The set of schemes should correspond to the set of real world particulars. If it is the case then it is the case, if not then not. ![]() If not, the theory is a failure and the claims false. Only if this collection of instantiations is statistically significant enough will the claim made be substantiated. The reader of these very words can themself act as an instantiation of a theoretical claim and so substantiate them. One can reflect their own experience onto the general structure of a scheme so as to see for themself how true to life a correspondence there is. Such a scheme would allow for one to superimpose their personal experience onto the logical structure of theory and yield an affirmative result (if the theory proves workable for that specific case). Formal theories seek to be redundant-they seek to be superfluous in so far as genuine redundancy can be achieved. Otherwise no one-to-one correspondence between both theory and reality has been achieved. This scheme should mirror the particular, and the particular should mirror this scheme.įormal theories seek a disquotational scheme in which reality, apart from its representation, can also fit. ![]() Just because the abstract seeks generality doesn't mean that particular instances of human experience and sociological phenomena don't fit into some general scheme. But this uncertainty need not be of consequence as the answer is simple: As long as a real world interaction, action, or organization satisfies the criteria for its counterpart in the formal theory and that formal counterpart implies the physical-social realization of it in the real world, then the overall structure of one matches the other. What qualifies as the criterion for success is where uncertainty arises. The failure of a theory must be granted, but so to must the success of any given theory. What happens to be the case always remains, whether or not the theory succeeds in its intentions remains to be seen. Faulty premises derived from observations about preexisting institutions do lead to faulty formal theories and those that don't rely on faulty premises succeed in their intentions. One which conforms to the actual structure of the actual world. ![]() Otherwise it wouldn't exist, and in its stead another possible version of it would exist. The counterpoint to be made here is that the schematic representation is warranted precisely because it is based upon what substantiates its existence. This can be called the general problem of formalization-as it applies to any science. The structure is coherent, but coherence doesn't necessarily imply a correspondence to reality, and hence the target of formalization. They need not bear any resemblance to the world, but only need satisfy the structure of the system and the logical minds who created it. More generally, the argument can be defined thusly: The description of all the statements which constitute a social systems theory as tautological is inevitable as they are all true in virtue of their form but not in virtue of fact. The argument from tautological circularity suggests that this state of internal consistency prevents a formal theory from accurately explaining the actual structures and behaviors of the actual world and that fitting the actual world into this scheme yields nothing but an artificial self-contained system divorced from all that it is attempting to describe and explain. ![]() Structural-Functionalism is usually criticized for being circular, in the following two ways:ġ) The function of the whole follows from that of its parts, and the function of the parts follows from that of the whole.Ģ) Schematic representations of society are formulated on the basis of preexisting societal institutions which are, in turn, used to substantiate their existence.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |