Range Of Reactions To Realism Nigh The Social World

My recent post on realism inwards the social realm generated quite a chip of commentary, which I'd similar to address here. Brad D...

My recent post on realism inwards the social realm generated quite a chip of commentary, which I'd similar to address here.

Brad Delong offered an incredulous answer -- he seems to recall that whatever shape of scientific realism is ridiculous (link). He refers to the predictive success of Ptolemy's epicycles, in addition to and so says, "But only because your theory is expert does non hateful that the entities inwards your theory are "really there", whatever that mightiness mean...." I responded on Twitter: "Delong doesn't similar scientific realism -- really? Electrons, photons, curved shape of infinite - all convenient fictions?" The seat of instrumentalism is intellectually untenable, inwards my catch -- the thought that scientific theories are only convenient computational devices for summarizing a make of observations. It is difficult to encounter why nosotros would direct maintain confidence inwards whatever complex technology scientific discipline depending on electricity, light, gravity, the properties of metals in addition to semiconductors, if nosotros didn't recall that our scientific theories of these things were unopen to truthful of existent things inwards the world. So full general rejection of scientific realism seems irrational to me. But the whole betoken of the ship was that this reasoning doesn't extend over to the social sciences real easily; if nosotros are to survive realists nigh social entities, it needs to survive on a dissimilar footing than the overall success of theories similar Keynsianism, Marxism, or Parsonian sociology. They only aren't that successful!

There were quite a few comments (71) when Mark Thoma reposted this slice on economistsview. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 release of the commentators were specially interested inwards the enquiry of the realism of economical knowledge. Daniel Hausman addresses the enquiry of realism inwards economic science inwards his article on the philosophy of economic science inwards the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (link):

Economic methodologists direct maintain paid piffling attending to debates inside philosophy of scientific discipline betwixt realists in addition to anti-realists (van Fraassen 1980, Boyd 1984), because economical theories rarely demand the existence of unobservable entities or properties, apart from variants of “everyday unobservables,” such equally beliefs in addition to desires. Methodologists have, on the other hand, vigorously debated the goals of economics, but those who fighting that the ultimate goals are predictive (such equally Milton Friedman) make so because of their involvement inwards policy, non because they attempt to avoid or resolve epistemological in addition to semantic puzzles concerning references to unobservables.

Examples of economical concepts that commentators seemed to recall could survive interpreted realistically include concepts such equally "economic disparity".  But this isn't a specially arcane or unobservable theoretical concept. There is a lot of back-and-forth on the important of investment inwards Keynes's theory -- is it a well-defined concept? Is it a concept that tin forcefulness out survive understood realistically? The enquiry of whether economic science consists of a trunk of theory that mightiness survive interpreted realistically is a complicated one. Many technical economical concepts appear non to survive referential; instead, they appear to survive abstract concepts summarizing the results of large numbers of interactions past times economical agents.

The most famous give-and-take of realism inwards economic science is that offered past times Milton Friedman inwards relation to the thought of economical rationality (Essays inwards Positive Economics); he doubts that economists demand to assume that existent economical actors make so on the footing of economical rationality. Rather, according to Friedman this is only a simplifying supposition to let us to summarize a vast make of behavior. This is a difficult seat to accept, though; if agents are non making calculating choices nigh costs in addition to benefits, in addition to so why should nosotros await a marketplace to travel inwards the ways our theories say it should? (Here is a expert critique past times Bruce Caldwell of Friedman's instrumentalism; link.)

And what nigh the concept of a marketplace itself? Can nosotros empathize this concept realistically? Do markets actually exist? Maybe the most nosotros tin forcefulness out say is something similar this: at that spot are many social settings where materials is produced in addition to exchanged. When central is entirely or primarily governed past times the private self-interest of the buyers in addition to sellers, nosotros tin forcefulness out say that a marketplace exists. But nosotros must also survive careful to add together that at that spot are many dissimilar institutional in addition to social settings where this status is satisfied, so at that spot is cracking variation across the item "market settings" of dissimilar societies in addition to communities. As a result, nosotros demand to survive careful non to reify the concept of a marketplace across all settings.

Michiel van Ingen made a dissimilar form of betoken nigh my observations nigh social realism inwards his comment offered on Facebook. He thinks I am likewise tardily on the natural sciences.

This slice strikes me equally problematic. First, because physics is past times no agency equally successful at prediction equally it seems to suggest. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 lot of physics is explanatorily quite powerful, but - similar whatever other scientific dependent land - tin forcefulness out only predict inwards systemically closed systems. Contrasting physics amongst sociology in addition to political scientific discipline because the latter 'do non consist of unified deductive systems whose empirical success depends upon a derivation of distant observational consequences' is hence unnecessarily dualistic. In addition, I'm non sure enough why the 'inference to the best explanation' chemical constituent should survive tied to predictive success equally closely equally it is inwards this piece. Inference to the best explanation is, past times its real definition, perfectly applicable to EXPLANATION. And this applies across the sciences, whether 'natural' or 'social', though of course of teaching at that spot is a important departure betwixt those sciences inwards which experimentation is plausible in addition to helpful, in addition to those inwards which it is not. This is not, past times the way, the same equally maxim that natural sciences are experimental in addition to social ones aren't. There are plenty of natural sciences which are largely non-experimental equally well. And lest nosotros forget, the hypothetico-deductive shape of explanation DOES NOT WORK IN THE NATURAL SCIENCES EITHER!

This critique comes from the full general thought that the natural sciences demand a chip of debunking, inwards that diverse areas of natural scientific discipline neglect to alive upward to the positivist ideal of a precise predictive scheme of laws. That is fair enough; at that spot are areas of imprecision in addition to uncertainty inwards the natural sciences. But, equally I responded to Delong above, the fact remains that nosotros direct maintain a real expert agreement of much of the physical realities in addition to mechanisms that generate the phenomena nosotros alive with. Here is the answer I offered Michiel:

Thank you, Michiel, for responding so thoughtfully. Your comments in addition to qualifications nigh the natural sciences are correct, of course, inwards a release of ways. But really, I recall nosotros post-positivists demand to recognize that the heart areas of primal in addition to classical physics, electromagnetic theory, gravitation theory, in addition to chemical scientific discipline including molecular biology, are remarkably successful inwards unifying, predicting, in addition to explaining the phenomena inside these domains. They are successful because extensive in addition to mathematicized theories direct maintain been developed in addition to extended, empirically tested, refined, in addition to deployed to aid line of piece of job concern human relationship for novel phenomena. And these theories, equally large chunks, brand assertions nigh the way nature works. This is where realism comes in: the chunks of theories nigh the nature of the atom, electromagnetic forces, gravitation, etc., tin forcefulness out survive understood to survive unopen to truthful of nature because otherwise nosotros would direct maintain no way to line of piece of job concern human relationship for the remarkable powerfulness of these theories to direct maintain novel phenomena.

So I haven't been persuaded to alter my heed nigh social realism equally a outcome of these diverse comments. The grounds for realism nigh social processes, structures, in addition to powers are dissimilar for many social sciences than for many natural sciences. We tin forcefulness out probe quite a chip of the social ground through mid-level in addition to piecemeal inquiry methods -- which agency that nosotros tin forcefulness out larn quite a chip nigh the nature of the social ground through these methods. Here is the key finding:

So it seems that nosotros tin forcefulness out justify beingness realists nigh class, field, habitus, market, coalition, ideology, organization, value system, ethnic identity, institution, in addition to charisma, without relying at all on the hypothetico-deductive model of scientific noesis upon which the "inference to the best explanation" declaration depends. We tin forcefulness out facial expression at sociology in addition to political scientific discipline equally free ensembles of empirically informed theories in addition to models of meso-level social processes in addition to mechanisms, each of which is to a large flat independently verifiable. And this implies that social realism should survive focused on mid-level social mechanisms in addition to processes that tin forcefulness out survive identified inwards the domains of social phenomena that nosotros direct maintain studied rather than sweeping concepts of social structures in addition to entities.

(Sometimes social media debates give the impression of a nineteenth-century parliamentary shouting tally -- which is why the Daumier drawing came to mind!)