1

William Molnar

1. Pick one of the following concepts derived from philosophy of the physical

sciences and discuss how the relevant assumptions/mechanisms would play

out differently in the philosophy of social science.

-Causation

-Necessity

-Essentialism

-Deductivism

I chose deductivism as the concept that I would like to discuss. Before

discussing Sayer’s take on deductivism, a definition should be stated here. In

simple terms, deductivism states that since induction is logically invalid,

science should dispense with it in favor of deduction. Deductivism is theories

that are deductively tested against data. In deductivism, the theories are not

built from the bottom-up. Deductive theories are catching the world; to explain,

rationalize and master it. There is a demarcation criterion that lies within

deductivism and that is falsifability. Hypothetical and theoretical situations have

to fulfill certain conditions to establish deductive testing is using applicable

procedures. These conditions set boundaries between hypotheses and others.

Hypotheses can be subjected to scientific testing but to be considered a

scientific hypothesis, it does not need to be subjected to these testings. In

inductivism as a contrast to deductivism, there is a rule that has control within

the process and this rule of the hypothesis is not constrained so long as the

hypothesis is falsifiable.
 2
William Molnar

Logical deduction is the main tool for testing a scientific hypothesis. Specific sentences

can be deduced from this general hypothesis and can be compared to empirical data.

Science invented falsifiable hypotheses and science does not attempt to confirm these

hypotheses, just falsify them. In Karl Popper’s book Conjectures and Refutations

published in 1963, he states that science tries to be unbiased and tests proposals as

rigorously as possible. Karl Popper was a leading advocate of deductivism which was

developed in the 20th century. Many social scientists took a strong hold on his proposal.

P. Hoyningen-Huene (2007) states that the problem with deductivism is in its lack of

principle. He states that if deductivism does not stop testing of hypotheses, it will never

move forward to application. There has been many logical limitations in the area of

positivism and empiricism that has helped the development of theories of knowledge.

the two most influent alternatives Karl Popper’s review was in the area of inductivism

and the formation of hypothetico-deductivism. Popper knew that a group of observations

could never give augment the statement that ‘a follows b’. Nevertheless , there are time

that we observe a following b, but there is no proof that in the next study it will happen

again. It is possible that the following observation could differ. Popper finds a dilema

with this induction. Popper was also not satisfied that a lot of theories provided many

observation and provided many observations and ascribing to these observations as

proof of the claims of the theory in question. Popper states there is no scientific theory

that would be convincing and established. To avoid these situations, Popper To

circumvent these problems, Popper planned that scientific research should rely on

deduction and falsification. This is exactly what Popper’s hypothetico-deductive method

 3
William Molnar

does. Rejecting the theory or holding on to it for a certain amount of time is the goal of

the research which is accomplished by putting the theory’s claims to a test. Instead of

seeking for proof that proves a claim of the theory to be true, falsification is looked for

through hypothetico-deductivism. By doing this, the researcher will be able to decide

which claims are not ture and move closer to the truth.

In an article by Anthony Ferrucci entitled “Inductivism, Hypothetico-Deductivism,

Falsificationism and Kuhnian Reconciliation” he states that “Hypothetico-deductivism

rejects the context of discovery so crucial to the inductivist” (p 35). Those that believe in

inductivism place their senses and observation to a higher standard and gains facts

from perception. The hypthetico-deductivism contradicts this notion and states that not

all facts are observable. A person who believes in hypothetical-deductivism will state

that many things scientists develop begin by accident or through a preexisting theory,

not by observation. Ferrucci states that it is of importance that the nature of scientific

discovery is discussed along with how it would be interpreted by hypothetico-

deductivism. For example, there exists what is known as “the Raven’s Paradox”. Stating

“all ravens are black” is a hypothetico-deductive statement and is established when a

black raven is discovered. The problem lies in its equivalent- “all non-black things are

non-ravens”; the issue with this paradox is there lies the potential that there exist

objects that are non-black and non-raven.

In Sayer’s reading, he states that “the doctrine that science progresses not by verifying

hypotheses, which is held to be impossible, but by falsifying them” (p 169). Sayer states

that Popper, a logicist philosopher in the social sciences, treats theory and the laws of
 4
William Molnar

science as empirical regularities. Sayer makes it clear that “Popper acknowledges that

observation is theory-laden, but weakens the point by treating theory as a logical

ordering framework “(p 169). Science is deductive, not inductive. Popper feels that

deduction is a form of inference. Popper coined the term hypothetico-deductive as a

procedure where scientists can proceed with hypotheses in which testable statements

and opinions can be deduced. Affirming a deductive argument DOES NOT prove a

premise to be correct. In inductive arguments, this does not exist. Sayer uses an

example from the natural sciences to make his point although Popper believes that

social and natural science consist of similar methods of explanation. In Sayer’s

example, he states the premise that all metals conduct electricity and that copper is a

metal. The conclusion would then be that copper conducts electricity. In his second

premise, Sayer states that all metals conduct electricity and aluminum is a metal,

therefore, aluminum conducts electricity. These are deductive arguments but the second

example is falsified. Since aluminum is a metal and the statement that all metals

conduct electricity has to be false. Because one metal conducts electricity does not

mean that all metals will conduct electricity. Sayer states that no compliance is sufficient

to prove claims that were made in the foundation of such arguments, and only one

atypical instance is necessary to cause a false claim. Popper felt that if the vulnerability

of sequences of events is contingent to the problem of induction, then what is falsified

today can be corroborated tomorrow. From the results of Sayer’s experiment, repeating

the test would not create more falsifications. Sayer indicates that it is in presupposition

that falsified relations are necessary and a long lasting theoretical significance can

result (p 171).
 5
William Molnar

Popper’s view of science has been advocated as an ideal form of explanation and

became known as the ‘deductive-nomological’ (D-N). In D-N, the event that is to be

explained is deduced from universal law. Popper explains that form can be used to

answer the question about why does copper conduct electricity? The first part of his

equation is the Explanans which states that all metal conduct electricity (Law) and

copper is a metal (the initial condition). The explanandum is that copper conducts

electricity. Some believe that this still doesn’t explain the explanation. The model only

gives some ground for allowing the explanandum to occur or just allows a path to derive

the explanandum statement from other statements. Sayer comments on Poppers

explanations and states that “we cannot afford to neglect the question of the content of

explanations and the need for a causal explanation to cite the mechanism responsible

for the event “(p 172). There is a reason why copper conducts electricity and other

metals can’t. It is due to the free ions in its structure. This is an acceptable explanation. .

Now the equation can be stated more clearly by saying that all metals with free ions

conduct electricity, copper is a metal with free ions, therefore, copper conducts

electricity. “The deductive-nomological model of explanation fails and bears witness to

the poverty of logicism and its confusion on the grounds-particularly pertaining to the

logical relations among statements-for expecting things to occur, with the real structures

and mechanisms responsible for their occurrence” (p 173). Sayer makes mention of the

economist R. G. Lipsey who wrote a textbook that stated that the hypothetico-deductive

approach allowing for falsifications would be adopted. But if the relationships were

treated as regularities and vulnerable to falsification, then there would be no theory left.

Later on, Lipsey changed the introduction by suggesting the impossible testing of
 6
William Molnar

statistical laws and discovering the measurement of inductive support that can be

noticed. This is something that Popper would not have approved.

Goarke in 1992 and Gerritsen in 1994 objected to deductivism. The first objection is that

“deductivism does not allow for differing degrees of evidential support between

premises and conclusions”. The second objection is that “deductivism either fails to

provide an account of fallacies or provides an incorrect account of fallacies” and the

third objection is that “deductivism does not provide a defensible interpretive strategy for

describing the structure of natural language arguments” (p 3). Godden states that the

one standard that deductivism upholds is validity. In order to have a valid argument a

false conclusion cannot be possible. Guessing that the conclusion is false is

inconsistent with assumingl all premises are true.

2. What are the challenges of "borrowing" theories and research methods from the

physical and biological sciences? What are the benefits?

One of the challenges is that in deductivism, the emphasis lies in the fact that the

theories come before the observations. Deductivists view inductism as invalid because

scientific theories cannot be proven from observations, but they can be disproved. The

theories can be tested through experiments, but the results will only bring about

approximations. Most scientist support the inductivist view which is the process of

observing and collecting facts, using these facts to form a hypothesis and then creating

further experiments, which if fitted in, would approve a hypothesis so that it can be

stated as theory. Science is always moving forward. No theory exists that can be

improved upon.
 7
William Molnar

Another challenge is the fact the many theories accommodate observations. These

theories in turn, can interpret the observations as proof of the claim of the theory.

Scientific theory could not be decisively established causing issues. This is where the

benefits come in. Popper proposed that scientific research should rely on deduction and

falsification instead of induction and verification. The hypothetico-deductive method of

Popper does just that. “Theories are tested by deriving hypotheses from them that can

then be tested in practice, by experiment or observation”. The research goal is to place

the assertion of the theory through tests and decide either to reject it or keep it. Instead

of seeking for proof that would support a claim, hypothetico-deductivism looks for

falsification. By doing this, the researcher can discover through the process of

elimination of claims, which claims are not true and can then move closer to the truth.

Popper believes that borrowing theories and research would help knowledge grow,

slowly but in a continuous fashion. Borrowing from the physical science to the social

science helps the researcher examine societal activities amongst a collection of

individual behavior. Rigorous methods are conducted through the social sciences.

Empirical means are used by social scientist as well as natural scientists to understand

relationships in and about society.

Reference

Gorski, P.S. (2004). The poverty of deductivism: A consgtructive realist model

of sociological explanation. Sociological methodology, 34 (1), 1-33.
 8
William Molnar

Gerritsen,S. (1994). A defense of deductivism in reconstructing unexpressed

premises. In van Emeren, F.H., & Grootendorst, R. (eds.), Studies in pragma-
dialectics. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

Popper, K. (1957). The poverty of historicism. New York: Harper.

Popper, K. (1965). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper.

Popper, K. (1983). Realism and the aim of science. London: Hutchinson.

Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach. London & New
York: Routledge.

Willig, C. (2005) Introducing qualitative research in psychology adventures in

theory and method. Retrieved from www.mcgraw-
hill.co.uk/openup/chapters/033520535

www.cupr.org/V13/Ferrucci-V13.pdf

www.davidgodden.ca/docs-conf

www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/openup/chapters/9780335221158.pdf

www.loyno.edu/~folse/HypDeduc5.html

www.loyno.edu/~folse/HypDeduc.html
 9
William Molnar

www.studymore.org.uk/science.htm

www.philosophyprofessor.com/philopies/deductivism.php

www.faqs.org/theories/Cu-De/Deductivism.html

http://creationwiki.org/Science