are tempted to believe that if information was not universally accepted as fact, then it would not be regarded as knowledge.Kenny says Kant regarded all of mathematics as belonging to this realm arithmetic and geometry were synthetic, since they extended our knowledge widely beyond pure logic, and yet they were a priori, deriving not from experience but from intuition(1994168).This is an interesting philosophical statement in that two contradictory phenomena are combined to produce something qualitatively new, independent of experience, an understanding of which does not require one to be taught or even think hard.coeb ebr seebebw oreb ebk ineb foeb ebKant says there are two pu re forms of sensible intuition, serving as principles of a priori knowledge, to wit shoes and time(1994169).It must be noted that both time and space can never be touched. After having asked himself what time and space were, he then came up with the answers. He made a distinction between a metaphysical description of an a priori concept and a inscrutable exposition. Marshall defines metaphysics as a philosophical project which devises theory of the nature or structure of reality, or of the whole world. Transcendentalism is the belief that God stands outside and independent of the universe of which he is a creator(1994325538).Kant says that the metaphysical exposition of space and time tells us that space and time are presupposed by, not derived from, experience that we can imagine space and time without objects, but not objects without space and time, and that there is a bingle space and a single time, infinite in each case(Kenny, 1994169).We are bound to believe that objects w ould not exist if space was non-existent, and that they have time within which they can exist. The recondite exposition of the concepts of space and time shows how we can know truths about space and time which are not analytic and yet are a priori(Kenny, 1994169). The implication here is that we do not necessarily have to experience a thing in order to know that it exists.CONCLUSIONIt has become apparent that social enquirers happen to tamper with the supposed objective enquiry by allowing their personal values to feed into their conclusions. Accepting that matters of value are matters of fact, their values must be correct. The mushrooming of social study over the net 100 or 150 years was partly inspired by the notion that social study was a matter of searching for general laws(Pratt, 197872).General laws, one would argue, are rather required by the natural sciences.With regard to social science, a particular kind of human behaviour cannot unendingly be attributed to a particular kind of a problem. Suicide, for example, is not seen by every person as a solution to marital problems. Also, cap punishment does not necessarily deter potential murderers. Within natural science it is usually possible to use rigorous investigative techniques by bringing the objects under study into the laboratory. It is not as easy with humans, because one has to get approval from eg, the individuals themselves or the ethics committee. In a nutshell, we cannot employ the methods of the natural sciences in understanding the social world.This is evident in Winchs statement that whereas the scientist investigates the nature, causes and effects of particular real things and processes, the philosopher is concerned with the nature of reality as such and in general(Hindess,19773).The two methods are inextricably intertwined despite their different approaches in their quest for valid knowledge and ability to predict. To declare social science a misnomer is arguably inaccurate in that bot h epistemic and ontological enquiries are social products employed in pursuit of knowledge for the benefit of society.BIBLIOGRAPHY1. Bhaskar, R. 1979. The Possibility of NaturalismA Philosophical Critique of the modern-day Human Sciences. Atlantic Highlands, N.J. Humanities Press.2. Hamlyn, D.W. 1987. A History of westbound philosophical system. Harmondsworth Penguin Books.3. Haralambos, M Holborn, M.1980. Sociology Themes and Perspectives. London. University Tutorial Press.4. Harris, E.E. 1969. Fundamentals of philosophical system. George Allen Unwin Ltd. Great Britain.5. Hindess, B.1977. Philosophy and Methodology in the Social Sciences. Sussex The Harvester Press.6. Keat, R Urry, J.1980.Social Theory as Science. Boston Routledge Kegan Paul.7. Kenny, A.1994. The Oxford Illustrated History of the Western Philosophy. Great Britain Oxford University Press.8. Le Roux,T., Romm,N. Uys, T.1986. Sociology.Pretoria Unisa. qtiSgzkEX Visit coursework de in de fo de for de more sup posal de Do de not de redistribute qtiSgzkEX 9. Marshall, G.1994. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. Great Britain Oxford University Press.10. Pratt, V. 1978. The Philosophy of the Social Sciences. New York Methuen Co.11. Shand, .J.1993.The philosophy and Philosophers. Harmondsworth Penguin Books.12. Stumpf, S.E.1983. Philosophy History and Problems. New York. McGraw Hill, Inc.13. Philosophy of Science, 2001.Philosophical Schools. http//mrrc.bio.uci.edu/se10/schools.html.14. Catholic Encyclopedia.2002. Empiricism. http//www.newadvent.org/cathen/05407a.htm.