Advertisement

Explanation pp 277-306 | Cite as

The Use of Error as an Explanatory Category in Politics

Chapter
  • 267 Downloads
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 302)

Abstract

In modern science, explanation of events that relies on attributing errors to the object of analysis, implies dogmatism. However, error may be legitimately attributed to the researcher’s methods, observations, and theories. Reflection, or meta-theory, is an exception to this rule. Consequently, error cannot be attributed to the researcher’s theory or methods when they are themselves the issue under analysis. The attributing of error to the object of analysis is an extrapolated ontologization of a category of thought. The category of error, though superseded in modern natural sciences, is still in use in other fields like in political sciences. In the last analysis, there is no difference between fields of research regarding the category of error.

Keywords

Spectral Radiation Explanatory Device Iranian Element United Nations Department Explanatory Category 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Aguilar 1981]
    Aguilar, Luis (ed.). Operation Zapata: The Ultrasensitive Report and Testimony of the Board ofInquiry on the Bay of Pigs (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1981).Google Scholar
  2. [Aristotle]
    Aristotle. Metaphysics, Physics, Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics. In Barnes, Jonathan (ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle, vols. I and II. Princeton University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  3. [Bacon 1620]
    Bacon, Francis. Novum Organum (1620) (The New Organon, trans. By F. H. Anderson, Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill, 1960).Google Scholar
  4. [Balaban 1995 i]
    Balaban, Oded. Politics and Ideology — A Philosophical Approach (Aldershot: Avebury, 1995).Google Scholar
  5. [Balaban 19952]
    Balaban, Oded. “The Modern Misunderstanding of Aristotle’s Theory of Motion,” Journal for General Philosophy of Science, Vol. 26, 1995, pp.1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [Collingwood 1946]
    Collingwood, R. G. The Idea ofHistory (Oxford University Press, 1946).Google Scholar
  7. [Collingwood 1948]
    Collingwood, R. G. An Essay on Metaphysics (Oxford University Press, 1948).Google Scholar
  8. [Dray 1960]
    Dray, William, Laws and Explanation in History (Oxford University Press, 1960).Google Scholar
  9. [Drobisch 1875]
    Drobisch, Moritz Wilhelm. Neue Darstellung der Logik nach ihren einfachsten Verhältnissen, nebst einem logischmathematischen Anhangen (Leipzig: L. Voss, 1875).Google Scholar
  10. [Feigl and Sellars 1949]
    Feigl H. and Sellars W. (ed.). Readings in Philosophical Analysis, (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1949).Google Scholar
  11. [Hempel 1942] Hempel, C. G. “The Function of General Laws in History,” The Journal ofPhilosophy, 1942, 35–48.Google Scholar
  12. [Hon 1998]
    Hon, Giora. “Exploiting Errors,” Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 29 (1998), 465–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [Mayo 1996]
    Mayo, Deborah G. Error and the Growth ofExperimental Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [Meyerson 1921]
    Meyerson, Émile. De l’explication dans les sciences (Paris: Payot, 1921). English transl. Explanation in the Sciences (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991).Google Scholar
  15. [Neustadt and May 1986]
    Neustadt, Richard and May, Ernest. Thinking in Time, The Uses ofHistory for Decision-Makers (New York: The Free Press, 1986).Google Scholar
  16. [Norris 1997]
    Norris, Christopher. Resources ofRealism—Prospects for Post-Analytic Philosophy (London: Macmillan Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  17. [Pagels 1983]
    Pagels, Heinz R. The Cosmic Code: Quantum Physics as the Language of Nature (New York: Bantam Books, 1983).Google Scholar
  18. [Popper 1959]
    Popper, Karl. The Logic of Scientific Discovery (New York: Basic Books, 1959).Google Scholar
  19. [Popper 1965]
    Popper, Karl. Conjectures and Refutations (New York: Harper and Row, 1965).Google Scholar
  20. [Reichenbach 1954]
    Reichenbach, Hans. Nomological Statements and Admissible Operations (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1954).Google Scholar
  21. [Salmon 1998]
    Salmon, Wesley C. Causality and Explanation (Oxford University Press, 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [Swartz 1985]
    Swartz, Norman. The concept ofphysical law (Cambridge University Press, 1985).Google Scholar
  23. [White 1943] White, Morton G. “Historical Explanation,” Mind, 1943, pp.212–229.Google Scholar
  24. [Wollheim 1967]
    Wollheim, Richard. “Natural Laws,” in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 5, New York: Macmillan and Free Press, 1967.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations