problems all day long wout ultee ics theory course september 17, 2008
DESCRIPTION
PROBLEMS ALL DAY LONG? FOUR YEARS LONG!TRANSCRIPT
PROBLEMS
PROBLEMS
PROBLEMS
ALL DAY LONG
WOUT ULTEE
ICS THEORY COURSE
SEPTEMBER 17, 2008
PROBLEMS
PROBLEMS
PROBLEMS
ALL DAY LONG
(the Everly Brothers)
PROBLEMS
PROBLEMS
PROBLEMS
ALL DAY LONG?
FOUR YEARS LONG!
PROBLEMS
PROBLEMS
PROBLEMS
ALL DAY LONG?
FOUR YEARS LONG!
(ICS juniors)
YOU WILL ALREADY KNOW A LOT ABOUT BAD AND GOOD RESEARCH
FROM YOUR BACHELOR AND MASTER
WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT BAD AND GOOD THEORIES?
NOT FROM A SUBSTANTIVE, BUT FROM A FORMAL POINT OF VIEW?
AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT BAD AND BETTER PROBLEMS?
LINDENBERG:
RESEARCH SHOULD BE THEORY-GUIDED
AND THE BEST THEORY TO GUIDE RESEARCH IS RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY
ULTEE:
THEORY-BUILDING SHOULD BE PROBLEM-DRIVEN
AND THE FAMILY OF RATIONAL ACTION THEORIES HAS BEEN IN SEARCH OF
PROBLEMS
WHEREAS SOCIOLOGY HAS A CATALOG OF CLASSICAL QUESTIONS
THE THINGS TO DO TODAY:
•MY DIAGNOSIS OF AND MY REMEDY FOR WHAT IS WRONG WITH CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY
•OVERARCHING PROBLEMS AND SUBPROBLEMS
•FILLING IN ALL THE BLANKS OF QUESTIONS
•THE SEQUENCE OF RAISING QUESTIONS
•THE BACKGROUND OF QUESTIONS
•GENERATIONS OF QUESTIONS
•CONTRADICTIONS AS THE BEST QUESTIONS
SOCIOLOGY WAS AND IS MESSY
ONCE IT WAS HELD THAT SOCIOLOGY IS MESSY
BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT VIEW OF THE RELATION BETWEEN
THEORY AND RESEARCH
THE SOLUTION, BORROWED FROM PSYCHOLOGY, WAS TO OPERATIONALIZE
CONCEPTS RELIABLY AND VALIDLY
AND GEAR RESEARCH TOWARDS REPLICATION
HOWEVER, THE LITERATURE ON RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY IS A MESS
AND MORE IS GOING ON IN RESEARCH THAN REPLICATION
A THEORY IS MORE THAN A SYSTEM OF CONCEPTS
SOCIOLOGY HAS TOO MANY CONCEPTS WITHOUT PROPOSITIONS
A THEORY IS A SYSTEM OF PROPOSITIONS
AND SOME PROPOSITIONS ARE RICHER IN CONTENT THAN OTHERS
WITH THE LESS INFORMATIVE PROPOSITIONS BEING DERIVABLE FORM THE MORE INFORMATIVE PROPOSITIONS
LATER RESEARCH PROVIDES STRONGER TESTS OF PROPOSITIONS
TESTS OF PROPOSITIONS ARE MORE SEVERE IF A PROPOSITION IS
CONFRONTED WITH AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSITION
THESE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSITIONS MAY IMPLY THAT SEEMINGLY VALID
OPERATIONALIZATIONS ARE SOMETIMES OFF THE MARK
THE FIRST OFF THE MARK OPERATIONALIZATION
SHOULD STATUS BE MEASURED AS OCCUPATION, AS EDUCATION OR AS INCOME?
OLD SOLUTION: MAKE A SCALE OF ALL THREE DIMENSIONS
TAKE EACH DIMENSION AS HAVING THREE CATEGORIES: HIGH, MIDDLE, LOW
LATER CRITICISM: A PERSON WHO IS HIGH ON INCOME AND LOW ON EDUCATION IS LUMPED IN THE SAME FINAL CATEGORY AS A PERSON WITH
MIDDLE EDUCATION AND MIDDLE INCOME
YET THE HYPOTHESIS OF STATUS INCONSISTENCY SAYS THAT THE VOTING BEHAVIOUR OF THESE
PEOPLE WILL BE QUITE DIFFERENT
NEW SOLUTION: KEEP DIMENSIONS SEPARATE SO THAT THE STATUS INCONSISTENCY HYPOTHESIS
CAN BE TESTED
THE SECOND OFF THE MARK OPERATIONALIZATION
SHOULD CULTURAL PARTICIPATION BE MEASURED AS VISITING PLAYS, OR VISITING CLASSICAL CONCERTS, OR VISITING MUSEUMS?
OLD SOLUTION: MAKE A SCALE OF ALL THREE DIMENSIONS
LATER QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED AFTER IT WAS FOUND THAT CULTURAL PARTICIPATION IS HIGHER IF A PERSON HAS MORE
EDUCATION:
DOES RELIGION KEEP PEOPLE FROM CULTURAL PARTICIPATION?
HYPOTHESIS: ORTHODOX PROPESTANT PERSONS SHUN PLAYS, BUT LIKE CLASSICAL CONCERTS
THE SCALE IS NOT ATTUNED TO TESTING THIS HYPOTHESIS, ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TREATED AS EQUAL
SOLUTION: KEEP DIMENSIONS SEPARATE SO THAT THE HYPOTHESIS ABOUT ORTHODOX PROPESTANTS CAN BE TESTED
NOT: R1 R2
BUT: T1
T2
R1
R2
REPLICATION VERSUS
SEVERE TESTING
IN ADDITION, SOCIOLOGY IS A MESS BECAUSE THE RELATION BETWEEN ITS
THEORIES OFTEN IS UNCLEAR
RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY
?? ?? ?? ??
DURKHEIM’S DURKHEIM’S
INTEGRATION ANOMIE
THEORY THEORY
OF SUICIDE OF SUICIDELOOSE PROPOSITIONS VERSUS
DERIVABLE PROPOSITIONS
T1
T2 T3
T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
THE STRUCTURE OF DURKHEIM’S INTEGRATION THEORY OF SUICIDE:
LEVELS OF CONTENT (AND GENERALITY)
NORMS ON SUICIDE
INTEGRATION IN CHURCH,
FAMILY
RELIGION, MARRIAGE
APART FROM T’S AND R’S, THERE ARE P’S
THEORIES ARE THERE TO SOLVE PROBLEMS
THE EXPRESSION THAT THEORY T1 DOES NOT SOLVE PROBLEM P1
CAN MEAN TWO THINGS:
* IT MAKES PREDICTIONS THAT ARE OFF THE MARK
* IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY PREDICTIONS AT ALL ON A CERTAIN TOPIC
THE FIRST CASE INDICATES THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH T1
THE SECOND CRITICISM AMOUNTS TO SAYING THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO EAT SOUP
WITH A KNIFE
BUT SOME THEORIES MAY SOLVE MORE PROBLEMS THAN
OTHER THEORIES, AND THE MORE PROBLEMS A THEORY
SOLVES, THE BETTER
P1
P2 T1
P3
RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY SHOULD BE SUCH A UNIFYING THEORY
MAKING SOCIOLOGY LESS MESSY
SOCIOLOGY IS MESSY MAINLY BECAUSE ITS CATALOG OF
PROBLEMS SEEMS FAR TOO LONG, WITHOUT APPARENT LINKS
BETWEEN PROBLEMS
HOWEVER, THERE ARE LINKS BETWEEN SOCIOLOGY’S PROBLEMS:
FOR INSTANCE, THERE ARE OVERARCHING PROBLEMS AND
SUBPROBLEMS
THE EMERGENCE OF THE PROBLEM OF COHESION
THE EMERGENCE OF THE PROBLEM OF COHESION
HOBBES’ WAR OF ALL AGAINST ALL AND OF RULERS AGAINST RULERS
THE EMERGENCE OF THE PROBLEM OF COHESION
HOBBES’ WAR OF ALL AGAINST ALL AND OF RULERS AGAINST RULERS
LOCKE’S REBELLION OF SUBJECTS AGAINST RULERS
THE EMERGENCE OF THE PROBLEM OF COHESION
HOBBES’ WAR OF ALL AGAINST ALL AND OF RULERS AGAINST RULERS
LOCKE’S REBELLION OF SUBJECTS AGAINST RULERS
BENTHAM’S SWIFT, SEVERE AND CERTAIN SENTENCING
THE EMERGENCE OF THE PROBLEM OF COHESION
HOBBES’ WAR OF ALL AGAINST ALL AND OF RULERS AGAINST RULERS
LOCKE’S REBELLION OF SUBJECTS AGAINST RULERS
BENTHAM’S SWIFT, SEVERE AND CERTAIN SENTENCES
DURKHEIM’S SUICIDE
THE EMERGENCE OF THE PROBLEM OF COHESION
HOBBES’ WAR OF ALL AGAINST ALL AND OF RULERS AGAINST RULERS
LOCKE’S REBELLION OF SUBJECTS AGAINST RULERS
BENTHAM’S SWIFT, SEVERE AND CERTAIN SENTENCES
COHESION
DURKHEIM’S SUICIDE
ONCE MORE DURKHEIM ON COHESION
ONCE MORE DURKHEIM ON COHESION
VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHERS
ONCE MORE DURKHEIM ON COHESION
ECONOMIC TIES
THROUGH THE
DIVISION OF LABOUR
VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHERS
ONCE MORE DURKHEIM ON COHESION
ECONOMIC TIES
THROUGH THE
DIVISION OF LABOUR
SUICIDE AS CUTTING THE LAST
TIE TO SOCIETY
VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHERS
ONCE MORE DURKHEIM ON COHESION
ECONOMIC TIES
THROUGH THE
DIVISION OF LABOUR
SUICIDE AS CUTTING THE LAST
TIE TO SOCIETY
PARTAKING IN
RELIGIOUS RITES
VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHERS
ONCE MORE DURKHEIM ON COHESION
ECONOMIC TIES
THROUGH THE DIVISION
OF LABOUR
SUICIDE AS CUTTING THE LAST
TIE TO SOCIETY
PARTAKING IN
RELIGIOUS RITES
MARRIAGE AND
DIVORCE
VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHERS
ONCE MORE DURKHEIM ON COHESION
ECONOMIC TIES
THROUGH THE DIVISION
OF LABOUR
SUICIDE AS CUTTING THE LAST
TIE TO SOCIETY
PARTAKING IN
RELIGIOUS RITES
MARRIAGE AND
DIVORCE
VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHERS ISOLATION
ONCE MORE DURKHEIM ON COHESION
COHESION
ECONOMIC TIES
THROUGH THE DIVISION
OF LABOUR
SUICIDE AS CUTTING THE LAST
TIE TO SOCIETY
PARTAKING IN
RELIGIOUS RITES
MARRIAGE AND
DIVORCE
VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHERS ISOLATION
PROBLEM STRUCTURES AND THEIR DYNAMICS
P7
P2 P3 P4 P5
P1 P6
BAD AND BETTER QUESTIONS:
FILLING IN ALL THE BLANKS
PSYCHOLOGY IS ABOUT HUMAN BEINGS
SOCIOLOGY IS ABOUT HUMAN SOCIETIES
TRUE, BUT THE STUDY OF SOCIETIES IS NOT A FULL-FLEDGED PROBLEM
IT IS AT BEST THE SPECIFICATION OF THE OBJECT TO BE STUDIED
BAD AND BETTER QUESTIONS:
FILLING IN ALL THE BLANKS
SOCIOLOGY STUDIES HOW SOCIETIES FUNCTION
THAT DOES NOT SAY MUCH: FUNCTIONING IS NOT YET A
VARIABLE FEATURE OF SOCIETIES
BAD AND BETTER QUESTIONS:
FILLING IN ALL THE BLANKS
SOCIOLOGY STUDIES THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH EACH
PARTICULAR PENAL LAW OF INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES IS
TRESPASSED
HERE A VARIABLE FEATURE OF SOCIETIES IS SPECIFIED
BAD AND BETTER QUESTIONS:
FILLING IN ALL THE BLANKS
SOCIOLOGY STUDIES THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH EACH
PARTICULAR PENAL LAW OF INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES IS
TRESPASSED
HERE THE SOCIETAL PHENOMENON TE BE EXPLAINED IS SPECIFIED
BUT NO HINT IS GIVEN OF THE FACTOR(S) DOING THE
EXPLANATION
BAD AND BETTER QUESTIONS:
FILLING IN ALL THE BLANKS
WHY IS IN 2005 THE MURDER RATE IN THE USA AND RUSSIA HIGHER THAN IN THE NETHERLANDS AND
SWEDEN?
THIS IS AN EXPLANATORY QUESTION, BUT NO CAUSES ARE
SPECIFIED
BAD AND BETTER QUESTIONS:
FILLING IN ALL THE BLANKS
IS IN 2005 THE MURDER RATE IN THE USA AND RUSSIA HIGHER THAN IN THE
NETHERLANDS AND SWEDEN,
BECAUSE THE FIRST TWO COUNTRIES HAVE LENIENT LAWS ON GUN
OWNERSHIP, WHILE THE LAST TWO HAVE RESTRICTIVE LAWS?
THIS QUESTION SPECIFIES A POSSIBLE CAUSE
FROM DESCRIPTIVE QUESTIONS
BY WAY OF COMPARARIVE QUESTIONS AND TREND QUESTIONS
TO DEEPER AND DEEPER EXPLANATORY QUESTIONS
DEPTH HAS NO END
STOPPING RULES ARE ARBITRARY
AND SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED
HOW HIGH IS IN 2005 THE MURDER RATE IN THE NETHERLANDS?
THIS IS A DESCRIPTIVE QUESTION
THE DESCRIPTION MAY NOT BE EASY
MURDER RATES IN THE STATISTICS OF DEATH CAUSES MAY DIFFER
FROM MURDER RATES IN POLICE STATISTICS AND
FROM MURDER RATES IN CONVICTION STATISTICS
TO WHAT EXTENT DOES THE DUTCH 2005 MURDER RATE DIFFER FROM
THE DUTCH MURDER RATE IN 2000?
THIS IS A TREND QUESTION
TO WHAT EXTENT DOES THE DUTCH 2005 MURDER RATE DIFFER FROM
THE MURDER RATES FOR THAT YEAR IN RUSSIA, SWEDEN AND THE
UNITED STATES?
THIS IS A COMPARATIVE QUESTION
A TREND QUESTION PRESUPPOSES AN ANSWER TO A
DESCRIPTIVE QUESTION
AND SO DOES A COMPARATIVE QUESTION
IF THE DESCRIPTIVE ANSWER IS FALSE
THEN THE TREND QUESTION AND THE COMPARATIVE QUESTION ARE
MISGUIDED
IS THE DUTCH 2005 MURDER RATE LOWER THAN THE UNITED STATES 2005
MURDER RATE BECAUSE GUNS ARE MORE FREELY AVAILABLE IN THE USA
THAN IN THE NETHERLANDS?
THIS IS AN EXPLANATORY QUESTION
THIS EXPLANATORY QUESTION PRESUPPOSES AN ANSWER TO A
COMPARATIVE QUESTION
IF THE ANSWER TO THE COMPARATIVE QUESTION IS FALSE, THE EXPLANATORY
QUESTION IS MISGUIDED
WHY WOULD LESS STRINGENT LAWS ON GUN OWNERSHIP MAKE FOR HIGHER
MURDER RATES?
THIS IS A DEEPER EXPLANATORY QUESTION
IF THE ANSWER TO THE MORE SUPERFICIAL EXPLANATORY QUESTION IS FALSE, THE DEEPER EXPLANATORY
QUESTION IS MISGUIDED
TRY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE
TO CHECK THE
IMPORTANT ASSUMPTIONS OF
YOUR QUESTIONS
DURKHEIM AIMED FOR DEEPER EXPLANATIONS
HIS STOPPING RULE WAS THAT SOCIETAL PHENOMENA ARE TO BE EXPLAINED BY OTHER SOCIETAL
PHENOMENA
THE INDIVIDUALIST PROGRAM IN SOCIOLOGY HOLDS THAT
SOCIETAL EXPLANATIONS DO NOT GO DEEP ENOUGH
ONLY EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIETAL PHENOMENA ARE
ACCEPTABLE WHICH GO BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
THE RATIONAL CHOICE PROGRAM IN SOCIOLOGY HOLDS THAT INDIVIDUAL
EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIETAL PHENOMENA ARE NOT ALWAYS
ACCEPTABLE
THEY SHOULD ALWAYS INVOLVE THE ASSUMPTION THAT INDIVIDUALS ACT
IN A RATIONAL WAY
THE EVOLUTIONARY PROGRAM IN SOCIOLOGY HOLDS THAT INDIVIDUAL
EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIETAL PHENOMENA ARE NOT ALWAYS
ACCEPTABLE
THEY SHOULD ALWAYS INVOLVE THE SELECTIVE EFFECTS OF THE
ENVIRONMENT ON INDIVIDUALS
(PEOPLE ARE NOT ALWAYS RATIONAL, AND IF THEY ARE NOT RATIONAL
THEIR REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS WILL BE LIMITED)
THE QUEST FOR DEPTH IS WORTHWHILE BECAUSE A DEEPER EXPLANATION MODIFIES THE MORE
SUPERFICIAL EXPLANATION
HOWEVER, WHETHER THIS LOGICAL POSSIBILITY FREQUENLTY OCCURS
IS ANOTHER MATTER
THE POINT IS NOT TO EXPLAIN SOCIETAL PHENOMENA BY INDIVIDUAL ASSUMPTIONS
THE POINT IS TO INTERPRETE ABSOLUTE PROPERTIES OF SOCIETIES AS RELATIONAL PROPERTIES OF SOCIETIES
AND TO EXPLAIN THESE RELATIONAL SOCIETAL PROPERTIES BY
PROPOSITIONS INVOKING THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE MEMBERS
OF A SOCIETY
THIS RULE HAS TWO CONTRASTS:
SOCIETIES, INDIVIDUALS AND THE MEMBERS OF A SOCIETY
AND THE ABSOLUTE PROPERTIES OF SOCIETIES AND OF INDIVIDUALS
AND THE RELATIONAL PROPERTIES OF INDIVIDUALS AND SOCIETIES
(THE ERROR OF HUMMELL AND OPP, THE REDUCTION OF SOCIOLOGY TO PSYCHOLOGY FROM 1968, IS TO BYPASS
THE RULE TO INTERPRET ABSOLUTE PROPERTIES AS RELATIONAL PROPERTIES)
SO, A QUESTION HAS A BACKGROUND
AND THAT BACKGROUND MAY CONTAIN FALSE OR OTHERWISE MISLEADING
ASSUMPTIONS
EXAMPLE:
FIVE GENERATIONS IN SOCIAL MOBILITY RESEARCH
AT ISSUE IS HERE NOT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DESCRIPTIVE AND EXPLANATORY QUESTIONS,
NOR THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUPERFICIAL AND DEEPER QUESTIONS
FIRST GENERATION SOCIAL MOBILITY QUESTIONS AS POSED BY LIPSET IN 1959
WHY ARE SOME MEMBERS OF A SOCIETY UPWARDLY MOBILE, OTHERS DOWNWARDLY MOBILE, YET
OTHERS STATIONARY?
WHY ARE THERE MORE UPWARDLY MOBILE PERSONS IN SOME SOCIETIES THAN IN OTHER SOCIETIES?
THESE QUESTIONS ARE MISGUIDED BECAUSE THEY BYPASS THE POSSIBILITY OF BOTTOM AND CEILING
EFFECTS, LUMP HETEROGENEOUS PERSONS TOGETHER AS STATIONARY, AND NEGLECT
DISTRIBUTIONAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOCIETIES
SECOND GENERATION SOCIAL MOBILITY QUESTION AS POSED BY DUNCAN IN 1967
TO WHAT EXTENT DOES IN A SOCIETY AT A CERTAIN POINT IN TIME A PERSON’S
DESTINATION DEPEND UPON THIS PERSON’S ORIGIN?
SINCE THIS QUESTION AVOIDS DIFFERENCE SCORES (AS MOBILITY
SCORES ARE) THERE ARE NO BOTTOM AND CEILING EFFECTS
AND THE MEASURE OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ORIGIN AND DESTINATION MAY
BE DISTRIBUTION FREE
THIRD GENERATION SOCIAL MOBILITY QUESTION AS POSED BY GOLDTHORPE IN 1980
TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE THE VARIOUS COMPETITIONS BETWEEN THE MEMBERS OF SOCIETIES FROM DIFFERENT ORIGINS FOR
DIFFERENT DESTINATIONS THE SAME UNEQUAL OUTCOMES?
IT IS MISLEADING TO COMPUTE CORRELATION AND REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR THE
EFFECT OF ORIGINS ON DESTINATIONS BECAUSE EFFECTS MAY DIFFER IN STRENGTH ALONG THE OCCUPATIONAL STATUS SCALE
FOURTH GENERATION SOCIAL MOBILITY QUESTION AS POSED BY MAYER AND
BLOSSFELD IN 1988
TO WHAT EXTENT DOES THE OCCUPATIONAL STATUS RIGHT NOW OF THE MEMBERS OF A SOCIETY BELONGING TO THE SAME BIRTH
COHORT DEPEND UPON THEIR ORIGIN STATUS?
MOBILITY ALWAYS REFERS TO TWO POINTS IN TIME, AND WHEN EARLIER GENERATIONS COMPARED ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS,
THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THESE TWO POINTS IN TIME WAS NOT THE SAME
FIFTH GENERATION SOCIAL MOBILITY QUESTION NOT EXPLICITLY POSED UNTIL NOW
TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE OCCUPATIONAL CAREERS OF PERSONS BELONGING TO THE
SAME BIRTH COHORT OF A PARTICULAR SOCIETY SELF-REINFORCING PROCESSES?
APART FROM INTERGENERATIONAL MOBILITY AND ORIGIN EFFECTS THERE IS INTRAGENERATIONAL MOBILITY
AND INTERGENERATIONAL MOBILITY AND INTRAGENERATIONAL MOBILITY SHOULD BE STUDIED SEPARATELY, TAKING THE LENGTH OF A PERSON’S WORK LIFE INTO ACCOUNT
FIFTH GENERATION MOBILITY QUESTION NOT EXPLICITLY POSED UNTIL NOW
TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE OCCUPATIONAL CAREERS OF PERSONS BELONGING TO THE SAME BIRTH COHORT OF A PARTICULAR SOCIETY SELF-
REINFORCING PROCESSES?
DO NOT HUNT FOR CAREER PATTERNS BY APPLYING CLUSTER TECHNIQUES
THESE TECHNIQUES ARE THEORETCALLY BLIND AND NOT ATTUNED TO THE PROBLEM AT HAND
WHEREAS RESEARCH SHOULD BE THEORY- GUIDED AND PROBLEM-DRIVEN
REALLY BAD QUESTIONS:
TUNNEL VISION QUESTIONS
OR ONE-TRACK-MIND QUESTIONS
WHY DOES THE EXPLOITED WORKING CLASS REMAIN PASSIVE?
(THE WORKING CLASS IS NOT EXPLOITED!)
WHICH SELECTIVE INCENTIVE MAKES PEOPLE JOIN GREENPEACE?
(SHOULD A SELECTIVE INCENTIVE ALWAYS BE THE CAUSE OF JOINING?)
THE ONE BUT BEST QUESTIONS:
THE INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN TWO
EXPLANATIONS OF THE SAME RESEARCH FINDING
SUCH INCOMPATABILITIES SOMETIMES ARE CALLED
ISSUES
THE BEST QUESTIONS:
CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN
A NOT SO BAD HYPOTHESIS
AND
RESEARCH FINDINGS
SUCH CONTRADICTIONS SOMETIMES ARE CALLED ANOMALIES OR PUZZLES
WHY IS THE PERCENTAGE OF DUTCH JEWS WHO SURVIVED
WORLD WAR 2 (20)
MUCH LOWER THAN THE PERCENTAGES FOR BELGIUM (50)
AND FRANCE (70)
AND ALMOST AS LOW AS THE PERCENTAGE FOR POLAND (10)?
THIS EXPLANATORY QUESTION GAINS ITS URGENCY FROM DUTCH
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
THE QUESTION OF THE SURVIVAL RATE SOF DUTCH
JEWS
GAINS EXPLANATORY URGENCY AGAINST THE
BACKGROUND OF
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPED AND TESTED BY THE SOCIOLOGIST
HELEN FEIN
IN ACCOUNTING FOR GENOCIDE FROM 1978
FEIN’S TWO HYPOTHESES
SURVIVAL RATES ARE LOWER IN A COUNTRY
IF THAT COUNTRY BEFORE WORLD WAR 2 HAD MORE VOTES
FOR ANTI-SEMITIC PARTIES
AND IF THAT COUNTRY DURING WORLD WAR 2 EXPERIENCED A
STRONG SS-INFLUENCE
IN A COUNTRY COMPARISON
THESE TWO HYPOTHESES DID QUITE WELL
FEIN CONSIDERED THE NETHERLANDS TO BE A COUNTRY LOW IN ANTI-SEMITISM AND WITH A
MODERATE SS-INFLUENCE
THE NETHERLANDS WAS ON OUTLIER ON HER PLOT
THE PERCENTAGE OF JEWISH VICTIMS WAS MUCH HIGHER
THAN PREDICTED
DEEPER RESEARCH QUESTION:
WAS THE PERCENTAGE OF JEWISH VICTIMS SO HIGH IN THE NETHERLANDS
BECAUSE THE NETHERLANDS WAS MORE ANTI-SEMITIC THAN FEIN SUPPOSED?
OR BECAUSE THE NETHERLANDS EXPERIENCED MORE SS-INFLUENCE THAN
FEIN SUPPOSED?
OR BECAUSE THE DUTCH FIGURES USED BY FEIN ARE OVERESTIMATES?
OF BECAUSE FEIN LEFT OUT A THIRD FACTOR?
DAWKINGS, THE GOD DELUSION, 2006 DWAKINS IS A BIOLOGIST AND AN ATHEIST
ATHEITIST POINT TOWARS SUCH THINGS AS RELIGIOUS WARS
BIOLOGISTS USE EVIOLUTIONARY THEORIES, AND SOMETHING PERSISTS
BECAUSE IT HAS SURVIVAL VALUE
A RELIGION IS SOMETHING, SO AN AHTEIST BIOLOGIST SEEMS IN DIFFICULTY
DAWKINS, PAGE 172:
When we ask about the survival value of anything, we may be asking the wrong
question. We need to rewrite the question in a more helpful way. Perhaps the feature we are interested in (religion in this case) does not have a direct survival value of its own, but is a by-product of something else
that does.
What doe you think of this problem shift?
FOR THE COMING WEEKS:
LOOK AT YOUR OWN ICS PROBLEM AS A SPECIFIC INSTANCE OF AN OVERARCHING PROBLEM AND
DETERMINE WHETHER THIS HELPS YOU ARTICULATING YOUR OWN ICS
PROBLEM
FOR THE COMING WEEKS:
BREAK YOUR OWN ICS PROBLEM DOWN INTO
SUBPROBLEMS
FOR THE COMING WEEKS:
SEE HOW MANY BLANKS YOU HAVE FILLED IN OF YOUR OWN
ICS PROBLEM
FOR THE COMING WEEKS:
TRY TO FORMULATE YOUR OWN ICS PROBLEM AS AN ISSUE AND
AS A PUZZLE