Social Science and Modern Business I PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture notes and course outlines.
brief reading summary
Screen caps of lecture videos + some practice questions
not fully detailed- may need some corrections...

Description

Course Code: 4QQMN137 20~21 SEM1 000001 SOCIAL SCIENCE Lecturers: Dr Stephen Pratten and Dr Yannick Slade-Caffarel Assessment: 50% 1,800 words coursework essay and 50% take home exam. Lecture notes

Part 1: Competing Views on the Nature of Science

1.1 Competing Conceptions of Science and the Possibility of Social Science

•Explain how conceptions about the nature of science inform the conduct of research on social phenomena. •Highlight that there exists much confusion about both the nature of science and the nature of social science. •Consider two competing accounts of the nature of science – a causalist conception and an alternative view that sees prediction and the identification of event regularities as central to science.

-

It is recognised that there has been less progress made in social sciences than in natural science. -

-

One response to this argues that it is because social science is infeasible. To them, science is about identifying event regularities, a concept which does not exist in social science to begin with. Another response argues that the study of social phenomena has not yet realised its full potential in using the “scientific” approach. Essentially, to stick to the current method.

Both responses to the statement are based on the predictionist view of science and demonstrates how adherence to this unsustainable account of science undermines and the ability to study social phenomena and results in a waste of time and resources.

The Predictionist Conception of Science

-

The dominant and widely accepted view of science in both natural and social sciences

-

Adhering to an unsustainable account of science, the predictionist conception of science, undermines the ability to study social phenomena and results in a waste of time and resources.

-

One response to this problem argues that it is because the study of social sciences is infeasible. Ie. social phenomena could not be studied because their view of science relies on event regularities which does not exist in social science. To use scientific methods used in natural science are misguided attempts and would not lead to an understanding of social phenomens.

-

Another approach argues that the same progress has not been made because the study of social phenomena has not yet realised its full potential in using the “scientific” approach. Essentially, to stick to the current method and social science will be just as successful. This is also an adoption of the predictionist view because we are using the “Correct” scientific method.

-

Both responses and the reason why social sciences are not as successful are because of the predictionist understanding that associates science with predictive accuracy and use of mathematical methods.

Predictionist views: Confused and misguided attemtps to answer social science by using methods used in natural sciences. Created false expectations that hinders research. It is unsustainable. It has informed so much work that it has been left unchallenged. Lead to a widespread adoption of methods which are not suited to studying social science. There is an incompatibility between the aim of science and what we are trying to understand in social sciences.

-

Predictionist social scientists believe that science is all about identifying regularities in each event, and often searching for stable relations between each function and variables. This leads to a focus on predictive accuracy and the use of mathematical methods. This is not always a good idea in social science because there are no event regularities in social phenomenons. Therefore, the “wrong” understanding of the aim of science in social science can lead scientists to manipulate datas so that they accurately represent a stable functional relationship.

-

Eg. in economics, things that do not exist are presented in this way, eg. utility or consumption. Economics may represent Consumption as a regular variable of Income. This focus on event regularities creates a situation that the phenomenon that we try to understand are not reflective of the reality of their existence. For the variable to produce a consistent result, the conditions required of the outcome have to be met. Unrealistic assumptions (of how each economic agent reacts) are made to accommodate this view.

-

To make more sustained progress in social science and evaluating outputs from social science, we need to adopt a more compelling and realistic account of the nature of science.

-

The first view to explore maintains that: Predictive accuracy, use of mathematics and quantitative methods is irrelevant to the question of whether a discipline qualifies as science. In essence, we will try to recognise the view that social science is entirely feasible. We will also contend that the current conception of science maintained obstructs further achievements in social sciences.

-

Causal explanation of social science is more sustainable.Which aims to identify and understand underlying causal factors which produced the phenomenon of interest instead of predicting it. Eg. to move on from studying the symptoms of an illness (fever) to the underlying cause which made the change (virus). Causal explanations cannot be reduced to mathematical manipulations.

-

Social scientists committed to the predictionist views are committed to using mathematical methods which they see as essential to proper scientific endeavours.

-

The method used must fit the nature of its object (or phenomena). We will see that once this causalist view of science is adopted then social science can be seen as entirely feasible but the particular methods deployed to pursue social science need to be relevant to the material being studied. Method first type approaches are not useful in studying social phenomena. In a casualist view, the method is secondary and depends on the object of interest.

A discipline does not have to show regularities in outcome to be proven accurate- but how would this be possible. Since there are no proven relations between each function, what use could come from it? As it could not be used to predict or manipulate variables to ensure an outcome. Or… does it mean that we could find regularities in outcome without relying on quantitative methods. In other words, qualitative methods are sufficient?

Further readings: What is “scientific” about the study of social science? Why are social science researches not successful? Society and the social relationships are not susceptible to scientific study, and that the methods of the natural sciences should not be applied to social phenomena. Gareau, F.H. (1987) `Expansion and Increasing Diversification of the Universe of Social Science', It is important to recognise that the study of social sciences has limitations. There are false expectations which suggests that we could produce clear answers and formulas as in natural science in their relatively shorter period. If we do this, we may be compromised by omitting variables that do not neatly fit into our findings. This field of study has intrinsic unpredictability. Social sciences tend to produce useful ideas with increasingly firm factual base, rather than clear-cut answers. To answer major policy questions, we must study variables with relationships that would have a crucial effect on policies. Schonfield, A. (1971) `Introduction to the Annual Report' This might be more suited to answer questions more on a case-by-case basis as opposed to a generalisation that is widely applicable as in natural science.

Keywords: “Science” - the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. “Systematic approach” - A process used to determine the viability of a project using clearly defined and repeatable steps and an evaluation of the outcomes. “Experiment” The purpose of an experiment is to test out your hypothesis. If your hypothesis is correct, then it is a theory that could work every single time the experiment has been performed by scientists. “Social Science” - human society and social relationships. “Quantitative methods” - the systematic empirical investigation of observable phenomena via statistical, mathematical, or computational techniques. “Empirical Investigation” - refers to research conducted, and conclusions reached, by means of observation and documentation.

1.2 The Experiment

•Identify two alternative conceptions of science – a causalist versus a predictionist view. •Show that the causalist view is able to render intelligible key elements of natural scientific practice including the experiment and account for its significance, whereas the predictionist view is incapable of making sense of the experiment. •Explain that we can only understand the importance of the experiment and the associated aim of generating a ‘closed system’ in certain of the natural sciences if we recognize that the world is typically open and structured.

-

Causal conception of science is a more reasonable account of what goes on in science than the predictionist conception.

-

Experiments are intervention in nature. It generates a close system that guarantees event regularities. Event regularities are restricted to conditions of well-controlled experiment. Quite likely that predictionist world views only hold up in experimental context.

-

Predictionist understanding of science only makes sense in experimental contexts. Since its aims are to identify event regularities and the only context in which event regularities occur are within

experiments, this restricts the scope of the predictionist understanding of science to only within those experiments.

Understandings created by isolating one mechanism within an experiment have allowed us to understand things that occurred not only in experiments, but outside as well. The fact that experiments require intervention (an artificial closed system) that supports the causalist view of science. Casaulist view can make sense of the fact we can only guarantee regularities by intervening. Observing nature without intervening (empirical view) would not allow you to get constant conjunction that will precisely represent that particular causal mechanism. This implies that even regularities do not occur in the outside world.

-

Experiments ensure that irrelevant variables which would influence the outcome are absent. Experiments are useful because cause equals constant conjunction only when other things are equal and in nature, other things are never equal. The natural world is an open system and experiment establishes a closed system.

-

Nature is an open system because there are many of these mechanisms; it can be studied experimentally because in the natural realm we can isolate any one of them, either by preventing others from operating, or keeping their operation constant, or making allowances for their operation.

-

Experiment tells us the real working of natural mechanisms one by one, but in the spontaneous course of nature they are working conjointly to produce outcomes that are not, like the results of an experiment, strictly predictable.

Why we do experiments- by intervening and isolating forces, we are able to remove the different kinds of interferences that don't allow us to see something happening in a constant way in the outside world. It allows us to remove those interferences so that we can observe it occurring as a constant conjunction. Able to observe a particular causal mechanism occurring as a constant conjunction. To obtain a very precise representation of the way in which that force occurs. Provides information as to how the forces might occur outside of an experimental set up. In the open system, there are many causal mechanisms that occur conjointly at the same time to produce an event. Experiments allow us to take certain causal mechanisms that are isolatible and observe them function as event regularities. Identification of event regularities is a tool to get from understanding the surface phenomenon of interest to the underlying causal mechanism. Identifying event regularities is not the aim It is not possible to isolate social causal mechanism

Keywords: “Constant conjunction” “Empiricism” -

1.3 Implications of the Causalist Account of Science

•Show that the causalist view is associated with the recognition that the world is structured – that the world is not only made up of events and relationships between them but is also constituted by underlying causal mechanisms that have an independent existence. •Explain that on the causalist conception science and scientific explanation is centrally concerned with the movement from surface phenomena to an understanding of causal mechanisms underlying them and generative of them. •Note that essential for a fully adequate account of science is the notion of emergence and the recognition that change is possible both within science and at the level of the material the sciences study. -

Central aim of the experiment is to help us understand causal mechanisms. Underlying causal mechanisms can be identified when isolated from countervailing causes. Eg. objects fall with a constant rate of acceleration in an experimental vacuum, because aerodynamic and other causal forces are prevented from affecting the outcome.

Role and aim of experiments are to isolate a causal mechanism to observe and identify without interference. The aim of science is to go from the surface of the phenomenon we want to understand (symptoms of sickness) to the underlying causal mechanism (virus or bacteria) of it. The whole point of science is not about understanding event regularities, it’s about understanding the underlying cause. Because events don’t just exist when we observe them as regularities, it exists in the real world in tandem with other forces. Event regularities is the tool not the aim. The world is not constituted of purely regularities - our need for experiments implies that the real world is an open system. Tendencies -> tending to act in a particular way (eg. gravity making an object fall) but not in the exact same way to be considered an event regularity that occurs in a closed system.

There are causal mechanisms that allow us to explain phenomena of interests. Causal mechanisms do not act differently when they are isolated than when they are not. Eg.gravity outside a closed system acts a tendency, not a regularity - it affects things as a manner of tendency. The role of maths can be useful in context where there are regularities (a closed system) but it is not essential in the study of the social realm (an open system). In the social realm, we can also use metaphors or analogies to move from the surface of the phenomenon to the underlying causes. Science is not and should not be defined by a method first approach, successes come from finding the appropriate method. Explanatory power vs. Predictive power Power of explaining should take preeminence or precedence over predictive power when seeing if a theory is adequate in explaining. Predictive power is not a criterion of adequacy. Predictions which can only be accurate when there are event regularities is irrelevant for understanding the open system of the social realm. Stratification of Nature and Emergence. Different layers emerge but cannot be reduced to a level that it emerged from. Eg. Social phenomena such as the government emerged from the individual interactions of human beings. However the workings of the government can not be understood by only understanding the collection of human interactions that makes up the government. Things of one level of reality can interact and produce things at another level of reality that is not reducible to it. Another example: you cannot understand Biology just by knowing physics, even though physics produces chemistry which then produces biology. Also, you cannot understand social phenomena just by understanding human biology. -

But these causal forces typically continually operate even when countervailing tendencies are in play, as is the case outside the experiment. Gravity is operating on the objects on the table as much as it would be if the objects were dropped in an experimental vacuum.

-

The real world does not just consist of what we experience, or even of what happens; it also includes the mechanisms that make things happen. These mechanisms are powers which things have even when they are not exercised. -

-

Experiments help identify the unimpeded effects of the causal mechanism because it isolates other countervailing forces from affecting the outcome, but in the real world, these causal mechanisms still operate even when there are other factors affecting it.

An action of one mechanism may not be precisely manifest outside the experiment because of the open system. This can be conceptualised as tendencies. Tendencies are potentialities which may be exercised or in play without being straightforwardly realised or manifest in any particular outcome. Understanding causal mechanism allows us to trigger those mechanisms outside the experiment, where event regularities typically do not hold.

-

An essential moment in natural science involves identifying and understanding causes of phenomena of interest. Mathematical reasonings or successful event prediction can aid this process when feasible, but it is not an essential feature. Understanding the causal working mechanisms of diseases that causes symptoms of illness allows us to intervene and provide antidotes. Causal explanatory practice is central to science.

-

By accepting the causalist view, we recognised that the essential movement in science is understanding the mechanism structure or condition that is responsible for the given phenomena

-

Explanatory rather than predictive power must become the dominant criterion of theory adequacy, while the objective of assessing the reality of the posited mechanism has to be explicitly acknowledged.

-

Concluding remarks. Developing the causalist conception of science- Causal mechanisms when triggered operate as tendencies. Explanatory power rather than prediction as the means for adjudicating between theories.

Stratification of Nature and Emergence -

The natural world is ordered in layers. Stratification or the layering of nature is linked to the theory of emergence - one stratum is emergent from another when it is ontologically dependent on it but not reducible to it. An emergent stratum has its own laws which cannot be deduced from those of the stratum from which it is emergent. Physics, chemistry and biology are not just artificially differentiated academic disciplines they are about really distinct layers of natural phenomena and there is an ordering whereby one cannot be reduced to another, one is more basic than another.

-

Science does not remain static. There are continuous changes in ideas, theories, methods and well as the material being studied. Things can change or come into existence where it has not previously existed.

Keywords Ontological - showing the relations between the concepts and categories in a subject area or domain.

1.4 The Nature of the Social Realm

•Outline the conditions that must be met for a system to be closed.

•Note that the causalist view recognises that experimental interventions may be difficult to engineer in the social realm since the conditions needed to bring about a closure are difficult to guarantee in the social world.