a******o
发帖数: 1197 | 1 感觉在社会学里有一种对于how问题的歧视，一般来说一种理论模式要能解释某种现象
才能算上好的理论。而人文科学更注重how，文本的结构，历史的叙述，诸如此类。
我出两个题目大家来说说（我也没有答案）
1）政治学里是不是也privilege why (or causal analysis)
2）一个好的理论如果能够弄清楚how是不是一定能弄清楚why |
h****t
发帖数: 632 | 2 well, it depends.
1)There is no unitary and general picture for poli sci, as well as other
subjects.You may say the dominate perception within social sciences
prefers explanation(why) to understanding(how) now. Structuralism,
insitutionalism may line up with "why" and culturalsim(and many other post-
XXXist, ) may like how. Of course, it is an oversimplified category.
it is possble to have bounded causality or undrestanding:an explanation will
be valid under specific conditions and a meaning can |
a******o
发帖数: 1197 | 3 good!
I don't have a definitive answer yet. this is my trouble when i was doing
one of my projects by employing structuralist discourse analysis. i feel my
discourse analysis is perfect in terms of how question but less persuasive
in terms of causal analysis because it causes nothing.
generally, i don't know. i am still thinking. let's take an example, which
is widely read by both sociologists and political scientists--skocpol's
states and social revolutions. this is an extremely strong causal a
【在 h****t 的大作中提到】
: well, it depends.
: 1)There is no unitary and general picture for poli sci, as well as other
: subjects.You may say the dominate perception within social sciences
: prefers explanation(why) to understanding(how) now. Structuralism,
: insitutionalism may line up with "why" and culturalsim(and many other post-
: XXXist, ) may like how. Of course, it is an oversimplified category.
: it is possble to have bounded causality or undrestanding:an explanation will
: be valid under specific conditions and a meaning can
|
a******o
发帖数: 1197 | 4 BTW: who has read Charles Tilly's Why?
will
,
【在 h****t 的大作中提到】
: well, it depends.
: 1)There is no unitary and general picture for poli sci, as well as other
: subjects.You may say the dominate perception within social sciences
: prefers explanation(why) to understanding(how) now. Structuralism,
: insitutionalism may line up with "why" and culturalsim(and many other post-
: XXXist, ) may like how. Of course, it is an oversimplified category.
: it is possble to have bounded causality or undrestanding:an explanation will
: be valid under specific conditions and a meaning can
|
s******1
发帖数: 239 | 5 In my observation, "how" and "why" could be similar (at least overlapped).
If we really want to know "causal mechanism" (not just causal relationship),
shouldn't we know "how" as well?
The more fundamental challenge for social sciences is how to deal with "
subjectivity" (or culture/meanings etc). Conventionally, social scientists
might envy physics, assuming that "subjectivity" of people does not matter
and people are similar to "pull balls".
【在 a******o 的大作中提到】
: 感觉在社会学里有一种对于how问题的歧视，一般来说一种理论模式要能解释某种现象
: 才能算上好的理论。而人文科学更注重how，文本的结构，历史的叙述，诸如此类。
: 我出两个题目大家来说说（我也没有答案）
: 1）政治学里是不是也privilege why (or causal analysis)
: 2）一个好的理论如果能够弄清楚how是不是一定能弄清楚why
|
z*******m
发帖数: 1682 | 6 kind of agree.
can I say that there is no way to answer exactly right in "why" question.
then, let's teach ppl to believe in "how", then make the "why" answer quite
believable and workable...
sorry, I'am actually a Min Ke.
),
【在 s******1 的大作中提到】
: In my observation, "how" and "why" could be similar (at least overlapped).
: If we really want to know "causal mechanism" (not just causal relationship),
: shouldn't we know "how" as well?
: The more fundamental challenge for social sciences is how to deal with "
: subjectivity" (or culture/meanings etc). Conventionally, social scientists
: might envy physics, assuming that "subjectivity" of people does not matter
: and people are similar to "pull balls".
|
z*******m
发帖数: 1682 | 7 my feeling is that, in countries naming political science department as
politics department, ppl talk more about how issues. scholars there are
pretty good at critical theories.
critics to post-xxxism ususally refer to their comparative disadvantages in
construction and answering how...
some quick thoughts//escape...
【在 a******o 的大作中提到】
: 感觉在社会学里有一种对于how问题的歧视，一般来说一种理论模式要能解释某种现象
: 才能算上好的理论。而人文科学更注重how，文本的结构，历史的叙述，诸如此类。
: 我出两个题目大家来说说（我也没有答案）
: 1）政治学里是不是也privilege why (or causal analysis)
: 2）一个好的理论如果能够弄清楚how是不是一定能弄清楚why
|
a******o
发帖数: 1197 | 8 "critics to post-xxxism ususally refer to their comparative disadvantages in
construction and answering how..."
what does that mean?
in
【在 z*******m 的大作中提到】
: my feeling is that, in countries naming political science department as
: politics department, ppl talk more about how issues. scholars there are
: pretty good at critical theories.
: critics to post-xxxism ususally refer to their comparative disadvantages in
: construction and answering how...
: some quick thoughts//escape...
|
a******o
发帖数: 1197 | 9 interesting observations
in
【在 z*******m 的大作中提到】
: my feeling is that, in countries naming political science department as
: politics department, ppl talk more about how issues. scholars there are
: pretty good at critical theories.
: critics to post-xxxism ususally refer to their comparative disadvantages in
: construction and answering how...
: some quick thoughts//escape...
|
z*******m
发帖数: 1682 | 10 uh... it should be "why".
In fact, I'm not confident in this:)
in
【在 a******o 的大作中提到】
: "critics to post-xxxism ususally refer to their comparative disadvantages in
: construction and answering how..."
: what does that mean?
:
: in
|
