Symposium on explanations and social ontology 3: Can we dispense with structural explanations of social facts?
Economics and Philosophy 18 (2):259-275 (2002)
| Abstract | Some social scientists and philosophers (e.g., James Coleman and Jon Elster) claim that all social facts are best explained by means of a micro-explanation. They defend a micro-reductionism in the social sciences: to explain is to provide a mechanism on the individual level. The first aim of this paper is to challenge this view and defend the view that it has to be substituted for an explanatory pluralism with two components: (1) structural explanations of P-, O- and T-contrasts between social facts are more efficient than the competing micro-explanations; and (2) whether a plain social fact (as opposed to a contrast) is best explained in a micro-explanation or a structural explanation depends on the explanatory interest. The second aim of the paper is to show how this explanatory pluralism is compatible with ontological individualism. This paper is motivated by our conviction that explanatory pluralism as defended by Frank Jackson and Philip Pettit is on the right track, but must be further elaborated. We want to supplement their contribution, by (1) introducing the difference between explanations of facts and explanations of contrasts; (2) giving examples from the social sciences, instead of mainly from the natural sciences or common sense knowledge; and (3) emphasizing the pragmatic relevance of explanations on different levels –social, psychological, biological, etc. – which is insufficiently done by Jackson and Pettit. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesMariam Thalos (1998). A Modest Proposal for Interpreting Structural Explanations. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (2):279-295.
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. Human Studies 31 (4).
Anthony Walsh (1997). Methodological Individualism and Vertical Integration in the Social Sciences. Behavior and Philosophy 25 (2):121 - 136.
Jeroen van Bouwel, Erik Weber & Leen de Vreese (2011). Indispensability Arguments in Favour of Reductive Explanations. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 42 (1):33-46.
John R. Searle (1991). Intentionalistic Explanations in the Social Sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 21 (3):332-344.
Erik Weber, Jeroen Van Bouwel & Merel Lefevere (2012). The Role of Unification in Explanations of Facts. In Henk de Regt, Samir Okasha & Stephan Hartmann (eds.), EPSA Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009. Springer.
Erik Weber & Jeroen Van Bouwel (2009). Causation, Unification, and the Adequacy of Explanations of Facts. THEORIA. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science 24 (3):301-320.
Uskali Mäki (2002). Symposium on Explanations and Social Ontology 2: Explanatory Ecumenism and Economics Imperialism. Economics and Philosophy 18 (2):235-257.
Caterina Marchionni (2008). Explanatory Pluralism and Complementarity: From Autonomy to Integration. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 38 (3):314-333.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads11 ( #99,611 of 549,196 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
