Hollis Critical Review - the Philosophy of Social Science

• Dwelling house
• My Books

Open Preview

See a Trouble?

We'd love your aid. Permit united states know what's wrong with this preview of The Philosophy of Social Science by Martin Hollis.

Cheers for telling usa virtually the problem.

Friend Reviews

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

Reader Q&A

Be the first to ask a question about The Philosophy of Social Science

Community Reviews

 · 77 ratings  · ix reviews

Kickoff your review of The Philosophy of Social Science: An Introduction

Martin Hollis's Philosophy of Social Science examines 4 different modes in which human thought and behavior has been interpreted in the social sciences and examines the strengths and weaknesses of these 4 different modes. Two of the four modes presume that human being thought and beliefs can be understood in the same way that the natural sciences tin, that is, consistent with other naturalistic enquiry, and two other modes assume that human being idea and behavior are and then radically distinct that the Martin Hollis's Philosophy of Social Science examines four different modes in which human being thought and behavior has been interpreted in the social sciences and examines the strengths and weaknesses of these four different modes. Two of the four modes presume that human thought and behavior can exist understood in the same style that the natural sciences can, that is, consistent with other naturalistic inquiry, and two other modes assume that human thought and behavior are then radically distinct that they are not amenable to the kinds of explanations offered through naturalistic enquiry. These are no doubt ideal types and surely social scientists tin make complimentary reference to any or all of these to aid in their interpretations of human thought and behavior simply the arcadian types are useful nonetheless in understanding the practices of the social sciences.

The first mode that the book examines assumes that human beings tin by understood using naturalistic inquiry and can be understood at the individual level. The apotheosis of this kind of estimation of human idea and behavior so far has been Rational Choice theory. Rational Pick theory assumes that human beings accept something akin to a perfect internal estimator for processes their preferences, that they take a complete and well-ordered set of preferences, and that human beings volition act in such a way as to satisfy these preferences. So, for example, to understand why Joe voted for Obama last election, 1 need only make reference to his preference for Obama over Romney, or maybe more specifically his preferences for certain policies that ameliorate marshal with Obama's platform than Romney'due south platform, and his intention on acting on those preferences, in this instance in the class of voting.

Although the above is a relatively simple example, naturalistic, individualistic inquiry works roughly the same fashion in interpreting idea and behavior that might be considered to apply more generally to the scope of all homo beings. Take, say, language as a example. The naturalists inquirer who is as well an individualist (in this technical sense) will presume that a given individual, barring physical or mental disabilities, is like enough to other individuals to examine the cognitive states of this person and then equally to get in at conclusions about how linguistic communication operates in other similar individuals. Therefore, if at a certain level of analysis one could identify changes in the development of this person'southward conquering of English, it could be mostly assumed that other people will larn English in a similar fashion and in a natural setting as he does. The question of differences arises only when enough individuals have been aggregated to note the variation.

The second mode of analysis for the social sciences is naturalistic and holistic, that is, the social scientist working in this fashion assumes that humans can be studied in a way akin to how the natural sciences are studied (hence, naturalism) and that to study humans the social scientist need not look at the individual but rather the political, social, cultural milieus in which an individual operates. Consider Joe's vote for Obama once more. The naturalist-individualist tin presume 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 hand would be more than interested in systemic reasons for why Joe voted for Obama. For example, the systems analyst might admit the fact that Joe is a registered Democrat and registered Democrats on average vote for whomever the Democratic Political party puts forth as the candidate, in this case, Obama. If that is less interesting, the system annotator could also acknowledge that Joe, for case, is a teacher who really cares almost teachers unions and it could be the instance that members of teachers unions overwhelmingly back up the Obama considering he supports teachers unions. If this is so, then it could have been deduced from certain facts about Joe that he as well would likely vote for Obama.

The third mode of assay assumes that man beings are distinct enough from objects and animals in the natural world so as non to understood by naturalistic methods but, furthermore, they should exist understood at the level of individuals. This kind of analysis typically assumes that human beings are very much likes actors, with various social roles and all kinds of normative expectations that go with whatever social roles they accept. So, taking Joe once more and asking why he voted for Obama, it could be best-selling that Joe is a husband, father, and teacher who read Obama's Audacity of Hope and identifies with the social roles of Obama. According to the nonnaturalist-indvidualist estimation of Joe'due south reason for voting for Obama, so, could be that Joe sees himself and Obama as actors of sure social roles that Joe deems significant, and and so he wants a candidate who can meaningfully embody these social roles in the greater culture.

The fourth way of analysis is nonnaturalistic and holistic, meaning that in this manner social scientists presume that human beings make meaning in significant was not similar in the natural globe and that homo beings must be studied at the collective level. Usually this kind of analysis assumes that people are interim in certain ways only every bit players exercise in games, by following certain pre-established roles in various social games that let them to make and sustain their social world. So forth this line of assay, Joe is an American who understands that in guild to even attempt to get the candidate he wants to become president he must cast a vote, because casting a vote is what people do 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 take a preference for which style(s) of analysis I think is(/are) nearly amenable to doing social science but I will not trouble you with my preferences. I will yet note that man thought and behavior are so complex and homo beings such elementary creatures designed to think and acquit in sure ways such that they cannot actually do sure kinds of science to understand human idea and behavior.

...more

Mar 12, 2016 Peter Aronson rated it it was amazing

I was rather surprised to enjoy this book quite so much, since normally I am not peculiarly impressed past philosophy and philosophers. However, Hollis is even-handed, open-minded, undogmatic and very knowledgeable. He realizes all the approaches to the social sciences have their flaws, but many dissimilar ones have their uses. It is easy to run down the social sciences as beingness"fuzzy", but they're fuzzy considering they deal with extremely complex assemblages of circuitous objects (such equally people) wher I was rather surprised to savour this book quite so much, since normally I am not peculiarly impressed by philosophy and philosophers. However, Hollis is even-handed, open-minded, undogmatic and very knowledgeable. He realizes all the approaches to the social sciences have their flaws, merely many different ones have their uses. It is like shooting fish in a barrel to run down the social sciences as being"fuzzy", but they're fuzzy because they bargain with extremely circuitous assemblages of complex objects (such every bit people) where many of the important details of which tin can non be directly observed. Merely the subjects of the social sciences are vitally important for society to understand, even if we don't deal with them very well however.

Physics, usually held up as the model of the sciences, is by comparison, uncomplicated (non that it is unproblematic in the accented sense). Only equally you go up from physics to chemistry to biology to historical sciences such as climatology, ecology or oceanography, not simply exercise the amount of data to be considered at any one time increment dramatically, but and then does the amount of emergent phenomena. Past the fourth dimension y'all become to the social sciences, the methods of the concrete sciences don't really piece of work very well any more, and y'all are left with fuzzy methods. But if you're going to be stuck with fuzzy methods, you meliorate empathize the assumptions and consequences of your methodologies. You need to understand their underlying philosophies.

And then why did I read this volume if I'g not normally a fan of philosophy? Well, as I become older I realized that there are some problems where maybe philosophy is the correct tool to use. I of such problem, was the realization while reading Debt: The First 5,000 Years by David Graeber that possibly the whole social science of economics was potentially an invalid subject field as there was no such thing equally "the economy" dissever from social club, and while there could be economic geography, economic sociology or economic anthropology, economic science by itself didn't make any sense every bit a discipline. Merely what intellectual tools could you use to address such a problem? One actually wants something amend than "it'south a affair of opinion" or "a matter of taste" (and i actually wants something better than to say that how the social sciences are split up is just an arbitrary social construct of our society (although that might, alas, be truthful)). And then I read this book. I'm not sure it helped with my problem (perhaps a petty), but reading it was its own reward -- a lot of smart people take spent a lot of attempt trying to address these bug, and their solutions, while flawed, are well worth thinking about.

I volition note that I was aided in understanding this book 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 than

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

Jul 27, 2018 Iván rated it it was ok

Supongo que es un buen libro, pero no podría dar cipher 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 nada una introducción, es united nations 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 nada en claro...esto no es para nada 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 information technology did not similar it

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

The conclusion sections announced mostly like gibberish. What is the central point of the chapter?

Might be a adept book for people who are really into philosophy, but for a political science educatee who only has elementary noesis, in that location is unfortunately nothing especially "introductory" almost the

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

The conclusion 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, only for a political science pupil who just has elementary knowledge, there is unfortunately aught specially "introductory" almost the style in which things are presented. What a pity.

...more

Jul 09, 2018 Elena rated it really liked information technology

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

Jun 07, 2012 scott is currently reading information technology

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

Other books in the series

News & Interviews

The cyberspace, it's condom to say, has changed a lot of things. Massive worldwide communication systems have a manner of doing that.   One of the more...

Welcome back. Just a moment while nosotros sign you lot in to your Goodreads account.

sherrardyoud1969.blogspot.com

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

Share this post