1. Summary
Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Knowledge can come
from various sources, a few common ones are Authority, Logic, Experience, Revelation, Tradition
and Science. (The common ALERTS of knowledge being gained)
However, the most fundamental and arguably trustworthy of them is Science, or
more specifically, knowledge gained through the application of the scientific
method.
The scientific method is actually a general process that
scientists go through to test the validity of a hypothesis, through the use of
a controlled environment where the only thing changing is the variable in
question. When a hypothesis is first made then tested, it is known as deductive reasoning, and is most used
when investigating the physical sciences. The social sciences on the other
hand, employ inductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning seeks understanding through repeated tests,
where the results and patterns found guide the social scientists towards a
better understanding of their subject, even before a hypothesis is made. Mark
Weber labels this as Verstehen.
Figure A. Process of 'Verstehen'
Results can show correlation and in turn causation, which
leads to deeper understanding of the subject in question. However, correlation
may not lead to causation for example, dogs may have more teeth than cats and
eat more than cats, but that does not mean that the number of teeth is the
variable that affects an animal’s dietary needs.
2. Something of interest to me
As I was reading the topic of Sociological Theories and
moving past the various theories like Conflict and Role Theory, one thing that
jumped out was how specific each theory was and how it sometimes unfortunately
disregards certain variables in favour of its own. For example,
Structural-functionalism “forces” society to be in equilibrium and negates the
idea that individuals have varying ways in which they affect the society they
are a part of. Role theory on the other hand sees social phenomenon as purely a
result of individual influences, and not an influence of society as a whole.
I was most intrigued by Integration Theory and was glad to
find it sitting at the conclusion of the topic, as it provides a way to look at
social phenomenon from different perspectives, as I feel that no single
perspective should be discounted if true understanding of a subject is to be achieved.
Every one of the theories presented before Integration Theory has the ability
to explain an issue in their own way, and may take turns in having the most
substantiated answer.
3. Discussion point
Even though Integration Theory might be the way we should
approach a social investigation, there is a danger in having so many
perspectives to a problem such that the answer can be anything. The answer to a
question like why there are so many car accidents in certain countries may be
that the culture of policing in a country is more relaxed, more corrupted
(macro-objective); or that the human life is not seen as very valuable
(macro-subjective); or that it is easy to get a driving licence
(micro-objective); or that driving is not seen as a particularly useful skill
to obtain (micro-subjective). It begs the question, at what point does a
situation have too many perspectives such that there is no way of finding a
proper answer, and thus no way of really learning from the investigation?
No comments:
Post a Comment