In the simplest of terms; reductionism is a path to knowledge that relies on reducing the observable particular into the smallest units possible and then analyzing the various parts to determine a solution to the question at hand. You arrive at a solution by viewing the units as part of a causal chain and the researcher removes various units until the outcome of the particular changes and the structure of the unit chain is set up in a hierarchical form. The implication of reductionism is that independent variables exist and they can be identified through experimentation. Reductionism is only one means of conducting scientific research.
Another similar approach involves an ecological method whereby values are placed on simplified units and it delves into how the units interact when they are viewed from a perspective that considers how systems are formed. The ecological method is inclusive while the reductionism results in an exclusive perspective. Social science values a reductionist outlook because unlike the ecological approach, reductionism allows for the generalization of the past that sets up a method to forecast the future.
Reductionism allows for the creation of supposed rules and laws that contain a certain amount of certainty; enough to make predictions that seem to bear substantive results when dealing with human affairs. The problem of course, is that all of these rules and laws have very little substance backing them up, but in the case of social science this reality results in the inclusion of an equation added to counter the uncertainty.
A set of explanations have been set up by social scientists to claim static and universal applicability or collectivity to prop up reductionism. The reason for social scientists adherence to these seemingly incongruous propositions is that they avoid the problem of multiple causes, the passage of time, cultural and individual diversity, the proliferation of explanations, and finally, the real difficulty that would result from forecasting.
For historians, explanation is the primary focus that they concentrate on and consequently all generalizations are subordinated to explanation. For historians; the general is the unique. Historians generalize for specific reasons by practicing particular generalization. On the other hand, social scientists will embed narratives within generalizations. They take these actions because they are concerned with confirming or refuting hypothesis. Meanwhile, historians work with limited , rather than universal generalizations. Historians uncover and discuss tendencies, and or patterns but not laws as the social scientists do. Historians are trained to believe in contingent, not categorical causation. Historians will reject the idea that it is possible to identify independent variables. Causes always have antecedents. Another point to consider is that historians do not rely on modeling and instead concentrate on simulations; that is because simulations do not result in forecasts while models are purposely constructed to provide models. It is also a well established practice among historians to trace processes from a knowledge of outcomes through their use of narratives. Process tracing by social scientists converts historical narratives into analytical causal explanations, thus establishing a clear distinction with the approach of history.
We have established that historians generalize from their knowledge of particular outcomes; or as they are also commonly referred to as particular generalization. Historians understand processes from particular generalizations. Thus, for historians, generalization does not mean nor does it result in forecasting. The situation is quite different for social scientists. The important point that must be emphasized is that while there is a gulf that exists between history and social science; they are both scientific. Both seek to establish a consensus of rational opinion over the widest possible area and connecting consensus to the real world.
No comments:
Post a Comment