No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Thesis advisor: Brian Robinette / Thesis advisor: Dominic Doyle / Thesis (STL) — Boston College, 2016. / Submitted to: Boston College. School of Theology and Ministry. / Discipline: Sacred Theology.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Boston University / PLEASE NOTE: Boston University Libraries did not receive an Authorization To Manage form for this thesis or dissertation. It is therefore not openly accessible, though it may be available by request. If you are the author or principal advisor of this work and would like to request open access for it, please contact us at open-help@bu.edu. Thank you. / Seeking to contribute clarity in understanding the essential characteristics of social science, the thesis this essay defends is that the legitimacy of "social science" as a distinct patterned activity oriented to attaining objective knowledge of humanity depends upon the recognition of its characteristic set of phenomena and that this set is comprised of meaningful behavior; this set was isolated by Max Weber in his major theoretical work and is the central subject matter of his empirical studies. Weber's approach and view is compared with that of the contemporary Chicago historian William H. Sewell, Jr.; specifically, examination of Sewell's view on the nature of the "social" leverages the importance of Weber's concept of "action" underlying "social action" and draws attention to the elemental importance of "action" for social science. Chapter 1 discusses science seen as a "social institution." In this context, the goal or end of "social science" is examined, and a discussion of Geertz' concept "cultural system" is introduced so as to offer clarity concerning the value of the concept of "social institution." Delineating the "social" for "social science" is argued to be essential for the testing of social scientific theories grounded in empirical phenomena. Chapter 2 engages Sewell's approach to the question of the "social" with a view toward the status of his response as an ontological claim and examines his definition of "semiotic practices." A theoretical discussion of the concepts of "action" and "social action" rooted in Weber's Economy and Society provides the framework for Chapter 3, and a discussion of the importance of explanation and understanding in Weber's view is developed. The central argument here is that the concept of "action" is elemental to Weber's approach. Chapter 4 looks forward and discusses the convergence of thought between Sewell and Max Weber and argues that the merits of this view are suggestive for contemporary scholarship. / 2031-01-02

The goal of this thesis is to explore the debate between Bas van Fraassens constructive empiricism and scientific realism. For this purpose I discuss the existence of observable and unobservable entities, the observation/theoretical dichotomy, inference to the best explanation, the no miracles argument, pessimistic induction, and epistemic risk. I strive to show that, contrary to the view of constructive empiricism, there is no clear demarcation line between observable and unobservable entities, and that not only naked eye observation but also the instrument-based observation plays an important role in acquiring knowledge. I agree with scientific realists that there is no highest point to the human power of observation; it is open-ended for further development. Moreover, naked eye observations are not themselves beyond doubt, as sometimes even naked eye observations deceive us. In that context, theoretical explanations help us to understand the real situation. As such, there is no reason to give more credit to naked eye observations than to instrument-mediated, theory-informed observations. <p>Scientific realists are confident in their knowledge of unobservables, and reject the epistemic significance of the observable/unobservable distinction. To justify their knowledge of unobservables, they use inferences to the best explanation. Such inferences play an important role in choosing the best theory amongst a group of theories. For their part, constructive empiricists use what is called the bad lot argument to refute these inferences. I try to show that such bad lot arguments fail to succeed at undermining inferences to the best explanation. Following scientific realists, I assert that nothing is miraculous in the domain of science, and that we can be assured of the approximate truth of successful scientific theories. It is true that many contemporary scientific theories contradict previously successful scientific theories, but that does not compel us to be pessimistic about such contemporary theories. Instead of pessimism, we can have an optimistic attitude about the progress of science. Considering the different arguments of constructive empiricism and scientific realism, this thesis gives more credit to scientific realism than to constructive empiricism.

The twentieth century was dominated by two rival views of scientific explanation. The first is the causal view in which causation is primitive. According to this view, the best explanations are the ones that tell us the cause of a phenomenon, organism, or state of affairs. The second is the unification view, which seeks to unify seemingly disparate bodies of knowledge. Philip Kitcher shook up the debate by synthesizing the two views. He developed a unification theory in which causation is derivative of explanation. The intuitive idea is that the best explanations are the ones that can draw the most conclusions from the fewest basic premises, and these premises just are the causal explanations. There is a problem though. Like any theory of scientific explanation, Kitcher must show that his respects explanatory asymmetry. For instance, we want our scientific theories to say that the height of a flagpole is explanatory of the length of the flagpole's shadow, and not vice versa. Kitcher's view has come under serious attack from Eric Barnes, who claims that Kitcher's theory cannot respect the problem of asymmetry. He gives three examples in which he thinks Kitcher's view fails. Todd Jones tried to defend Kitcher in a paper, but there is still much left to be said. One of his arguments, involving a Newtonian particle system, fails. The status of two of his other arguments is unclear. My goal is to step into the debate between Jones and Barnes and tip the scales in favor of the position that Jones defended. Additionally, I consider new potential cases of asymmetry and show how Kitcher's theory is equipped to accommodate these cases too.

The goal of this thesis is to explore the debate between Bas van Fraassens constructive empiricism and scientific realism. For this purpose I discuss the existence of observable and unobservable entities, the observation/theoretical dichotomy, inference to the best explanation, the no miracles argument, pessimistic induction, and epistemic risk. I strive to show that, contrary to the view of constructive empiricism, there is no clear demarcation line between observable and unobservable entities, and that not only naked eye observation but also the instrument-based observation plays an important role in acquiring knowledge. I agree with scientific realists that there is no highest point to the human power of observation; it is open-ended for further development. Moreover, naked eye observations are not themselves beyond doubt, as sometimes even naked eye observations deceive us. In that context, theoretical explanations help us to understand the real situation. As such, there is no reason to give more credit to naked eye observations than to instrument-mediated, theory-informed observations. <p>Scientific realists are confident in their knowledge of unobservables, and reject the epistemic significance of the observable/unobservable distinction. To justify their knowledge of unobservables, they use inferences to the best explanation. Such inferences play an important role in choosing the best theory amongst a group of theories. For their part, constructive empiricists use what is called the bad lot argument to refute these inferences. I try to show that such bad lot arguments fail to succeed at undermining inferences to the best explanation. Following scientific realists, I assert that nothing is miraculous in the domain of science, and that we can be assured of the approximate truth of successful scientific theories. It is true that many contemporary scientific theories contradict previously successful scientific theories, but that does not compel us to be pessimistic about such contemporary theories. Instead of pessimism, we can have an optimistic attitude about the progress of science. Considering the different arguments of constructive empiricism and scientific realism, this thesis gives more credit to scientific realism than to constructive empiricism.

Thesis (doctoral)--Université de Paris. / Includes bibliographical references and indexes.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Queensland, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references.