Martin Hollis the Philosophy of Social Science Review

• Home
• My Books

Open Preview

Meet a Problem?

We'd love your assist. Permit us know what's wrong with this preview of The Philosophy of Social Science past Martin Hollis.

Cheers for telling us about the problem.

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this volume, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

Be the first to enquire a question about The Philosophy of Social Scientific discipline

Community Reviews

 · 77 ratings  · ix reviews

First your review of The Philosophy of Social Scientific discipline: An Introduction

Martin Hollis's Philosophy of Social Science examines four different modes in which homo thought and behavior has been interpreted in the social sciences and examines the strengths and weaknesses of these four different modes. Two of the 4 modes assume that homo thought and behavior can be understood in the same mode that the natural sciences can, that is, consistent with other naturalistic inquiry, and 2 other modes assume that human being thought and beliefs are so radically singled-out that the Martin Hollis's Philosophy of Social Science examines four different modes in which human thought and behavior has been interpreted in the social sciences and examines the strengths and weaknesses of these iv different modes. 2 of the four modes assume that human thought and behavior can be understood in the aforementioned style that the natural sciences can, that is, consistent with other naturalistic inquiry, and two other modes assume that human thought and behavior are and then radically distinct that they are not amenable to the kinds of explanations offered through naturalistic research. These are no doubt ideal types and surely social scientists can make free reference to any or all of these to assist in their interpretations of homo thought and behavior simply the idealized types are useful still in understanding the practices of the social sciences.

The first mode that the volume examines assumes that human beings tin past understood using naturalistic inquiry and tin exist understood at the private level. The apotheosis of this kind of interpretation of homo thought and behavior so far has been Rational Choice theory. Rational Choice theory assumes that human beings have something akin to a perfect internal computer for processes their preferences, that they take a complete and well-ordered set of preferences, and that human beings will act in such a way every bit to satisfy these preferences. So, for example, to understand why Joe voted for Obama terminal election, one need but brand reference to his preference for Obama over Romney, or perhaps more specifically his preferences for certain policies that better align with Obama's platform than Romney's platform, and his intention on interim on those preferences, in this case in the form of voting.

Although the above is a relatively simple example, naturalistic, individualistic research works roughly the same style in interpreting thought and behavior that might be considered to apply more than generally to the scope of all human beings. Take, say, linguistic communication every bit a case. The naturalists inquirer who is also an individualist (in this technical sense) will assume that a given individual, barring physical or mental disabilities, is like enough to other individuals to examine the cognitive states of this person so equally to arrive at conclusions well-nigh how language operates in other similar individuals. Therefore, if at a certain level of analysis one could identify changes in the development of this person'south acquisition of English, it could be by and large causeless that other people will acquire English in a similar fashion and in a natural setting as he does. The question of differences arises only when enough individuals take been aggregated to note the variation.

The 2nd mode of analysis for the social sciences is naturalistic and holistic, that is, the social scientist working in this manner assumes that humans can exist studied in a way akin to how the natural sciences are studied (hence, naturalism) and that to study humans the social scientist demand not look at the private simply rather the political, social, cultural milieus in which an individual operates. Consider Joe'southward vote for Obama again. The naturalist-individualist can assume that Joe voted for Obama because of a sure preferences for sure kinds of policies or traits he liked about Obama and his campaign, but the naturalist-holist on the other paw would be more interested in systemic reasons for why Joe voted for Obama. For instance, the systems analyst might acknowledge the fact that Joe is a registered Democrat and registered Democrats on average vote for whomever the Autonomous Party puts forth every bit the candidate, in this case, Obama. If that is less interesting, the system analyst could also admit that Joe, for case, is a teacher who really cares almost teachers unions and it could be the case that members of teachers unions overwhelmingly support the Obama because he supports teachers unions. If this is so, and then it could accept been deduced from certain facts about Joe that he too would likely vote for Obama.

The third mode of analysis assumes that human beings are singled-out plenty from objects and animals in the natural world then as not to understood by naturalistic methods simply, furthermore, they should be understood at the level of individuals. This kind of analysis typically assumes that homo beings are very much likes actors, with various social roles and all kinds of normative expectations that go with whatever social roles they have. So, taking Joe again and asking why he voted for Obama, it could be best-selling that Joe is a husband, begetter, and teacher who read Obama's Brazenness of Hope and identifies with the social roles of Obama. According to the nonnaturalist-indvidualist estimation of Joe's reason for voting for Obama, so, could be that Joe sees himself and Obama every bit actors of certain social roles that Joe deems meaning, and and so he wants a candidate who can meaningfully embody these social roles in the greater culture.

The fourth fashion of analysis is nonnaturalistic and holistic, meaning that in this manner social scientists assume that man beings brand meaning in significant was non like in the natural world and that man beings must be studied at the commonage level. Usually this kind of analysis assumes that people are acting in certain ways merely every bit players do in games, past following certain pre-established roles in various social games that allow them to make and sustain their social globe. So along this line of assay, Joe is an American who understands that in order to even attempt to get the candidate he wants to get president he must cast a vote, because casting a vote is what people practice in the American social world if they want someone to be president. He is playing the 'political game,' acting co-ordinate to the conventions of his social world.

I have a preference for which way(due south) of analysis I think is(/are) about amenable to doing social science just I will non trouble you with my preferences. I will still note that human being thought and behavior are so complex and man beings such elementary creatures designed to think and deport in sure means such that they cannot actually do certain kinds of scientific discipline to understand human idea and behavior.

...more

Mar 12, 2016 Peter Aronson rated it information technology was astonishing

I was rather surprised to enjoy this volume quite so much, since normally I am non peculiarly impressed by philosophy and philosophers. Nevertheless, Hollis is even-handed, open-minded, undogmatic and very knowledgeable. He realizes all the approaches to the social sciences have their flaws, but many different ones accept their uses. It is easy to run down the social sciences as being"fuzzy", but they're fuzzy because they bargain with extremely circuitous assemblages of complex objects (such as people) wher I was rather surprised to savour this book quite and so much, since usually I am not particularly impressed by philosophy and philosophers. However, Hollis is fifty-fifty-handed, open-minded, undogmatic and very knowledgeable. He realizes all the approaches to the social sciences have their flaws, but many different ones have their uses. Information technology is easy to run downwards the social sciences every bit being"fuzzy", but they're fuzzy because they deal with extremely complex assemblages of complex objects (such as people) where many of the important details of which can not be straight observed. But the subjects of the social sciences are vitally important for lodge to empathize, fifty-fifty if we don't deal with them very well nonetheless.

Physics, usually held upwardly as the model of the sciences, is by comparison, simple (not that it is simple in the absolute sense). But equally y'all get up from physics to chemical science to biology to historical sciences such every bit climatology, ecology or oceanography, non only practise the amount of data to exist considered at any one time increase dramatically, simply so does the amount of emergent phenomena. Past the fourth dimension you get to the social sciences, the methods of the physical sciences don't really work very well any more, and y'all are left with fuzzy methods. Only if you're going to be stuck with fuzzy methods, you better empathise the assumptions and consequences of your methodologies. You demand to sympathize their underlying philosophies.

So why did I read this volume if I'm not normally a fan of philosophy? Well, as I get older I realized that there are some bug where maybe philosophy is the right tool to use. I of such problem, was the realization while reading Debt: The Starting time 5,000 Years by David Graeber that maybe the whole social science of economics was potentially an invalid field of study equally there was no such matter equally "the economy" dissever from society, and while at that place could exist economic geography, economical sociology or economic anthropology, economics by itself didn't make any sense as a discipline. But what intellectual tools could yous utilize to address such a problem? I really wants something amend than "it's a matter of opinion" or "a matter of taste" (and one actually wants something better than to say that how the social sciences are split upward is just an arbitrary social construct of our lodge (although that might, alas, be truthful)). So I read this volume. I'grand not sure it helped with my problem (maybe a niggling), but reading it was its own reward -- a lot of smart people have spent a lot of effort trying to address these problems, and their solutions, while flawed, are well worth thinking about.

I volition notation that I was aided in agreement this volume by a recent reading of Popper Selections, some previous exposure to the philosophy of the physical sciences, and a caste in a social science (Geography).

...more

Another volume required in my graduate grade on the philosophy of the social sciences. It gets more complicated...

Jul 27, 2018 Iván rated it information technology was ok

Supongo que es un buen libro, pero no podría dar nada en claro de la lectura. Presupone unos conocimientos filosóficos que, al menos yo, no poseo. Supongo que no será culpa del autor, sino mía, pero por ello no puedo darle más estrellas: no lo he disfrutado tanto como querría.
Además, me resultó un tanto enrevesada la manera del escritor de explicar las cosas. Se va por derroteros muy complejos, toma cauces ambiguos, a veces no deja nada en claro...esto no es para zippo una introducción, es un lib Supongo que es united nations buen libro, pero no podría dar nada en claro de la lectura. Presupone unos conocimientos filosóficos que, al menos yo, no poseo. Supongo que no será culpa del autor, sino mía, pero por ello no puedo darle más estrellas: no lo he disfrutado tanto como querría.
Además, me resultó un tanto enrevesada la manera del escritor de explicar las cosas. Se va por derroteros muy complejos, toma cauces ambiguos, a veces no deja zilch en claro...esto no es para cypher una introducción, es un libro académico poco divulgativo. Lo tomé para preparar el primer año de la carrera de historia, me salgo con un par de conceptos y bastantes dudas que antes no tenía. Quizás en el futuro, cuando tenga más paciencia o más conocimientos sobre el tema, lo leeré de nuevo y sacaré más cosas en claro. ...more

Jan 30, 2020 Hari Hadz rated it did not like it

I concur in general with the reviewer Iván. At that place is nothing peculiarly "introductory" most this book. Instead, information technology takes for granted that you lot know complex terminology without much of an caption.

The conclusion sections appear mostly like gibberish. What is the fundamental point of the affiliate?

Might be a good book for people who are really into philosophy, but for a political science pupil who only has elementary knowledge, at that place is unfortunately naught particularly "introductory" almost the

I concur in general with the reviewer Iván. There is nothing particularly "introductory" about this book. Instead, it takes for granted that you know complex terminology without much of an explanation.

The determination sections appear mostly like gibberish. What is the central point of the chapter?

Might be a good book for people who are really into philosophy, just for a political science student who simply has elementary noesis, there is unfortunately nothing particularly "introductory" about the style in which things are presented. What a pity.

...more than

Jul 09, 2018 Elena rated information technology actually liked it

Choose Your Ontology Book. And Epistemology While You Are at Information technology. Holistic? Individualistic? Positivistic? Relativistic? Birthday now?
A good book not but for aspiring Social Scientists but for Stem students equally well.

Jun 07, 2012 scott is currently reading information technology

Another books one of my dissertation advisors is imposing on me. It's something. Simply nothing I see a need for most people to option up. And so much time spent qunatifying any and every affair, while no significant can be derived from the statisical conclusions - what a waste of scholastic energy! Another books one of my dissertation advisors is imposing on me. Information technology's something. But nada I meet a demand for nigh people to pick up. So much fourth dimension spent qunatifying any and every thing, while no meaning can be derived from the statisical conclusions - what a waste of scholastic energy! ...more

Other books in the series

News & Interviews

The internet, information technology's safe to say, has changed a lot of things. Massive worldwide communication systems have a way of doing that.   1 of the more than...

Welcome back. Simply a moment while we sign yous in to your Goodreads account.

maldonadocovid1986.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1199754.The_Philosophy_of_Social_Science

Share this post