Suchergebnisse

Le but de l'article est surtout de montrer que si nous réfléchissons aux liens entre deux notions de base de la philosophie de Peirce, soit le traité de la sémiosis et le traité des catégories (soit la priméité, la secondéité et la tiercéité), nous pouvons y découvrir les bases d'une épistémologie des sciences interprétatives, et notamment les sciences sociales qui se réclament d'une telle perspective. Si tout l'interactionnisme repose sur une notion interactive du signe, c'est que déjà chez Peirce l'interprétation des signes est sociale. De plus, s'il est bien exact que les sciences sociales ont souvent voulu thématiser l'action humaine, et ce notamment au 20e siècle, il est clair qu'une troisième idée de Peirce, soit la notion de science normative de l'action appelée « practics », a quelque chose d'inaugural au plan conceptuel, tant pour la sociologie que pour une éthique qui ne voudrait pas s'identifier à la morale mais thématiser sa réflexion pratique.

Mechanism-based explanations are widely discussed in contemporary social science. A virtue of mechanism-based explanations is that they can tell us how social and psychological factors are related to each other and in addition provide explanatory depth. I will argue against an argument which contends that to describe underlying mechanisms at the individual level do not contribute to improve macro-explanations at the social level. However, the critics of the mechanism approach are right that under certain conditions there can be successful explanations without mentioning underlying mechanisms. Although the mechanism approach is a reductive strategy, it does not entail that the social sciences will lose their descriptively and explanatory autonomy. The debate about reductionism and explanation often take place at an abstract philosophical level, but it is argued that to what extent the mechanism approach will influence the autonomy of the social sciences is an empirical problem and cannot be decided a priori.

Conversations host Harry Kreisler welcomes Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, Lamont University Professor, Harvard University, for a discussion of the interplay of economic theory and political philosophy in his work on public choice, development, and freedom. Sen recalls his own intellectual odyssey, commenting on some of the factors that shaped his thinking.

Originally published in the International Social Science Journal, 1991, 43, 4.

Agent-based computational modeling is changing the face of social science. In Generative Social Science, Joshua Epstein argues that this powerful, novel technique permits the social sciences to meet a fundamentally new standard of explanation, in which one "grows" the phenomenon of interest in an artificial society of interacting agents: heterogeneous, boundedly rational actors, represented as mathematical or software objects. After elaborating this notion of generative explanation in a pair of overarching foundational chapters, Epstein illustrates it with examples chosen from such far-flung