David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Cambridge [Eng.]University Press (1972)
This essay is written in the belief that it is possible to say both where Max Weber's philosophy of social science is mistaken and how these mistakes can be put right. Runciman argues that Weber's analysis breaks down at three decisive points: the difference between theoretical pre-suppositions and implicit value-judgements; the manner in which 'idiographic' explanations are to be subsumed under causal laws; and the relation of explanation to description in sociology. The arguments which Weber put forward are fundamental to the methodology of the social sciences, and since his death it has come to be increasingly widely held that with perhaps the sole exception of Mill's System of Logic there is still no other body of work of comparable importance in the academic literature on these topics. Runciman's attempt to correct Weber's mistakes therefore constitutes in itself a valuable contribution to the philosophy of social science.
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Buy the book||$29.99 direct from Amazon $30.52 new (8% off) $36.29 used Amazon page|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Gerhard Wagner & Heinz Zipprian (1986). The Problem of Reference in Max Weber's Theory of Causal Explanation. Human Studies 9 (1):21 - 42.
Joseph J. Kockelmans (1978). Reflections on Social Theory. Human Studies 1 (1):1 - 15.
Jack Birner (1995). Book Reviews. [REVIEW] Journal of Economic Methodology 2 (2):304-311.
Similar books and articles
Nasser Behnegar (2003). Leo Strauss, Max Weber, and the Scientific Study of Politics. University of Chicago Press.
Joseph Agassi (1991). Bye-Bye, Weber. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 21 (1):102-109.
Wolfgang Schluchter (1996). Paradoxes of Modernity: Culture and Conduct in the Theory of Max Weber. Stanford University Press.
Hans Henrik Bruun (2008). Objectivity, Value Spheres, and "Inherent Laws": On Some Suggestive Isomorphisms Between Weber, Bourdieu, and Luhmann. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 38 (1):97-120.
Michael Weston (1973). A Critique of Max Weber's Philosophy of Social Science By W. G. Runciman. Cambridge University Press, 1972, 103 Pp., £1.80. [REVIEW] Philosophy 48 (184):195-.
John Heil (1973). Book Review:A Critique of Max Weber's Philosophy of Social Science W. G. Runciman. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 40 (2):317-.
M. R. (2001). The Ontology of the Questionnaire - Max Weber on Measurement and Mass Investigation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 32 (4):647-684.
Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn (1997). Webers Idealtypus AlS Methode Zur Bestimmung Des Begriffsinhaltes Theoretischer Begriffe in den Kulturwissenschaften. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 28 (2):275 - 296.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads15 ( #90,339 of 1,088,810 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,666 of 1,088,810 )
How can I increase my downloads?