Legitimacy in Social Theory

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

"The essential premise of critical social theory is that contemporary society is neither democratic nor free, but that modern global capitalism creates a citizenry satiated with consumer goods, unaware of alternative ways of living. In the public sector, critical theory suggests that governing systems are influenced, if not controlled, by the wealthy and powerful, leaving public professionals to decide whether to serve those interests or the interests of a broader public."http://www.mesharpe.com/mall/resultsa.asp?Title=Critical+Social+Theory+in+Public+Administration

The "scientific method" forms the heart of legitimacy for the natural sciences. This method consists in assembling evidence, combining that evidence with assumptions, and analyzing the combination in a logical manner to develop a hypothesis.

The validity of a hypothesis can only be determined by empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is obtained by observation alone. Scientific observation can only show that a hypothesis has not yet been proven to be illegitimate. The empirical evidence derived from a test of a hypothesis proves, not that the hypothesis is true, but only that the hypothesis has not been proven to be untrue. Science does not deal in absolute truth but only in probability.

The reality of natural science is matter. When the scientific method is applied to the social sciences the test for validity is society. The reality for social science is society.

Matter, the reality studied by the natural sciences is essentially stable and non-changing. The truth of natural science discovered a hundred years ago is unchanged today. Such is not the case for the social sciences.

The social scientist is attempting to build a theory about a moving target and the social scientist is riding on this moving target while constructing the theory.

Truth is that which conforms to reality. The above provides evidence why the truth of natural science is stable and the truth of social science?-the science of human affairs?-is unstable.

Humans and not nature construct social conditions. The society in which the social theorist lives and of which she derives her present understanding of truth is a recent construct. It was constructed by those with prejudices, false assumptions, biases etc. that permeate her consciousness.

Truth in matters of human affairs is very slippery. The student of Critical Thinking is better able to deal with such a situation than is an individual who thinks he is a critical thinker. The Big Leaguer is a Critical Thinker the sandlot player is a critical thinker.

Does this mean that truth, in matters of human affairs, is subjective without any objective content?

Does social reality make truth and the theorist only brings theory and truth into harmony?

It seems that theory creates reality and is shaped by reality. Does social theory have any claim on logical truth?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,006 • Replies: 33

No top replies

Come off it chuck.We've heard it all before.It's all platitudes.Sounds good I know especially with a posh English accent on one of those late night TV shows where a bunch of serious people are setting the world to rights.You know-you must have seen some-they are fixing us up so we behave and go from strength to strength at 3% a year and all live happily ever after.

Bob said-"Watch the parking meters".So.
Watch the parking meters.
"The social scientist is attempting to build a theory about a moving target and the social scientist is riding on this moving target while constructing the theory."--you say.Is that ironic?Like joy-riding on the moving target

Don't try to go too fast at first.

0 Replies

Spendius

I would try to defend my position if you were to be specific as to what you disagree with. I do not know how to respond to the general broadside.

0 Replies

I applaud Spendius for even coming up with a response. As for myself, I'm still trying to figure out the point of the initial post. The reality of Science is observable phenomena, not necessarily matter. While some unempirical social philosophy passes itself off as social science, most social science deals in the same currency as natural science, i.e., observable phenomena.

As for it being better to be a critical thinker rather than simply thinking of one's self as a "critical thinker"--who'd know the difference aside from the true critical thinker's apparent ability to capitalize 'C' and 'T' when writing out 'Critical Thinker'?

0 Replies

Mills

You failed to read and comprehend the first paragraph. I have copied it here for your reading.

"The essential premise of critical social theory is that contemporary society is neither democratic nor free, but that modern global capitalism creates a citizenry satiated with consumer goods, unaware of alternative ways of living. In the public sector, critical theory suggests that governing systems are influenced, if not controlled, by the wealthy and powerful, leaving public professionals to decide whether to serve those interests or the interests of a broader public."

0 Replies

coberst wrote:

Mills

You failed to read and comprehend the first paragraph. I have copied it here for your reading.

"The essential premise of critical social theory is that contemporary society is neither democratic nor free, but that modern global capitalism creates a citizenry satiated with consumer goods, unaware of alternative ways of living. In the public sector, critical theory suggests that governing systems are influenced, if not controlled, by the wealthy and powerful, leaving public professionals to decide whether to serve those interests or the interests of a broader public."

Sure, I was on the bus with you this far, but had to get off at the misconception of science and before the confusion of critical thinking with critical social theory.

0 Replies

Mills

A wealthy nation, just like a wealthy individual, can withstand great and numerous mistakes in judgement and still suffer no serious damage to its basic welfare. There is, however, a point in which this margin of safety is diminished to the point that the wealth becomes to small and the results of mistakes to large to withstand the damage suffered by mistaken judgement.

I suspect that such an insufficient margin of safety may be rapidly approaching the US. Due to the rapid acceleration of change and damage incurred by errors--because of technology that present and future circumstances portend--the US faces a need to make a rapid and fundamental adjustment in ability to make significantly better judgements.

In a liberal democracy like our own we cannot out-distance the general judgement capacity of the majority. If the US is going to make better judgements in the future then, by definition, our citizens must be able to make better decisions.

I consider CT for all citizens as the only avenue for improving the judgement of our society in general.

0 Replies

Quote:

If the US is going to make better judgements in the future then, by definition, our citizens must be able to make better decisions.

Really? And if we want to move at a fast walk, by definition, our legs have to walk faster. Smile

To make a sound decicion you need sound information, objectively presented, and last but not least, you need to understand it. The modern political system and the modern media prohibits this, with all the hidden agendas and campaigns for popularity.

A society is not a unity. It is a congregation of individuals, wich should operate smoothly if everyone were capable of minding their own business. That's about as idealistic as I am going to get..

0 Replies

Chuck-

I'm sorry for being away.My system went blue.

The initial post contains far too many words which do not have an agreed meaning.With all due respect I think you should widen your horizons to beyond the social science field.

0 Replies

Spendius

I suspect that is good advice. I have just begun studying McLuhan's "Understanding Media". I have not gotten very far but I am amazed at the insight displayed in that book. Every page seems to be filled with things that appear to very insightful but also very diffcult to understand.

0 Replies

Give us an example Chuck.A2K specialises in explaining things.

0 Replies

Spendius

We can start with this.

I am having a great deal of difficulty in understanding the nature of "extension of himself". I know what the definition is and I can associate the meaning to particular instances but I do not understand. I cannot write an essay about "extension of himself". I consider understanding is 'to create meaning for me'.

No doubt McLuhan and many others have discovered this understanding and can write many pages about it but I have not yet been able to make it 'my own'. On every page of his book I find similiar situations.

THE MYTH OF NARCISSUS: THE GADGET-LOVER
The Greek myth of Narcissus is directly concerned with a fact of human experience, as the word Narcissus indicates. It is from the Greek word narcosis or numbness. The youth Narcissus mistook his own reflection in the water for another person. This extension of himself by mirror numbed his perceptions until he became the servomechanism of his own extended or repeated image. The nymph Echo tried to win his love with fragments of his own speech, but in vain. He was numb. He had adapted to the extensions of himself and had become a closed system. Now the point of this myth is the fact that men at once become fascinated by any extension of themselves in any material other than themselves (43-44). Index
http://web.mit.edu/21l.015/classes/mcluhan.html

0 Replies

Chuck-

Remember it killed Narcissus.Myths are metaphors.
Self absorption is deadly is how I read it.
I also think that myths conceal sublime truth.They are also the raw material of art.

I read McLuhan a long time ago and thought him poor.It all seemed obvious.

But narcissism is natural in children and it isn't easy to throw it off.Flaubert's Salammbo is on the net somewhere in full.Try that.Spendius is the hero and he dies on a cross with a joke much like James Bond although the latter always escapes to make another movie.There could be no extensions of Salammbo.

My advice is to read Chapter One and then read it again with attention to the prose as an object lesson in how to transform a blank sheet of paper into a masterwork.It took Flaubert five years of grinding effort.Every word exudes sweat and midnight oil.It's another world.

0 Replies

Spendius

Thanks for the info. I shall try Salammbo.

0 Replies

coberst

IMO the answers to your three qustions at the end of your first post are "yes" "yes" and "yes". I would go further and say all "truth" is negotiable and that there is no such thing as "objectivity."

0 Replies

Fresco

If there is no objective content in matters of human affairs how is it possible to ?'reason together'? As I see it we have instrumental rationality whereby reason is directed at maximizing the effectiveness of the means to meet an established goal. This is our specialty?-we are very good at creating the bomb but the problem arises when humans must come together to prevent our technology from killing us. Without some standard (truth) how do we reason together to reach the solutions we so badly need. I think sociology speaks of this as communicative rationality.

0 Replies

coberst

"Truth" is a negotiated consensus. "Standards" alter according to context and mutual needs. This concept of "paradigm shifts" has already been explored by Kuhn in the natural sciences. Neither "observers" nor their "data" exist independently of each other, or independently from the zeitgeisst embodied in their socially acquired language.

With respect to the "difference" between "natural and social science" it may be valid to think of "mathematics" as relatively culture free and hence more conducive to consensus, hence the relative "success" of natural science in its usage and application of "universals". However the situation has changed (after Heisenberg) with the rise of probability and statistics at the quantum level where scientists are now unsure of what their results "mean" or how their actions have influenced the results.

If this can be said about "truth" in the natural sciences it has even greater impact in the social sciences.

0 Replies

Fresco

Going back to QM I find that Feynman is ?'the man' for me in that domain of knowledge.

Feynman admits to the fact that they, the physicists, do not understand a thing about what is going on within the atom, however, and this is a big however, it continually repeats itself. There is pattern here. Despite a lack of understanding there is predictability. Objects are the same tomorrow as yesterday and therein lies truth in the natural sciences. Such is not the case in the social sciences. In the social sciences we have the problem of reflectivity.

Soros writes--"By introducing this concept [reflexivity], I was hoping to set logical positivism on its head. Logical positivism outlawed self-referent statements as meaninglessThe idea that reality is somehow separate and independent from thinking has become outmodedFeedback and reflexivity are recognized as real-life phenomenaPeople today may be willing to take reflexivity for granted but they may not be aware of all its implicationsIn fact, most people may not be aware that a radical transformation has occurred?-the young because they have little understanding of how people thought fifty years ago, the old because they have failed to adjust their thinking and so feel perplexed by the current environment."

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

"Truth" is a negotiated consensus.

Is that a negotiated consensus?

0 Replies

coberst

Predictability is certainly part of what is normally meant by "science" and is central to homo sapiens "urge to control." BTW I think we need to added the qualification "relative to our timeline and purpose" when we talk about the "sameness of objects" and hence "truth" itself becomes relative.

Joe

Aspects of Russell's paradox are certainly fun, and if nothing else show us that "meaning" transcends "logic".

0 Replies

Legitimacy in Social Theory

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know