Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T00:58:13.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Objectivism vs. Subjectivism in the Social Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Paul Diesing
Paul Diesing*
Affiliation:
State University of New York at Buffalo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent developments in social science methods have made most of the objectivism-subjectivism arguments in the philosophy of social science obsolete. Developments in experimental methods have made possible a behavioristic treatment of everything cherished as important in human action by the subjectivists; developments in computer and mathematical models have made possible a type of theory which carries out the program of the subjectivists but is not vulnerable to the arguments of the objectivists. What remains of the philosophical argument are two types of theory (for example, game theory and learning theory) which are both useful, both scientific, and frequently equivalent. Choice between them by scientists can be made on empirical grounds rather than on the grounds developed in the philosophical controversy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , June 1966 , pp. 124 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © 1966 by The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

∗

Revision of a paper delivered at the American Philosophical Association convention, Dec. 29, 1964.

References

[1] Bales, Robert F., et al., “The Interaction Simulator” in Proceedings of a Harvard Symposium on Digital Computers and their Application. Cambridge: Harvard, 1962.Google Scholar
[2] Becker, Gary, “Irrational Behavior and Economic Theory.” Journal of Political Economy. February, 1962.10.1086/258584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Becker, Howard and Geers, B., “Participant Observation” in R. Adams and J. Preiss, eds., Human Organization Research. Homewood, Ill. Dorsey, 1960.Google Scholar
[4] Bergmann, Gustav and Spence, K., “Operationism and Theory in Psychology.” Psych. Rev. January, 1941, pp. 1–14.10.1037/h0054874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Boring, E. G., et al., Psychology: a Behavioral Reinterpretation. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1964.Google Scholar
[6] Borko, H., ed., Computer Applications in the Behavioral Sciences. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962.Google Scholar
[7] Boulding, Kenneth, The Image. Ann Arbor: U. of Michigan Press, 1956.10.3998/mpub.6607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8] Brodbeck, May, “On the Philosophy of the Social Sciences.” Philosophy of Science. XXI, April, 1954.10.1086/287336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Brodbeck, May, “Meaning and Action.” Philosophy of Science XXX, October, 1963.10.1086/287952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. and Austin, , A Study of Thinking. New York: Wiley, 1956.Google Scholar
[11] Charlesworth, J. C., ed., The Limits of Behavioralism in Political Science. Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1962.Google Scholar
[12] Chomsky, Noam, Review of Skinner, Verbal Behavior. Language, XXXV, 1959, pp. 26–58.Google Scholar
[13] Cohen, Kalman, Computer Simulation of the Shoe, Leather & Hide Sequence. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1960.Google Scholar
[14] Hayek, F. von, The Counter-Revolution of Science. Glencoe: Free Press, 1952.Google Scholar
[15] Kantor, J. R., Interbehavioral Psychology. Bloomington, Ind.: Principia Press, 1958.Google Scholar
[16] Kaplan, Abraham, The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler, 1964.Google Scholar
[17] Kirzner, Israel, “Rational Action and Economic Theory,” Journal of Political Economy, August, 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18] Knight, Frank H., On the History and Method of Economics. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1956.Google Scholar
[19] Koch, Sigmund, ed., Psychology, vol. 1. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.Google Scholar
[20] Lazarsfeld, Paul, “Problems of Methodology” in R. Merton, et al., ed. Sociology Today. New York: Basic Books, 1959.Google Scholar
[21] Lazarsfeld, Paul, “Latent Structure Analysis” Koch, in S., ed., Psychology, vol. 3. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.Google Scholar
[22] Lieberman, Bernhardt, “Experimental Studies of Conflict in Some Two-person and Three-person Games,” in Criswell, Joan, ed., Mathematical Methods in Smallgroup Processes. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1962.Google Scholar
[23] Loehlin, John C., “A Computer Model of Idle Speculation.” Paper read to the Psychonomic-Psychometric Convention, October 8, 1964.10.1037/e572342012-100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[24] March, J. and Simon, H., Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar
[25] Martin, Michael, “The Scientific Status of Psychoanalytic Clinical Evidence,” Inquiry VII, pp. 13–36.Google Scholar
[26] McPhee, William, Formal Theories of Mass Behavior. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963.Google Scholar
[27] Meehl, Paul, Clinical vs. Statistical Prediction. Minnepolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1954.Google Scholar
[28] Mischel, Theodore, “Personal Constructs, Rules, and the Logic of Clinical Activity.” Psych. Review, May, 1964, pp. 180-192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[29] Mises, Ludwig von, Epistemological Problems of Economics. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1960.Google Scholar
[30] Moore, Omar K. and Anderson, A. R., “Some Puzzling Aspects of Social Interaction” in Joan Criswell, et al., ed., Mathematical Methods in Small-group Processes. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1962.Google Scholar
[31] Nagel, Ernest, “Methodological Issues in Psychoanalytic Theory,” in Hook, Sidney, ed., Psychoanalysis, Scientific Method, and Philosophy. New York: New York Univ. Press, 1959.Google Scholar
[32] Nagel, Ernest, The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1961.10.1119/1.1937571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[33] Natanson, Maurice, ed., Philosophy of the Social Sciences. New York: Random House, 1963.Google Scholar
[34] Newell, A., Shaw, J. and Simon, H., “Elements of a Theory of Human Problemsolving,” Psychological Review, 1958, pp. 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[35] Orcutt, Guy, Microanalysis of Economic Systems. New York: Harper, 1961.Google Scholar
[36] Osgood, Charles, “Behavior Theory” in Young, Roland, ed., Approaches to Politics. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern Univ. Press, 1958.Google Scholar
[37] Osgood, Charles, Suci, G. and Tannenbaum, P., The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1957.Google Scholar
[38] Rapoport, Anatol, “L. F. Richardson's Mathematical Theory of War,” Journal of Conflict Resolution I, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[39] Riepe, Dale, “Zen and the Scientific Outlook,” Philosophy of Science XXXI, January, 1964, pp. 71–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[40] Rose, Arnold, Theory and Method in the Social Sciences. Minneapolis, Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1954.Google Scholar
[41] Simon, Herbert, Models of Man. New York: Wiley, 1957.Google Scholar
[42] Skinner, B. F., Science and Human Behavior. New York: Macmillan, 1953.Google Scholar
[43] Spence, Kenneth, “Postulates and Methods of Behaviorism,” Psychological Review, 1948, pp. 67–78.10.1037/h0063589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[44] Stephenson, William, “Postulates of Behaviorism,” Philosophy of Science XX, April, 1953.10.1086/287250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[45] Suppes, Patrick and Atkinson, R., Markov Learning Models for Multiperson Interactions. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1960.Google Scholar
[46] Tomkins, Silvan and Messick, S., eds., Computer Simulation of Personality. New York: Wiley, 1963.Google Scholar
[47] Wann, T., ed., Behaviorism and Phenomenology. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1964.Google Scholar
[48] Winch, Peter, The Idea of a Social Science. London: Routledge, 1958.Google Scholar
[49] Zollschan, George, Review of Natanson, ed., Philosophy of the Social Sciences. American Journal of Sociology, LXIX, May, 1964, pp. 662–663.Google Scholar