THE REVIEW OF MAY BRODBECK WORK ON THE PHILSOPHY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

                                                ELUSIYAN FRANCIS TOLULOPE

INTRODUCTION

Histories were made, stories were told on how philosophy of science attends to physical sciences as well as their contributions in understanding of mechanics and theories. With reference to Galileo’s research on falling bodies as paradigm, science was said to be descriptive because it is by giving the mathematical formula that the body’s behavior is explained and not in searching out for the purpose.

The question is? What the frame work of social science is? This question have however created a  lot of dispute among philosophers, some are crave to argue for the non-independent of social science; saying rather that it is just a discipline under-psychology or the natural sciences, while other philosophers crave to reject such and argued for the distinctive features of the social sciences. The above introduction therefore is the template to the issues raised in this work we are about to review.

THE EXTRA-ORDINARY SUMMARY

May Brodbeck started by elucidating the frame work of philosophy of social science and speak of its method, analyses, theories and clarification. According to Brodbeck, science is basically descriptive discipline which relies on experimentation, observation, empirical variables. Brodbeck goes further to give an insight about the social sciences and he says that even the contemporary social scientists still argue about the frame of reference.

For Brodbeck, contemporary theory of the social sciences follows four major patterns:

1. There are the self-conscious continuers of the Galilean-Newtonian tradition who insist upon essential identity in method between the social and physical sciences. These thinkers incline to the view that social theory is, in some sense, reducible to psychology which in turn, through physiology, is reducible to physics. Armed with the laws of physics and the state of the universe at any moment, Laplace’s demon extends his purview from the physical world to the fate of all mankind. From mill to the logical positivists, these are the objectivists and reductionists.

2. That there is an existence and uniqueness of scientific character. From the early nineteenth century until our own time, the romantics insist upon the unique character of what later can be called Geisteswissenschaften, the sciences of man. Organist, holist and energentist, this school deplores the laplacean vision as radically mistaken. If not viciously demeaning to the dignity of man and his works. It counters the objectivist’s fervor for the empirical methods of science with an equally ardent belief in the superiority of verstehen. These are the two extreme views. The other two combine, in different proportions, ingredients of these extremes.

3. That the study of society can and must be objective and scientific, that the study of groups, behavior of the society can be understood using the scientific yardstick or paradigm. More profoundly, this view, represented by Marxists and pragmatists, unites or attempts to unite, the empiricist, scientific tradition with anti-analytical holism and historicism. The study of society they claim can and must be objective and scientific. But its laws are held to be unique in kind, unlike those of either psychology or physics.

4. The fourth conception of the social sciences is reductionist in one sense, anti-reductionist in another. The behavior of groups must be explained in terms of the behavior of the behavior of individuals; but the psychology of individuals cannot be reduced to anything else. Although it opposes organism, it too rejects the so- called unity of the sciences, insists like the holists on a unique and perhaps, subjective method in the social sciences.

Brodbeck proceed further by presenting Professor F.A Hayek, an economist, as one of the major proponent of this position. Brodbeck proceed further to show his contention and displeased concerning Hayek’s submission, but prior to that, we would like to present Hayek’s philosophical background for better understanding of this discourse.

Hayek’s Argument: The philosophical Background

In the counter revolution of science, Hayek is concerned to contrast the natural and social sciences, whose relation to their subject matter, he claims, is fundamentally different. In the natural sciences, advances involve recognizing that things are not what they seem. Science dissolves the immediate categories of subjective experience and replaces them with underlying, often hidden, causes. The study of society on the other hand has to take as its raw material the ideas and beliefs of people in society. The facts studied by social science.

“differ from the facts of the physical sciences in being beliefs or opinions held by particular people, beliefs which as such are our data, irrespective of whether they are true or false, and which, moreover, we cannot directly observe in the minds of people but which we can recognize from what they say or do merely because we have ourselves a mind similar to theirs”(Hayek,1955,pg.28)

He argues that there is an irreducible subjective element to the subject matter of the social sciences which was absent in the physical sciences.

“Most of the objects of social or human action are not “objective facts” in the special narrow sense in which the term is used in the sciences and contrasted to “opinions”, and they cannot at all be defined in physical terms. So far as human actions are concerned, things are what the acting people think they are. (Hayek, 1955, pg.27)

His paradigm for the social sciences is that society must be understood in terms of men’s conscious reflected actions, it being assumed that people are constantly, consciously choosing between different possible courses of action. Any collective phenomena must thus be conceived of as the unintended outcome of the decisions of individual conscious actors.

This imposes a fundamental dichotomy between the study of nature and of society, since dealing with natural phenomena it may be reasonable to suppose that the individual scientist can know all the relevant information, while in the social context this condition cannot possibly be met.

Brodbeck proceed further to show his contention and displeased concerning Hayek’s submission: Hayek opines that the social science is systematically subjective and he has three reasons for this belief.

1.      That the subject matter is human opinions and attitudes; what Hayek is saying here is that, the social sciences has to do with only the world as it appears to ,men and what men beliefs they can do in the world as they see it. So for him therefore, only the natural sciences are objective. For Professor Hayek, the objectivism of natural sciences depends on dispensability of human beliefs and attitudes which transposically make the social scientist subjective. Hayek concludes this point by adhering that the social science is rooted in psychology.

2.      Hayek also belief that this subject matter can be adequately known only by a subjective method, namely, introspection. Hayek feels that there is an unbridgeable gap between the natural sciences and social sciences. Hayek argued further for the subjectivism of social sciences by saying that the observance knowledge is private as it is based on the examination of its own mind.

Brodbeck however, is not in support with Hayek’s thought. For Brodbeck, Hayek opines such because he has succumbed to the temptation to make a metaphysical position out of some unexamined common places.

3.      The third reason why Hayek beliefs that the social sciences are irredeemably subjective is that mental categories are indispensable for explanation of social phenomena and this, allegedly implies subjectivism. In other words, this means that the subjectivity of social science is inevitable but Brodbeck raised further issues to the third assumption of Professor Hayek and the issues include/: if it is so that the indispensability of mental category make the social sciences subjective then:

a.       Is a physical explanation of mental processes possible?

b.      If it were possible would we still need mental concepts for an adequate description of social facts?

c.       If we still needed them, with or without physical explanation, does this imply subjectivism?

Professor Hayek denies that a physical explanation is possible, asserts that even if it were we would still need mental categories and therefore, we would still have to appeal to introspection. Professor Hayek’s intricate defense of these views make some valid and important points says Brodbeck, but nevertheless, according to Brodbeck, I do not belief that they imply what he thinks they imply. For Brodbeck, he feels Professor Hayek had contradicted himself with this third point. It is important to note at this point that Brodbeck disagreed with Hayek on his assumptions. We can infer that Brodbeck will agree on the contrary. In fact, it gives us a clue, he says, there is no difference essentially between the social scientist and the physicist. We can further infer that what Brodbeck is saying here is that if the natural science is objectivistic in its own right. Contrary to Hayek that both the social science and natural science has something in common.

May Brodbeck proceed forward to show the implication of Hayek’s assumption. May Brodbeck feels that Hayek has committed the fallacy of reductionism and for Brodbeck the implications are numerous. For Brodbeck the implications is that the social sciences should be nothing more than a science of psychology which make the social science knows it own essence and independent. Brodbeck also feels there is an incomplete definition to the original understanding of subjectivity, which presupposes the fact that, for Brodbeck, professor Hayek was not totally right when he made a social science mutually an exclusive subjective discipline; Brodbeck also feels that the subjectivism of social sciences that Hayek opines, it lead to a form of methodological individualism such that the behavior of groups can be explained in the behavior of individual. For Hayek this, form of methodological individualism or systematic subjectivism is what defines the character or the essence of the social sciences. Brodbeck certainly advocate for the methodological liberty of the social scientist. Of course this is influenced by the jaundice sentiment shield by scholars who feels that only natural science is the paradigm.

EVALUATION

In favour of the autonomy of the social sciences, from the above discourse thus far, we discovered at this very point to argue for the autonomy of the objectivism of the social sciences contrast to what Hayek opines. In other words, we are agreeing with Brodbeck issues against Hayek. The social sciences are a distinctive discipline of its own with its own methodology. It is mistaken to think like Hayek that only the natural sciences are objective. We can then ask, what does objectivity means in this sense? When we have noticed para-digmaticship even in scientific findings and discoveries just like Brodbeck is either we come to agree too that natural sciences are also subjective or that the social sciences are objective.

Hayek therefore is not totally correct on this point. Secondly, if the social sciences are systematically subjective as claimed by Hayek, then it loses the essence of its real flavor. We have come to realize that this is not true. Peter winch( In his work: “the idea of social science and it relation to philosophy” oxford publication,London,1958,pg.327) opines that social science is a science on its own, which means the social sciences cannot be denied of its character and uniqueness. If Professor Hayek thought is logically followed, then it falls to the problem of reductionism as Brodbeck noted, and this will create further problems and issues, even for sciences itself.

Also, we must disintegrate the mind from thinking that whatever is subjective is equally scientific and this might not necessarily be the case and this is where we can even say Brodbeck committed a mistake. In equivocal that is called subjectivism scientism, and this can be called indirect reductionism almost the same mistake of Hayek. Any discipline can be objective in its own way without logically following the modules operandi of the natural sciences.

CONCLUSION

By way of conclusion on the account of this paper, it is crystal clear from our discussion thus far that the issues raised are regarding the nature and object of the social sciences, of course we have seen in the paper reviewed that Hayek argued for the subjectivism of the social sciences which we are very displeased with and we have also come to realize that even Brodbeck committed a mistake and we have also argued for the autonomy of the social science as a discipline on its own. It is apposite to conclude on this note therefore that science is just a paradigm and not the paradigm and so social science is a discipline on its own with its own character, uniqueness, objectivity, therefore the social science can in a way be regarded as an objective discipline without following the modalities of the natural sciences. 

NB: The paper reviewed “The Philosophy of Social Science by May Brodbeck” vol.21, no.2 (apr, 1954), pg.140-156 and it was published by the university of Chicago press on behalf of the philosophy of science association.

A REVIEW OF ANN DAVIS "MORAL DILEMA"

ELUSIYAN FRANCIS T

INTRODUCTION

Uncertainty has been expressed by philosophers about the question of whether there is a genuine moral dilemma and basically this is what the exposition of DavisAnn deals with. The question of whether there is a genuine moral dilemma and if there is, what does it mean? This is an argument between the philosophers and morally engaged layperson. But philosophers according to AnnDavis who question the existence of genuine moral dilemma do not usually concern themselves with trying to disrepute the testimony of actual agents in the real world. Rather, what they are trying to do is challenge the supposition that appeals to peoples experiences (and report about their experiences) could ever be thought to provide sufficient ground for supposing that something constitutes a genuine moral dilemma. According to Ann the philosophical concern about the possibility of genuine moral dilemma which they said may lead to uselessness, incoherent and inconsistence of morality may probably be true, by the way, for the purpose of evaluating and revising our moral theories, but she opine that philosophers have been unable to deal with this issues that the agents face in moral dilemmas.

 A GENERAL OUTLOOK OF GENUINE MORAL DILEMA

For a particular state of affairs to be called a moral dilemma, the agent is faced with the issues of moral significance. The term dilemma means difficult to solve. It is therefore a datum, that choice which itself has solution is faced with the challenge of choosing between two mutually exclusive, equally attractive options, this limitation of choosing between the two is not as a result of the agent’s inability to reason, his psychological state and his weakness, though these are separate issues that cannot be overlooked. From the preceding, Ann presents to us that the limitations of the agent to choose between two enthralling but attractive options does not emerge as a result of the agent’s initial moral misconduct or prior experiences that fail to recognize the rules and features of morality, rather, the inescapability of this difficulty or predicament seems inherent human beings and as well it shows the definitive or connotation of genuine moral dilemma.

METAPHYSICAL AND LOGICAL APPROACH TO THE PROSPECT OF GENUINE MORAL DILEMMAS

Though most philosophers have been concerned with the truth or falsehood of the logical and metaphysical claims about whether genuine moral dilemmas are possible, it may be worth considering the plausibility of a more modest claim, the claim that there are in fact few, if any moral dilemmas. This time around the philosophers embark on adopting a method called STRATEGY OF RETROSOECTIVE ASSESSMENT. This particular strategy involves the attempt to tender a disinterested, after the fact assessment of the agent’s options and their values seem to have a lot to commend it. The content of knowing the possibility of genuine moral dilemmas cannot be known prior to or independently of experience, in other words, cannot be proven by the nature of the agent’s moral experience. It is further expressed that the adoption of strategy of retrospective assessment enables the philosophers to alarm on the importance of being sensitive to the differences and complexities of the actual circumstances surrounding the emergence of a genuine moral dilemma.

It is by this strategy that they are capable of explaining the reason behind the agent’s belief that these circumstances make up a genuine moral dilemma, and as well point out the reason why the agent’s impressions were mistaken. It is equally expressed that the strategy of retrospective assessment draws some of their plausibility from our recognition of the superior epistemic value of after the fact analyses. This directly implies that the retrospection on an agent’s difficulty or unpleasant situation can be done in series of respect that are superior to the actual condition of the agent’s when deliberating or taking an action. This approach is more clearer and well informed than that of the agent’s, this is strictly because the other person’s retrospection is free from confusing state of mind.

It has come to a greater awareness that the method of retrospective assessment is familiar and intuitively plausible. This has enhances a greater comprehensive nature of human phenomena or simply put, the difficulty in the science of human nature that moral dilemmas seizure.

This same method also uncovers the fact that the mistakes of human are as a result of not being able to see beyond themselves, and this proposed the retention of ignorance and low epistemic values.

To Ann Davis, a mature reflective agent who cultivates a retrospective habit sees his past and that of others, therefore holding to that fact that his problem which seemed unsolved was as a matter of time and as well such problem is a finite one for that matter. Therefore, with the adoption of retrospective assessment method, we stand to voice out at the face of moral matters, most especially, the experience of dilemmas which seem insoluble with great consequence does not provide grounds for supposing that there are indeed genuine moral dilemmas.

 APPLICATION

Davis presents more affirmative answer to the question of whether there is possibility of genuine moral dilemmas, by taking into consideration the experiences of morally serious adults or mature human beings. What she tend to explain is that a logical implication and moral cannot dig out the reality behind the agent’s moral situations, rather a closer look into the agent’s situation and experience help to fish out the agent’s predicament.

Ann Davis preferred to end this write up by stating the fact that looking at some experiences of some morally serious adults; we seem to find some grounds for an affirmative. As well there could be a resemblance of genuine moral dilemmas, when a keen look and special considering or attention is paid on the agent’s particular circumstances, deliberations and on the phenomenology of moral difficult choices. Therefore, Ann Davis says “Yes I believe it is true that if we appeal to the moral experience of mature human beings, and to what might be called moral common sense, we will be inclined to conclude that there are genuine moral dilemmas.

Davis thereby back up her claim by considering the menace of September 11, 2011 at the world trade center, of which two good friends called Bob and Ted are victims of this. Unfortunately, these two good friends were in the twenty eight floor of the WTC when the first hijacked plane struck the office located closely to the tower. Over thousands of people were running for survive through an exit, in this plethora of situation for the survival of life. Unfortunately Ted is a fat man who was under medical care and attached on him are the heavy medical equipment and to get him out would require the hands of about six able persons apart from his good friend Bob. In this critical situation, what would Bob have to do? Knowing fully well that his survival is important those who liked him and as well his family members, thereby leaving him would be a betrayer of true friendship, and a well staying to struggle for the life of Ted could also cause him his life and as well the life of that Ted. Summarily, Bob chose to remain with Ted. This decision shows the kind of person Bob was, but the significance of Bob’s decision describes the situation as a genuine moral dilemma, which showcase a link of his moral identity. This is a very serious issue in which neither of the choices was truly identifiable as the better or morally preferable.

EVALUATION/CONCLUSION

HERESIES AND TERMINOLOGIES IN PATROLOGY

ELUSIYAN FRANCIS

 HERESY: Heresy is an opinion or belief that contradicts an established religious teaching. It is a theological doctrine or system that is officially rejected and condemned as false by ecclesiastical authority. It is any religious doctrine opposed to the dogma of a particular church, and a false teaching against the church.

APOLOGIST: This is a title of honour bestowed on one well versed in Christian doctrine and capable of defending it against attacks. It refers to Christian writers of the second century who defended the doctrines of Christianity and they defended the accusations and charges leveled against the church. They are the early Christian writers of the 2^nd century who refuted the pagan accusations against the church.

ARIANISM: An influential heresy denying the divinity of Christ, originating with the Alexandrian priest Arius (circa 250-circa 336). Arianism maintained that the son of God was created by the father and was therefore neither co-eternal with the father, nor consubstantial.

MONOPHYSITISM: From the Greek “monos” meaning “one” and “physics” meaning “nature”; mono-physitism is an erroneous or heretical view concerning the nature of Jesus Christ. A Christological position that Christ has only one nature, as opposed to the chalcedonian position which holds that Christ has two natures, one divine and one human. There are two major doctrines that can indisputably be called Monophysite (Eutychianism and Apollnarianism).

NESTORIANISM: The doctrine that there were two separate persons, one human and one divine, in the incarnate Christ. It is named after Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople (428-31) and was maintained by some ancient churches of the Middle East. A small Nestorian church still exists in Iraq.

DUALISM: This is a doctrine that the world (or reality) consists of two basic, opposed, and irreducible principles of good and evil that account for all that exists. Dualism means the belief in two supreme opposed powers or gods, or sets of divine or demonic beings that caused the world to exist. Dualism is a view that reduces reality to two equally primordial and mutually opposed principles. This is a doctrine that asserts that the forces of good and evil are co-equal and co eternal.

AGNOSTICISM: The extreme view that knowledge of God is impossible, even with the aid of revelation, is the latest form of religious agnosticism, with special reference to theology, is a name for any theory which denies that it is possible for man to acquire knowledge of God. It may assume either a religious or anti-religious form, as it is confined to a criticism of rational knowledge or extended to a criticism of belief.

GNOSTICISM: A prominent heretical movement of the 2^nd century Christian church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esotericknowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit.

MARCIONISM: Marcionism was an early heresy led by marcion who proposed the first canon of Christian texts. The proposed canon consisted of the Gospel of Luke and several of Paul’sepistles; however, marcion edited the writings by deleting any references that appeared to approve of the Old Testament and the creator God of the Jews. Marcionism thus rejected the Old Testament God, claiming that Jesus represented the true sovereign God who was different from the God of the Hebrew people.

DONATISM            

Donatism includes a group of extremist seets, mostly in North Africa that emphasized asceticism and they valued martyrdom and found lapses of faith(even under torture or threat of death) inexcusable. The heresy involved their contention that the sacraments required a priest of pure moral character to be effective and only the pure (who has no lapsed under persecution) should be allowed in the church. They were opposed by Augustine of Hippo.

PELAGIANISM

Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special divine aid. This is named after British monk Pelagius(354-420) although he denied, at least at some point in his life, many of the doctrines associated with his name, Pelagius taught that the human will as created with its abilities by God, was sufficient to live a sinless life.

TURAFICATI AND CERTIFICATI

Certificati to certify or to register that someone is heretical. To attest, witness, approve or even confirm to as the truth or meeting a standard. TURA it means food frankincense divination. While FICATI means; lesser degree exorcists etc. The two join together means lesser degrees of exorcism or medication.

EUTYCHIANISM

This is an extreme form of monophysism; it asserts that Jesus Christ has two natures before the hypostatic union which was fused into one at his incarnation. This heretic teaching affirms only the divine nature of Jesus and denies his human nature, thereby denying the title of our lady as “theotokos”. This doctrine holds that the human nature of Jesus was fully absorbed into his divine nature at incarnation. This is an extreme form of monophysism.

APOLINARIANISM

 This is a heretical teaching that in Jesus Christ a divine nature took the place of the rational human soul and mind or mind of Christ and that the body of Christ was a spiritualized and glorified form of humanity. This doctrine heed that the divine logos embodied in human flesh but that Jesus had only one nature, a fourth century heresy that asserts that Jesus had a human body and human soul but no human mind.

MONTANISM

 This is a doctrine that preaches moral and ascetical rigorism. This doctrine denies the power of the church to forgive sins. This doctrine claims to be the oracle of the Holy Spirit and a possessor of true charismatic qualities and they believe that post baptismal sins could not be forgiven.