hypothetico-deductivism: confirmation and disconfirmation of a theory by empirical evidence or logical deductive consequences (primary theory-testing methodology of physical science)
issue with underdetermination of theory by evidence
Duhem problem: specifically which steps of claim is wrong?
hermeneutic (to interpret)
Clifford Geetz: predictive theory naturalism (H-D is good for description, but not for understanding)
scientists could themselves ascribe meaning
Little's argument: interpretive observation is social science is similar to interpretive observation (using theory) in physics
Classify passage I would classify the passage above as following more of an anti-naturalistic approach. A naturalistic approach often uses definitions as theoretical constructs that guide them to operationalize their experiment. Therefore, a naturalist can accept contradictory definitions because definitions are only tools to explain and communicate about phenomenons. However, the passage above seems to view two contradicting definitions as a development from one definition to another through time. Specifically, the passage uses key phrases such as "one of the first to influence" and "currently being used" to signify the change of such definition of "gangs". Also, the passage assumes that both definitions of "gang" are observable, and therefore, those definitions are not reductive to specific physical phenomenons. This indicates that the passage is anti-naturalistic: it "see developing a definition of 'gang' as a matter of" revising our understanding of gang members.
Does this work support weak natural/anti-natural
the passage assumes that the "representation" is stable and "represented" is shifting
the passage itself assumes anti-naturalism, therefore
Compare and contrast "interpretive observation" in social and physical science While physical science often agree on single definition on one term, social science mix our daily use of a term within their study, therefore there can be way more accepted un-formalized definition in social science. Also, terms in physical science can often refer back to a specific paper, but such process is not predominant in social science.
opinion on whether "self-understanding" effect research methodology In my opinion, no. Because self-understanding is not observable (unless given a operationalized method)
fail descriptively: can't evaluate theory as a whole, should evaluate sub-claims
fail normatively: failing to understand the goals of social science and limitation built-in by the nature of social phenomena
should provide causal relation
"circumstances agency" there are regularity by assuming human rationality
social theory should be supported with empirical evidence
Anti-naturalism (hermeneutic, inperrpretivism)
social science should be methodologically different than physical science
social phenomenon are meaningful: "interpretive method" instead of "hypothetical-deductive method"
believe social theories are text, text can influence people, can influence subject we observe
phenomenons / observation are interpretive
causal relationship has no legitimate role in social science (Little claims against it since we observe causal in practice of social science)
not interested in prediction, but just for explanation (Little says we have prediction)
evaluate using logical consistency, instead of prediction (Little says that this is not science)
reform naturalism is false
(Little: all observations are interpretive)
Weak reform naturalism: no anti-naturalism is true, naturalism can happen
Table of Content