David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of the Social Sciences 29 (4):459-480 (1999)
A hallmark of recent critical social science has been the commitment to methodological and theoretical pluralism. Habermas and others have argued that diverse theoretical and empirical approaches are needed to support informed social criticism. However, an unresolved tension remains in the epistemology of critical social science: the tension between the epistemic advantages of a single comprehensive theoretical framework and those of methodological and theoretical pluralism. By shifting the grounds of the debate in a way suggested by Dewey's pragmatism, the author argues that a thoroughgoing pluralism strengthens, rather than weakens, both the social scientific and political aims of critical social science. Not only does pragmatism offer a plausible interpretation of the epistemic pluralism of the social sciences, but it also provides a way of thinking about their fundamentally practical and political character. With a better normative vocabulary with which to discuss the epistemological issues of such a pluralistic mode of inquiry, the democratic role of critical inquiry and its specifically practical form of verification can be clarified.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Phillip Deen (2010). Dialectical Vs. Experimental Method: Marcuse's Review of Dewey's Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 46 (2):242-257.
Amit Ron (2010). The Hermeneutics of the Causal Powers of Meaningful Objects. Journal of Critical Realism 9 (2):155-171.
James McCollum (2012). Hermeneutical Injustice and the Social Sciences: Development Policy and Positional Objectivity. Social Epistemology 26 (2):189-200.
Similar books and articles
J. Gregory (2010). The Political Philosophy of Walzer's Social Criticism. Philosophy and Social Criticism 36 (9):1093-1111.
Joseph Rouse (1991). Indeterminacy, Empirical Evidence, and Methodological Pluralism. Synthese 86 (3):443 - 465.
S. Crasnow (2011). Evidence for Use: Causal Pluralism and the Role of Case Studies in Political Science Research. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 41 (1):26-49.
Christopher J. Preston (2005). Pluralism and Naturalism: Why the Proliferation of Theories is Good for the Mind. Philosophical Psychology 18 (6):715 – 735.
Steve Woolgar (1991). The Very Idea of Social Epistemology: What Prospects for a Truly Radical 'Radically Naturalized Epistemology'? Inquiry 34 (3 & 4):377 – 389.
Raphael Sassower (2005). Science and Culture. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 35 (4):499-508.
Thomas Fossen (2012). Politicizing Brandom's Pragmatism: Normativity and the Agonal Character of Social Practice. European Journal of Philosophy 20 (4):371-395.
Jeroen Van Bouwel & Erik Weber (2008). De-Ontologizing the Debate on Social Explanations: A Pragmatic Approach Based on Epistemic Interests. Human Studies 31 (4):423 - 442.
Jeroen Van Bouwel & Erik Weber (2008). De-Ontologizing the Debate on Social Explanations: A Pragmatic Approach Based on Epistemic Interests. [REVIEW] Human Studies 31 (4):423-442.
James Bohman (1997). Pluralism, Indeterminacy and the Social Sciences: Reply to Ingram and Meehan. [REVIEW] Human Studies 20 (4):441-458.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads60 ( #28,876 of 1,139,993 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #48,755 of 1,139,993 )
How can I increase my downloads?