Unit 5. Empathy, truth and method [Philosophy of Science]

1. Unit 5 Empathy, method and truth Hermeneutics

2. Last class Demarcation: Distinguishing scientific (empirical) knowledge from everyday knowledge Empiricism: social sciences should use the methodology of natural sciences

3. Criticism of empirical method Tautological Deterministic Without context (historical, cultural etc.) Uncritical of society

4. Bleaching human behavior

5. Strict demarcation bleaches human behavior All bones and no flesh

6. Hermeneutics

7. hermeneutics Hermes: God of deceit, trade and messenger of the Gods Hermeneutics focuses on the interpretation of narratives

8. Wilhelm Dilthey (1883-1911) “Erklären” (explaining) Natural sciences (physical laws) “Verstehen” (understanding/interpreting) Social sciences Verstehen doesn’t really play a role in quantitative research

9. Erklären(law-governed explanation) Causal explanations Structure Why does person X go to war? Because war has broken out

10. Verstehen(interpretation) Empathy Human agency Why does person x go to war? Because he was raised as a patriot and he feels it his duty to protect his country when it is threatened by a hostile nation.

11. In what kind of research cases would empathy be valuable? Name some examples

12. Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)

13. Being-in-the-world Being-in-the-world is a 'thrownness' (Geworfenheit) We are thrown in the world We are put in a context without prior knowledge. There is no such thing as seeing the world form a birds-eye view We only see the world from within the world

14. All meaning is context dependent All meaning is anticipated from a certain point of view

15. Hermeneutic circleUnderstanding the whole by its parts in reference to the whole

16. Like reading a book To understand a sentence of a book you need to understand the whole book (context) To understand the whole book you need to understand the individual sentences.

17. Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002)

18. You always start out from prejudice, pre-understanding, pre-judgment Stating a research question is already interpretation

19. Truth and Method Gadamer was critical of positivism (empiricism) in social sciences Social sciences shouldn't use The methodology of natural sciences

20. prejudice Understanding is a dialogue We understand ourselves And the matter at hand

21. Fusion of horizons We all have our own horizon By interpreting the horizon of others we broaden our own horizon

22. People are embedded in a (historical and cultural) context They have their own vantage point, their horizon Interpreting a narrative involves a fusion of horizons

23. Interpretative theory

24. Statements as conveyors of meaning Not: what correspondence with reality is there in statement A But: What does statement A mean

25. Interpretative theory Room for free will, intentionality Subjectivist paradigm, meaning is inter-subjectively created Understanding an action by relating it to the (cultural) whole Analyzing interviews

26. Examples of relation to the whole Name some examples of customs that can only be understood in relation to the whole

27. Constructing narratives

28. People construct their own narrative By interacting people construct/negotiate a reality So our reality is not objectively given but inter-subjectively constructed

29. Clifford Geertz (1926-2006)

30. Max Weber: Man is an animal in a web of meaning of his own making Geertz: Culture is the whole of these webs These webs should not be researched in the vein of the natural sciences: in search of laws. But: interpretative search for meaning

31. Thick description Thin description: what is literally happening Thick description: What is happening in context, in the space between erklären and verstehen

32. Example: Winking Person a blinks his eye in an involuntary twitch Person b blinks his eye as a signal to a friend In thin description the actions of a and b would be the same In thick description we link the action of person b to a context His winking is a public code related to a larger cultural context

33. Science or relativism? Do we get more understanding? Can we acquire knowledge trough empathy? Is this scientific?

34. Epistemology: Empathy as knowledge?

35. Criticism Do we risk relativism if we don’t use the rules of the empirical method? (remember Popper) Anything goes? (remember Feyerabend)