Suchergebnisse

J. K. De Vree's "A Theory of Human Behaviour and of the Political Process" (see SA 26:2/78J2195) is criticized. The behavior model offered is faulted on the grounds that it is inconsistent & that it is difficult if not impossible to interpret. That the model is inconsistent is easy to see, thanks to its formal presentation. This criticism might not be very serious, due to the fact that it may be remedied through some small adjustments. The author's own interpretation of his model is not congruent with it. In particular, formulae containing variables that range over both cardinal & ordinal numbers seem impossible to interpret. It is concluded that the problems noted are due to too high a level of generality being sought. In Een reactie op De Vree's 'A Theory of Human Behaviour and of the Political Process' (A Reaction to De Vree's 'A Theory of Human Behavior and of the Political Process'), G. P. de Bruin argues that De Vree's theory is empty of empirical significance, & the theory's weakness can be traced to its mathematical axiomatic foundation. It is argued that the set theoretical concepts of ordinal & cardinal numbers have been misinterpreted, & that the whole problem of measurement in social sciences is merely 'axiomatized away'. In Een ordinale algebra en empirische theorie: een antwoord op Kritiek (An Ordinal Algebra and Empirical Theory: An Answer to Criticism), J. K. De Vree concedes that the theory is so far empty, & that the nature of its relationship to empirical data remains an unsolved problem. This is the case with all general theories & does not constitute a valid objection. It is further argued that the proposed axiomatization is nothing more than a systematization of the system of numbers & relations used in actual empirical research, & that far from axiomatizing away the measurement problem, a systematic account is given of the number system without which measurement would not be possible. A. Orianne.

The bad reputation in the social sciences of social Darwinian theories is one of the main hindrances to paying attention to ethology, the biological study of behavior. Although developments in this area of research suggest interesting implications for political science, so far, very few political scientists have dealt with these matters. First, the biological way of thinking about behavior is introduced. The object & method of ethology are dealt with, & attention is paid to the problems of function, causation, & history of behavior of animal & man. The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, which is fundamental to ethology & to the main argument presented here, is summarized. It is concluded that morphology & behavior are both evolutionary organisms. Next, man is considered in the perspective of evolution. The belief in a rigid distinction between nature & nurture is discussed. The modern biological view that the human capacity for making culture is genetically coded is accepted. In a second part, some aspects of this biological view of behavior, relevant to political science, are discussed. From a comparison of definitions in ethology & political science, it appears that social behavior is the most important problem in both disciplines. Social scientists usually study behavior as an autonomous subject while biologists integrate their vision of behavior in the larger context of evolution. There is a fundamental similarity between ethological concepts of social behavior & some recently developed conceptions of political behavior. It is argued that relinquishing the more traditional focus of political science on state-oriented or group-centered action is an important condition.