首页> 外文OA文献 >On Reproducing Social Reality: A Reply to Harrison
【2h】

On Reproducing Social Reality: A Reply to Harrison

机译:关于再现社会现实:对哈里森的回应

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

That social inquirers should be careful about the intrusion of biases and questionableethnocentric presuppositions is a widely accepted and unquestionablycogent methodological dictum. Less widely accepted, and perhaps less cogent,is the view that such intrusions are best avoided by inquirers adopting theinterpretive constructs, points of view, etc., of their subjects. Debates over thislatter point have flared up repeatedly in twentieth-century philosophical andsocial-scientific literature, notably in the extensive discussions of Peter Winch’ssThe Idea of a Social Science (ISS) and ’Understanding a Primitive Society’(UPS). His contention that proper social inquiry is actually a form ofconceptual-analytic epistemology, aimed necessarily at the recovery and use bythe inquirer of certain rules and criteria operative within the source-languagecommunity in the individuation of social actions, makes Winch clearly a proponentof the latter, controversial thesis.The late Richard Rudner (’Some Essays at Objectivity’ [EO]) has challenged’ Winch, contending that his thesis rests on what Rudner calls the ’reproductivefallacy’ of assuming that the function of a social description is to reproduceaspects of what it describes. Recently, Stanley Harrison (’Rudner’s ReproductiveFallacy’ [RF]) has taken issue with Rudner’s critique, charging that itcommits a fallacy of somewhat older vintage, namely, of attacking a straw man.Rudner, he claims, by not attending with care to Winch’s important distinctionbetween reflective and unreflective understanding, and by not keeping in mindthe differences in view between himself and Winch regarding the nature ofreflective understanding, creates the confusion and inconsistency he ostensiblyfinds in Winch. However, I shall argue that Harrison has misconstrued the thrustand content of Rudner’s argument, and though this may result in part from theway Rudner formulates certain points, these can be clarified and Rudner’s tellingobjections to Winch’s and related views sustained.
机译:社会探究者应谨慎对待偏见和可疑的以民族为中心的前提的入侵,这是一种被广泛接受且毫无疑问是令人信服的方法论格言。认为接受者最好采用其主题的解释性构造,观点等,可以最好地避免这种入侵,这种观点不太广为接受,也许不太灵活。关于这一点的争论在二十世纪的哲学和社会科学文献中反复出现,尤其是在彼得·温奇的《社会科学理念》(ISS)和《了解原始社会》(UPS)的广泛讨论中。他认为适当的社会探究实际上是一种概念分析认识论的形式,它的目的必然是要求探询者恢复和使用源语言社区内有效的某些规则和标准,以使社会行为个体化,这使得温奇显然是后者的拥护者,已故的理查德·鲁德纳(Richard Rudner)(“客观客观的某些论文” [EO])对“温奇”提出了挑战,认为他的论点基于鲁德纳所说的“生殖谬误”,即假定社会描述的功能是为了再现什么它描述。最近,斯坦利·哈里森(Stanley Harrison)对鲁德纳(Rudner)的批评持怀疑态度,指责它犯了某种较老年份的谬论,即攻击稻草人。反思性和非反思性理解之间的重要区别,以及不牢记他和温奇之间关于反思性理解的本质的差异,造成了他表面上在温奇中发现的困惑和矛盾。但是,我将辩称,哈里森误解了鲁德纳论点的重点和内容,尽管这可能部分是由于鲁德纳提出某些观点的方式造成的,但可以澄清这些观点,并且鲁德纳对温奇的观点和相关观点的反对意见得以维持。

著录项

  • 作者

    Feleppa, Robert;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 1986
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 en_US
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号