Jan 28 2206B FW24 Slides PDF

Reminder: First midterm will be in one week: February 4 --In this classroom --Two hours --Multiple choice and short answer --Class is responsible for --All materials presented in class up to and including January 28 --Readings: Chapters 1, 9, 10  Last day we learned...

Reminder: First midterm will be in one week: February 4 --In this classroom --Two hours --Multiple choice and short answer --Class is responsible for --All materials presented in class up to and including January 28 --Readings: Chapters 1, 9, 10  Last day we learned that there is no consensus in sociology on what science is or should be We were considering three different paradigms, all of which claim to be scientific: Positivist, interpretive, and critical  We were using the Socratic method to learn about the three paradigms We were focusing on a set of seven questions We started with positivism Q1: Why should one conduct social scientific research? – What was the answer to that one?  Question 2 Q2: What is the fundamental nature of social reality? Positivists: There is regularity or order underlying the world The world is not chaotic or unpredictable --E.g., the revolution of the planets around the sun --Birth rates do not fluctuate wildly from year to year, and so on --These are "regularities" or "patterns" Here are some more regularities or patterns for you to think about: More men than women in House of Commons – How would you explain that? More women than men enrolled in university – How would you explain that? Rich people, on average, live longer than poor people – How would you explain that?  Who can think of some more regularities or patterns? How would you explain that?  Positivism: Science = find the pattern and explain it Research (find the pattern) Theory (explain the pattern) “Wheel of Science” (Walter Wallace)  If you want an illustration of the search for patterns, see the movie "Pi" (π) Lead character tries to find patterns in the stock market People are very interested in his work, because whoever discovers the pattern in the stock market can become very rich: applied research!  Positivists are trying to find patterns in human behaviour all the time Even though there are patterns, this doesn't mean that things never change --Of course, things in societies change --Even things like the solar system change and evolve But positivists would claim that even change occurs in a predictable, patterned way  Would you agree that the social world is characterized by regularity and order, that there are patterns to human behaviour? Not everyone agrees Some people say, "If there is so much regularity and order in the world, why is it so hard to make accurate long-term predictions about society?" E.g., no one predicted the rise of feminism, very few predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, the 2008 market crash, the rise of COVID, etc.  Historians often argue that human existence is so complex that it’s very difficult or impossible to discern patterns in history The study of history tends to be far less theoretical than sociology for that reason In any case, positivists do maintain that there are patterns or regularities in social life  Positivism: since there is regularity and order in the world, the laws or principles governing it do not change Scientific laws are considered “eternal laws” if they are correct The problem is we never know for sure whether the laws we come up with are correct! Usually, they have to be revised  Since correct laws do not change: good theories should be able to explain things in any time period For example, a good theory of deviance should be able to explain contemporary deviance, the deviance of 100 years ago, and the deviance that will take place 100 years from now  Question 3 Q3 What is the basic nature of human beings? Positivist answer has evolved over the years Old answer (mainly from economics): we are self-interested and rational Would you agree?  Not all positivists agree with that now New answer: we are self-interested in certain situations, but altruistic in other situations Does that make sense to you?  Similarly, we act rationally at times, but other times we are irrational E.g., our actions may be heavily influenced by psychological mechanisms that we are only vaguely aware of Do you agree with that general perspective?  Some positivists claim that human nature is a result of our evolutionary heritage Do you buy that? Do you like the “new” positivist view on human nature better than the “old” one?  Whatever view of human nature positivists take, they maintain that we don't simply act any way we want We are subject to causal laws, those laws of nature, those general principles we discussed earlier  It follows from this that we do not have freedom of the will Since all behaviour is subject to causal laws, then we really can't control it ourselves We're like a leaf in the wind, blown about by the forces of nature: journal Social Forces  What do we call the idea that human beings do not have free will? Determinism Determinism is the "strict" positivist position Not ALL positivists are determinists, but a lack of free will does seem to follow from their argument that we're all subject to the laws of nature  What do you think? Do we have free will?  Can you give me an example of the exercise of free will? How might a positivist explain that without using the concept of free will?  Question 4 Q4 Fourth question: What constitutes an explanation or theory of social reality? As we saw last day, positivists claim that a scientific explanation must be based on universal laws For them, a good explanation involves a law-like statement  We discussed examples of law-like statements last day: “X causes domestic violence” “General laws" may be very complex, involving many variables The theories we discussed were fairly simple Most theories are more complex than that  This search for universal laws is called the nomothetic approach to explanation From the Greek "nomos," which means _____________ law Also, positivism tends to be deductive – What does that mean? – What is deductive reasoning?  Deductive reasoning begins with a general theory, which is then used to make specific predictions general-------------->specific general theory-------------->specific prediction  Let's say that a positivist is trying to explain poverty in Canada They would first come up with a theory E.g., poverty is caused by a lack of marketable job skills Lack of job skills  Poverty  The positivist would then go out into the world and make some specific predictions to test the theory (We did an exercise on this!) What are some specific predictions that can be derived from this theory of poverty? One might predict that the poorest 10% of the adult population of London Ontario has below average levels of marketable job skills, then gather some data to see if that is false This is theory testing, which is often done when a deductive approach is taken  What's the opposite of the deductive approach? Inductive approach How does inductive logic work? specific---------------------------------->general specific observations---------------->general theory This approach involves creating or generating theories rather than testing them  Let's say you're trying to explain poverty using the inductive method You'd start by making some observations E.g., you might informally interview some poor people, or maybe spend some time with them From those observations, you'd try to come up with a theory of poverty  E.g., maybe you observed that the poor people you came in contact with had feelings of inferiority Your theory might be: low self-image causes poverty The important point here is that with induction, one begins with observations, and then comes up with a theory  theory creation  We’re going to do a small-group exercise Each group will think of a way to use inductive logic to come up with a theory of what causes some people to be POLITICALLY LIBERAL, and other people to become POLITICALLY CONSERVATIVE 1) Talk about how you could come up with some observations or information that will allow you to create a theory to explain this 2) Once you’ve done that, imagine what you might find if you were to gather data in the way you have in mind, and use it to create a theory  Question 5 Q5: How does one determine whether an explanation is true or false? Generally, positivists claim that we can never prove, beyond any doubt, that any theory is true We can never be absolutely certain of any theory All we have are provisional theories: theories we hang on to until a better one is proposed  One reason why positivists are never 100% certain that a theory is true: it is very difficult to establish causality What does that mean, to “establish causality”? Establishing causality is a rather complicated process We'll spend a fair bit of time discussing how causality can be established  Although we can never be 100% certain that a theory is true, theories are said to be substantiated or supported They are substantiated or supported if they are logically consistent, and in accord with observed facts