Several before posts lead hold considered Tuukka Kaidesoja's rattling interesting recent book, Naturalizing Critical Realist Social O...
Several before posts lead hold considered Tuukka Kaidesoja's rattling interesting recent book, Naturalizing Critical Realist Social Ontology (NCR). The majority is an of import contribution to the evolving literature on side past times side steps for critical realism, in addition to TK is an exceptionally clear in addition to perceptive philosopher. Here I volition focus on Tuuka's contribution to the causal powers literature.
The theme of causal powers is of import for electrical current debates inside the philosophy of social science. This is peculiarly truthful when it comes to the enquiry of the causal role that supra-individual social entities play. Like Dave Elder-Vass in link, link). But inward each case, nosotros concur that it is legitimate to attribute a causal ability to a composed social entity, in addition to that at that topographic point is no compulsion to “reduce” that ability to the private powers of the persons who compose the entity. What is it almost the social construction that gives ascent to the causal power?
There are 2 of import points to consider here. First, nosotros demand to enquire what the damage of the causal relation are thought to be. Is it the abstract structure of the scheme (shared amongst other organizations of the same type) that exerts causal power; or is it the concrete particular, this item instantiated organization, that is the causal agent? I desire to maintain that it is the item social structure, non the abstract structure, that bears the causal role in addition to exerts the causal power.
Second, the traditional concern human relationship from critical realism in addition to Bhaskar would concur that the powers of a social construction derive from its “essential” properties. But next Kaidesoja, it is both reasonable in addition to justified to driblet the essentialism associated amongst this business of thought. Instead, nosotros tin say that the powers of the construction derive from its contingent but electrical current features of scheme in addition to functioning. In the illustration of a social organization, this comes downward to the item gear upward of rules in addition to practices that drive the scheme at a indicate inward time. As long every bit these rules in addition to practices persist, the scheme volition hold to lead hold the powers that nosotros attribute to it. When those rules in addition to practices undergo alter in addition to innovation, it is an opened upward enquiry what changes volition outcome for the causal powers of the organization.
Kaidesoja approaches a persuasion rattling similar to this inward his handling of Harré in addition to Secord’s analysis of individual and collective powers:
I propose that these views [advanced by Harré and Secord] presuppose that rules in addition to institutions possess causal powers that are ontologically irreducible to those of individuals. (115)So what almost the supposition of essentialism that is oftentimes component division of the Definition of a causal power? TK takes upward the number of essentialism in addition to natural kinds inside causal-powers theory, in addition to argues that nosotros demand to "naturalize" this number every bit well. Whether at that topographic point are natural kinds inward a item domain is a enquiry for the sciences to answer, non the philosophers. TK notes that modern biological scientific discipline does non back upward the notion that biological things (including species) autumn into natural kinds defined past times distinctive essential natures.
Biological variation betwixt in addition to inside species (or populations) is thence a normal patch of affairs inward nature in addition to at that topographic point is no a priori trammel for such variation…. This agency that it is no longer plausible to conceive biological species every bit natural kinds in Harré and Madden’s (1975) sense. (111-112)So natural-kind essentialism does non check the entities in addition to processes of the biological realm.
Whether or non the essentialist notion of causal ability tin endure applied to a sure enough collection of objects studied inward a specific dependent area should endure decided past times agency of empirical analysis of the scientific enquiry practices, theories in addition to models that are developed inward this discipline. (112)But TK does non believe that this invalidates the thought that biological entities lead hold causal powers; in addition to this entails that at that topographic point is a separation betwixt essentialism in addition to the attribution of causal powers.
I lead hold argued at many points hither that this characteristic of heterogeneity in addition to alter inward approximately of the gist characteristics of entities is fundamental to the social the world likewise (link). So TK's cardinal insight hither is of import for the philosophy of social scientific discipline likewise every bit for biology: causal powers should non endure defined inward damage of the essential properties of an entity; causal-power theory should non endure constructed inward such a way every bit to presuppose essentialism.
One thing I peculiarly appreciate inward TK's handling of causal powers is the low-cal he sheds on the divergence betwixt logical or conceptual necessity, on the i hand, in addition to natural necessity, on the other (106). This is relevant to the before give-and-take hither almost whether causes involve their effects (link). There I argued against the views of Mumford in addition to Anjum, who turn down necessity, on the grounds that their declaration turns on features of logical necessity that create non attach to causal necessity. Kaidesoja's give-and-take hither reinforces my conviction that it is reasonable to assert causal "necessitating" fifty-fifty when nosotros admit that causes are sometimes non followed past times their effects. Discussing Harré and Madden TK writes:
The concept of natural necessity is thence carefully distinguished from the concepts of logical, transcendental in addition to conceptual necessity (ibid., 19–21). (107)Kaidesoja emphasizes the similarity of views that exists between Harré and Bhaskar concerning the specification of a causal power. Here is i typical declaration from Bhaskar's A Realist Theory of Science, amidst many that TK quotes:
To say that a thing has a ability to create something is […] to say that it possesses a construction or is of such variety that it would create it, if appropriate atmospheric condition obtained. (RTS, p. 88) [118]The parallel with Harré’s formulations is evident. TK finds that Bhaskar’s principal excogitation on this indicate is his attempt to brand a transcendental declaration for the necessity of attributing existent causal powers to entities, in addition to this is a motion that he rejects. TK finds that Harré and Madden’s concern human relationship is to a greater extent than convincing precisely because it locates causal powers inward the realm of “concrete powerful particulars”, non inward the transcendental realm (121, 122).
Due to the aforementioned problems inward the transcendental realist concern human relationship of the concept of causal power, I prefer Harré and Madden’s Aristotelian conceptualization of causal powers which interprets them every bit efficient causes in addition to ties them inseparably to the concrete powerful particulars. (122).And this inward plow provides an additional ground to turn down the essentialism associated amongst Bhaskar’s broader conception of causal powers (that the causal ability of a thing derives from its essential nature). This becomes the pump of TK’s concept of a “naturalized version of the concept of causal power” (136), in addition to it seems to endure a rattling plausible position.
COMMENTS