Social science logic

The Logic of The Social sciences

Author: opening speech in 1961, Tubingen, Germany Sociological Association conference on Karl Popper. My speech was originally published in "Kolner Zeitschrithfur Soziologie undozialpsychologie] (2,14, 1962, 233-248). People think that my speech will cause a debate. Professor Adorno [Pofessor Adorno] has been requested to continue this debate in his supplementary papers, and he essentially agree with my point in supplementary papers. However, when the book is published in "The Positivist Dispute IN Germansociology], the first release of the two debates of Ad 200, a total of one hundred pages; then is my speech, Then Adorno's supplement papers and the issued papers at the meeting. Everyone who reads the book of the "Thought-Parten" will not think that my speech has caused this debate, and the 100-page aggressive text at the beginning of Adorno is a long time (designed for the book). I plan to first propose two propositions in the logic of social science, which expresses our knowledge and our ignorance comparison. The first proposition: We have a lot of knowledge. Moreover, we not only know that it is doubtful detail, but also knows what those not only have considerable practical significance, but also provide us with profound theoretical cave and surprising things about the understanding of the world. . The second proposition: Our ignorance is unlimited, awake. Indeed, it is (I mentioned in my first proposition) natural science's unstoppable advance reminding our own ignorance, even in the field of natural science itself. This gives Socrates a new development with ignorance. With each step of advancement, with each of our solve, we not only find new, unresolved problems, and we also found that when we believe that you are on a solid foundation, everything is actually But it is unreliable and unstable. Of course, my two propositions about knowledge and ignorance just seem to be contradictory. The main reason for this contradiction in this surface is the fact that in both propositions in the same sense use "knowledge". However, these two senses are important, and two propositions are also: Therefore, I plan to clarify this in the third proposition below. The third proposition: Every kind of knowledge has a very important task, and can even treat it as a judgment test: it must clarify our extraordinary and increasing knowledge and our growing progress on us. There is no connection between the insights to treat our first two propositions correctly. If we think about it, then almost, the knowledge logic must be targeted with this tension between knowledge and ignorance. In my fourth proposition system, the system elaborated an important result of this knowledge. But before I proposed this fourth proposition, I would like to apologize for many of the propositions that will still be put forward. My apology is that some people have organized this paper in the form of numbers. I think this suggestion is useful, although this style will cause the impression of dogmaism. Below is my fourth proposition. The fourth proposition: It is possible to say that the following words can be said: knowledge is not brought about by feeling or observation or data or factual collection, but begins with a problem. People can say: There is no problem without problems, but there is no problem with no knowledge. This means knowledge begins with tension between knowledge and ignorant: there is no problem with no knowledge - there is no problem with no knowledge.

Because each problem is generated in the discovery of some errors in our assumptions; or, from logically, it is generated in the inherent contradictions of the knowledge we assume or discovery to our assumptions. It is more specifically that it is discovered in the discovery between the facts and assumptions of our assumption. Although my top three propositions may cause such an impression because of its abstraction, they are slightly away from our theme - the logic of social science - I want to say that my fourth proposition will bring us. The center of our theme. This can be elaborated in the system in my fifth proposition. The fifth proposition:, like all other sciences, we are in social science or in successful or unsuccessful, or interesting or boring, or is effective or futile, it is just proportional to the meaning or interest of the issues we involved; Of course, it is also a proportion of honestity, directness, and simplicity when we handle these issues. All this is not limited to theoretical issues. Severe practical problems, such as poverty problems, illiterate issues, political suppression issues or legal rights uncertain issues, is an important starting point for social science research. However, these practical problems lead to thinking, leading to establishing theory, resulting in theoretical issues. In all cases, there is no exception, and the characteristics and nature of the problem - of course, there is also a bold and originality of the proposed solution - determine the value of scientific achievements. Therefore, the starting point is always a problem; observation only has a problem that is similar to the starting point. In other words, if it surprises us, if it indicates our knowledge, our expectations, our theory is somewhat less correct, it becomes a starting point. So a observation only causes a problem when it contradicts our conscious or unconscious expectations. But on the other hand, the starting point of our scientific work is not as simple and simple, it is better to see a particular role; that is, it has caused a problem observation. Now I have arrived in the system to explain my main proposition as the sixth proposition. The content is as follows: The sixth proposition (main proposition): (a) Social science method is like a method of natural science, in the experiment, our questions for our research, which are the trial solutions for their starting point. People propose a solution and criticize it. If the proposed solution cannot be objectively criticized, it will be considered unscientific and excluded, although perhaps only temporary. (B) If the proposed solution can be objectively criticized, then we try to refute it, because all criticism is the trial of the refurbishment. (C) If the proposed solution is refuted through our criticism, we will put forward another solution. (D) If it is criticized, we temporarily accept it, first of all, we think it deserves further discussion and criticism. (E) Therefore, the scientific method is one of the solutions controlled by the most stringent criticism to solve our problem. It is the development of "trial" method in criticism. (F) The so-called scientific objectivity is the objectivity of criticism, that is, first in the fact that theory is not criticized, further, is also criticized logic tool - logical contradiction - is objective. The basic idea behind my central proposition can also be expressed in the following manner. Seventh proposition: Knowledge and ignorant tension leads to problems and trial sexual solutions. However, tension will never be overcome. Because our knowledge is the recommendations for temporary and trying to solve the problem. Therefore, in principle, the knowledge itself contains such a possibility, that is, its result is wrong, and thus is an ignorant case.

Prove that our knowledge is just that it is only temporary because it is criticism, or more exactly, it is for the fact that our trial resolution will seem to live us even. The most sharp criticism. It is impossible to prove from positive: there is no proof of this range. In particular, we cannot indicate that our trial sex solution is possible (in any of the sense of probability calculation). Maybe you can describe this insight as criticism. In order to better illustrate my main proposition and its significance of sociology, some other propositions that are widely accepted by a widely accepted methodology that are often unintentionally absorbed are. Some other propositions. For example, there is a methodology or notice of a discrimination and wrong naturalism or a matter of law, it emphasizes what is the time when social sciences learn to study scientific methods. This naturalism of this misunderstanding provides such a requirement: from the start of observation and measurement; for example, this means collecting statistics first; then summarizes the summary and formation. It is proposed that as long as this is possible in social science, you will be close to the ideal of objectivity. However, when doing this, you should realize this fact that in social sciences, it is necessary to reach objective (if it can be reached) is much more difficult than in nature science. Because it is important to be objective, people do not have bias due to their value judgment - ie (, such as Max Weber [Max Weber]) to "exclude value judgment" [value-free ". But just in the rare situation, social scientists can get rid of their own social class's value system, and thus reach the "exclusion value judgment" and "objectivity" that is even limited. Every proposition I am here is a complete mistake in I seem to have it. These propositions are based on misunderstandings of natural sciences. It is actually based on a myth - regrettable is This is the myth that people have accepted too widely. It is a myth of natural science in the characteristics of natural science and the objective characteristics of natural science. I plan to make a criticism of this mistakenness naturalism in a small part of the valuable time I dominated. It is undeniable that many social scientists will veto this or that proposition that I am attributable to this discrimination of naturalism. However, this naturalism currently seems to occupy an advantage in social sciences (maybe in addition to political economics); at least in English-speaking countries. I want to explain the characterization of this victory in my eighth proposition. Eighth Propositions: Before the Second World War, people think of social science as a general theoretical social science, perhaps comparable to theoretical physics, and the social anthropology as a very specific, original society. Sociology. Today this relationship has been completely reversed, and people should pay attention to this fact. Social anthropology or cultural anthropology has become a general social science, and sociology is increasingly becoming a component of social anthropology: a very specific social form - highly industrialized Social form of social form. More simply reflects that the relationship between sociology and humanology has been completely reversed. Social anthropology has risen by applying specialized disciplines. The anthropologists have risen from humble, some eyesight, have a good looking for a long, profound social theoretists and social deep psychologists. However, the previous theoretical sociologist must have a good job of work at-site workers and experts: his duty is to observe and describe the Totem and taboo of local white people in Western European countries and the United States. However, it may not be seen that this change in social scientists should not be taken seriously, especially because there is no such thing as the nature of science. This makes me raise the ninth proposition. The ninth proposition: The so-called scientific discipline is just a mixture of problems and tasting solutions in artificial way, and there is a problem and scientific tradition.

Despite this ninth proposition, the relationship between sociology and anthropology is also extremely interesting, which is not due to subjects or their title, but because it indicates a pseudo-learning method. So I put forward my next proposition. Tenth proposition: The victory of anthropology is a victory that is allegedly observed, allegedly described, and it claims to use summary. First, it is a victory of a more objective method, so it is the victory of the natural science method that people think. It is Pyrrhic Victory, that is, the victory of Pyrrhic Victory, that is, the big price -]]]]]],],,],,,,]]],,],, 学,,, 学 学,]]] My tenth proposition system describes a slightly too sharp. I certainly admit that social anthropology is very interesting and important, it is one of the most successful social sciences. And, I will admit it, come to us Europeans Said that in order to transform, watch yourself through the social anthropologist's glasses, will be a very fascinating, interesting experience. However, although this glasses may be more colored, but this is not Objective. A humanologist is not an observer from Mars. Although he often thinks that it is often necessary to play this social role; we don't have a reason to assume that Mars residents will look more "objective" than us. In this regard, I want to tell a story, it is undeniable, this story is extreme, but it is not a special case. Although this is a real story, this is not important in the current occasion: if this story is You seem to be impossible, please see it as a fiction, seeing to illustrate the fictional example of the important point with an extremely exaggerated means. A few years ago, I participated in a monologist organization. Four-day conference, by philosophers, biologists, anthropologists and physicists - each discipline has one or two representatives; we have a total of eight people. The topic is "science and humanism". Temporarily difficulties in the beginning After the failure of the impression of us, approximately four or five participants have worked together to successfully discuss the discussion to the exotic level in three days. Our meeting reached this stage - or At least in my opinion - we have learned some things in some things. In any case, we are immersed in the theme of our debate when a social anthropologist is unexpected. "Maybe you will be surprised." He said, "I still have not sent it at the moment. This is because I am an observer. As an anthropologist, I participated in this meeting and said that it is better to participate in your speech behavior as a study of your speech. I have been doing this. As a result, I can't always understand the actual content you discussed. However, like I have studied many people discussed, I will always know that it is not important to compare the topic discussed. Our anthropologists learn [(according to I remember) this is almost the original words] From the outside, from a more objective point of view, see such a social phenomenon. What is interested in interested: For example, how one or another person tries to dominate the group, and his attempt to be boycotted by other people or each other or united; how to appear after doing a variety of different types The grade order has thus an equalization of the group, together with the group ceremony of the words; no matter how many problems with the discussion topic, these situations are always very similar. "We listened to everything we have to say by our Mars, and then I made two questions to him. First, what comment on the actual results we discussed; second, if he can't see the existence Effective or invalid non-personal reasons or arguments.

He replied that he must observe our group behavior in the whole God, so we can't understand our argument; and if he went to the conference point, he would be alive (he said this) his objectivity; because he may Volume into debate; if he allows yourself to be drunk, he will become a member of us - his objectivity is over. Moreover, he is trained, not to judge the literal content of the speech (he often uses Verbal Be-Haviour [Speech Behavior] and Verbalization [Words Expression] These terms), or do not see it as an important. He said that he is related to the social and psychological functions of this speech behavior. He continued: "Although the argument or reason is impressed, as a participant discussed, we are interested in such facts, that is, through such means, you can leave an impression and interact with each other; of course, especially It is the characterization of this effect. We care about the concepts such as emphasis, 踌躇, mediation, and concession. We are only concerned about the actual content of discussion, and only care about the roles of different participants: careful dramatic The interaction itself. As for the so-called argument, it is certainly only one aspect of speech behavior. It is not more important than any other aspect. It can be clearly recognized and other words given the impressive words. This concept is purely subjective; The concept of objective valid arguments and objective arguments is also possible. You can divide the arguments into such classifications as effective or invalid in certain time in a certain period of time. In this case Discussion The so-called arguments accepted in groups will still be attacked or vetoed by the participants in one stage, this fact also reveals time factors. "I don't want to drag the length of this." I imagine that there is no need to point out in the current rally, some of my anthropologists have some extreme ophthalmies not only indicate the impact of behavioral objectivity, but also indicate some of the growth in the German soil. The influence of concept. I refer to the concept of philosophical relativism: historical relativism, it believes that there is no objective truth, only for the truth of this era or that is; and social relativeism, it teaches to have the truth of this or the group or class or Scientific, such as scientific and bourgeois science and bourgeoisie in proletariat. I also believe that the so-called knowledge sociology plays a lot in the early history of my humanologists. It is undeniable that my anthropologists have taken some extreme positions at the meeting. But this position, especially if people change slightly, it is neither not typical and not important. But this position is ridiculous. Since I have criticized the history and sociology in other places, there is also a sociology, I will not repeat it here. I only discuss the concept of the foundation that constitutes the basis of this position, misunderstanding the concept of scientific objectivity. Eleventh proposition: Imagine the objectivity of a science depends on the objectivity of scientists, it is completely wrong. I believe that the attitude of natural scientists is more objective than the attitude of social scientists, but also completely wrong. Natural scientists are as partial as anyone else, unless he is a minority of the new ideas, otherwise, he is very regrettable, he often has an extremely prejudice, with a one-sided and biased manner in favor of his own concept. Several most outstanding contemporary physics even established a school, forming a powerful resistance to the new concept. However, my proposition also has a positive side, which is more important. It constitutes the content of my twelfth proposition. The twelfth proposition: Things that can be described as scientific objective is completely established on the criticism, which is always regardless of any objection, so that people can criticize the dominance of the dominance.

In other words, scientific objectivity is not a matter of individual scientists, but mutual criticism, the social results of the social results of scientists and hostile division of labor, the social results of their cooperation are also their competitive social results. Due to this reason, it depends to some extent to make this criticism a possible across a wide range of social and political environments. The thirteenth proposition: The so-called knowledge sociology goes to see objectiveness in the behavior of individual scientists, in accordance with the lack of objectivity of the scientist, it completely ignores the following decisions: Objectivity is completely dependent on the criticism fact. Knowledge sociology is ignored is the theory of knowledge sociology itself - scientific objectivity. Objectivity can only be in accordance with competition (both individual scientists have a variety of different ideological students), traditional (ie, criticism), social system (eg, articles in various competitive publications and various) Publisher's publications; discussions at the meeting), the state power (ie, its social concepts such as political tolerance of free discussions). For example, minor details such as social location or ideas of researchers tend to be eliminated by this process, although they have no denirmation they always play in front of them. The so-called "exclusion value judgment" [Value Freedom can also translate "freedom", with the "free" word echo-translation], as the problem is like objective, like usually free Many ways to solve. The 14th proposition: In the critical discussion, we can distinguish such problems: (1) an assertion of the correctness of assertion; it is a problem with the problem of the problem, interest and meaning of the problem. (2) It is a problem with the problem of various scientific sciences, interesting and meaning issues, like human happiness or international or aggressive nationalism, or industrial expansion, or personal wealth The structure is very different. Fun to eliminate such scientific sciences in scientific research is obviously impossible. In natural science research - such as physics research - eliminates them, and eliminating them in social science research, it is also impossible. Possible, important and giving science is not a taste other than scientific scope, but to distinguish the fun of exploration of the truth and the pure science of the truth. However, although the truth is the main scientific value, it is not the only value. The meaning of relevance, fun, and various statements is the scientific value of a pure scientific issue; such as effectiveness, interpretation ability, simplicity and accuracy. In other words, there are those pure scientific positive and reverse values ​​and positive and negative value outside the scientific range. Although it is impossible to separate applications other than scientific work and scientific scope, the confusion with value category is struggling, especially in the treatment of scientific scope, is one of the tasks of scientific criticism and scientific discussions. . Of course, this is not to be reached for all, it is still one of the persistent tasks of mutual scientific criticism. Pure scientific pureness is ideal that may not be achieved, but it is ideal for our hard work - and should struggle. When the system describes this proposition, I said that the value of eliminating scientific scope from scientific activities is actually impossible. The objectivity is similar; we deprive scientists' partiality will also deprive his humanity, we inhibit or destroy his value judgment, will definitely destroy as people and as scientists. Our motivation and our pure science ideal, like purely the ideal of the truth, deeply fixed in scientific scope, and to some extent, to some extent, and fixed the value judgment of religion. Objective and "excluded value judgment" are not ideal scientists. There is no passion, we will not work - in pure science.

"Love Truth" This term is not just metaphor. Therefore, not only the objectivity and exclusion value judges that individual scientists are actually unable, but the objectivity and "exclusion value judgment" itself is worth it. Since the exclusion value judgment itself is a value, it is self-contradicting the requirements for unconditional exclusion value judgment. This objection is not very important, but it should be indicated that if we divide the exposed value, the pure scientific value of authenticity, correlation, simplicity, etc. is separated from the scientific value of scientific value, and this requirement (it should be scientific) One of the tasks of criticism) replaces the requirements for exclusion value judgment, this contradictory will disappear. So far, I tried to simply launch this proposition, the scientific method lies in the problem choice and the criticism of our solutions to these issues. I have tried to use the methods of social sciences discussed frequently as an example to further indicate that this criticism orientation of the method (as can be called) results in a very reasonable methodology. However, although I talked about some epistemology, I talked about some knowledge logic. I said some criticism on social science. I actually gave me the topic, social science logic, but only made a small positive contribution. I don't want to delay you, telling me that I think the scientific approach is very important and the criticism and criticism. I am now moving directly to some pure logic issues and propositions. The fifteenth proposition: The most important function of pure interpretation logic is a tool for criticism. The sixteenth proposition: Deductive logic is the effectiveness of logical reasoning or the theory of logical resequence [Consequence]. The necessary and decisive conditions for the effectiveness of logical reasoning are as follows: If the premise of effective reasoning is true, then the conclusion must be true. This can also be expressed as follows. Deductive logic is the theory of the truth transmission from premise "premisses] to the conclusion [Conclusion]. Seventeenth proposition: We can say: If all the premise is true, and reason is effective, then the conclusion is also true Therefore, if the conclusion in effective reasoning is fake, it is impossible to all the premise is true. This trivial but very important result can also be expressed in the following way: Deductive logic is not only the truth of the conclusion not only Transmission, and simultaneous derivation from the conclusions to at least one prerequisite. Eighteenth proposition: This, the deduction logic has become the theory of rational criticism. Because all rational criticisms take such an attempt, that is, to indicate It can be unacceptable by the assertion that we are trying to criticize. If we succeeded by an asserted logically unacceptable conclusion, then it may be considered to refute this assertion. 19th proposition: in science In the middle, we are working objects with theory, that is, to interpret the system as the work object. This is two reasons. First, a theory or a deductible system is an attempt to explain, so it is to solve the scientific problem Attempt. Second, a kind of a kind of interpretation system can be rational criticism through its results. Therefore, it is an attemprace solution. It should be criticized by acceptance. Talk about the formal logic as a criticism tool. The two basic concepts used here can concisely interpret: the concept of truth and description. The second ten propositions: the concept of truth is indispensable for critical orientation of the criticism here. We are criticizing One theory is correct claim. We as a theory of critics tried to indicate that this claim is that there is no reason: it is wrong. If you don't adjust the truth, we can't understand what we can learn from our mistake. Important methodology: Any mistake only is that it failed to achieve our goal, that is, our objective truth, this is our adjustment concept.

If it is consistent with the facts or consistent with the facts, or things as described in the proposition, then we call a hypothesis "true". This is the absolute or objective concept of the truth known, and each of us often use this concept. Successful recovery of this truth is one of the most important results of modern logic. This sentence means that the concept of truth has been destroyed. Indeed, the reputation of the destruction of the truth is exactly the power of the concept of relativism of our time to dominate the status. I tend to describe the recovery of the logician and mathematician Alfred Tarski [Ai-Fred Tarski] to the truth concept as the most important philosophy of modern manager logic, that is, the reason. I can't discuss this results here; I can only say it very messy, Tarski successfully provides the easiest and most convincing instructions that the statement that the statement and facts can be imagined. But the past is because there is no hope to solve such a task, leading to the relativism of the doubt - and I am sure that I have no need to specify the social consequences in detail. The second concept I have used and may need to explain is to explain the concept of [expla-nation], or more exactly, causal instructions. Pure theory - Pure Science Problem - Also to find a description of the task, a description of a fact or a phenomenon or a special case that is worth noting outside of the rules. Things we want to explain, can be referred to as illustrative [Explicandum ". The problematic task solution is always composed of one theory, a deductible system, which allows us to explain the process of explaining a description by logically linking it with other facts (so-called initial conditions). A well-clear description is always noted that the description is a logical derivation (or guiliborable) process obtained from some initial conditions. Therefore, the basic logic pattern of each explanation consists of a logical interpretation, which consists of a theory and some initial conditions, which is illustrated. This basic pattern has many applications worth noting. For example, it can be used to indicate that the characteristic hypothesis is distinguished from the independent assay. Further - you may be more interested in this - can use a simple way to analyze the theoretical issues, historical issues and the application scientific issues. This indicates that the theory or the universal rules [NOMOMOMOTHTI] scientific and historical or expressive text "Ideo-Graphic" scientific "Ideo-Graphic" science -... It means that a group of clear, logically identifiable issues is concerned. The above is an explanation of the logical concepts I have used so far. The concepts and descriptions of these two concepts, truths have led to the logic of future concepts, and they are more important for knowledge logic or may be more important for methodology. The first in these concepts is the concept of approaching the truth, the second is a concept of a theory or a concept of explanation. These two concepts are pure logic concepts, that is, they can be defined by means of a statement or a statement of the authenticity - the pure logical concept of a theoretical logic. They are all relative concepts. Although every statement is just true or false, a statement can be more close to the truth than another statement. For example, if the first statement has a "more" true logic backhering, "less" fake logic is later, it will be the case. (In this case, the true and false subset of the two stated rear collections is comparable.) This can easily indicate why we correctly envisage Newton's theory is more close to the truth than Kaul's theory. Similarly, it can indicate that the description of Newton's theory is greater than the explanation of Copple's theory. So we are gaining some logical concepts, which make up the basis for our theory, and allow us to talk about the advancement or reverse of scientific theory. It is here to talk about the general knowledge logic. Especially on the logic of social science, I want to make a few propositions.

The second 11 propositions: there is no pure observation of science; only our (or more or less consciously or criticized) to establish theoretical science. Social science is also. The twenty-two propositions: Since our thoughts and actions are mainly based on social conditions, psychology is a social science. Such as (a) imitation, (b) language, (c) The concept of families is clearly social concept; very clear, learning and thinking psychology, and, for example, psychological analysis, not use this or that concept in these social concepts. Can't exist. Therefore, psychology is prerequisites with social concepts; this shows that it is impossible to explain the society from psychology, or to attribute it as psychology. Therefore, we cannot regard psychology as the foundation of social sciences. We must not use psychological descriptions and in each psychological note must be a prerequisite for its social environment. Therefore, the task of describing this social environment (ie, by means of illustrative theory, because - as described above - There is no theoretical description) is the basic task of social science. Assigning this task to sociology is likely to be appropriate. So I will take this below as a prerequisite. The twenty-third proposition: In a considerable extent, sociology and must make himself independent of psychology, in this sense, sociology is self-discipline, in addition to psychology's dependence on social concepts, One fact that sociology constantly faces the task of unintentional, often unwanted social results. For example: competition is a social phenomenon, which usually does not want to get competitors, but it is possible to explain it as a competitor (conscious and planned) action (usually inevitable) non-intentionally the result of. Therefore, even if some of the actions of competitors can have psychological descriptions, competition social phenomena is also the unusual social result of these actions. The twenty-fourth proposition: But in another sense, sociology is also self-discipline, that is, as a thing that is often known as an objective understanding of the social learning (Verstende Soziologie). The second fifteen propositions: a logic study of economics has produced a result that can be applied to all social sciences. This achievement shows that there is a pure objective approach in social sciences, which may be called objective understanding, or situational logic. A social science founded to objectively understanding can be developed without relying on all subjective or psychological concepts. Its method is to fully analyze the situation of the actor, so that this action is explained in accordance with any further help from psychology. Objective "understanding" is to recognize this action objectively suitable for situations. In other words, a very sufficient analysis of the situation, so that the factors that initially seem to be a psychological factor (such as the desire, motivation, memory and association) is converted into a context. A person with a specific desire has become a person who can use him to pursue a particular objective goal; people with specific memory or association become the fact that the fact that it is objectively have a particular theory or specific message. . This allows us to understand all kinds of action in objective sense, and we can say: No denys, I have different goals, I hold different theories (for example, I have different Charles [Charlemagne]; but if I was His context placed in this analysis - here's context includes target and knowledge - then I may have you, you will make what he does. The method of context analysis is undoubtedly an individual approach, but it is undoubtedly not a psychological method, because it protested all psychology factors and replaced them with objective situational factors.