PHILOSOPHY 340: THE PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE
McGill University
Winter 2008
Instructor: Robert Rosenberger
Office mailbox: 908 Leacock
Email: robert.rosenberger@mcgill.ca
Course meeting times: 10:05-11:25 T, R
Course Description:
In this course we investigate the nature of scientific research generally. In particular, we
will consider whether there are essential differences between the physical sciences and
the social sciences. Are fields of science such as physics or molecular biology
fundamentally different from fields such as economics, psychology, sociology, or
anthropology? If so, what are these differences, and why are they present? How should
research within these fields proceed if they are to adequately take into account the
necessarily social character of their objects of study?
After some general reflection on what it means to study “social” subject matter, we will
explore the major debates over how social scientific research should be understood. We
begin with review of some of the most influential positions developed in twentieth
century philosophy of science, such as logical positivism and falsificationism, reading the
works of Carl Hempel and Karl Popper. In the views of these positions, there is not an
essential difference between how the social sciences and the physical sciences should be
understood.
The major alternative to this position is the view that the study of human beings requires
acts of interpretation on the part of investigators, and that this element of interpretation
sets social sciences apart from the physical sciences. We will read some of the central
texts which have advanced this perspective by authors such as Max Weber and Charles
Taylor. A particular version of this view is developed within a tradition of philosophy
called phenomenology, a perspective which attempts to conceptualize human bodily and
perceptual experience. We will read the interpretivist phenomenological views
developed by figures such as Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Alfred Schutz.
Building on our analysis of these two major views of social science, we will investigate a
number of philosophical issues and explore a number of examples of social science
research. For example, we will consider a debate over the nature of concept formation in
social science research between Hempel, Schutz, and others. As a central example, we
will consider the writings of Sigmund Freud and B. F. Skinner, works that establish the
foundations for research in the field of psychology.
We conclude with an exploration of critical perspectives which analyze the practices of
social science from feminist and postcolonial perspectives. Through the writings of
figures such as Sandra Harding, Patricia Hill Collins, Aihwa Ong, Lila Abu-Lughod, and
several others, we will examine the cultural contexts of research practices, and consider
proposals for improving these practices.
Prerequisites and Expectations:
There will be a considerable amount of reading required for this course. Students should
expect to read for most class sessions, and be prepared to discuss and write philosophy
regarding those readings.
Texts:
The only text for this course is a Course Packet. It is required, and will be made available
through The Word Bookstore.
Assignments and Grades:
The final mark for this course will be determined by a combination grades from essays,
written homework assignments, and class participation and attendance. There will be
three short essay papers (less than five pages each), where students will be asked to
summarize, in their own words, specific philosophical arguments from course texts, and
to analyze specific quotes. Though short, these essays will require careful thinking and
disciplined writing. There will be several homework assignments involving short
summaries of homework readings, and brief reactions to those readings. Participation
will be evaluated based on the content and frequency of contributions to class discussion,
and the frequency of attendance.
Grade Breakdown:
Three essays = 75%
Homeworks = 20%
Participation = 5%
Late papers will be penalized at a rate of one letter grade per day; for example, a paper
that would have received a B if turned in on time will receive a B- if it is received the day
after it is due, and a C+ if received two days later. Exceptions can be made in cases of
documented emergencies.
Course Policies:
“McGill University values academic integrity. Therefore all students must understand
the meaning and consequences of cheating, plagiarism and other academic offences under
the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures (see www.mcgill.ca/integrity
for more information).”
This issue of plagiarism will not be taken lightly. Students should familiarize themselves
with McGill’s plagiarism policies at www.mcgill.ca/integrity. Work retrieved from
books, articles, the internet, or any other source should not be passed off as one’s own. I
will not hesitate to refer plagiarizers to the Office of the Dean of Students.
“If you have a disability please contact that instructor to arrange a time to discuss your
situation. It would be helpful if you contact that Office for Students with Disabilities at
398-6009 (online at www.mcgill.ca/osd) before you do this.”
“In order to address the need for timely and efficient communication, and to provide a
better service to its students, McGill University has instituted a policy establishing that
the official means of communicating with students will be by e-mail addressed to their
McGill Uniform E-mail Address”. Upon registration at McGill, each student is assigned a
McGill University Uniform E-mail Address (UEA, consisting normally of
firstname.lastname@mail.mcgill.ca) and a McGill e-mail box (@po-box.mcgill.ca).
“Any official McGill communication with students will be addressed to their McGill
UEA. It is the student’s responsibility to ensure that time-critical e-mail is accessed, read
and acted upon in a timely fashion. This policy applies to all McGill students and to all
McGill employees who manage official communications with students.”
The course packet for this course includes the following readings:
Emile Durkheim. (1895). “What is a Social Fact?” Chapter 1, The Rules of Sociological Method,
trans. S. A. Solovay & J. H. Mueller (1966), pp. 1-13, New York: The Free Press.
Micheal Scriven. (1956). “A Possible Distinction Between Traditional Scientific Disciplines and
the Study of Human Behavior.” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 1. The
Foundations of Science and the Concepts of Psychology and Psychoanalysis, ed. H. Feigl & M.
Scriven, pp. 330-339, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Fritz Machlup. (1961). “Are the Social Sciences Really Inferior?” The Southern Economic
Journal. XXVII(3): 173-184.
David Breybrook. (1987). “Three Sides of Social Science.” Chapter 1, Philosophy of Social
Science, pp. 1-19, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Carl G. Hempel. (1962). “Explanation in Science and History.” In R. G. Colodny (ed.) Frontiers
of Science and Philosophy, pp. 1-33, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Karl Popper. (1965). Excerpt from Conjectures and Refutations, 2nd Edition, pp. 33-41, London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Karl Popper. (1957). “The Unity of Method.” Excerpt from The Poverty of Historicism, pp. 130143, London: Routledge.
Max Weber. (1904). “‘Objectivity’ in Social Science and Social Policy.” Excerpt from The
Methodology of the Social Sciences, trans. E. A. Shils & H. A. Finch , pp. 49-112, New York:
Free Press.
Charles Taylor. (1971). “Interpretation and the Sciences of Man.” Review of Metaphysics. 25(1):
3-51.
Maurice Merleau-Ponty. (1960). “The Philosopher and Sociology.” In Phenomenology,
Language, & Society, ed. J. O’Neil (1974), pp. 95-110, London: Heineman Educational Books.
Alfred Schutz. (1953). “Common-Sense and Scientific Interpretation of Human Action.”
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. XIV(1): 1-37.
Carl G. Hempel. (1952). “Typological Methods in the Social Sciences.” pp. 210-230, Originally
from Science, Language, & Human Rights, American Philosophical Association, Eastern
Division, Vol. I, pp. 65-86, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Ernest Nagel. (1952). “Problems of Concept and Theory Formation in the Social Sciences.” pp.
189-209. Originally from Science, Language, & Human Rights, American Philosophical
Association, Eastern Division, Vol. I, pp. 43-64, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Alfred Schutz. (1954). “Concept and Theory Formation in the Social Sciences.” The Journal of
Philosophy. 51(9): 257-273.
Clifford Geertz. (1972). “Notes on the Balinese Cockfight.” Daedalus. 101(1): 1-37.
Eleonora Montuschi. (2003). “Anthropological Objects.” Chapter 1, The Objects of Social
Science, pp. 21-41, London: Continuum.
Sigmund Freud. (1917). “Introduction.” Lecture 1, Introductory Lectures on Psycho-analysis,
trans. J. Strachey, pp. 17-28, New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Sigmund Freud. (1933). “The Dissection of the Psychical Personality.” Lecture XXXI, New
Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, trans. J. Strachey, pp. 57-80, New York: W. W. Norton
& Company.
B. F. Skinner. (1956). “Critique of Psychoanalytic Concepts and Theories.” In Minnesota Studies
in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 1. The Foundations of Science and the Concepts of Psychology
and Psychoanalysis, ed. H. Feigl & M. Scriven, pp. 77-87, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
B. F. Skinner. (1989). “The Place of Feeling in the Analysis of Behavior.” Chapter 1, Recent
Issues in the Analysis of Behavior, pp. 3-11, Columbus: Merrill Publishing Company.
Daniel Little. (1993). “Evidence and Objectivity in the Social Sciences.” Social Research. 60(2):
363-396.
Joan W. Scott. (1991). “The Evidence of Experience.” Critical Inquiry. 17: 773-797.
Sandra Harding. (1996). “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What is Strong Objectivity?” In
E. F. Keller and H. Longino (eds.) Feminism and Science. pp. 235-248.
Patricia Hill Collins. (1986). “Learning From the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance
of Black Feminist Thought.” Social Problems. 33(6): S14-S32.
Kirin Narayan. “How Native is a ‘Native’ Anthropologist?” In Situated Lives, eds. L. Lamphere,
H. Ragoné, and P. Zavella, pp. 278-41, New York: Routledge.
Aihwa Ong. “Women Out of China: Traveling Tales and Traveling Theories in Postcolonical
Feminism.” In Women Writing Culture, eds. R. Behar, and D. A. Gordon, pp. 351-372, Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber, and Michelle L. Yaiser. (2004). “Difference Matters: Studying
Across Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality.” In Feminist Perspectives On Social Research, eds. S.
N. Hesse-Biber, and M. I. Yaiser, pp. 101-119, New York: Oxford.
Lila Abu-Lughod. “Introduction.” In Writing Women’s Worlds, pp. 1-42, Berkeley: University of
California Press.